Hi,

After a lot of writing and playtesting, Paul Tarussov and I have finished writing a new storytelling game called Muse. It's a game designed for people with busy schedules. It attempts to allow you to play a fun roleplaying-like game with no preparation time required. There's no game master, so nobody has the added burden of coming up with a story on their own, and there are no exclusive characters (i.e. PCs exclusive to a player) and no character sheets.

I'd be overjoyed if you'd read our game or even give it a try.  Please let me know what you think of it.

You can download Muse here in PDF format:
http://jon.nullnode.com/files/Muse.pdf

Here's a little blurb about the game:

Muse is a storytelling game where players collaborate and compete with each other to tell an enjoyable
story. Players will take turns, with each of them contributing to a single story. Play will
pass from player to player in clockwise order, unless listeners jump in or object. Players will inspire
each other to create story elements, which will get combined into questions about the plot.
No-one knows in advance how questions will finally be answered. The game ends when no more
questions can be created and the last question in play has been answered. The player with the
best hand remaining gets to narrate the story’s epilogue.

Sincerely,

--Jonathan

I've just had a quick skim through Muse and I've got to say that it seems to have potential.

I'm going to have a far more detailed read through it shortly, and hopefully I'll be able to give it a playtest run over the next week or so and let you know how it handled.

V

Thanks!  I'd love to hear your feedback.

One of the things about Muse is that it has very interesting emergent properties.  It's actually been very hard to write (it's taken me more than a year part-time), because even small changes to the rules have sometimes had very surprising and drastic changes to gameplay, which required more rule changes, etc. etc.

I guess part of the issue is that I have a decade or so of experience with RPGs, but very little experience with Story Games, so it's harder for me to predict how a certain rule might affect the play experience.

--Jonathan

This looks great! I just gave it a first read-through, here are my thoughts.

The name "Muse" probably evokes the spirit of the game very well. It looks like it's all about inspiring each other's creativity. Bravo!

You seem to have all the bases pretty well covered, though it's hard to say that before I play it. The rules seem complete and polished.

One question: It seems possible that a question could contain 3 elements with only 2 checked off when the game enters the development phase. What happens to the third element? The question is in play but one of the elements "is not used in this game"? (Development starts when 6 elements are checked off, no guarantee that will be all 3 elements in a particular question.)

John wrote:
The name "Muse" probably evokes the spirit of the game very well. It looks like it's all about inspiring each other's creativity. Bravo!

One question: It seems possible that a question could contain 3 elements with only 2 checked off when the game enters the development phase. What happens to the third element? The question is in play but one of the elements "is not used in this game"? (Development starts when 6 elements are checked off, no guarantee that will be all 3 elements in a particular question.)

Just chiming in to show my presence...

I'm responsible for helping Jon with this, mostly by discussing rules options and criticizing things I didn't think would work. It's a wonder Jon still considers me a friend. :P

Anyway, the answer to the question is what Jon said. From a slightly different angle:

--If the element is unchecked, it means it won't come back as a subject of future Questions. It doesn't mean that it can't feature in the story--in fact, it must until the Question is resolved, and probably will afterwards, so long as players keep mentioning it in their narrations, or so long as they continue narrating actions taking place there.

Cheers,

Paul

[Note: I think this thread belongs in Playtesting, not First Thoughts. Can anyone move-ify it?]

Hmmm. Is it because the game has already been developed to such a point that it no longer falls under the topic of "First Thoughts?" Or is it because it has already been playtested?

Either way, I'll throw in my two cents:
-- Loved the name. Evocative and succinct.
-- Liked the "5 Phases" right up front. Gave a quick, visual guide akin to a table of contents.
-- Code of Conduct. This I felt was out of place, as it seemed to derail the flow of what you had started with the Setup. It could be that the heading was same, subconsciously making me think this was a wholly new section on the same level as (and distinct from) Setup. But it also read that you were answering a lot of questions that weren't even asked yet. In other words, I felt like you were attempting to stave off behavior before anyone actually started "behaving" in the first place.
    Rather, it would make more sense to me to have the Code of Conduct presented as a "given." Hardwire a particular code that fits the audience you see playing the game. (If it's families, then it's more family-friendly. If it's an after-hours party game, then perhaps less so.) I would also fold it into the Genre and Tone section, perhaps as a sidebar.
    Otherwise, if you would rather have the Code of Conduct as something negotiable, then you really don't need one in the first place, right? I wouldn't assume that people would always in every game try to put themselves as a character. If or when it does happen, someone just vetoes it at the time. Same with a "cheap shot" that you describe "everythign was a dream." If or when it does happen, it just gets vetoed. Maybe I'm an optimist, as I don't see those things happening regularly.
-- Creating elements. Do players take turns, publicly announcing ideas, or does it happen simultaneously, privately writing their cards? If the latter, what happens if players write down similar or same elements?
-- Creating questions. Again, do players take turns? And what determines the turn order? If not, what happens if a player takes an element someone else wanted (ie Can you reuse elements?) There can be elements that remain unused, right? Is there any reason to choose between 2 or 3 elements to make a question? (Because later, it seems there might be a strategy in being able to cross out elements/getting cards but not being able to cross out questions/denying cards.)
-- The narrator's turn-- can he do ANY or ALL of those things? The examples of play are confusing, because it seems like he is doing a lot of those things, but in another example, he only does one of those things before the next player does one of those things. In other words, you can choose a question and add to it in the same turn? How many times can you add to a question-- with each paragraph/sentence, you can load up a stack of cards or not? Can you add to more than one question in your turn? Can you Choose more than one question in your turn?
-- I followed you all the way up to "Narrating Around the Question." None of the examples you supplied made it clear to me what narrating around the questions means. How do your examples show that the question in play was "ruined?" (which is a vague term anyway.) The question was "Do sea monsters disrupt the wedding?" Well, if someone narrates seeing a wedding disrupted from afar, then why is that vetoed, exactly?  Seems to me, the question is still in play. Similarly, if someone narrates Orville killing the last of the sea monsters, then it seems that question is answered. No, is the answer.
    Also, trying to simplify the situation by showing how to break apart the question seems like you're complicating it. Again, instead of trying to offer rules to prevent certain kinds of behavior, how about making it more clear what kinds of behavior you would like to promote?
-- Adding to the question. You're not really adding words to the question, right? Perhaps the term "complicate the question", "load the question", "weight the answer" would be more appropriate. What's the limit to add to question?
-- Does the writing down the question on the Yes/No cards slow down the play? It seems the story is key, and stopping the flow of narration to write down a multi-word question on two slips of paper would cause a hiccup. Perhaps players have markers that they can stake on the yes/no side of question, or make sure the questions are written on the card in the setup phase?
-- Showdown. So the players have the cards face up, and then add to the cards showing with cards from their hand? Maybe these bullet points need to be numbered, to reinforce that they are sequential steps.
-- Special cases. That seems really unfair to penalize the holder of the most cards if someone with no cards needs to draw from an empty deck. Is there a better solution? Is it common enough that you need to play with more decks? Perhaps one deck for 4 people, 2 decks for 5-8 people, etc.

Whew! That may seem like a lot, but I really liked your ideas. I love storytelling games and I think I'd like to try this one soon!

danny

Danny,

I'll try to field some of your questions.

The idea behind the Code of Conduct is for players to be able to outline (before play starts) where they wouldn't like the game to go. That said, I agree with some of your reservations--I, myself, usually omit it when playing. I think it would be great in a sidebar, as you suggest.

As for brainstorming elements and Questions, the order doesn't matter. You can all write them simultaneously, or do so one at a time, reading them aloud. In practice, it's somewhere in-between the two--people write them down as they get ideas. It's absolutely uimportant when they get written, as long as they get written before you start playing.

The Narrator's Turn: I think the text _is_ pretty unclear here. Jon, I recommend you clean that up! The idea is that the Narrator does one of those things on his or her turn, then passes it on to the next player. For instance, you might choose to Add to a Question one turn, and then choose to Answer that Question on your next turn.

I'll leave your questions on Narrating Around the Question to Jon. I didn't have any hand in writing that part.

As for Adding to a Question, I second a change in terms. Maybe "Add to an Answer", or "Contribute to a Question", or "Claim an Answer" or something like that. What do you think, Jon?

As for what the limit is... narratively it's whatever your friends will let you get away with (generally, short additions are less likely to be challenged, so they're indirectly "encouraged" by the rules). Mechanically, it's one card (or several from your hand).

"Writing down the Question": I've suggested a different way to do this, which will save some time in terms of writing. I hope Jon incorporates it. I think it makes the game smoother and easier than writing on two scraps of paper.

As for large hands, and running out of cards, I recommend playing the game with a hand size limit. But Jon has played it the way it's written, and says it works well. The rule you mention discourages people from hoarding too much, which isn't a bad thing.

I hope you get a chance to play the game. Post here, if you do, and let us know how it went.

Best,

Paul

Hi Danny,

Thanks for posting your comments and questions.  I hope you give Muse a try soon, and if you do, please let me know how it goes! :-)

I'll try to answer those questions of yours that weren't already answered by Paul.

-- The narrator's turn-- can he do ANY or ALL of those things? The examples of play are confusing, because it seems like he is doing a lot of those things, but in another example, he only does one of those things before the next player does one of those things. In other words, you can choose a question and add to it in the same turn?

How many times can you add to a question-- with each paragraph/sentence, you can load up a stack of cards or not? Can you add to more than one question in your turn? Can you Choose more than one question in your turn?

Well, if someone narrates seeing a wedding disrupted from afar, then why is that vetoed, exactly?  Seems to me, the question is still in play.

Similarly, if someone narrates Orville killing the last of the sea monsters, then it seems that question is answered. No, is the answer.

-- Adding to the question. You're not really adding words to the question, right? Perhaps the term "complicate the question", "load the question", "weight the answer" would be more appropriate. What's the limit to add to question?

-- Special cases. That seems really unfair to penalize the holder of the most cards if someone with no cards needs to draw from an empty deck. Is there a better solution? Is it common enough that you need to play with more decks? Perhaps one deck for 4 people, 2 decks for 5-8 people, etc.

Whew! That may seem like a lot, but I really liked your ideas. I love storytelling games and I think I'd like to try this one soon!

My appologies for the confusion. I think I'm going to add a diagram to the rules text to explain the flow of a narrator's turn.

Here's a text-based look at what a narrator can do each turn (you may choose ONE of the following bullets):

• Narrate + Choose a Question + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Choose a Question + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Add to a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + Answer a Question + End Turn
• Answer a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + End Turn
• End Turn

Does that make more sense?  So, a narrator always has the option to narrate at the beginning of the turn.  Once they're done narrating, they can Choose a Question + Add to a Question, Add to a Question, Answer a Question, or End Turn.

You can only choose one question per turn, and you can only add to one question per turn (you can do both only if you started off with choosing a question). Across multiple turns, there is no limit to how many cards you can add to one question's Yes or No answer.

Similarly, if someone narrates Orville killing the last of the sea monsters, then it seems that question is answered. No, is the answer.

Danny,

I agree with you that the text might be improved in a number of ways. I hope you're listening, Jon! :)

I have a few comments, also:

danielsan wrote:

Here's a text-based look at what a narrator can do each turn (you may choose ONE of the following bullets):

• Narrate + Choose a Question + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Choose a Question + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + Add to a Question + End Turn
• Add to a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + Answer a Question + End Turn
• Answer a Question + End Turn
• Narrate + End Turn
• End Turn

Does that make more sense?  So, a narrator always has the option to narrate at the beginning of the turn.  Once they're done narrating, they can Choose a Question + Add to a Question, Add to a Question, Answer a Question, or End Turn.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense and a diagram is quite helpful. It does seems to separate the card play and the narration somewhat, though. You have a section called Narration, for example, in which you say it's the purest form of the story. But what advantage do we have mechanically for simple narration? When would I want to do the last two bullet points? If never, are they really options? What would allow them to be playable/strategic options?

It makes sense meta-game-wise, but I don't think it translates into your rules. If you're trying to increase dramatic tension and to preserve the drama of each question, how can help me do this arbitrarily and not merely subjectively? You might just have to be more explicit. For example, no showdown can occur until there's a total number of cards on both yes/no options?  

Oh, I understand what you mean. I may even be able to play it effectively. But if your instructions in the "how to narrate around questions" was meant to instruct this, I think you may have to rewrite it in the terms you say above. The downside, it's too abstract perhaps. But what else is there, mechanically (i.e. arbitrarily), that will help me realize when a showdown can occur at the best possible time.

Hi Danny,

Thanks again for your feedback.  Has Paul answered all of your questions?

I have just a few comments to add:

It makes sense meta-game-wise, but I don't think it translates into your rules. If you're trying to increase dramatic tension and to preserve the drama of each question, how can help me do this arbitrarily and not merely subjectively? You might just have to be more explicit. For example, no showdown can occur until there's a total number of cards on both yes/no options?

Yeah, that makes sense, and makes for an interesting strategy, too. I was offering my questions not just as an interested storytelling gamer but to help you see how a newcomer would interpret your rules, too. Hope that helps!

danny

Hi Daniel,

danielsan wrote: Yeah, that makes sense, and makes for an interesting strategy, too. I was offering my questions not just as an interested storytelling gamer but to help you see how a newcomer would interpret your rules, too. Hope that helps!

I was thinking about how to make a GM-less mystery "whodunnit" type game. At first, what got met thinking about this was the "monster of the week" thread, where the game starts with the murder having already taking place, and the players direct the details of the investigation through their narration. It would be more CSI than Supernatural, but the mechanics would be the same.

But I keep turning more toward GM-less stuff nowadays. I was thinking that you could use something like this Muse system, with the questions being "Did the butler do it?" and "did Ms. Scarlet do it?" etc. and then players take control of Yes and No by adding things that their characters investigate, creating motive, means, and opportunity as the story builds.

This is just all off the top of my head, but what's everyone's first impressions? Am I on the right track here?   

Hi Danny,

You're definitely on the right track!  Muse is a really good platform for developing a story where nobody at the table knows how it will turn out in advance...

--Jonathan

Oddly enough, I've given some thought to designing a somewhat Muse-like "whodunnit" RPG.

The Muse rules can do pretty much everything you need, except for one thing: the outcomes of game Questions do not in any way interact with each other.

So, for instance, if you have Questions like, "Did Professor Green kill Madame Butterfly?", for several characters, you could potentially end up with multiple killers, or no killer at all. Otherwise, the structure would work quite well.

Please do post if you come up with a clever solution.

I think that, in designing something like this, one way to make it interesting would be to make sure that a characters' innocence or guilt is not predictably good or bad for any given player. So, for instance, one player might be playing to prove their innocence, whereas another might "win" if they can prove themselves guilty!

Aaaahh... sorry for the double post.

I just wanted to mention:

One cool way to do this would be to set it up as a variant on the social game 'Mafia'. Some players are trying to be the killer, and most are trying to be innocent. But no one knows who is which side. You must play carefully, so as not to expose your role.