Okay, I realize that my last post concerning a game I have under development, codenamed Price to pay, was posted way too early and didn't serve any purpose other than to advertise it. So, now I have refined and changed the whole concept quite a lot and am going to make a proper first-thoughts post:

Taking away the moderator, I intend Price to pay to be GM-less. Gameplay would go something like this: the player in turns opens a scene, telling what is going on and where, who are at the scene, yada yada. Then all the players hop in, describing not their characters and NPC actions in the scene, what happens in the scene and so on, until two players disagree over something one said, at which point conflict resolution comes into play.

Conflict resolution: when resolving a conflict, both the person that started the conflict and the person that opposes the conflict starter roll one die each, the size of it determining how many story tokens it "costs", with both prices setting the stake for the conflict.

They both have to roll under a certain number, which in turn is determined by what point you are at turn order: the closer you are to being first in the round, the higher the target number. The one that has a higher margin of success wins. If you roll over your target number, you lose. If both lose, the stake goes to the end reward (which in turn goes to the player with the least story tokens at the end of the round).

Winner of the conflict gets to tell what happens and also wins the stake.

I'll have the full rules written in my blog http://baronthoughts.blogspot.com/ in acouple of days. What do you think, so far? Could this work?

Remember, the game's purpose is story building as a group, above all else. That's why character's are going to consist (in game terms) of only three Traits that you, as a gamer, consider important, and also one Flaw, as you see fit, as a player.

Osmo, please clarify what you meant in the phrases below that I have put in bold and I will respond to your idea.

Osmo wrote:
Gameplay would go something like this: the player in turns opens a scene, telling what is going on and where, who are at the scene, yada yada. Then all the players hop in, describing not their characters and NPC actions in the scene, what happens in the scene and so on

Hi!
  I think th goal to good conflict resolution is to setup  win/win situation. In other words, its not all a bout winning. Like, maybe the loser of the conflict gets a consolation prize? check out:
http://www.gregstolze.com/inSpaaace.zip
  ...In Spaaace! is a game where the winner gets what they want, but the loser gets the currency bid. This encourages conflicts and means that no one player can always get what they want (the only way to refresh this currency is to lose a conflict).
  Other than that, seems like a good mechanic.

Hi Osmo,

What is it about the game that's got you really excited and looking forward to playing it?

Moi Osmo

First, some nitpicking:

Then all the players hop in, describing not their characters and NPC actions in the scene, what happens in the scene and so on, until two players disagree over something one said, at which point conflict resolution comes into play.

Seems like some typos creeped into the post when I posted this thread. Corresction:

Gameplay would go something like this: the player whose turn it is [players would take turns during a gameround] opens a scene, telling what is going on and where, who are at the scene, yada yada. Then all the players hop in, describing their characters and NPC actions in the scene, what happens in the scene and so on.

Callan S.: upon further examination, I am not actually that excited about this rules-system (shouldn't have used the word "game"), but I think it is not so bad that it doesn't deserve getting developed.

Oh, terve Mikael. It was a typo, corrected it above. About the turns: each turn one of the players (in predetermined order) opens a scene, which everyone then expands upon, until a conflict arises, at which point it is resolved. When every player has had a turn, the round ends, with the end-reward being handed out to the player with the least story tokens at that point. (This consists of stakes that went to the wolves during the round itself and of one story token from the player with the most of them). This way story token-economy evens out eventually. (rather quickly, I would suspect).

The design goal behind Price to pay (as it is codenamed) is to create a fully generic collaborative storytelling game, with no GM and compact rules (2-5 pages). Universalis would propably serve me well in terms of generic system, but I don't have any money :(

Miscellaneous: I intended there to be something like two times the amount of players of story tokens in play at all times (since story tokens are never really "spent", just won or lost. Traits and Flaws have to do with conflict resolution: each time you use a Trait of your character in a conflict you halve the amount of story tokens you have to throw in to the stake.

And no need to worry about being harsh. It's good to get honest opinions on a project. I hope I answered all the main questions so far.

Osmo wrote:
...Corresction:

Osmo wrote: Callan S.: upon further examination, I am not actually that excited about this rules-system (shouldn't have used the word "game"), but I think it is not so bad that it doesn't deserve getting developed.

Callan wrote:
I think you deserve better, though. Pretty much all gamers deserve more than what doesn't excite them.