I've really been thinking about SIM play a lot lately and one thing that struck me is that creating a group language for how define a package might be a good thing to do. Now, the standard approach, as I see it, is a rather broad handed gesture to a lot of source material, maybe with an emphasis on few key sources (at least in SIM games that draw their influences from fiction). The idea is to use statements (still supported by example) as a way to describe the package as concisely as possible:

Here are some ideas:

Conceits: These would be the things that are taken for granted within in the genre and are therefore non-negotiable. Sacred Cows might be another term. An example from comics might be "Some people are good." This might seem like a rather vague statement, but in comics, a character like Superman or Batman will never be evil. Any wrong they do is in a misguided effort to do an be good. Of course, this Conceit comes along with other implied Conceits about morality, but thats just a quick example of what I mean.
Conventions: Similar to Conceits, but less tangible, conventions are those things that have to do more with the way characters and actions are portrayed. A Convention in superhero comics might read "Physical Realities Mirror Moral Truths." What this means is that to an extent, light, beauty, etc... can be associated with good and ugliness, darkness, etc... can be associated with evil. It also means that "might makes right" in the earlier, medieval sense, that the side that is righteous will prevail in just combat. The reason this is a Convention and not a Conceit is because its less tangible in terms of actual character behavior and more negotiable.
Color: Color would include those things that are non-central but highly suggestive of the package. A piece of superhero color might be "Brightly Colored Costumes" and their ilk (Masks, Capes, etc...).

Any thoughts on how to better refine this. I know its really rough but it might be a good tool in working out how to achieve something better with SIM play, which, in my opinion, has no real "State of the Art" and is quite frankly, behind the times, and since I'm a devout SIM player, I'd love to see what the cutting edge might be for SIM in the future.

Hiya,

Can you put it into the context of a possible actual game to design? Even if it's merely a thought-experiment, you could provide a game idea you could apply it to. It'll help the discussion quite a bit.

Me, I envision a game about female human assassins in a fantasy setting which is mainly inhabited by humanoid froggy-type guys. No kidding. Lots of curved daggers, skilled stealth and combat, and spurting ichor.

Best, Ron

Okay, lets try this. I'm currently designing a game that originally was about pirates but quickly expanded to be about outlaws as a character/genre type, I'd call it "outlaw fiction" and its very similar to pirate fiction but would, to an extent, include various other archetypes.

What are some examples of outlaw fiction: Most of Tarantino's films and a few other outlaw movies, most pirate themed or inspired settings (including space and futuristic pirates), almost all "caper" films (like the Usual Suspects or Luck Number Sleven), a large number of westerns, etc... The problem is, while I clearly recognize the Outlaw archetype, he's rarely the star of the show. In my game at least, to be an Outlaw means that the character is a) purposefully outside of mainstream society and b) has no desire to rejoin or recreate mainstream society c) is often, but not always, part of a counter or subculture, but these do not define him and finally d) he is ultimately amoral, his iconoclasm is not a statement or a forced state of exile...

The problem with using outlaw fiction as an example though for building a lexicon is that its too broad and too unclear (although its something I recognize, I don't know that I could point any concrete examples of the type, as most outlaws features prominently in fiction are given a moral or villainous overtone that corrupts the concept).

I think defining somethings a little bit more specific and recognizable would be easier to do as a group-effort. Maybe Film Noir, or Cthulu Horror, or Sword and Sorcery, since these are all genres/SIM packages I've seen discussed on The Forge previously.

The problem with using outlaw fiction as an example though for building a lexicon is that its too broad and too unclear

The way I see it, Batman and Punisher both share some very essential points: 1) They don't kill people, 2) They're motivated by revenge, 3) They do things that in the real world would be impossible (most significantly, they are capable of maintaining a vigilante persona over an extended period of time with out being incarcerated or killed), etc...

The idea with creating a language would be to divide things that need to be true to support the genre as oppossed to things that should be true if traditionally presenting as opposed to things that are normally true but not necessary, etc...

As far as outlaw fiction, in my game (Rogue Bounty), there's a very specific definition of what must be true, but right now there's no discussion of any thing on the  side of the games core conceits (you an outlaw, as described in my last post, and that your seeking treasure (the definition of "treasure" varies from game to game based of group discussion).

Nolan,
Personally, I think a challenging case like Rogue Bounty might be a perfect way to test some new terms.  Conceits, Conventions, Color?  I think we can talk about all of these with your outlaw fiction.

But hey, maybe you're right, and we should start with an easier example.  Can you provide one for a simpler game idea you have? 

If you want me to throw my own Indiana Jones/X-Files/Hellblazer/Cthulhu game onto the example floor, just lemme know...

Sure we, can use Rogue Bounty as an example. Hell, talking about it more would definitely be a good thing. I played the fourth play test game last night and introduced a number of changes, so its definitely been on my mind a lot.

Okay, so right now I think I have it thusly:

Outlaws are people who exist outside of mainstream society, but who are not totally iconoclastic. They strive to earn power on their own terms without compromising themselves, which often means clinging to those character traits which others find the most reprehensible. My problem with finding these characters in film and literature is that they all sort of make a reversal on their positions... Take Malcolm Reynolds, from Firefly/Serenity. Through out the show he's a perfect example of the Rogue Bounty PC, but the movie violates this somewhat by having him deny himself for the greater good.
In my system, which I'm actively trying to make non-Narrativist, his decision in "The Train Job" to return the loot would of constituted a failure on a mechanical/player rewards level. The game rewards players for having their character ignore or overcome their own feelings, morales, beliefs, whatever to maintain in control of their own destinies.
I guess then, that I could sight Jane (from the same show/movie) as a better example, but doing so seems somehow off, because the games original intent is to be sort of light hearted, and having a table full of (mostly) ruthless mercenaries doesn't work. There's just a line with all most all of these characters that takes them out of the "outlaw" mode and into something else, and that line isn't supposed to be crossed in the game.
Note that the games structure right now is that the players all hunting The Treasure, which can be anything, even, in Serenity's case, "Information that Could Shatter the Alliance," but this would be "variant play" and obviously breaks from the easiest and most literal interpretations of the term.
So I would say that's where I'm at with Conceits.

Conventions would be things like the type of characters available, for instance, that the game is suppose to be rather swashbuckling. I'd list this as a convention because as long as the majority of the players go for physical, action oriented and at least slightly romantic characters the game maintains the appropriate feel. I'd also say its a Convention for Rogue Bounty in that its less supported by the system (which is supposed to "feel" swashbuckle-y but doesn't
directly reward such play).

Color is a funny thing. I originally designed the game as a sort of present to my girlfriend who loves pirates, so I tried to figure out, for me, what makes pirates pirates and how I could make a game out of it, and the system grew from there, but I found I could drop almost all of the pirate color (historical setting and location, sailing, actual criminal activity even...) and the system would still apply rather directly to what felt like a recognizable character/story type.The game however still supports this color slightly in some of its terminology (the game uses cards which are "sunk" (set on their sides) to show that they've already been used in a scene, for instance).

Still, I think I've failed to convey Conceits or Color clearly to one player and I'm unsure of how clearly everyone grasps the games Conventions.

By the by, the superhero thing isn't entirely unrelated to actual play. I can't think of a single game I've ran in a superhero setting where the players didn't really disappoint my sense of "what its all about" in super hero comics. I almost want to create a point system and say "At least this many things must be true about your character before they fit into this game," but that kind of thing seems like it wouldn't win friends or for that matter, positive results.

P.S. Under the Punisher/Batman thing it should say 1) Does not kill innocents, as Punisher obviously kills criminals.

I like "Conventions" and "Conceits."  But I don't like "Color" for this purpose; might I propose "Leitmotifs" instead?  Or is that too weird?

I also don't like "the Package."  There's gotta be a better word for this, something more unequivocal.

I also desperately need this sort of language for my game Fantastical Adventure; I have been grasping at straws to explain what it's about.  Thanks for bringing this up, Nolan.

-Marshall

Sure, I think "motif" might be direct enough as a term to replace color, as for "the package," I sort of agree with you in as much as I play with a group that can't read "Starting Package" in the D&D books with out making a penis joke.

So, what's fantastical adventures about? What concepts are you trying to pin down?

Okay, I'm gonna take a stab at labeling Rogue Bounty with some terms that I find useful:

Conceit: A framework and context for play, without which play is not just vague, but hopelessly rudderless.  This has two sub-types:

Fictional Conceit: About how the gameworld exists.  In RB: The Treasure exists.  The PCs operate in relation to a society that (a) defines behavioral "norms" in a way that is familiar to the players, and (b) has a familiar level of adherence to these norms, with severe deviation being rare.  Other defining features of the setting as it will play also go here -- level of technology, availability of resources, etc.

Functional Conceit: About how the gameworld works, i.e., how PC actions affect it.  In RB: an action movie, where real-world physics provide the template, and are never violated to a severe degree, but can be violated subtly when it's exciting to do so.

Protagonists: The behavior patterns the players will explore directly (by playing PCs of these types) or indirectly (by playing PCs who are noteworthy for how they differ from these types).  A sort of character measuring stick.  In RB: swashbuckling pirates, western cowboys, and other self-made, self-reliant types who are above all else true to their own image and values.

Taboos: If you do these with your character, you're playing the game wrong.  In RB: giving up adventuring, being invariably malleable and yielding.

Conventions: What kinds of things tend to happen in play?  What are some activities that represent play well?  In RB: planning and executing heists, running from the law, fist fights, flirting.

Motifs: Color beyond the central conceit, that gives play its distinctive personality.  In RB: dust, scurvy, giant revolvers, feats of marksmanship, feathered hats, obedient horses, gambling, unlikely athletic feats, witty insults, cold stares, no peg legs, no parrots, no silly pirate accents.

References: Narrative fiction or non-fiction that helps players fill in any blanks and find inspiration.  Movies, TV series, comic books, novels, etc.  In RB: Captain Blood, Scaramouche, Firefly, Silverado, Die Hard.

Obviously this post is more about the categories than about Rogue Bounty (Nolan, please substitute correct elements in your head for the ones I made up here).  What do you think of these categories as conceptual distinctions?  I suggest we focus on hammering out some distinctions first, and not worry too hard about what we're calling them -- we can always re-name at the end.  If my terms suck, I hope that won't be a distraction.

I really like your categories. When I have more time I think I'm going to write an opening chapter to Rogue Bounty using your terms to see if I can convey what I want from the game. If I have to modify anything while writting the chapter, I'll let that feedback into terms, redifining them. When I'm done I'll put a link up here and some notes on the insights it gave me.

Marshall, if your still following, it would be a cool exercise if you'd do something similiar with your setting, to see if these terms are flexible to be functional for two potentially different designs.

David, same to you, if you have any setting game (and the time) to run through the terminology, it'd be neat to see how the terms would play out in real practice.

Okay, I'ma take a swing at it using the labels that David has just suggested, to see what I can do with 'em.  Here goes nothing:

Conceit:  Unlikely and exciting adventure in a fictionalized Victorian Era, inspired by penny dreadfuls and later pulp fiction.

The Fictional Conceit:  We're looking at a colorful, anachronistic, and fantasized version of the Victorian Era, with some hyperbolized technology (up to and including steam-powered giant robots, motorcars, rockets to the moon, and aeroplanes), magic that works, and a world of high adventure for exceptional persons where there's never a dull moment.  Also, things happen that we real people would find humorous or even ridiculos, but the characters take it very seriously ("My God!  That mechanical ape is trying to kidnap the Queen!"); it's the way of the world to them.

Functional Conceits:  Technology, magic, and physics work sort of vaguely, and their workings can be subverted when the result is exciting (and occasionally humorous).  Swashbuckling maneuvers from the full range of "Have at you" and "Avast ye mateys" really work.  Technical inaccuracy is perfectly fine when it drives the scene forward ("I pull the emergency anchor release lever!").  Rapier wit can be just as effective as an actual rapier when dealing with adversaries.  There is no functional difference between physical ways you hurt someone; whether you did it with a cannon or your fist, it's still just a "hit."  Pursuing ambitions provides people with the drive to accomplish nearly anything, but old ambitions must be abandoned to take on new ones.  Close bonds between people can pull them out of nearly any trouble, but old bonds must be broken to create new ones (yes, Ron, I stole that from your review of Dead Meat).

Protagonists:  The protagonists are (usually) the aforementioned Exceptional Persons (occasionally a normal person becomes wrapped up in an adventure, usually becoming an Exceptional Person themself).  Their range is actually pretty broad:  swashbuckling pirates are there, and witch doctors, and immortal Chinese sorcerors, and treasure-hunters extraordinaire, and mad doctors, and master detectives, and big-game hunters, and shootists; basically, any manner of exceptional person who leads an exceptional life of danger, intrigue, and adventure.

Sometimes protagonists become antagonists; it's alright to suddenly switch roles, or to be revealed as having been, all along, the nefarious Doctor Fu Manchu! (or some such thing).

Taboos:  These characters never back down from adventure; they always plunge headlong into it.  Also, they will not hesitate to drop an ambition if something bigger (due to monetary gain, or saving the Queen, or whatever the character finds important) comes along.

Conventions:  Treasure hunts; international intrigue (especially involving the kidnapping of a foreign dignitary); scientists carrying out dangerous, inhuman experiments on secluded islands; traveling the world by balloon/submarine/rocket/a combination thereof; crime and vigilante justice carried out in the gas-lit night while wearing masks and/or dramatic costumes; long, elaborate swordfights covering a large area of terrain; exploring dangerous wilderness, full of undiscovered wild beasts and/or savage natives.

Motifs: Forbidden cities, zeppelins, pterodactyls, cavalry sabers, Vikings and/or mastodons preserved in ice (and being alive when they thaw out), Gatling guns, mummies' curses, Mayan centipede gods, abominable snowmen, giant condors, volcano cults,  voodoo queens, nitroglycerine, clockwork, privateers, conspiracies against the Crown, ironclads, nosferatu, mad science, jazz music, inadvisable magic, cigar-shaped rockets, mole people, Gypsies, army ants, opera capes, domino masks, sunken and/or buried treasure, masquerade balls, dangerous liaisons in the night.

References:  Old science fiction like Jules Verne and HG Wells, the Allan Quatermain books, the Reverend Dr. Syn books, all those Errol Flynn swashbuckling flicks, Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, the novel The Difference Engine by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, a variety of pulp (esp. EC) comics that I can't remember the specifics of any more (just vague, general images and ideas), pulp stories about protagonists like Doc Savage (and also the Indiana Jones character derived from him), the DC Comic The Phantom, the film Yellowbeard, and the show The Venture Bros. (to an extent, and also to an extent the show it derives most heavily from:  Johnny Quest)

I'm not sure if that's any more clear than my usual rambling way of describing it.  Someone let me know.

Nolan,
I'm getting a strong The Wild Bunch or The Way of the Gun vibe from your Rogue Bounty (which seems pretty cool to me); would you say this is accurate?  I mean, yeah, there's not really any swashbuckling in those films, but I think the elaborate gunfights might qualify as a variant.

Also, are you familiar with the concept of the "Natural Outlaw" as featured in William S. Burroughs' books The Place of Dead Roads and The Western Lands (and also explored in most of his other books, but not by name)?  The Natural Outlaw rebels against all forms of CONTROL, up to and including the so-called Laws of Nature, because he considers it an admirable thing to do.  Freedom from CONTROL is his goal for its own sake (I consider the two films I just mentioned to touch on this too).  I'm not saying that your game is about that, but that I'd be tempted to run it that way...

-Marshall

Marshall,
Not sure how well versed I am on your usual style of rambling, but I feel like that gave me a relatively useful vision of the game relatively efficiently. 
I think another big question is whether you felt the categories were helpful to you as you were writing that.  Did they help you organize your thoughts?  Did they make you ponder new issues?  Did the delineations make sense, or seem arbitrary?  Was there anything you had to shoehorn in for lack of an appropriate category?  Is there anything important left out?

Still not enough time to really write up my Rogue Bounty version, but in response to Marshall's questions, Westerns, though they came to mind, we're sort of on the fringe of my thought processes when writing the game. Things that did come up besides pirates were vikings, war profiteers in various eras and traditional dungeons crawlers if you drop the "we kill them and take there stuff because they're evil" bit. Now that I think about it though, the traditional Western hero makes a great example of the kind of character I'm looking for. Thanks also for the Burrough's suggestion, I'll look into it...

David wrote:
I think another big question is whether you felt the categories were helpful to you as you were writing that.  Did they help you organize your thoughts?  Did they make you ponder new issues?  Did the delineations make sense, or seem arbitrary?  Was there anything you had to shoehorn in for lack of an appropriate category?  Is there anything important left out?

Okay, here goes:

Conceit: Outlaws on the hunt for treasure against all odds.

Fictional Conceits: Two things must exist in the fiction for the game to function: 1) A society ordered enough that it provides real opposition to those who would go against it (and by default, the people that rebel against said society) and 2) The Treasure, a massive body of wealth that can only be obtained by doing what most would not dare to.

Functional Conceits: Are actually, almost non-existent. Since the game revolves around a scene resolution through narrative dialog mechanic, the tone and nature of the narration is almost completely up to the players. More cinematic "shoot from the hip" genres are simply more accessible in that they are often easier to narrate on the fly. The relationship between the game created fiction and real world causality is mostly up to the game group and is discussed as the game is played. Some basic things that must be accepted though is that a certain amount of iconoclasm is considered necessary to take up treasure-seeking and desperation in the name of self gain and that internal, moral concerns are real considerations in whether a person can achieve such "shoot for the stars" goals. A guess there is a conceit that characters can succeed and that getting deeper into trouble actual feeds back into their ability to do so, but this is only "real" on a mechanical level, and doesn't have to directly influence the narrative.

Protagonists: Outlaws. Always. Choosing or being forced into non-outlaw status is the equivalent of character death in the game, and the choice is not intentionally rewarded on any level of play. The main variations between player's characters are a) cosmetic (what their style, how do they approach what they do) and b) causal (why they have become outlaws and why they will continue to do so). I'm hesitant to give archetypal examples but here goes: Robber Barons, Pirates, Cowboys, Mobsters, Gangsters, "Rebels" of various stripes, Teenagers or more abstractly, intellectual or moral idealists or radicals (I'd love to play a game of RB with a bunch of Communist Revolutionaries, the Treasure would be overthrowing the capitalist state).

Taboos: Deciding that anything else in life is more important than the pursuit of The Treasure. Joining Society (any society, actually joining a criminal organization to the point where it became routine, business like, or demanding would be tantamount to giving up the life of an Outlaw).

Conventions: Fighting the authorities, physical travel, taking risks and getting into trouble. The biggest convention would probably be a sort of moral fluidity, where loyalties, for the most part, would come and go on the fly. Going "all out" in everything one does.

Motifs: Once again, since that game's mechanics don't address motifs, they aren't that ingrained in the game. A fair amount of nautical jargon is used as color in naming some mechanical elements, but hopefully the names won't distract to much from the possibilities. Motifs will be like Functional Conceits in that they'll be variable game to game based on group consensus as governed by system that defines who has the right to make the final decisions about what makes it into the fiction from moment to moment. Still, I'd like their to be a section in the game text dealing with possible Motifs of various appropriate genres.

References: Really weak here. Need to watch more pirate movies and westerns. A fair amount of sci-fi applies though: Certain elements of Star Wars, almost everything in Serenity/Firefly, Cowboy Bebop...

The list was hard only on three points: Functional Conceits and Motifs, which are things the game doesn't direct through system, so they're left vague. They're really not what I see as being "core." The idea with RB, for me, is that you take this character type (the Outlaw) and this story type (Search for El Dorado) and use them as a lens through which to interpret various genres and styles.

This is not to say that the system lets things run wild. RB is heavily turn based. When its a playing pairs turn (one is playing his protagonist, the other narrating the scene) they both have defined rights to decide fictional content, while everyone at the table contribute directly to the fiction. A pre-play phase guides conversation about where the game is set and how causality in the SIS is interpreted. So, for instance, if players wanted the game to gritty-historical, it would be there job to suggest such content and to pipe up when they thought other's ideas went against the shared image. Actually having players think about Functional Conceits and Motifs (which are the sort of "modular" aspects of the game) might be a good way to keep everyone on track, because this fluidity might turn out to just be so much murk (but I hope not).

References are strained, because I'm not really a fan of my own source material and actually drew more from a vague idea of who the historical pirate was and how they were re-interpreted in film and from there wanted to establish something stronger and more concrete, and I quickly felt, more universal than just pirates. Being pointed to more references would be great if you guys have any suggestions.

As a final thought: The more I think about this the more I feel that I might have stumbled upon a unique approach to game design. It seems most games focus on Functional Conceits and Motif very strongly, while the other elements a sort of extrapolated from them. RB specifically sets these things out of the purview of the "game as rule set" in order to address a single (universal?) archetype. Don't know if anyone would agree with this or not.

So my first impression from that list is that the game is about taking outlaw-y characters and doing outlaw-y things with them, without much specificity (due to short Conventions list and empty Motifs list).  So I ask myself why I shouldn't just take some "universal" RPG and make a party of outlaws in it instead.  The first answer I latch onto is:

masqueradeball wrote:
characters can succeed and that getting deeper into trouble actual feeds back into their ability to do so

masqueradeball wrote:
this is only "real" on a mechanical level

masqueradeball wrote:
The list was hard only on three points: Functional Conceits and Motifs, which are things the game doesn't direct through system, so they're left vague. They're really not what I see as being "core." The idea with RB, for me, is that you take this character type (the Outlaw) and this story type (Search for El Dorado) and use them as a lens through which to interpret various genres and styles.

Nolan, I forgot to ask the most important question!  After filling out that list, do you feel like you are now better able to give your players an accurate impression of Rogue Bounty's "package"?

Can you identify anything that's still lacking?

David, good question, and the answer is yes (the categories were useful). There's a little bit a gaff for me beacuse Rogue Bounty's mechanics are a bit unconventional. First, the game is highly structured. The goals and the stakes are always the same thing, mechanically, but what each mechanical element actually is "in fiction" is completely up to the players. Now, it would be counter productive and counter intuitive for players to ignore the feedback the system's giving them, but to an extent, this is possible. As to the "why not just play GURPs"... well, mechanically they're such different creatures, I don't even know where to begin. As far as I know, Rogue Bounty is the only RPG that works off scene resolution with set, randomly generated conflicts that must be overcome in order to achieve a designated goal, The Treasure. If anyone else knows of games that are either "high structure" or scene-resolution (as opposed to action or task or conflict) based, I'd love to look into them.

So, more on the only "real" on a mechanical level: here goes: A scene begins with the Narrator revealing a card. The suit of the card determines the main challenge in the scene and the rating detremines how hard it will be to overcome (called the challenge number). Play consists of what I'm calling The Dialog, which is a group discussion moderator by a given player, who has rights over certain fictional content. In a two player scene, the Narrator has all rights to content that's outside of the Active Player's character.

The Active Player, through the course of The Dialog, is trying to do two things in order to get a mechanical "win." The first is narrating his Troubles into the scene, by making mistakes and pushing the issue and generally doing things that are unwise. Each Trouble brought in gives him (the player) a certain amount of cards with which he can try to beat the challenge number. He's also trying to use his Strengths (positive characteristics) to gain the advantage. Narrating in a Strength has an identical mechanical effect as narrating in a Trouble (the two traits are differentiated in other ways though, mainly on how you lose them). Getting into more Trouble and getting a better position both go towards scoring a mechanical "win."

How all this is nararted into the scene is so variable from setting to setting and character to charactetr, that though it definately encourages certain types of fiction, it doesn't actually enforce them, and theres not suppose to be any one to one correlation between mechanics and narrative. The mechanics influence the narrative, not dictate it.

So would you consider "getting into trouble yields positive results" a Functional Conceit even though its effects can be hidden or subverted in the game's generated fictional content?

P.S.
Thanks for the idea on references. I agree that "The Usual Suspects" works well. In a sense the whole thing is a tale of Outlaw v/Society as Kaiser tries to deceive the police detective and as the individuals in the internal narrative are working at not becoming part of a larger controlling criminal element.

I made my "why not just play GURPS?" point poorly.  I apologize.  Obviously, games with familiar Packages can still appeal to audiences based on things outside the Package.  In practice, I'm sure many gamers are going to go straight from looking at a title and cover to reading the rules (looking there for "why not just play GURPS?").

What I was thinking was basically:
What interesting features do your rules dictate into the Package?

"Scene resolution with set, randomly generated conflicts" obviously doesn't belong in a description of the package, but maybe "conflicts are always won or lost, obstacles overcome or not; there's no avoiding or circumventing" could.  (Maybe.  I'm just illustrating, not arguing.)

masqueradeball wrote:
So would you consider "getting into trouble yields positive results" a Functional Conceit even though its effects can be hidden or subverted in the game's generated fictional content?

masqueradeball wrote:
The Active Player, through the course of The Dialog, is trying to do two things in order to get a mechanical "win." The first is narrating his Troubles into the scene, by making mistakes and pushing the issue and generally doing things that are unwise. Each Trouble brought in gives him (the player) a certain amount of cards with which he can try to beat the challenge number. He's also trying to use his Strengths (positive characteristics) to gain the advantage. Narrating in a Strength has an identical mechanical effect as narrating in a Trouble (the two traits are differentiated in other ways though, mainly on how you lose them). Getting into more Trouble and getting a better position both go towards scoring a mechanical "win."

All right, renting "The Way of the Gun" this weekend is on my definite to do list, thanks for the input on that Marshall.

David, Your totally right though, that this games mechanics definitely effect the way scenes feel and the flow of the narrative. Its weird, but when I get to the Functional Conceits part I want to answer: see the rules of the game, because all of the rules are about supporting/enforcing the Functional Conceits that I felt created a good "pirate-y" story, and later, fed equally well into other outlaw tales. I think I just need to think about it more to really articulate all of the Functional Conceits that will almost definitely be worked heavily into "the fiction" via the games mechanics.

Honestly, this whole thing is really eye opening. Functional Conceits, as you define them (I think), to me, are what really differentiate one game from another and is a big part of "System Matters," at least in SIM play but I imagine for others CA's as well.

If its all right with you I'll almost definitely steal some of these terms for the opening essays in RB about how to play the game and what to expect from it.

I wanna test this out again.  Here goes for Uncanny Underground:

Conceit:  On the edges and peripheries of the world we know, there is another world, separate but simultaneous, populated by men and women with incredible power, who are organized into Orders and spend their lives in territorial and predatory struggles with each other.

Fictional Conceits:  Power is virtue; all else is a secondary concern.  The universe is by definition predatory.  Power is power no matter its form; a gun is power, the ability to conjure fire at will is power, a magical artifact is power, money is power, knowledge is power, relationships are power.  Everything you can think of is true, somewhere.  All the beings of myth and legend are real, or at least were at one time; the gods were merely powerful beings, creatures like Mantichore and Hydra existed as unique powerful beings (which is to say, there is no such thing as *a* Hydra; there was once a specific, unique being whose name was Hydra), the Fair Folk existed (though they are mostly gone).  All phenomena are uncanny at their base level (even mundane phenomena) and thus susceptible to uncanny influence.

Functional Conceits:  People can cause things to happen at a distance; power does not care about distance.  There is a limit to how much power you can exert over things before it leaves you dangerously accessible to your enemies.  Power can be lost if over-used.  Power can be stolen.  Everyone knows exactly how they will end their earthly existence (not necessarily by death!) but not when.  Power is often handed down as inheritance when someone Ends.  Anything that does not End you ultimately makes you stronger.  Accomplishing difficult and impressive feats makes you stronger.  The effectiveness of a particular Virtue (power invested in some form) is ultimately equivalent to that of any other Virtue, provided that you are clever enough to apply it properly.  Orders grant benefits in the form of training and allies, but restrict personal freedom; being a loner, on the other hand, allows total freedom.  Dreams are also a kind of reality.  Causality, occasionally in abstract, mysterious ways, allows only certain opportunities to utilize Virtues in particular ways at particular times -- but additional opportunities can be gained through effort.  Nothing "just happens"; someone caused it to happen (you get attacked by a snake in the desert? Who tried to kill you?  You find a briefcase full of cash at the bus stop? Who gave it to you, and why?)

Protagonists:  the inhabitants of this uncanny underground, either members of an Order or loners.  They are always seekers, tirelessly questing to increase their power.  They are always warriors in some form or other, to protect what they have gained.

Taboos:  Backing down from anything; you face it in some way, even if it means allowing it to take its course.  Losing power for any reason besides gaining more power or preventing your End.

Conventions:  wars between Orders; tasks and missions set by Orders; terrible rivalries personal rivalries; seeking power in all its forms; surprise attacks at any time, any place; uneasy alliances; brief intersections with other worlds (including our own); conflict over inheritance; power struggles, in big flashing neon lights.

Motifs:  Gloriously cinematic fights waged on physical, mental, and abstract levels, ultimately culminating with someone taking it on the chin HARD.  Guns, fast cars, swords, demonic beings, terrible rituals, hostile visitors in dreams, fiery explosions, magical amulets, manipulation of the weather, martial arts, convolutions of time and space, cool & dramatic outfits, omens and portents, power being unexpectedly turned against you, any manner of strange, weird, and altogether uncanny occurences.

References:  I can't think of anything that is quite like this, but there's a lot of stuff that's similar or hits on bits of it.  The film Night Watch (Nochnoy Dozor) (I prefer the film version for the way it treats the uncanny stuff), the comic Hellblazer, the novel The Traveller by John Twelve Hawks, the novel Cities of the Red Night by William S. Burroughs.

Okay, yeah, thinking out those first three really helped a lot.  This was another one of those where I tend to just ramble at someone until something clicks or I give up, but I feel like I could show people those first three and they would have enough of an idea to be able to get interested and to attempt play.  I am having trouble with the Conventions on this one, though.

-Marshall

I just want to thank you guys (David, Marshall) for making this thread really useful. I think the structure David came up with is just as good as Power 19 for helping you (the author) figure out what your going for and far better for explaining the game (or at least the "bullet points" version) to others. Good stuff.

I second that.  Forcing myself through it for Uncanny Underground has really opened up a floodgate or two towards getting it down in a way that makes sense.
-Marshall

Nolan, definitely, feel free to use this, or anything you create based on this, for RB.

Marshall, your fictional conceits confused me.  Power is a virtue to whom?  How does the predatory nature of your universe differ from real-world Darwinism?  Where are the "somewheres" (wherein all things are true) located, and how do they connect?  What is this "uncanny influence" to which all things are susceptible?  What is the in-gameworld experience of statements like "power is power, no matter its form" and "all phenomena are uncanny at their base level"?  I'm not saying you need to answer these, I'm just saying that maybe the fact that I'm asking them isn't ideal.  What I want (from "fictional conceits", that is) isn't to know what it's like to be some student of your world; I want to know what it'll be like to play a character in your world.  Your descriptions sound to me to be about a game, not a fiction.

I'm glad you've both found the list useful, but I think it isn't done yet.  I think the definitions of "what each list item is" need to be refined.  I also am curious about whether y'all are refering to those definitions while you write, because they haven't been included in your posts.  Personally, I found it impossible to meaningfully fill in the items without looking at the definitions.  I'll post my own Package sheet so we can compare the ways we went about using it.

Fictional Conceit: About how the gameworld exists.

The West of Lendrhald is half human civilization, half unexplored forests.  The forests are dangerous. 

People: The technology approximates 13th century Europe.  There is no gunpowder.  Civilization looks familiar -- geography, resources, money, and survival of the fittest create society.  Superstition and religion don't accomplish anything provable.

Geography: Most of Lendrhald is normal nature, but there are places where Lendrhald differs greatly from the real world, possibly in magical ways.

Magic: Most folks aren't sure whether the supernatural exists or not.

Evil: The enemies of Man are powerful, and much of their power is supernatural.

Functional Conceit: About how the gameworld works, i.e., how PC actions affect it. 

Real-world physics provide the final say on absolutely everything (except on the "how"s of magic). 

Stuff that should kill people will kill you.  The main exception is infection & disease -- they are much less likely to kill you or cost you limbs than they were in the real world at this tech level.

People (NPCs) act based on rational self-interest.  Opportunities for profit are not simply "missed".

Confronting the supernatural probably gives you some understanding of it, and possibly drives you insane.

Information on everything mysterious is out there, but is generally hard to get to (if it wasn't, more people would know it already).

Protagonists: The behavior patterns the players will explore directly (by playing PCs of these types) or indirectly (by playing PCs who are noteworthy for how they differ from these types).  A sort of character measuring stick. 

Those who seek knowledge, particularly knowledge of the supernatural.  Willing to take great risks.  Resourceful.  Indiana Jones if he wanted to take the Grail and Ark and plumb their secrets.

Otherwise normal people, no different from or better than (a) those around them and (b) the players.

Taboos: If you do these with your character, you're playing the game wrong.

Not latching onto an interest to pursue.
Making convenient assumptions about the environment (gameworld).
Talking to or performing for the camera/audience (other players).
Leaving the group and still wanting screen time.

Conventions: What kinds of things tend to happen in play?  What are some activities that represent play well? 

Discovery.  Crawling down holes.  Tiptoeing through dungeons.  Searching forests.  Running from monsters.  Fighting monsters.  Planning.  Asking questions.

"If we put Tab A into Slot B we create Item C, which can be taken to Location D, where, using Password E, we inflict State F on Enemy G!"

Ancient ruins.  Mysterious items.  Supernatural phenomena.  Secret knowledge.  Answers that raise more questions.  Hints and pointers toward power.

Injury.

Motifs: Color beyond the central conceit, that gives play its distinctive personality.

Savage abominations destroying all in their path.

Armies of frenzied, hideous humanoids bent on slaughter.

Foul-smelling forest groves where heavy vines strangle the trees and a black fog blots out the sun. 
Giant structures of some unknown material, crumbled to pieces. 
Dark, metallic rocks, growing from the ground in shaded places. 
Colored stars roaming the sky before disappearing at solstice. 
The moon rising from the West just after sunset.

Human alliance vs Evil.  Human struggle as valuable.

Death, darkness, eventual triumph of Evil.

References: Narrative fiction or non-fiction that helps players fill in any blanks and find inspiration.  Movies, TV series, comic books, novels, etc. 

Indiana Jones (without the archaeologist thing), Hellblazer (without Constantine's personality), X-Files (without the "proving" thing), "haunting" movies (sometimes), and actually going out in the woods on backpacking or camping trips.

My experience presenting this to my players was interesting.  Most of the Conceits, Protagonists, and Conventions info they disappointedly went, "Yeah, yeah, whatever, of course."  Which to me was a great sign that we were all on the same page, but it raised the issue of presentation.  For some reason, my players all looked to the sheet for inspiration.  I really don't think this Package sheet is an optimal way to inspire people.  I think some of it is primarily useful to designers, and some of it is useful to players but should be presented in other ways -- specifically the combo of Fictional Conceits / Conventions / Motifs.

Random observations:

• I'm starting to think Taboos are the best part of this.  One player wanted a lot of clarifying re: what "performing for an audience" meant, and I think play will benefit greatly from the consensus-forming discussion that ensued.

•
I had originally written the Functional Conceit "Stuff that should kill people will kill you" with no caveats, leading one of my players to ask, "So when we get wounded in combat, we'll be dying from infections a month later?"  You can see how I've subsequently clarified.

David wrote:
I also am curious about whether y'all are refering to those definitions while you write, because they haven't been included in your posts. 

As I see it, this "language for the Package" has 3 potential uses:
1) helping game designers review, analyze, and supplement certain design concerns (as with, e.g., Power 19)
2) helping game designers (and other GMs) communicate certain information to their own play(test) groups
3) helping game designers communicate certain information to their commercial audience (as part of a book)

In addition, I think (1) is best achieved if we also achieve:
1a) helping game designers and theorists discuss certain topics with a shared vocabulary (as with, e.g., "IIEE")

From the title and O.P., I had #1a in mind when I wrote the list.  Then the list's utility for #1 was inspiring and fun.  Then I tried to use the list for #2 and found it less than ideal (that might actually have been a tangent w.r.t. this thread's purposes... oops).

It's my interest in #1a that led me to be critical of the Uncanny Underground post -- it got me worried that two designers might mean very different things by, e.g., "Fictional Conceit".  That's what has me thinking about refining the definitions.

The "to all people in this setting" in Marshall's last post made all the difference to me in terms of understanding Uncanny Underground's Fictional Conceits.  So perhaps the definition of Fictional Conceits could be revised as something like:

Fictional Conceit: About what the gameworld contains, in terms of beings, objects, and structures (e.g. societies).  Also, how it will appear to player characters.

and maybe modify the next one to:

Functional Conceit: About how the gameworld works.  The core of this is how player character actions affect the gameworld, and how the gameworld affects the player characters.  Also, any more general gameworld "hows" and "whys" that explain that interaction.

In this thread on how to get feedback in First Thoughts, Anders Larsen made the following suggestions:

Anders wrote:
First you should of course give a short general description of your game, and explain why you think it is cool. After this consider explaining things like:

* What is the feeling/setting style of your game?
* What kind of story do you want the game to produce, and how will this story develop throughout the game?
* What interests do the character have in what is going on and what role do they take in the story?
* What kind of conflicts/challenges will the characters face in the game, and in what ways should they be able to influence what happens?
* What kind of resources can the characters use when they try to overcome these conflicts/challenges (personal resources, help they get from other people, stuff they own etc.).
* How do these things affect the characters, and how do the characters evolve throughout the story?
. . .
The player-fiction interaction is probably best explained by giving fully described play examples (manuscript style) of important moments in the game, with focus on how the players interact