First post - apoligies if I hit the wrong forum, this could fit first thoughts or playtesting

I have a game 'in the works' which is trying to be Narrativist with a hint of Simulationist.  The conflict resolution system for characters is mostly FATE based, with character creation looking much like in Spirit of the Century.  Conflicts between players are based on a homebrew system using a deck of cards, with face cards removed (d10s would be nearly the same but I like the psychological effect of dice for characters, cards for players.)  "Credibility" in the form of the temporary GM role is up for grabs (using the cards) at the start of each scene.

The two ideas I really wanted to explore were the effect of prescribed plot, and preserving surprise/suspense in a narrative game.  I don't have a copy (yet), but as I understand it My Life with Master is a narrative game with a prescribed ending.  However, preset plot (again as I understand it) tends to disrupt/destroy narrative games.  This led me to think that prescribed plot may not kill the narrative agenda if its influence on the game is weak enough.  On one end of the spectrum, we have the fully mapped and populated dungeon crawl(too much).  On the other end, we have My Life with Master(works fine).  I aimed for the middle...  I created a skeleton plot (12 scenes based on three act structure, 6 just with very vague directives like "Exploring reasons not to get involved/Reluctant heroes", and 6 with that and fortuneteller-ish bits like "a player experiences a powerful personal loss").  One of the uses for the playing cards was gaining the right to choose who would be the subject of the fortuneteller-ish bits.  I was hoping the plot sketch would be a catalyst for motion, and force some plot twists to occur (to me, plot twists seem more likely and more potent in simulationist play.)  I also hoped that putting "credibility" over plot twists up for grabs (again via the cards) would allow for simulationist style surprises (really hitting players and characters) to occur.

My first playtest was a partial success.  Even with the game in its infancy, people enjoyed it (rating in the top half of their RPG sessions.)  I saw some obvious problems with some obvious solutions, but it fundamentally didn't 'click' the way I wanted/expected it to.  As a concept, the plot sketch can work (I think), but we spent way too much time negotiating plot by committee.  This felt too much like writing a script and not enough like playing a game to me.  I was also revealing the scenes piecemeal, which simply does not work.  For the structure to work with a narrativist agenda, I think everyone needs as much of it up front as possible.  Surprise plot twists fell short of my goal, too.  I think this may be the product of credibility passing too often, and the peicemeal scene delivery shutting down any chance of foreshadowing/setup.

I'll be trying the following changes next:  The whole plot sketch will be available to everyone up font.  The plot sketch will be based on a simplified three act structure.  At the beginning of play, four GMish roles will be up for grabs: credibility in Act I, ownership of the Act I/Act II transition plot twist (and its timing) + Act II credibility, ownership of the Act II/Act III transition plot twist (with timing) + Act III credibility, ownership of timing for 'rolling credits'.  So, somebody leads, somebody flips the Act II switch and runs with it, somebody flips the Act III switch and runs with it, and somebody turns the lights off when a good ending is reached.  Assuming the middle two roles go to different people, everybody gets surprised at least once, most people twice.

My questions for the community...

Do you guys agree that the potent plot twist is mainly a 'simulationist thing?'

Has anyone done analysis to find how much constraining narritivist play will tolerate?  In other words, has anyone else looked for the line between 'works' and 'doesn't work' on the Dungeon Crawl <----> My Life with Master scale?

Is this as original as I think it is?  Are any of you saying "oh, he's just making a clone of xxxxx."?

Any other feedback is welcome and appreciated.

Thanks!

Also - if anyone's wondering, setting was "modern day, the supernatural exists but mostly hides in the shadows."

I've been working on a system using playing cards for my games actually, though I've used the full deck.  The idea came to me when I was trying to think what I could use besides dice that anyone in the world can get their hands on easy.

So what I'm getting here is that your system determines who runs the scene through a card draw and the actions of the characters themselves are resolved through dice?  If I'm understanding you correctly then it sounds like an interesting idea for mature game groups who could handle shifting control about.  Maybe the card draw could give the GM of the moment a starting point, like a certain suit indicates a certain type of scene. 

The only trouble I see with "credibility" being up for grabs through the cards like that is that a lucky player could control a substantial number of scenes, or do you have something in place to prevent that?

Finally unless you're blatantly ripping off someone's work don't worry too much about originality, there's no new idea under the sun and we all have various, sometimes identical, influences from which we're working.

and by don't worry too much about originality I mean don't panic if people say "hey that's a lot like..."  lol

ChrisLane wrote: The two ideas I really wanted to explore were the effect of prescribed plot, and preserving surprise/suspense in a narrative game.  I don't have a copy (yet), but as I understand it My Life with Master is a narrative game with a prescribed ending.  However, preset plot (again as I understand it) tends to disrupt/destroy narrative games.  This led me to think that prescribed plot may not kill the narrative agenda if its influence on the game is weak enough.  On one end of the spectrum, we have the fully mapped and populated dungeon crawl(too much).  On the other end, we have My Life with Master(works fine).  I aimed for the middle...

Having had time to reflect more - I think I was asking the wrong question.  The question I wanted answered (without realising it) is....

In a narrativist game, what can the GM use to surprise the players?  Not the player characters, but specifically the players.

The simulationist / narrativist line is still a little muddy for me, I guess.  I think I bring both agendas to the table when I run, but people tend to enjoy my games.  I feel like my games (and by extension my game design) would be less good if I fully commited to the narritivist agenda, but I'm struggling to figure out why.

Chris,

I'd suggest having a more focused idea on what sort of play experience you want for your game, and then worrying about how that fits with narrativism / simulationism. Remember, there is great deal of room in those categories. Ultimately, you when designing for a creative agenda, you want to reward the sort of behavior and choices that the agenda values.

One thing about plot twists is that surprise often comes from how a plot happens, not what the plot is. I'm reminded of some of what <a href="http://www.catchyourhare.com/journal/?p=12">Graham Walmsley was doing with improvisation in RPG, sometimes the most direct idea can be the most fun. 

How do you see the plot twists rewarding the players who use them? What happens during these acts to keep them connected? What moves the players from one act to the next? What opportunities do players have to surprise each other outside of the plot twists?

About negotiating plot by committee, what were the problems you found with that as it occured in your playtest? Sometimes that sort of behavior can be very useful, especially in negotiating outcomes for conflicts or scenes.

  - Mendel S.

Thanks to everyone for your input.  At this point, I'm rambling and meandering through lots of different thoughts.  - Rather than create a rambling, meandering thread I'm going to do some thinking and post a new thread when I have a more specific problem to address.

StrongBad - I'm happy to discuss card based mechanics if you want, and I didn't mean to blow those questions off.  That part of my test system was too flawed to be worth describing in any detail.