Hi everyone. I was just wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to deal with this little problem:

I'm working on a fantasy RPG based on both the real-world history and the fairy-tales and mythologies of Russia. I know I want magical creatures and events to be real and to have some characters who even possess magic powers along the lines of those found in folk-stories of various kinds. At the same time, I want some people to be so removed from the magical world that they can neither perceive or be affected by it.
So, how do you deal with these two realities existing, one atop the other and with characters who may well perceive two very different things while watching the same event. Also, how do you make the "magical" world relevant to characters who don't realize its existence and who can't be readily/directly affected by it?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I'd consider the easy way to take care of this is to have a spirit realm separate to the mundane world. Spirits exist in one, people exist in the other, psychics, mystics and shamans straddle the two worlds, either through an ability to step between them or simply an abiloty to percieve both of them.

You could take a White Wolf interpretation of the situation, and have dramatic changes in one world gradually come into effect in the other. For example, a new building in the physical world one world might gradually form over months in the spirit world, but the rapid movements of humans make no real difference. Similarly, a great battle in the spirit world may cause dreams and nightmares to denizens of the mortal world, a sense of unease spreading across the landscape as the spirit battles become felt.

Otherwise if you want something a bit more complex, I'd suggest you take a look at the Russian sci-fi/fantasy epic "Nightwatch"...

If that doesn't give you ideas for how to run spirit worlds in a Russian paradigm, nothing will.

V

OK, I see what your saying, but I guess my big goal is to not make that kind of a separation. As a for instance, I know I want animals to be intelligent and able to talk, yet I want the world to be relatively "real" in regards to how the average person feels, thinks and uses animals on day to day basis to be the same as it would of been in the real 17-18th centuries.
Since innocence is going to be a major deciding factor in how much a person's able to perceive magic and I want to have the party/cast/whatever consist of people of different levels of innocence, what happens when they all encounter a wolf that to some of them can talk and to some of them is just a wolf.
The only solution I can think of besides the separate realities suggested by Vulpinoid is to have paradigms be shared amongst all those who can directly perceive a situation, using an average of what they would perceive individually. Still, thats a compromise, I'd like to figure out a way that it would be possible for all the characters perceive different things at the same time without there being a constant uneasiness about whats happening and who can do and say what when...

The reason I jumped in on this thread is because I'm currently working on a concept of spiritual reality perception in a similar vein.

Imagine the traditional spectrum of seven colours. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet.

Lets call Red the most mundane parts of reality and Violet the most mystical and spiritual. My concept works with the idea that people exist at a certain spectrum frequency based on how spiritual they are (or not). Those who exist in a very mundane and drab existence are reds, spirit beings are purples. Each can perceive the adjacent frequencies, but not necessarily affect them as well as they affect their own. A red could perceive an orange but they have better interactiopns with other reds, a green usually deals with other greens but could perceive a yellow or a blue. This perception is like encountering the average person on the street, you don't really interact with them, you just wander past on your way to things that are more important to you. But if you make a conscious decision to interact with someone from a different frequency, your own gradually starts to shift. An orange who interacts with the yellows, gradually starts to shift toward this colour until they start perceiving greens (on the other hand they start to lose their sight of the reds and everything in their world gets a little stranger).

The nest part of the concept is that people can see the permanent aspects of reality two degrees away from them. So as an example, a yellow could interact most fully with other yellow people, they can see the oranges and greens, and their perception of buildings, and the natural landscape might stretch as far as reds, oranges, yellows, greens and blues. This is the furthest boundary of their perception. If a red person made a change to a red building, this hypothetical yellow character wouldn't see who was making the changes and might not even notice the changes being made until later.

The longer a building has existed, the stronger its dominance across the entire spectrum. A church might be a symbolic Red structure that pushes away the native russian supernatural element. At first it only counts as a red structure, but after years of worship it might become a red and orange as it's presence in reality grows stronger, after decades it might grow to red-orange-yellow, after centuries it might grow to red-orange-yellow-green, etc.

A violet creature could walk through the churches walls because it means nothing to them, until it reaches red-orange-yellow-green-blue. At which point the church impacts on the violet's perception of reality.

Applying the innocence factor to this type of set-up expands a character's perception of the world around them. Maybe a moderately innocent character can now interact fully with beings on adjacent energy frequencies, a green could interact with anything yellow-green-blue. They would be able to percieve beings two steps away (in this case orange-yellow-green-blue-indigo), while their perception of the environment covers the whole spectrum.

A true innocent may be able to expand their range of interaction and perception by a further degree.

This type of system is linear and allows a simple track to be marked on a character sheet to show what perceptions lie where, and who can interact with what. It may be too complex for some types of games, or too simplistic for others.

It's just an idea I've been toying with over the last couple of months for a smoother transition between spirit and mortal planes. You could do a similar type of concept with the mortal world in the middle, and a perception consciousness spreading upward toward heavenly realms or downward toward hells (with assorted spiritual beings affecting the mortal plane in the middle while being barely able to percieve one another, an totally incapable of interacting with one another).

V       

1) 'Innocent' characters don't perceive the magical world, they "open" it. For the talking animal example, non-'innocent' find an animal, it doesn't talk to them. But animals will talk to 'innocent' characters, while non-'innocent' characters will hear them. Similarly, 'innocent' characters can find special magic places and lead non-'innocent' characters to them, but non-'innocent' characters cannot find these places on their own.

2) Have a list of "Falsehoods" that low-innocent characters believe, such as "Animals cannot talk." You could, for example, have a list of falsehoods attached to each level of innocence. Characters must interpret magical events according to these Falsehoods. If a character with such a falsehood sees an animal talking to a person, he has to see the person listening for no reason or possibly the animal as a person and thus able to talk.

One easy way you could do it would be to have an Innocence score, each level being a treshold for what the character can perceive the way it is. For example, something in the lines of:

Innocence 5 - you perceive the magical nature of all things.
Innocence 4 - you are not able to find you way to magical places on your own.
Innocence 3 - you are not able to use magical tools.
Innocence 2 - you are not able to communicate with magical beings.
Innocence 1 - you are not able to perceive magic, unless it affects you directly.
Innocence 0 - you rationalize everything you perceive, even if it affects you directly.

Then, the GM narrates things as they are, and it's player's job to react accordingly and rationalize as appropriate. Maybe there could be some resource that would allow for breaching the treshold for a single instance.

Another way to do it would be not to have any kind of score, but leave it entirely to the players. They could decide whether they rationalize something or not on a case by case basis, thus making a statement about the character's innocence. You could reward rationalization, though, to create a temptation for them to actually forsake the innocence.

Say, a wolf comes to the character and warns him about the incoming danger. The player can choose to hear the wolf out, or decide the character sees only a hungry beast and fends it off, deaf to its words. If he does the latter, there's a tasty die waiting for him. The character won't receive the warning, but when the danger comes the player will be able to spend this die to deal with it in a more effective, though far from innocent, means (say, the die could be spent on violence, lying or the like). Possibly there could be two types of rewards, one for perceiving the magical word (and stating the character's innocence) and the other for rationalizing things, both usable in different context (e.g. the rewards for innocence could actually fuel magic). Either way, you'd have a tool for the players to showcase what their characters are like through mechanicaly relevant choices.

However, both my suggestions assume that the GM will provide the players with all the information necesary for them to make informed decisions. If you want the GM to picture the events according to the character's perceptions in the first place, these solutions won't work well (probably they'd even require some serious procedural tweaking to work at all).

Both approaches would play out completely different, too, creating fundamentally different gaming experiences. And this leads to an important question: what you want the gaming experience to be like? What is the role of the innocence thing in it? It's hard to settle on a solution until you have a clear picture of where you are heading with this.

First, I apologise for my messed-up English. Please be patient with me.

You want the world to feel "real" and there to be "fairy tale" magic... Don't just make a "per character" distinction: make a "per scene" distinction. Some scenes, the animals start talking - some scenese they can't.
Have a "magic level indicator" in the game - maybe a pile of chips or some other "material" prop everybody can see. Each scene, it either goes up a step or down a step. "Magical" events happen past a minimum "soil": for example, at "magic level" 6+ animals are capable of speech.
If a character has a "magical" power, then there's a minimum "magic level" requirement for it to be used. A boy named Pete can talk with birds - but only at "magic level" 4+. The village's witch can actually fly on a broomstick - but only at "magic level" 8+. You get the idea.
Increased "magic level" is actually dangerous, however: because "monsters" can appear who could not be there in a non-magical scene, evil witches have their full powers, etc.

Plus, the world has an inherent "resistance" to magic level rising  - which is tied to people's (dis)belief. Basically, if a character whose Innocence rating is X or less (or Disbelief rating is X or more, or whatever) is present at a scene, the "magic level" of it can not be raised higher than Y. Or maybe, multiple people have a heightened effect (so magic does not happen in the middle of a crowded village square, but a single non-believer can have a shocking experience).

Just remember: if "magic level" doesn't go up one step in a scene (even in case it's because it CAN'T - read above), then it HAS to go DOWN one step.

Riffing a bit off of Filip's idea:

I am assuming that you want the GM's narration to reveal only what each individual PC perceives, as opposed to revealing everything--mundane and magical--and then leaving the players to sort out themselves. On the surface, this seems to have a tough procedural issue: How do you "mask" the magical for the mundane PC players?

What if you had something like the Innocence score above, and the GM would frame a scene step-wise, adding more info at each new level of Innocence. Once the level higher than your PC's is announced, you literally close your eyes and cover your ears--a physical procedure that directly mirrors the "filtering out" of magical effects by mundane folk. Let me try an example:

GM: A Wolf leaps out of the bushes, growling and snarling!
Players: Ooo!
GM: TWO....
...All players with Innocence 0 or 1 close their eyes and cover their ears. Notice that this interjects some tension, as the mundane PC players know there's more to the scene than a wolf--but WHAT more, they won't know and might still react inappropriately (i.e. attack the wolf).
The wolf is speaking Wolfish, snarling, "Danger, human; do you want to be meat?
This is the GM having fun with "Wolfish" and the sorts of idioms that they might use... but it's also unnerving and a bit ambiguous.
GM: FOUR....
...All players with Innocence 2, or 3 close their eyes and cover their ears.
GM: You can tell that the wolf isn't threatening your group--in fact, it's sort of laughing at you for walking into danger unsuspecting.
The GM then raps on the table firmly--a signal to the blind and deaf players of low-Innocence PCs that the magical effects have been concluded.
GM: OK, what are you going to do? Initiative 1?

...And from there, Initiative order for narration of action kicks in. If a low-Innocence PC gets first action, it might very well shoot at the wolf before the high-Innocence PC(s) can explain that this wolf isn't threatening the PCs. Or maybe a high-Innocence PC gets first action, and wants to reply to the wolf, knowing it's not a threat. As that's Innocence 2, the player announces "TWO"--1s and 0s close eyes and cover ears again--and then makes his or her reply to the wolf...

Innocence 4 Player (I4P): TWO... I reply, "What would make us meat, if not you and your well-hidden pack?" Wolves like a bit of flattery like that, I assume.
The GM raps on the table.
GM: OK, folks, I4P is snarling back at the wolf, as if in challenge! Initiative 2?
Innocence 0 Player (I0P): That's me. I say, "Are you nuts, I4P?" as I shoot at the wolf.
GM: Roll the dice.
I4P: "Nooooo!"
...

Now, could that be sustainable if magical effects are popping off at multiple levels every scene? Dunno... find out in play. But if it ran smoothly--if the players got accustomed to quickly shuttering themselves and to announcing Innocence levels when they react--it might rock. Could be great for younger kids, too, given both the general themes and the physical mode of play.

HTH;
David

Wow you guys, what a lot of great suggestions. Everything above will be taken into consideration and I think I have a lot of good ideas to use as a jumping off point. I think I'll work on synthesizing some of the above suggestions into an actual system example and once I have it up I'll post it in a new thread to see what you all think. Thanks. Of course, if there are any more ideas out there, I'd love to hear them.

In my game we use a awful little system of handsigns to imply that two players are talking between each other in another language (or they switch from Swdish to English while doing the hand sign). Maybe that could work as some sort of sign on what level of Innocense the scene is being set?

The funny effect would be if only those innocent enough can be effected... So that the huge magical creature only damage and affect the high innocence character, maing her vulnerable to such things. But at the same time only the character with high innocence can commit acts of magic or benefit with that sort of contact, making it some sort of "mage class" in a low magic campaign.

This thread is golden btw... Thanks Masquerade for starting it.

/Jens

PS Rafu, its allot of "english as a second language people here (amongst them, me), and so far Ive noticed a high level of acceptance towards crappy grammar and vocabulary... so dont worry :)

rekyl wrote:
In my game we use a awful little system of handsigns to imply that two players are talking between each other in another language (or they switch from Swedish to English while doing the hand sign). Maybe that could work as some sort of sign on what level of Innocence the scene is being set?

The funny effect would be if only those innocent enough can be effected... So that the huge magical creature only damage and affect the high innocence character, making her vulnerable to such things.

This thread is golden btw... Thanks Masquerade for starting it.

masqueradeball wrote:
Hi everyone. I was just wondering if anyone had any ideas on how to deal with this little problem:

I'm working on a fantasy RPG based on both the real-world history and the fairy-tales and mythologies of Russia. I know I want magical creatures and events to be real and to have some characters who even possess magic powers along the lines of those found in folk-stories of various kinds. At the same time, I want some people to be so removed from the magical world that they can neither perceive or be affected by it.
So, how do you deal with these two realities existing, one atop the other and with characters who may well perceive two very different things while watching the same event. Also, how do you make the "magical" world relevant to characters who don't realize its existence and who can't be readily/directly affected by it?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

David:
Well actually the handsign thing works to up the tention since most of the other players know whats been said in private (and most probably as part as some plot against one of them) yet have to try not to think about it making the situation. Of course thats impossible to do so in essence they are in the back of their heads thinking up a good way to retaliate already... Its worked to some extent to help a bad game night go better :)

Your other idea sounds fun too (I use fun to describe how fun the gaming experience will be not how fun the situation would be if it was real). Well I think that a fantasy game world would benefit from that form of "mage" whose life is filled with "hands on danger" whereas everyone else would see those dangers as more mundande things that they cannot be affected with (or so they believe)... like the plague and its myths. The "mage" could combat the demons giving rise to the "bad vapours" while all the rest could do was hope not to catch the sickness... The risk is that teh demons would very much like to kill the mage first so they could work unmolested.

And I would like to say that, as a newcomer, its very refreshing to just sit and read old threads. This forum is amazing...

Keep wondering where I should post the thing I got about sociology, politics and rpg's though...

/Jens

rekyl wrote:
David:
Well actually the handsign thing works to up the tention since most of the other players know whats been said in private (and most probably as part as some plot against one of them) yet have to try not to think about it making the situation. Of course thats impossible to do so in essence they are in the back of their heads thinking up a good way to retaliate already... Its worked to some extent to help a bad game night go better :)

Vulpinoid wrote: I find this very rarely to be the case. I've seen it in all froms of roleplaying, from live action, through table-top and even down to miniatures. If someone has the knowledge in the back of their mind, it's human nature to use that knowledge to gain an advantage.

I say to the GM; "I try to see through the illusion", but my character couldn't possibly know that it was an illusion. The GM must decide whether he allows the chance to see through the illusion, or denies it outright because there is no way my character could have suspected the truth.

The more innocent they are, the more solid it becomes.

We seem to have 3 styles of play under discussion:
1) players have OOC knowledge and have to come up with clever ways to both use that knowledge and rationalize why their characters are acting as such.  Jens appears to have enjoyed this in the past.  (Right?)
2) players have OOC knowledge that could help them, but they aren't suppose to use that knowledge at all.  I think we all agree this is just frustrating and no fun for anyone playing a game wherein the character is the tool of player effectiveness (as opposed to, say, a tool for creating stories or just exploring the setting or some such).  I think this is what Vulp (sorry dude, forgot your real name) is warning about.
3) players have no OOC knowledge.  David's offered one way to attempt this.

Nolan, are you interested in #1, #3, or running a game in which no one is expected to care that much about their character's effectiveness (so #2 would be fine) or something else?  Or are you still trying to figure that out?

I am a longtime seeker of #3.  I like playing games where I can really imagine myself as "being there" with as few distractions as possible to remind me of my existence/location in the real world.  Passing slips of paper back and forth between one player and the GM works fine for short scenarios, but is very limited.  David, I really dig your "take turns hiding" idea.  So, some thoughts on that:

• Simply covering your ears is generally insufficient to block out speech close by.  Earplugs and headphones help.  Failing those, humming helps.
• In combat, depending on your mechanics, players might spend a lot of time with eyes and ears covered.  This can severely interefere with a player's ability to stay in the flow of "imagining himself as being there".  My own system involves hitting & damage, hit location, armor soak & wounds, toughness soak & shock, so I'm worried.
• In any situation where the GM doesn't want to give away whose perception is Real, it may be necessary to have each player be the only player "uncovered" during his action declaration turn (when he's asking the GM "What's going on?" so he can choose an action).  This further worsens the problem I just mentioned.

Anyone have thoughts on resolving these issues?

Pardon the semi-threadjack... we can start a new one on this if Nolan's not interested but others are...

Vulpinoid wrote:

rekyl wrote: I find this very rarely to be the case. I've seen it in all froms of roleplaying, from live action, through table-top and even down to miniatures. If someone has the knowledge in the back of their mind, it's human nature to use that knowledge to gain an advantage.

Questionable. This really depends on what an "advantage" is.
Strong separation between "character knowledge" and "player knowledge" can, in my direct experience, be a powerful source of "fun" in some forms of roleplaying game... It needs, however, to be pivotal to the game form being played, not just a marginal addition sticked onto it.

Example (from old, now "classic" Italian game "On Stage!"): player characters have conflicting objectives, there is strong competition and tension in-between PCs. Since the game is played by "scenes", players do see and hear anything which goes on the "stage". Their characters of course don't know, unless they were actually "on stage" themselves at the time. (Two PCs plotting the assassination of a third PC? Check. Next scene, target PC does not know the cup he's about to drink from contains lethal poison; the player knows it all, so he has to devise some clever escape, but can't have the character himself act on "player knowledge".) Part of the game is about creating "in character excuses" so that your character may act on what is, actually, "out of character knowledge", but not obviously showing to be doing so. Of course, this implies the game is not really about "immersion"... :)

If that usually doesn't work well in D&D and D&D-simile games, that's chiefly because all of the players should be coordinating all of their efforts towards survival of their collected PCs in that kind of game (and not even the DM is playing "against" them).

David wrote:
1) players have OOC knowledge and have to come up with clever ways to both use that knowledge and rationalize why their characters are acting as such.  Jens appears to have enjoyed this in the past.  (Right?)

And Filip :)

Basically, until we hear from Nolan and learn whether players' usage of out of character information is an issue in the game at all, it will be hard to consider specific solutions.

Filip's right, I guess my comments on OOC knowledge have side-tracked this thread a bit.

There are plenty of ways to attempt to address these issues, but they should be address in a context relevant to the game design in question.

As we've touched on, the way these issues are addressed can radically alter the style of play produced by a game.

V
(P.S. I keep my real name in my signature at the bottom of each message)

Although the obvious pratfalls of in character out of character knowledge are obvious I think an overlooked point is that a perfect-information (to use a board gaming term) environment could be a narrative plus depending on the goals of the game. If players were more tied to creating an interesting story than achieving in character goals then knowing everything there is to know should help, not hurt, there ability to contribute.
That being said, I want the game all this is for (Innocence & Iron) to be a much more first person, immersive style of role playing, so I'm all for suggestions about how to share information with some players without giving it away to others. I think I'm going to design a similar situation in a different game (probably my current game of the late 80's early 90's Marvel Superheroes RPG) to test out the playability of the "close your eyes/plug your ears method."
In the past the only experiences I've had with limiting player information came in the traditional forms of passing notes and going into the other room. Notes have always been a distraction, but in some games, especially horror games, having some of the players leave the room can often add to the feeling of suspense, but in game with a premise like Innocence & Iron's I think leaving the room would be too constant of an obstacle.
Another note: this whole train of thought really started for me with playing Changeling: the Dreaming. For those not familiar with that game, the character in it constantly view two separate realities, the fey and the mundane. This always posed a problem for me in how exactly you described to things at once without breaking up the narration and slowing down play and also how much the characters perceived both versions.

People don't like penalties, they think they are being disadvantaged somehow. So consider the opposite option.

Perhaps a simple mechanic of bonus experience points for players who go out of their way not to use the OOC knowledge they've gained, especially where their use of OOC knowledge could have dramatically helped them, or where their option not to use this knowledge has helped to create a situation that has heightened the storyline developing.

This could be done specifically by the GM, or by contribution from all the players on the table.

V 

Vulp, I think it's now clear that he's not trying to deal with what to do with players who gain OOC knowledge--neither punishment nor reward. His last post seems to me to clearly state that he doesn't want that knowledge to get into their hands in the first place, through a variety of techniques (shuttering on demand, restricting access to the setting source material, passing notes).

Or is it that you see such information flow control techniques as a punishment of those players who play low-Innocence PCs...?

[hr]
Meanwhile, are there any other techniques for information flow control during play, at the table?

I wonder if, maybe, artwork could help in some manner. What if the "Bestiary" section of the rules had two pictures of each magical creature: one for low-Innocence PC players to see (looking like a mundane animal analogous to the magical form) and one for high-Innocence PC players to see. Maybe they could be on odd versus even pages, so the GM could say "ONE!" or whatever, show the mundane creature art, then say "TWO!" and flip the page after the low-Innocence PC players have closed their eyes? I know in the old D&D days, I used to show Monster Manual art a lot (and back then, modules even came with "art booklets" to show the players at various encounters).

Of course, there's always networked laptops or cell phone messaging... but who wants to play a game where half (or more?) of the info is typed while everyone sits quietly?

Bit there's GOT to be more ways....
David

David wrote:
Of course, there's always networked laptops or cell phone messaging... but who wants to play a game where half (or more?) of the info is typed while everyone sits quietly?

I agree one should have a maximum of 2 levels of perceived information for any given scene.
What the system and "GM" can juggle with is the minimum Innocence score required to access the "higher" information level for the scene: this may be a variable.

The actual process of being denied information may actually be turned into a source of excitement of sort... Sort of playing Werewolves/Mafia, the party game.

Two things I'd like to contribute: 

1) The first, a series of absurd possibilities for limiting OOC knowledge, all of which are technology based:

The first is to have everyone wear a set of closed headphones (the ones that don't allow sound in or out).  The GM has a microphone hooked up to all of them, and can shut off headphones as innocence decreases.  What you can't hear can't affect you, right?  Of course, it's a bit techie, but it's an option.

Another:  Have a screen where the narrator can type out lesser levels (where the lower the innocence, the more in-tune to the spiritual world you are) of interaction on a screen while ACTUALLY describing what the lower levels of innocence are. 

Example (and a poor one at that):
BEING SAID, with innocent players' heads down: You see a wolf cross your path.  It is growling, looking menacing, no teeth are baring but you wouldn't know the difference anyway.  Wolves are scary creatures after all.  The growling is continuous.

Being TYPED: The wolf comes into the path, wary but not menacing.  It says, "what are you all doing here?  Where do you come from?  Do you happen to know the current price of tea in China?"

And this perhaps might have been alluded to, but bears mentioning, a quick group pull might work.  If there are no tables in the way, having the gm on one side of the room, calling players to them per innocence level might work.  The major problem with that is that players might get annoyed with the whole moving thing.

2) The other item I wanted to contribute is another mechanical possibility regarding how in-tuned with the spiritual world a character is.  Using Rasputin as the only source of information regarding Russian mysticism, drugs were a part of his "shamanic" rituals.  Furthermore, historically shamans used one sort or another of substance to "expand ones horizons."  An interesting mechanic to use would be to have a hard innocence level at the beginning (let's say 0,1,2) based on some sort of nature/nuture thing (some people are just naturally more inclined to believe the unbelievable, so to speak).  Great levels of "awareness" (instead of calling it innocence) can be reached through sustained rituals and, for lack of a better term, drug use.  Of course, drug use has its benefits AND down-sides, which can be exploited in-game (would you believe that guy tripping on acid when he tells you that the wolf is talking?)  However, certain drugs/rituals, over time, can not only increase bonuses to awareness throughout their duration (a drug's effect lasts 2 hours), but certain rituals (I dunno, smoke hut in american indigenous cultures) can increase their hard awareness stat (you trip enough times, you start seeing things when you're not tripping, so to speak).  Depending on the substance, this may or may not have other detrimental effects on a character. 

You can take this vein of thought in several directions (smoking certain tabaccos will have weaker bonuses, take more doses to increase overall awareness vs. tripping on acid/smoking opium, which will grant you greater access, increase stat quicker, and eventually kill you).  Also, certain character types can be more/less averse to ritual/substances, thus limiting their ability to gain awareness.  Perhaps a stat mechanic that is inversely proportional to awareness (I'd hate to be cliche, but perhaps logic)?  Also interesting would be to consider the effect of science on the ability to perceive.  The time period would play nicely into the discussion of science vs. faith ... (random ideas).

Hope this has been helpful!  The idea is interesting indeed though, personally, I dislike the OOC limitations and prefer a GM that would arbitrate knowledge.  Furthermore, I would prefer a mechanic that would inherently force characters to talk prior to action..
i.e. Phase 1: Everyone says 1 thing, if they want.
Person 1: "ack! it's a wolf, kill it!",
Person 2: "No!  Don't!  All it wants is warm tea!" 
Person 3:  "Mommy, I'm scared"
Person 4:  "Don't worry my little babushka, the big bad wolf doesn't want to hurt us"
Person 5: *silence*

Phase 2:  (acting based on initiative, where convo can either persist or someone pulls a gun and shoots it)

Just a thought

-nico

Charrua wrote:
BEING SAID, with innocent players' heads down: You see a wolf cross your path.  It is growling, looking menacing, no teeth are baring but you wouldn't know the difference anyway.  Wolves are scary creatures after all.  The growling is continuous.

Being TYPED: The wolf comes into the path, wary but not menacing.  It says, "what are you all doing here?  Where do you come from?  Do you happen to know the current price of tea in China?"

Well, you want your characters to be immersed in the setting, right?  For people in that historical period in Russia, there was no dichotomy.  The real world, as they saw it, WAS full of fairy tales and other things we consider fantasy.  The only people who see a divide here is, well, us.

So I would say that both elements of your setting assert the reality of the magical emphatically.  It might seem ahistorical to us, but that would be anachronistic thinking anyway.

Another thing you might want to consider. Set your players around the table (or playing space) arranged in order of innocence. Then you could show a picture of say, the low innocene monster to the low innocence part of the room and show the high innocence picture to the high-innocence part of the room. This might also enhance the game's storybook feel (where you get the pictures is a matter for another time).

Maybe this would work for you :

Before play and every two hours or so into play pick a few random numbers (I'd set the highest number at twice your "maximum innocence rating")

Give each player individually and in secret a number of those numbers equal to their innocence rating - a cold-hearted emotionally-crippled scientist might not get any numbers whereas a child raised by fairies might get all the numbers you picked.

Whenever the issue of magic comes into play preceed your statements with one of your chosen numbers.  Randomly say things occasionally that are not in fact happening preceeded by a number not on your list.

An example of play might be :

(One, Seven, and Twelve are the "magic numbers" in this scenario)
GM :
Suddenly a wolf jumps out onto the trail a few scant yards ahead of you, growling deeply.
Three!  The golden eyes of a werewolf lock onto your own hungrily.
One! The beast growls "In a rush to meet your maker, human? Then continue this way - I'm sure the "twilight hunters" will be much obliged. Good night to you, foolish two-legs."
True! The wolf arches it back towards you!  What do you do?

Player One who, with a low innocence, doesn't know that "one" is a magic number:
"It's just a lone wolf - It'll leave us be if we don't startle it.  Probably protecting it's cubs or something. Without turning away I'll back off slowly."

Player Two, with a low innocence but a knowledge that "not all is as it seems in this world" :
"It's unnatural! I draw the pistol in my boot, the one with the silver bullets, and let fly"

Player Three who, with a high innocence, knows that "one" is a magic number :
"No!  She's bowing, not pouncing!"

GM :
"Player two - you hear the last few words of Player three over the booming echo of your gun.  Roll to hit."

Not only would this give you the opportunity to play off a non-innocent (cynical? worldly? fearful?) character's fears -
GM : Eleven! There's a goblin in the closet!  Player : I open fire! GM : You totally waste the vacuum cleaner!
- but it'd support the idea of a superstitious culture that knows that strange things go bump in the night, even if most individuals don't choose to believe or can't quite make those things out.  If that's the kind of thing you're shooting for.

I'm curious : Is being innocent a positive thing in your game, or are there definate trade-offs?  Would innocent characters be more likely to fall for tricks or con artists or the such?  Can they grasp complex ideas or principles rooted in the "mundane reality" as easily as the less-innocent?  Would such a thing be reinforced by the mechanics of the game? Should things of a magical nature genuinely influence the "mundane reality"?  (I apologize if you've answered or implied answers to these already : There's quite a bit of good stuff to absorb from this thread and I'm running on less sleep than usual)

... and as an aside : This is one of the best threads I've read in a while. Lots of great stuff here from all corners.