For the one or two of you following this (thanks Mom), I've made a little progress today.

You can see the current state of the game here in this "Full Version"

Comments are always encouraged. I love criticism.

[Edit heres more detail - in a highly unorganized fashion]

Quick Outline

Concepts
Trait Scale: how most game aspects are rated. Scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being lowest, 10 being highest.
Trait = Value/Cards = Trump
Legendary = 10 = stipulate
Spectacular = 9 = 9 ranks
Superb = 8 = 3 suits
Great = 7 = 7 ranks
Good = 6 = 6 ranks
Fair = 5 = 2 suits
Mediocre = 4 = 4 ranks
Poor = 3 = 1 suit
Feeble = 2 = 2 ranks
Terrible = 1 = 1 rank

Aptitudes: analogous to skills – like Donjon abilities (i.e. broad based, relatively general areas of expertise/luck/talent) including what most games term attributes (i.e. strength, dexterity etc).

Limits: All characters have 6 limits. Physical, Mental, Emotional – these are conflict Limits. Resources is an interaction/game world details Limit. Resonance and Dissonance are Paradigm limits.

All limits are measured on the standard trait scale (above). All sentient beings have Physical Emotional and Mental limits of 10 (Legendary). This represents the theoretical limit that each being has to act within that realm of conflict. These Limits can be stressed (take damage) as the result of conflict. Thus they can move up and down temporarily as a result of in-game actions.

Resources is a measure of everything that one finds listed in the Backgrounds section of the typical WW Storyteller game – i.e. Wealth, Influence, Reputation, Contacts, Allies, Property, Backing, Followers, etc. Resources also go up and down during the game based on the player’s use of them. This mechanic will work similarly to Donjon’s Provisions and Wealth attributes/stats. All Incarnate start with a Legendary Resources Limit. The average individual of the campaign world will have Fair Resource Limits.

Resonance is a measure of how in-tune the character is with the Consensual Hallucination – that is how in tune they are with what we term ‘normal’ or ‘prosaic’ reality. How much the character believes in acts in accordance with the natural laws as understood in the real world. Average individuals have Fair Resonance. Incarnate (player) characters start with a Resonance of 1 (terrible). Resonance will go up and down based on the characters actions.

Dissonance is a measure of how much an Incarnate (player) character believes in his/her Paradigm. Incarnate characters start with a Fair Dissonance. This Limit will rise and fall based on the characters action, and is the primary mechanic/resource/Limit used when a character attempts a Stunt.

Paradigm: A short one-paragraph description of the Incarnate characters strongly held personal belief structure about how the Universe works. Only the Incarnate truly have a Paradigm. Since the Incarnate have suffered a Transcendent experience, they no longer buy into the restrictions of the Consensual Hallucination. Instead, they act as if the rules implicit in their Paradigm are the only constraints upon them – and the power of this belief (measured via the Dissonance mechanic) represents the degree to which they can force the Consensual Hallucination to recognize this belief.

Example Paradigm: I view the world as a programmed construct whose matter is merely dimensional representations of data and whose natural laws amount to nothing more than a code base that I can edit to meet my desires.

It’s important to note that the Incarnate’s Paradigm is so strong as to amount to a Delusion that, to the rest of us, borders on a psychotic break. When Incarnate with high Dissonance and low Resonance scores interact with those around them – they tend to act as if they are in an entirely different reality – because in fact they are from their point of view.

Stunts: Are things impossible within the normal laws of the universe shared as defined by the Consensual Hallucination. They are the actions that the Incarnate can take as a result of powerful Disonnance (strong Paradigm) Stunts are built using Key Words – semantic descriptors chosen by the player for their characters. These words should be chosen by using free association – using the most salient words from the character’s paradigm description as starters. All Key Words for stunts should be nouns, verbs, adjectives or gerunds – and should be of relatively narrow focus as subjectively approved by troupe consensus. Each Key Word is ranked in terms of its Trump (from the Trait Scale). Note that 9 (a Trump of 9 ranks) is the functional highest rating for a Key Word unless the troupe is engaged in campaigns where a Fortune resolution mechanic is not desired. The Trump represents what cards are wild for Stunts that involve that key word. So a 9 rank Key word may have any 9 ‘ranks’ apply as a wild card. A rank is the face value of the card (excluding K,Q,J) with A considered a rank of ‘1’. Basically, a 9 Rank Trump Key Word will use all cards numbered A through 9 as trump. Only 10’s will count as 10’s. Stunts will work in a similar fashion to the Magic system in Donjon (gosh Clinton, maybe this should be a Donjon supplement? J/k)

Hooks: Hooks are personal story hooks for the character – taking a page from Sorcerer and Ron Edward here – similar to the Kicker. Incarnate characters will have at least two – one being their Obligation.

Obligation: All Incarnate, upon awakening, discover that the society of the Incarnate is highly structured. Every Incarnate (save for perhaps one) owes an obligation of belief and fealty to at least one other Incarnate – who is considered above him in terms of Title/Rank/Authority within Incarnate society. The obligation consists mechanically of a tithe of Dissonance to this other Incarnate, paid at the beginning of each session. All Incarnate need to have at least one Hook that involves their Obligation. This is intended to support a mood that will end up being in some ways similar to the Sopranos ( a mafia of would-be world dominators not interested in money, but in the ‘coin’ of belief that can/will someday allow them to control the universe). Resolution of this initial Obligation will ‘move’ the character up in the ranks of the Incarnate. The original Obligation will be removed, but a new one takes its place – one costing 2 Dissonance at the beginning of each session. On the plus side, the character gains control of a one Dissonance Tithe – representing the fact that another new Incarnate has awakened and owes fealty to the character.

Tithe is a special type of hook that revolves around an Incarnate of lower status/level/rank/title/authority. This underling ostensibly owes the character fealty to a small degree, and is required to tithe one Dissonance to the character sometime during each game Session.

Hooks may be freely taken by players during play with the consensus of the troupe. Other than Tithes and/or Obligations, they typically do not involve the game mechanics at all, but instead represent character focused story ideas specific to this character. One mechanic bonus comes from supporting another character’s hook – if narrative control of the story is surrendered to another player so they can focus for a given amount of time on resolving one of their character’s hooks, the surrendering characters gets a payback of Dissonance (they earn more belief in their own Paradigm by supporting those of the other player characters, the idea being that the character who is supporting another character’s hooks should provide an in-game reason consistent with their own Paradigm as to why they would support the other Incarnate – for the time being anyway)

Cards: Incarnate uses standard 52 card playing card decks for action resolution. Cards have ranked values from 1 to 10, based on the face value of the card. K,Q,J are stoppers. Aces count as ‘1’. Each player should get their own deck of cards. The GM needs one deck for every two players or so to create the GM/environment deck (for npcs and the environment). Each deck should have a different design (with the GM’s potentially multi-deck deck all having the same design, but different than the players designs)

Stoppers: K,Q,J when played act to stop a given Exchange and move on to the next one.

Exchange: the basic unit of time/action/resolution in the game. Variable length depending on the conflict. Think of a series of traded blows, or a series (exchange) of posts on a Forum.

Scene: Unit of time analogous to a scene in a dramatic work. A series of Exchanges taking place usually in one setting with a stable cast of characters dealing with one topic/theme/idea/conflict.

Act: A series of Scenes – generally analogous to an Act in a dramatic work.

The Play: each player with a character engaged in a given Exchange makes a series of Plays. Each Play may be one (or potentially more) cards. All parties engaged in a given Exchange must make a Play of at least one card in response to another’s Play, unless they are out of cards. Each play represents a single component of an Exchange (like a single thrust of the sword or a single argument in a debate). Each play is played face down (Thanks Jonathan Walton!) at first – i.e. all parties involved in the Exchange, who have cards, must play at least one (and maybe more) cards face down on the table in front of them. Once all players have committed by placing their cards face down on the table, the cards are flipped, and the final tally of successes is calculated. A character may make a number of Plays for a given task equal to the value of their Aptitude rating.

FREX: Psycho Joe has a Spectacular ability (Aptitude) to Kick-Your-A**. At the beginning of an Exchange – Joe is able to hold ten cards in his hand (because none of his limits are stressed), and potentially make up to 9 plays in each Exchange.

Playing more than one card: Each play normally consists of one card, and that play represents one component of an Exchange. However, sets (X of a kind), straights (numerically ordered cards – at least 3 in a row), or flushes (a group of cards of the same suit – at least 3) allow the player to play multiple cards with a single play. Each such multi-card play should represent a more powerful or signature maneuver. FREX: In a debate, a set played by Psycho Joe might be his Irrefutable Staccato Syllogism. Players are encouraged to make these up on the spot, or write down several examples for each aptitude of what a set, a straight or a flush represents.

When defending against a multi-card play, i.e. when the guy across the table from you puts down multiple cards, you may yourself only play legal multi-card plays (that is at least 2 of a kind, a straight at least 3 cards long or a flush at least 3 cards long). You must play at least one card however. Note that if you can’t play as many cards as your opponent, you can be assured that each uncontested card is going to be a success.

Multi-card plays (sets, straights, flushes) count as ONE play in terms of counting them against your Aptitude rating. We suggest that multi-card plays be arranged vertically relative to the player, and that each individual play be put down from Left to Right horizontally in front of the Player:

PLAYER
10D 9S 3D
9H
9C

The above player has made three plays, one of them a multi-card (set) play.

Each card played BEYOND THE FIRST in a multi-card play allows the player to draw another card. In our example above, the 3 card set played (the three 9’s) would allow that player to immediately draw two cards into his/her hand when the multi-card play was made.

Successes: For each card you have that is not beaten in rank by at least one of your opponents cards, you achieve 1 success. Cards are counted in rank order for these purposes. FREX: say you play a 10, a 9 and an 6. Your opponent plays two 7’s and a 5. You have just scored three successes. (10 beats 7; 9 beats 7, 6 beats 5). Any cards that you play that are uncontested, are counted as successes. In cases where more than one party has successes showing, they cancel each other out on a one for one basis regardless of the card’s value. FREX: you play a 7 and a 5. Your opponent plays a 6 and a 6. You each score one success, but these cancel each other out. Nobody scored any successes for this play. FREX: You play a trio of 5’s. Your opponent plays a 6 and two 4’s. You’ve scored two successes. All cards should remain on the table until the entire exchange is resolved. All cards that are successes should remain face up at the end of each Play within an Exchange, all other cards should remain on the table face down.

In this way, only one involved character will ‘win’ each play – except in the case where no one has at least one success showing – a Tie. With Ties, the Edge and the Initiative remain where they are.

At the end of each Play within an Exchange, we say that the player with at least one success showing has the Edge.

The Edge: This is the number of successes that the winning player has showing at the end of a Play. Several things may be done with the Edge. The winning player may apply the Edge on a one for one basis as Stress to his opponent(s). Thus one success (one card showing face up) equals one level of stress applied to the appropriate Limit (Physical, Mental, or Emotional usually). In this case, the GM (or the losing player) Narrates the effects of this Stress.

Next, the Edge can be used to stipulate facts ala Donjon (Do ya hear the Royalties Bell ringing yet, Clinton?), the character may spend one success for one fact. Here again, the losing side narrates the results.

Next, the Edge can be carried over to the Next play by the character currently holding the Edge. The Edge, in effect, becomes an additional set of cards – an additional Play they get on top of their actual play for the next task/component/play in the Exchange.

Finally, the Edge can be passed on to a another character (friendly or not). Character’s who pass on the Edge gain one Dissonance as a reward, and must narrative how the Edge is passing to the other character.

The Edge can be split between Stressing an opponent’s limits and stipulating facts – but not with Passing the Edge. Passing the Edge is an all or nothing deal – you either pass the whole thing or you don’t. If you don’t, you may freely choose how to split the Edge up between the other three options.

How Many Cards: At the beginning of each scene, the characters start out with a number of cards in their hands equal to the their lowest character Limit (i.e. their lowest of their Physical, Mental or Emotional Limits). As the scene drags on, when the cards are being used, the character/player will lose more cards than they gain (typically). A character who is out of cards for a particular Exchange, but is not incapacitated in some way, is considered to be dazed, confused, and probably in a lot of trouble.

Initiative: The first person to place a card face down has the initiative for their character, at least for the first Play. They card they lay down is immaterial, but it doesn’t count toward their ability to accumulate successes. In essence, the player throws away one of the characters options in order to go first, and become the Actor. The defender(s) are those characters involved in the action who are not the Actor. If two or more players place an Initiative card down at the same time, the higher card wins. In cases where the cards are the same rank, use the natural suit order to determine who wins the initiative (clubs is lower than diamonds is lower than hearts is lower spades). If the cards are both the same rank and the same suit, one player should choose to yield – if that doesn’t happen, they each play another card (face down), the winner of that contest has the initiative then. In any case, all cards used in an initiative test are lost for the remainder of the exchange (i.e. the players do not get to draw cards to replace these initiative cards).

The Draw: At the beginning of each exchange, each player involved gets to draw one and only one card into their hands.

Slams: anytime all of the cards you play during a given exchange come up as successes, you have Slammed your opponent. This means that you have full narrative control for this conflict – and may decide on any effect to the opposition up to but not including For-Sure-Death. (I.e. the BigBad may appear to be dead as a result of your slamming him – but he may only be playing possum or maybe it was an android double).
Grand Slams: anytime you achieve a Slam, and have at least 11 successes, you have achieved a Grand Slam. Congratulations. You gain a point of Dissonance, and you win the right to Narrate and Referee the rest of the Scene to your hearts content.

I’ll try to write an example of play that stitches all of this together and get it posted soon. I still don’t have even this much detail for other ways to award Dissonance and Resonance, and exactly how Stunts and Resources will work. And what Dissonance and Resonance can be used for. I have my thoughts, but none of them are well formalized yet.

Comments, questions, suggestions, flames – really any reaction at all would be great.



Cheers,

Jason

Cool stuff.

I'm fairly new to the Forge, so I can't comment on the progress you've made here, but I can offer a fresh perspective I hope.

1) Your card mechanic rocks on toast. I really like the strategy/bluffing that could be involved, and the way players would have to choose which cards to play for which actions. Nicely done.

2) However, it seems like the "defending" playing in any Exchange would have a massive advantage. I'm trying to decide whether this is a good thing or not. Obviously, I haven't playtested the idea yet, I'm just writing off the top of my head.

But take the GM in your example of the seduction attempt: since he gets to go second and can see the player's cards before the GM chooses what to play, it seems that (assuming he has the cards to do it) the GM can decide whether or not to win the Exchange. Obviously, the cards availiable make a big difference, but the balance is still strongly tilted.

Have you considered having both players select their cards, play them face down on the table, and then flipping them over at the same time? It would be more of a gamble that way and neither side would have a clear advantage. Since I can't really see the entire picture you're trying to paint with your game, I'm not sure whether this kind of mechanic would support what you're trying to do or not.

3) I'm really interested in how you're going to handle paradigms. In the game I'm currently working on, which is specifically written to be a PBeM, the players take on the roles of "gesalts" (sorta like paradigms) and not actual characters. I realize you're doing something different by having a character with a paradigm, but it still makes me want to see how you're dealing with it.

4) I really like the use of Fudge ranks to speed character creation. I think most every system should have names for ranks, just to give players a better idea of the difference between having an attribute of N and one of N+1. Nobilis did this to great effect, even though the names have nothing to do with actual play, and I like that you've exercised a similar option. Kudos.

That's all I can come up with off the top of my head. If I think of anything else, I'll let you know.

Later.
Jonathan

Jonathan Walton wrote:
Cool stuff.

Jonathan Walton wrote:
... so I can't comment on the progress you've made here...

Jonathan Walton wrote:

2) However, it seems like the "defending" playing in any Exchange would have a massive advantage. I'm trying to decide whether this is a good thing or not. Obviously, I haven't playtested the idea yet, I'm just writing off the top of my head.

Jonathan Walton wrote:

Have you considered having both players select their cards, play them face down on the table, and then flipping them over at the same time? It would be more of a gamble that way and neither side would have a clear advantage.

Jonathan Walton wrote:

3) I'm really interested in how you're going to handle paradigms. In the game I'm currently working on, which is specifically written to be a PBeM, the players take on the roles of "gesalts" (sorta like paradigms) and not actual characters. I realize you're doing something different by having a character with a paradigm, but it still makes me want to see how you're dealing with it.

Jonathan Walton wrote:

4) I really like the use of Fudge ranks to speed character creation. I think most every system should have names for ranks, just to give players a better idea of the difference between having an attribute of N and one of N+1. Nobilis did this to great effect, even though the names have nothing to do with actual play, and I like that you've exercised a similar option. Kudos.

Jonathan Walton wrote:

That's all I can come up with off the top of my head. If I think of anything else, I'll let you know.

deadpanbob wrote:
The face-down card play is such a stellar idea, and I intend to use it!

Jonathan Walton wrote:

Just a few more ideas to think about. The basic card mechanic just seems to suggest drawing from traditional card games, since their utility and appeal has been playtested over hundreds of years.

Interesting. Ironically, I've just gotten (re)interested in using cards as the sole Fortune in a game, and your game seems to have an interesting twist on it. I'm curious what factor suit has on the game (since the only real reference to it is that the example exchange didn't have a suit impact), but all in all, I like what I see thus far.

For the now three of you who are listening (Thanks Eddy, Johnathan and Mom), I've added more detail to the first post.

Still got a long way to go.

Thank you and we appreciate your support.

Cheers,

Jason

deadpanbob wrote: For the now three of you who are listening (Thanks Eddy, Johnathan and Mom), I've added more detail to the first post.

A couple of things that I don't think are remotely clear:

When calculating successes, ties go to the actor (in other words a 10 is always counted as a success for the actor)

Whoever has control of the Edge (if there is one) at the end of an Exchange retains the initiative for the next Exchange, if there is going to be one.

Within an exchange, whoever 'wins' the Edge (i.e. is the only one with successes showing) has the initiative and becomes the Actor.

The Actor is allowed, for each Play, for each Exchange, to determine which realm of conflict (Physical, Mental, Emotional) is in play for the given play/exhcnage.

An exchange is over when no one can make any more plays based on their governing (chosen) aptitude, or when a stopper is played.

The K,Q,J are stoppers, and when played, by anyone, as a Play, it ends the Exchange - unless the opponent can play a higher stopper. Kings can't be beaten, so they are the ultimate stopper.

Stoppers can legally be played with any other card as part of a multi-card play (so you could play 3 9's and a K and this would be a legal play). When played with other cards as part of a multi-card play by the Actor, the defneders still get to make a defensive play, but after that the action for this Exhange stops.

Teaming up: When multiple people are choosing sides, ie. when the two players want to gang up against the BigBad, or when a throng of mooks is ganging up on a single players, individual hands are not used for each opponenet.

Instead, in cases where two (or more) players are ganging up on a single (or multiple) GM run opponenets, the players create a shared hand from among their cards that can't exceed the lowest limit of the group of players. One player is designated as the narrator on an Exchange by Exchange basis. At the beginning of Each exchange, the player-group gets to draw one card for every player character in the group who is not incapacitated as a result of Stress. The acting player may make a number of plays in each exchange equal to their character's aptitude rating plus one play for every additional player in the group.

When there are multiple GM run characters, they are always considered to form a group under the above rules - usually with the most powerful GM character desginated as the leader, adding one play to the number of allowed plays and one card to the Draw for each additional baddie beyond the first.

Thanks for the encouragement and feeback. Any questions/comments/flames welcome.

Cheers,

Jason

Eddy Fate wrote: It's got a very cool vibe to it, as if the players are actually bluffing and gambling with reality itself (which, while the vague background material certainly alludes to that, the mechanic reinforces it).

Jonathan Walton wrote: In fact, there could be this lingering suspicion that whatever Powers That Be that exist outside of the Collective Hallucination (unless you want to imply that there are none, which would be cool too) aren't too happy with people escaping its confines and are actively trying to imprison you. So, basically, whenever the player fights with the GM, he's actually gambling with God or Satan or The Man or Mother Culture or Matrix-esque machine beings or whoever's trying to keep him down.

But, of course, there's no clear sign of who his enemies actually are :)

Jonathan Walton wrote:

In fact, it's like that Gaiman/Pratchett quote:

"God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of his own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of the players (i.e., everybody), to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.

Eddy Fate wrote:

Bingo. That's exactly the vibe I was getting - GM not as a faceless arbiter of Fate, but as an active participant in the universe.

deadpanbob wrote: Yep. That's the vibe I was going for. Nice to actually succeed at something.

Thanks for taking the time to wade through all this stuff and provide me with some encouragement.

Eddy Fate wrote: Bingo. That's exactly the vibe I was getting - GM not as a faceless arbiter of Fate, but as an active participant in the universe.

Jonathan Walton wrote:
One question to resolve, then, if how you deal with other (non-Incarnate) humans. Do they have free will? Are they simply creations/pawns of the Collective Hallucination? Are they faceless zombi masses? Can they even be said to exist in any real way?

Jonathan Walton wrote:
Everything you've ever experienced is a lie (think "Dark City"), but you still probably retain emotional attachments to non-existing things, which helps fuel your rage against the entire system and your egotistical desire to remake the world in your own image.

Jonathan Walton wrote:
Still, is massive hubris the only option in the game? Because that's not going to appeal to every type of player. It's okay if you want to say from the beginning: "Incarnate is a egocentric, adversarial game where players vie for control of reality. Don't be nice. Crack enough skulls and you might become God." I just don't know if that's what you're actively trying for. Again, all this could be me and Eddy imposing our perceptions of the game on what you're doing...

deadpanbob wrote: The only question is, should I systematize these moral delimas, or let them naturally arise as a part of the play experience?

deadpanbob wrote:
As to whether or not the exist in any meaningful way, or whether or not they actually have free will - that will probably be left to individual GMs and players to decide, or fight over.

Well, hubris is one of the main options. A lot of people who go into politics probably truly (at least at first) want to make the world a better place. Still and all, it takes a lot of hubris to think "I'm the one who can make a difference".

The only question is, should I systematize these moral delimas, or let them naturally arise as a part of the play experience?

Jonathan Walton wrote:
I guess I was mostly just wondering how much the Incarnate could mess with normal humans and get away with it. Do some normally wade through a sea of humans, destroying things as they go (since, from their perspective, the others aren't really there)? Do others truly try to create a uptopia, a place where every person's life is quantitatively better?

Jonathan Walton wrote:
I could see some huge divisions developing over the treatment of other living things. Not "let's make splatbooks!" kinds of divisions, but more ideological divisions like those in Nobilis. You would still associate with those who caused a great deal of destruction (how can you prove that other beings exist, after all?) even though you wouldn't necessarily believe as they do. This would make everything "feel dirty." Because among your allies would be those you despise and among your enemies would be those you respect.

Jonathan Walton wrote:
Then again, I just love shades of grey... :) Obviously, individual GMs could choose to raise and lower the contrast to suit their style of game.

Jonathan Walton wrote:
The problem might be in combining these two concepts into the fabric of the game. If you think about most things that deal with the "I was only trying to help" theme (like "Fight Club" for example), there's some point where the protagonist realizes that his power has gotten out of hand. I think White Wolf's "Abarrent" tries for some of this, but I haven't actually read it. To use the old Spider-Man cliche, these kind of stories are about power and responsibility.

Jonathan Walton wrote:
If the players know their lives will eventually get destroyed by their own egos, I don't know how easy it'll be to get them to act recklessly in the beginning. Like "Unknown Armies," it sounds like Incarnate could deal a lot with power and consequences (which is really just a variation on "power and responsibility").

Jonathan Walton wrote:

It's quite possible that you could work up a system that focused on all the dialectics you're setting up in the game: paradigm vs. hallucination, self vs. society, power vs. responsibility, freedom vs. entrapment, chaos vs. order, red vs. black (in the cards), and player vs. GM. Note that all the things I've listed first seem to go together (paradigm, self, power, freedom, chaos, red, and player) and they're all not necessarily positive. Finding some mechanic to connect them would be damn cool.

deadpanbob wrote: In terms of game enforced consequences (i.e. mechanical consequences), cutting a swath through the normal human population and leaving a bloody trail of corpses and madness behind you is certainly one option of how to play that isn't going to be punished...except in so far as the GM chooses to enforce the normal types of social/in-game constraints from the other Incarnate.

In fact grey is my favorite color.

My knee-jerk reaction is to in some way systematize the Hooks - in a way that requires them to be challenging to overcome - but makes the rewards (at least at first) seem too good to pass up.

Indeed, you can't answer questions like whether or not the people are real or not. I believe that would be one of the points of play. To adress just that issue. An Incarnate has to decide if he's doing something morally wrong by eliminating people. The decision is based on whether or not he feels they are real. Which is an intersting choice to get to make in an RPG.

In point of fact, they are not real. They are characters in a RPG. I have no doubt that such a game will become self-referential. For example, The Grat Paradox (what I called it in the other thread) where a character loses Paradigm trying to force it on the CH, might lead the character to speculate that he was just playing some grand game with arbitrary rules. And futher that he may have an author and referree driving his reality...

Don't think about it too hard, just read OTE.

Mike

I agree with Mike. In fact, I'd like to retract my suggestion about flipping over cards at the same time. That was based on the idea of "fairness" and "balance" before I really got a handle on the setting.

Now that I think about it. I think the GM should have a definite advantage over the players. The player bids a card, and then the GM decides whether to smack him down or not. That just seems more fitting in the GM = CH concept you have going.

Later.
Jonathan

Jonathan Walton wrote: I agree with Mike. In fact, I'd like to retract my suggestion about flipping over cards at the same time. That was based on the idea of "fairness" and "balance" before I really got a handle on the setting.

Mike, Johnathan and Eddy:

Lots and lots of good ideas to think about - from both threads. I need time to internalize all of this good input. I'm really psyched right now!

I'm going to try and produce an updated outline of the game by Monday or so.

Dissonance = Ego - I think I'm going to go with this.

Resonance = either Participation or Sublimation

The Great Paradox - wonderful setting piece, and I think I'll use it.

The dual fudge scale - I've actually thought a lot about this. Originally, when I decided to switch form dice to cards, I was considering a centrality method of action resoultion. I thought about doing something like this, using say red cards to support the CH and black cards to support the Incarnate or vice versa. The problem is that, from a statistical point of view, I think this introduces too much of a wiff factor.

I'll have to think about the idea of protagonizing the CH too. I wouldn't think that the GM needs a character that would actually ever show up - but having the GM create a character that acts 'behind the scenes' might open up some interesting possibilities - particularly with issues like "Maybe the CH is merely the paradigm of the Incarnate who is currently on top of the Pyramid"

I still like the idea of the bilnd card flip - put the cards face down to commit and then flip them over. Thinking about it, the CH is represented by billions of people with a Sublimation/Participation metric - whereas each individual Incarnate has to fight this one on one with their lone Ego method. I think that stacking the deck, so to speak, this much in favor of the GM by allowing him/her the opportunity to always paly last would just make the game too depressing.

One last thing I actually thought up on my own: Flair. This would be the idea that a character could, at the beginning of an Exchange, discard between one and three cards and re-draw from their deck by describing their aciton in a cool way. Sort of like Exalted stunt dice. This is still a nascent idea, but I think something like this should make it into the final mechanical make-up of the game.

Issues that I still really need help with:

What are the uses for Ego and Sublimation/Participation, and what other ways can characters gain/lose them.

Thanks again for all your input. If I get to the point of e-publishing this thing, all three of you will get a least an honorable mention in the credits.

Really, this has bolstered my confidence and given me more new ideas then I've had about the game in several weeks.

Cheers,

Jason

Eddy Fate wrote:

Just as long as you guys return the favor when I get around to (some year) putting up my own project. :-)

deadpanbob wrote:
Issues that I still really need help with:

What are the uses for Ego and Sublimation/Participation, and what other ways can characters gain/lose them.

deadpanbob wrote: Just realized that you list yourself as a game designer for SGS in your sig. Did you work on Cartoon Action Hour?

The game sounds really neat - it's on my list of games to buy when the disposable $$$ goes up.

Any advanced hints on what you might be working on?