So, some years ago, I made this d20 game called Malls & Morons, and it was about teenagers who spent their free time in the mall causing shenanigans. People liked it, and I've been tinkering with it forever, changing direction with the project for a while now, but now, I want to do something a bit different.

I want people to have fun when they play this game, but I also want them to laugh at the humor caused by playing the game and the inherent silliness in it. The concept for the game has always made it difficult for gamers to get involved, often causing me to throw something their way and they deal with it. But I want the players to be very pro-active when they play this game. In one session I ran, one of the players brilliantly played his archetype to the hilt and directed the game session; and ever since then, I've felt like that is the way the game should be played.

So, without mechanics in mind, this is how I invision a session should go.

If the players haven't done so, they create their characters. All characters are teenagers, with some sort of identity (goth, anarch, jock, nerd, etc.), and some sort of role (football player, computer geek, etc.)

Next, the players, using some sort of collaborative method, determine some sort of event that takes place in the mall. I've considered using a deck of cards, or some sort of list with a result determined by a roll of the die, but I really want the players to get into it.

Now that I think of it, I think the players should collaborate to construct a sentence which gives the exposition of the event. The players all vote on the number of parts in the sentence (omitting fragments such as "the" or "of" and etc.), and then they spend currency to buy a part of the sentence, such as a noun, adjective, or verb. Each player bids for the first part, which has to be a noun. The highest bidder gets the sentence part, and may write down any noun he or she may think of. Then, in a clock-wise fashion, each player may bid on a new part, whether it be noun, verb, or adjective (with the caveat that a verb or adjective must modify an already purchased noun).

Once everyone is done bidding, the players construct their sentence, and the group is illuminated as to the event. From there, the players then collaborate on how the group as a whole will respond to this event. At this point, the group will, by majority vote, determine how many steps are in the plan. In the first step, the person who bid and won the first noun (referred to as the external narrator) can select another player and have them act out the first step (referred to as the internal narrator). The internal narrator will then select a skill or attribute and then describe how he or she will use it to contribute success towards the overall plan. If the majority finds it acceptable, the external narrator determines the consequences of success or failure; the internal narrator rolls and then narrates his characters actions, with the external narrator taking narrating NPCs and various other events as called for by the step.

Once completed, the internal narrator now becomes the external narrator, and selects another character to become the internal narrator, and the step is repeated. The new external narrator cannot select the previous external narrator, to avoid a continuous loop. There must be a minimum number of steps equal to the group size, and each player must participate in a step at least once.

After all the steps are completed, more currency is awarded to each member of the group. For each success accrued, each player receives one currency.

After currency is awarded, one final instance of bidding takes place, where the players bid on the right to narrate the outcome of their plan. In general, the narrator can determine if the plan was successful or a failure despite the success or failures accrued during the game session. Any leftover currency can be passed on to future sessions with the same group of people.

So, any thoughts? Suggestions? Insights? It's all pretty theoretical and on the spot.

By the way, first time poster and reader.

It has also occured to me, that while a player is playing the part of the internal narrator, other players not participating in the scene can bid for the opportunity to introduce complications, although it is up to the external narrator, who may receive the bid amount of currency. The bidder than describes the complication narratively, which mechanically, just reduces chance of success (since one roll for the step is very abstract). Complications (and mitigating circumstances, which offset complications and work the same way as such, except that they add to chance of success), can only be external circumstances, and not internal in relation to the character in the step.

Players should also be able to bid for the opportunity to insert a step that, while, does not contribute towards plan success, allows for a no-consequence step for the opportunity to role-play and inject some humor.

So, after reading the stickied thread (*ahem*), I did not raise specific points or questions.

First off, I would like people to steer me towards other games which eliminates a central Game Master/Storyteller, since I know of none myself, and I barely know of bidding with in-game currency from off-hand comments about Amber.

Second, what have been people's experience with a sort of round-robin and changing narrator? Are they any pitfalls I am falling into based on your experience and the proposed outline above?

Third, is it too adverserial? In theory, the prospect for adversity can lead to some very unfun situations. What are peoples experiences with adversity and round-robbin narration?

Hi Talath, and welcome to the Forge!

Your idea sounds really fun.  I think there's fertile territory to explore where teen meets mall. 

The first thought I had when you started talking about collective situation design was Mad Libs - you could frame a variety of events and have the players blindly fill in adjectives, nouns, etc based on a vague title.  A variation on this works great in Emily Care Boss' game Sign in Stranger.

As far as shared narration and GMless (or GMful) play, there's a whole branch of the RPG design tree that takes advantage of this.  You might look at Polaris (and it's soon-to-be-published variant, Thou Art But A Warrior), It Was A Mutual Decision, Dirty Secrets, or my game The Shab-al-Hiri Roach.  This last is explicitly a comic game, so that might be especially useful, but they all have different takes on how authority is divided at the table.

I'm not sure how you imagine the narrator role, but I've never had any problem with rotating that general responsibility.  Assume people playing your game are smart and want to have fun.  Adversity is strictly awesome when it is a feature of the game - look at Polaris for a great example of this.  You get to push as hard as you can against another player's character - you are required to - and it works wonderfully. 

Thanks for the response Jason! It definetly gave me some food for thought and as few ideas as well. I had a playtesting question, and it might not be the right forum, but it pertains to my game, so I put it here.

Do you playtest with people online? I am considering releasing a playtest draft to certain peoples associated with yahoo groups. Do you do an NDA? I feel like an NDA would be nice for secrecy, but at the same time, I feel like it isn't necessary, and it would stop people who would otherwise play. Do you just do internal playtesting? And do you have any advice in this area?

I don't really know where stuff is supposed to go all the time, either, but it'll get moved by the powers that be if it's an issue, or they'll tell us to stop. 

Your game is your own thing, so I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do with it.  Here's what I do:

1.  I playtest locally, with friends and strangers, whenever I get a chance.
2.  I share drafts with friends who are not local, for feedback and (when I'm lucky) blind playtesting.

I don't ask for an NDA or even want secrecy - I'd prefer that people talk about what their experiences are.  Other folks I know are even more open, and will post playtest drafts for the world to see.  I think this is a good idea in general and does not hurt sales, but I've found that it doesn't really give me the focused feedback I want.  I hope that helps! 

Now, more about your game!

Executive Decision has no real GM, plus it's free.

-G.

Hi, and welcome to the Forge. 
(Should I call you Talath?  Or is there any other name you'd like to be called?)

Your game sounds pretty funny!  I've got a game that I think can help you with some insights:  Super Action Now! the Crazy-Ass Roleplaying Game.  It passes narration in turn to the players, it is comical, and it is HEAVILY adversarial, and it all works.  So, given your goals and ideas, I think it's worth a look.  There's also plenty of playtesting threads for it here on the Forge.  I could dig up the links if you like.

-Marshall