First, I would like to say I am sorry for not being a very consistent poster here. I would like to post around here a lot more than I do, but I am having problems juggling everything in my life right now. Still, I like to read this forum a lot and in the last month I have been trying to understand better the theory as explained here and in various other blogs I have managed to find.

I am posting today because I just had an idea for and educative rpg and I wanted to know if anyone here had any experience with a similar rpg, so I can shamelessly steal ideas draw inspiration from other sources. If anyone here ever tried to create an educative rpg before, any post about the actual experience of how you went through it, how you playtested and worked with educators will also be very welcome.

First, we have all the PCs being apprentice wizards. These wizards work a magic not completely unlike that seem in A Wizard of Earthsea. The idea here is that the PCs have the ability to weave and change spells using language, but this is done using the grammatical rules. Each grammar subject to be studied would be associated with some kind of magical action. This is mirrored to the players who, once they have announced their intent, uses some particular procedure to change some "phrase" in the game (or creates a new one). There is then some process (I still need to think about this) to use the input the player just provided to determine execution and effect. I think that there should be always some effect, though I still need to think how to deal with badly formed phrases.

A simple example: suppose we associate the use of synonyms with transforming magic. A wizard could change a phrase (either an existing spell or a phrase that describes something in the scene) by changing any noun on it to a synonym. Also, he could change the meaning of the changed word by citing the old and the new meaning (these would be two separated procedures). In action, the phrase "the green table is here." could be changed to "The green bar is here". Then changing the meaning of bar to that of pub, we have the final effect of changing a table into a tavern. Changing and creating phrases through magic would be the main currency of the game, what drives it forward. Since this is so important, it probably would be worth to have, at any time, a list of accepted phrases for the game (not unlike Universalis).

I think it is worth noting that this is a very important part of the system. Putting grammatical exercises as a requirement to cast spells is exactly what I don't want to do. The grammar used should feel like the magic the characters are using, that it is part of the experience and fun, instead of a lousy grammar test tackled to the game. The system should be so that the fictional understanding of grammar as a magic path and the real understanding of grammar as a thought and expression tool mirror each other and the transition feels natural (sorry if I am blabbing here, but I am trying to say how important it is that the grammatic add to the game, that the people playing it would rather play with the tests than remove them). Maybe my example is a little too heavy handed for this yet, but I think this is doable by creating a magical system that manages to feel consistent.

Well, that is more or less what I have for now, half of a conflict system. I still need something to make it so that it isn't possible to resolve any conflict with a single change. Something to make it so that the more important the change, the costlier/harder it is.However, I am more concerned with what macro-structure would best suit this game. Here is what I am thinking:

I thought about a simulationist game. The point of play of the game would be to explore magic itself, possibly added of a dark or crazy side (equivalent to malformed phrases?) to drive the story forward by creating situations to explore. Since this is the whole point of playing, I believe this would help to make it easier to focus on whatever rules a teacher might be interested at the time. This approach seems even straightforward, but I fear that it is not the best. First, I think it might drive away possible students/players simply because it is simulationist (which I think has a somewhat limited appeal, even if I happen to like it). Second, since the magic/grammar is a major part of the point of play, since it is a goal by itself, I think that the game will end up appealing only to people who like grammar (even if they don't know it yet). I think that we might lose some people who are simply never going to appreciate grammar, but who would actually like to play with it given the right context.

I briefly thought about a narrativist game, but I don't think this is the best way to follow with this rpg. My main reason for thinking so is that all narrativist are a little risky. The information that is discussed on the table is very personal, and the people who would play this rpg could be far from being mentally mature (and even mature people may have trouble with these things sometimes).

Finally, we have a gamist rpg, which I am favoring at this time. I am thinking something along these lines: all the PCs are apprentice wizards who have come to an island to be taught how to channel their powers. The players would describe for their characters a list of resources, friends, places, and anything else that is important for their characters. These would be important because they both provide phrases that the player could change to create effects and because the act of effecting these changes itself would require some kind of resources (like a wand or ingredients for a potion). Other characters in the island would be described more or less equally, and what does or does not constitute a character is a little variable (a forest might be a character, for example). In each game session, the players are attacked by a "corrupt". A corrupt is a magical phrase that somehow got a life of its own. It begins to change the phrases present in the gameworld (including the ones the players created), adding grammatical mistakes to them, making the world a hostile, weird place.

The point of the game would be to brave the corrupted things in the world and try to set them back in the way they were. In order to do so, they would need not only to see the wrong phrases, but also understand the pattern inside their corruption that changed the meaning they once had to the new one. Eventually, the game would arrive in a nightmare phase, in this phase, the corrupt reveals itself. The PCs would have the things they managed to uncorrupt as resources then, while the corrupt would have what was still corrupt. If the players win, the corrupt would be (somehow) turned into a phrase for the PCs to use as resource. Otherwise, the corrupt takes everything (every character) he corrupted away, taking pieces and attributes away from the island. The campaign would end when the players managed to use uncorrupted phrases to journey to the otherworld, where the source of all corruption would lie (or when the PC's island was so devoid of resources it turned into a gray, lifeless place).

I still have a lot to determine about this game, but I guess that by posting here you people can help me not make stupid, obvious mistakes. So, thank you for reading this, and any feedback will be appreciated.

First off, you don't need to stress yourself out trying to make a game that fits a particular Creative Agenda. Just make your game and worry about CA later. In practice, CAs are determined by the group playing the game, over a long period of time, with some games even supporting multiple CAs based on how various groups approach a game.  So, yeah, leave GNS out of it at the initial design stage.  It's too early to get into that.

You might want to check out, if you haven't already, an indie game called Code of Unaris which has word-based magic and "hacking" of language that's already appeared in the game.  It's probably substantially different from what you want to do, but worth looking at just to see a different implementation of this kind of thing.

Also, one of the things that stands out for me, in this concept, is how the GM (or whoever, in a GMless game) generates the corruption that the players are unraveling and trying to fix.  If you can figure that out, seems like the rest of the game could flow from it.  For example, Dogs in the Vineyard has this progression that GMs go through when planning towns, and I can imagine something similar working in this game.  Like....

"The corrupt phrase used to be XYZ."
"Then N event happened, turning the phrase into XNZ."
"Then another event happened, reordering the phrase into NXZ."

You see what I'm getting at?  And once you have the corrupt phrases, then you can figure out what the characters need to do in order to fix them.

Jonathan wrote:
First off, you don't need to stress yourself out trying to make a game that fits a particular Creative Agenda. Just make your game and worry about CA later. In practice, CAs are determined by the group playing the game, over a long period of time, with some games even supporting multiple CAs based on how various groups approach a game.  So, yeah, leave GNS out of it at the initial design stage.  It's too early to get into that.

Jonathan wrote:
You might want to check out, if you haven't already, an indie game called Code of Unaris which has word-based magic and "hacking" of language that's already appeared in the game.  It's probably substantially different from what you want to do, but worth looking at just to see a different implementation of this kind of thing.

Jonathan wrote:
Also, one of the things that stands out for me, in this concept, is how the GM (or whoever, in a GMless game) generates the corruption that the players are unraveling and trying to fix.  If you can figure that out, seems like the rest of the game could flow from it.  For example, Dogs in the Vineyard has this progression that GMs go through when planning towns, and I can imagine something similar working in this game.  Like....

"The corrupt phrase used to be XYZ."
"Then N event happened, turning the phrase into XNZ."
"Then another event happened, reordering the phrase into NXZ."

You see what I'm getting at?  And once you have the corrupt phrases, then you can figure out what the characters need to do in order to fix them.

Jon's right. The players will bring their own CAs to the table. You shouldn't worry about it too much at this stage.

Instead, you've got your premise. If you focus on making sure that everything you write for the game links back to and supports that premise, you'll do fine.

As far as the magic goes, the keys to magic in Earthsea (and just about all magic that's actually interesting) are limits and price. What are the limits of magic? What can't it do? What are its laws? And what is the price of magic? What does magic cost you? What must you sacrifice?

Ged, listen to me now. Have you never thought how danger must surround power as shadow does light? This sorcery is not a game we play for pleasure or praise. Think of this: that every word, every act of our Art is said and is done either for good or for evil. Before you speak or do you must know the price that is to pay!

OK, I have tried to think a little more about how the game would go (sorry, Jonathan, I still don't know exactly how the corruption would go). Hopefully this will be clearer than my first post.

First, everything in the game world has one or more outer aspects. These aspects are phrases that expound some fact about the object they are associated with. They may either be noun phrases that determine some aspect of what they describe (this is a flower) or a verbal phrase that determines what it does (this cleans away grime and dirt). The function of outer aspects is threefold. First, they are used to determine how the item is described in the SiS. For example, a flower might be described by its owner (everything in the world has an owning player) as having two leaves, as long as this was not against an aspect of the flower. Second, an aspect may help in a conflict, as long as it can be argued that it would be useful there (I hope Ralph Mazza and Mike Holmes don't mind me "borrowing" from their games). For example, a strong person wielding a steel sword could get bonus from both the strong aspect of herself and the steel sword aspect of the sword. By the way I still need to decide how different phrases may affect conflicts differently. For example, a steel sword should be more useful in a combat than a wooden one. A very strong man should have better bonuses than one who is merely strong.

Finally, aspects are also the bread and the butter of wizards in the game (and magic itself would be the knife, I guess). Many of the magics they perform revolve around changing these phrases, and thus changing the affected thing itself. Besides being a tool in the real world to play the game, outer aspects are also part of the imaginary world. They represent the front of the magical face of their associated object. For example, if we are dealing with a knife with only "This is a knife" as its aspect, then only that phrase would be available to be changed to a magician. However, there will be a system allowing untangling of related aspects. For example, we could untangle from the knife phrase that it has a handle. Untangled phrases are associated with the aspect (or aspects, if it is a deduction) that spawned it. They are must conform to the description of the item in the imaginary world (you can't untangle the phrase "it is green" from an apple that was described as red earlier), and they don't provide any bonus to conflicts. The only reason for untangling phrases is so that a mage has more material on which to work. Note that most common items will only have a single phrase as aspect.

Besides the outer aspects, a few things also have a true nature. In particular, all sentient things, and a few non sentient items, have natures. A true nature is a collection of phrases, much like the outer aspects. However, the phrases that comprise the true nature are more generic. From each phrase of the true nature of a thing, one or more aspects are "drawn", in other words, the true nature is the cause of the outer aspect. Furthermore, nothing can have an aspect that is contrary to its true nature permanently. For example, if a woman who has "she is a beautiful woman" as part of her true nature is scarred, then the scar will heal completely (the aspect would disappear). Then only way to scar her permanently would be to change her true nature in the conflict (which would be much harder, if at all possible (Î am still not sure about this) ). Understanding the true nature of something should be harder than untangling, but I am not sure yet how this would come about. However, at the very least, understanding the true nature of anything should require a relationship with the subject (more on that soon).

The true nature of anything has three important consequences for magic. First, altering the true nature of something can be very powerful. Changing a phrase in the true nature would change all aspects drawn from that phrase. Also, while magic doesn't make it easier to really change the nature of something (if this is at all possible in the final game), it allows temporary modifications that are much easier to perform. Second, there are also magical methods to fold and unfold aspects from the nature. For example, an amulet might have as its true nature that "it protects the user". As a drawn aspect, it has that "it nullifies all damage from fire". A mage might fold back that phrase and unfold a different one, like "It won't allow the user's flesh to be pierced". I still need to define a currency to determine how many phrases and how strong phrases may be unfolded from a phrase in one's true nature.

Finally, a mage can't work magic by himself. He needs help of a focus. All foci, no matter what it is, has a true nature (and a relationship to the mage that owns it). Furthermore, the actual magic operations a focus can perform are described by its true nature. For example, a focus might have as part of its true nature the phrase "Allows the change of a simple noun of an outer aspect into a fitting alliteration". These foci are to be the most important resource the PCs will employ. During the character creation, the players are free to create their foci as they see fit (though the true nature of the foci he will create will be limited by some currency). So, a foci could be anything, a book, an alchemical laboratory, singing ability, an specific magical doctrine, even the character's bloodline. However, the foci will always have a separate true nature from the PC and a relationship connecting them both.

Another attribute all things in the game have in common is that they have a history, The history is simply that, a sequence of events that lead to change. For example, a sheet of paper was once a tree. So, somewhere in its story it was cut down and turned into paper. The history of a common object defines all of its aspects, but usually this won't matter much unless some player wants to mess with it. Things with true natures also have histories, however the aspects that history can confer them are usually only temporary. The only exceptions are occasions that fold/unfold some aspect of their true nature or important events that actually defined/changed their true nature. The history that is most likely to be referenced in game i exactly the one that is being created. Every time a conflict is resolved, a phrase describing it is added to the history of everyone involved. By the way, I know that it may seem like too much of a headache to add history to the things the players can tamper with. But I figure that this is the best way to have fun with verbal times and conjugations.

Finally anything with a true nature also has various relationships with other things with true natures. Again, relationships are various phrases that describe somewhat how the elements relate to one another. I am still very unsure of what to do out of relationships. I know I want relationships to influence conflicts with the subject. I also want the actual type of relationship to matter to this influence. I would like it to be so that if X loves Y, then the mechanical worth of the relationship should be very different than if X hates Y or X owns Y or X is bound to Y. Relationships are also important because it is through them that corruption spreads.

Now, getting to conflicts, this is another area that I still haven't made up my mind about how to proceed. What I am thinking is something like this: In a conflict, we have something at stake. In order to decide how things go, the interested players take rounds performing "actions". Actions are phrases that have a certain "weight". Phrases that are straightforwardly deciding the stake in a certain direction stack their strength together. Phrases that are contrary to each other cancel the strength from one another. As soon as one side has enough strength to set the result of the stake, that side win (tough I am not sure yet how the rights to phrase and narrate the results will be shared). Also, actions may not directly contribute to solving the stake. In this case, only part or nothing of its strength would apply to deciding the stakes. However, such actions may have collateral effects that may change the situation.h

For example, Bob, John and Cleve are all in a conflict. Cleve wants to take a stone from inside a furnace, whereas Bob wants it to himself. Cleve has an amulet with the drawn aspect "It protects the user from all harm from fire". He is going inside the furnace to take the stone. Meanwhile, Bob wants to use his magic to fold back the aspect into Cleve's amulet (he doesn't have any means to take the stone, but doesn't want Cleve to succeed. So, the stakes here are "Can Cleve take the stone before Bob removes his means to?". In the first round, Cleve dives headfirst into the furnace, hurrying as much as he can. Any aspect related to speed that Cleve has should help him here. Meanwhile, Bob is trying to use magic on Cleve's amulet. Finally, John, who is a friend of Cleve, is physically attacking Bob trying to disrupt his concentration. Cleve's successes (or whatever I end up using as currency) go towards the resolution of the conflict "Cleve took the stone and fled from the furnace before Bob could change his amulet". This phrase requires a certain amount of strength before it can become a reality. Meanwhile, Bob's success go toward his resolution "Bob took away the power of Cleve's amulet with him still in the furnace.". Neither cancels each other because they aren't directly opposed. Bob is at a disadvantage here because his phrase requires more strength to be accomplished (the amulet has a relationship of property with Cleve, the magic he wants is by itself harder than the difficulty attributed with going in and out of the furnace, among other factors. Finally, john uses his actions to bother Bob. If he had wanted, John could put his efforts toward an outcome "John knocked out Bob before he could cast his spell." Instead, all his successes are being used to counter Bob's.

On the second round, Cleve wants to run to the amulet and get out of the furnace. However, it is determined (I am still not sure how, maybe by a GM, maybe by consensus or maybe even as a challenge from another player) that in order to take the stone, Cleve must first find it. Cleve's task hasn't become more difficulty, but at least one of his successes must come from an action that involves looking around and searching. Cleve states that he looks for the stone, grabs it and flees from the furnace. He has enough successes to win the stakes right now, so he does exactly that. If he had lost, a new conflict would be launched to see if he could escape from the furnace before becoming ash. Alternatively, if he thought he was going to lose, he could try to escape from the furnace without the stone by using his second round successes toward a new resolution for the conflict.

Finally, we have corruption. Corruption is the mean adversary to the players. Sometimes, the use of magic leaves behind some residue, a kind of pollution. When enough of this pollution is created, corruptors are able to enter the world. The pollution that draws them in is created whenever magic somehow creates something wrong, like malformed phrases or phrases that lead to a logical incoherence. When this happen, the end result usually asserts itself in a logic way, but the pollution becomes a resource for the corruptor to use. For example, a double negative phrase becomes a positive one, but the corruption gains a "not" word to use. Also, a few mages create magical inconsistencies on purpose, to achieve results that couldn't otherwise be done. While this would be powerful (tough I am not exactly sure how yet), this type of magic creates a lot of pollution.

Corruptors come into the world in an immaterial state. Actually, they are so abstract that it is hard to say that they are anywhere. They exist more as a concept than a thing. They have a true nature, but no aspects. Their true nature is always short (usually no more than three phrases) and incomplete (meaning that their nature is not a cohesive whole). Once they are here, they must find a host. A host can be anything that has a true nature. I still don't know what rules I would use to make a corruptor find a host, though the perfect host would probably be whoever has the nature that is most incompatible with the corruptor. Once a corruptor enters a host, they become one, their true nature is joined, though the corruptor may play it smart and not change aspects yet. From there, the corruptor will try to use his resource to change the true nature of his host to better suit him. It tries to claim each phrase in the nature of the host. Once he does that, the host has been taken over (before that, he still had free will). Once he does that, he will try to affect the true nature of whatever the host has a relationship with. As soon as he affects something, he also gains access to its relationships. Eventually, the corruptor runs out of time. Its objective in the meanwhile is to corrupt as much as it can, in order to bring those things back with him. To do so, all the phrases in the true nature of the thing must be suppressed. A phrase is suppressed if it was changed by corruption of if a corrupt phrase of equal strength is logically incompatible with it.

I still don't know how I want to make the players face the corruptors, but I do know I want them to be (pardon the language) really mean sons of a bitch. I think that the best option here is to have the really mean powers they can use to manifest from natures that are illogical, or very badly written. Basically, when you had two phrase on a nature that don't make sense together, or a phrase that doesn't make much sense, it could unfold aspects that wouldn't be out of place in a Lovercraft novel.

Well, this is it. I am sorry for the long post, but I hope this makes it clearer what I want this game to be. Thank you for reading this through. Thor, about your questions, I am still not sure. The true natures are a very important limit to magic (they are impossible to change without knowing them, and possibly impossible to change permanently). The corruptors are, right now, the only consequence of magic. I think that maybe I should add others, but I also think it is too early yet.

You mention Ralph and Mike, which means I assume you're drawing inspiration from Universalis.  The thing about Uni is, the traits that are assigned to fictional entities (characters, rocks, etc.) are limited by the degree to which players are willing to invest resources in them.  It doesn't sound like your game will work that way, so you probably want to consider how players determine how many traits something has and, if an object potentially has a large number of traits, which ones are relevant in any given conflict.

For example, I can imagine a system by which things are assigned traits in a relatively freeform manner.  Maybe simple natural objects (a rock) tend to have a single trait (a rock is HARD, doing more damage if you throw it at someone, being tougher to break, etc.).  If they are worked by human hands, they can gain an addition trait (a stone dagger is both HARD and SHARP, for example).  And animals and humans and other more complex creations have multiple traits.

Are you imagining something along those lines, or something different?