The Economics of Dissonance, Resonance, and Paradigm among Inheritors & the Incarnate
A restatement of Premise, Part I

The Incarnate are incredibly powerful beings – some of them quite old indeed – whose origins are largely unknown even among their own kind. Essentially, the Incarnate are different because they have unlearned the universal programming of the Consensual Hallucination. The Consensual Hallucination may be nothing more than a set of perceptual rules that amount to a sub-conscious social contract among Creation’s inhabitants. It may have arisen because the human mind, in its current incarnation, is incapable of understanding the true nature of reality.

The true nature of reality shall remain ineffable – at least in terms of official Incarnate cannon. The point of some Incarnate stories, may in fact be, to find out the ‘truth’. Suffice it to say for this discussion that the Consensual Hallucination is, in practice, a mass delusion that allows all of us to communicate with each other in a more or less orderly fashion about Creation – the things we experience around us in everyday life.

The Incarnate experienced a moment in their lives when they opened their eyes (or more likely their eyes were opened for them) and realized that everything we take for granted as the natural laws of the Universe is nothing more than a complex perceptual Gentleman’s agreement. An agreement that states, in essence and by implication: we will all agree to live by these rules in order to avoid the chaos that would result from everyone being The God of their own personal Universe.

This Transcendent moment usually coincides with the crystallization of a personal Paradigm - a powerful combination of delusion with a large helping of Ego and more than a dash of Solipsism. An Incarnate Delusion is a highly personal thing – but one of the consistencies among these personal world-views is a strongly, very strongly held belief in the Supremacy of oneself. Unfortunately for the Incarnate, the sheer weight of the Consensual Hallucination makes it nigh impossible for an Incarnate to spread his or her personal delusion – Paradigm – far and wide. Yet all of them, at least to some degree, want this to happen.

Their motives for wanting to be The God of Creation are varied – and in fact some of them may be heroic or altruistic. Other motivations may be darker, more sinister, and full of invective hatred and derision for the rest of mankind. This is a personal choice for each Incarnate – or the choice is made for them if one favors fate and destiny over free-will and choice.

Paradigms should be expressed in a short paragraph that distills down the essence of the Incarnate’s personal Delusion.

The game metric for all of this belief is a scale that stretches from perfect harmony with the Consensual Hallucination (Resonance) to a complete and utter dissociation from it (Dissonance). Only people who have had a Transcendent moment can master their perceptions, their body, their mind and the soul enough to completely divorce themselves from the Consensual Hallucination and thus begin to gain Dissonance. Dissonance is the fuel of the Incarnate.

No character may have positive scores of both Resonance and Dissonance. A character is either an Incarnate or an Inheritor – and thus subject to the constraints of and enjoying the benefits of Dissonance – or they are asleep and living within the constraints of the Consensual Hallucination and subject to the restrictions and benefits of Resonance. In game terms, Dissonance will go up and down based on the actions of the character, and will typically range between 0 and 10. A Dissonance of 0 is the same as a Resonance of 0 – a state of balance between the perceptions and belief in their Paradigm and their integration with the Consensual Hallucination. A Dissonance of 10 is a complete and total renouncement of the Consensual Hallucination – a state in which the character is perceptually and literally occupying a Creation of their own design.

And yet as a part of Creation, such a divorced soul must still be represented within the Consensual Hallucination – which tends to show these people as madmen, severely schizoid, paranoid, delusional personalities. The difference between a soul that is in the grips of this oblivion of madness and an Incarnate is that the Incarnate has the power to extend his madness and infect, effect and affect the Consensual Hallucination around him – rewriting the laws of the Consensual Hallucination around him to conform to his desires.

Think of such an Incarnate as having more local Gravity, and as such is exerting a tremendous amount of gravitational pull, bending and warping the Consensual Hallucination around him in terrible and frightening ways (at least terrible and frightening to those of us still mired to the Consensual Hallucination). So powerful is this force of gravity that things, people, even concepts can fall into its well and be forever changed.

Mundane, prosaic humans (sometimes known as crunchies or hostages) who fall into such powerful expressions of Incarnate Paradigms sometimes Inherit a piece of the Incarnate – and are forever after bound to that Incarnate as their Inheritor. Sometimes, these Inheritors can go on to have their own Transcendent moment, and themselves ascend into the ranks of the Incarnate.

When such a thing happens, the Inheritor-Incarnate’s personal Paradigm is often colored or skewed by their former master’s Paradigm – and it is to this master that they typically owe their first Obligation – an extension of the Obligation they owed to their former master as on of his or her Inheritors. Inheritors, in part, act as capacitors of belief in an Incarnate’s Paradigm – funneling their own belief to the Incarnate in support of the Paradigm. Worshippers, for wont of a better term, but not in a slavering, wide-eyed, true believers sort of way. Rather they are believers in the Truth of the Power that they have witnessed, and as Inheritors of a piece of this power have been awakened ever so slightly to the possibilities around them. It is understandable that they should be in fear and awe of the wielder of such Power – and do whatever it takes to get more of it.

This lure for Power, hard-wired into many of us, that becomes the ultimate Drug for the Incarnate. Nothing satisfies them like accumulation of more Power. Again, their reasons for this acquisition are many and varied – some heroic and others barbaric. This system of Incarnate creation ensures a vast and powerful Pyramid scheme, where Incarnate are Obligated to a more powerful Incarnate who is in turn Obligated to a still more powerful Incarnate. These Obligations are in the form of a small ‘chunk’ of belief – a giving up of a small portion of Dissonance to reinforce the power of a superior Incarnate. After a time, the awe of the Obligated for their ‘betters’ fades away, and the raw lust for more power will lead them to a reckoning with their masters. Not all Incarnate live long enough to face this challenge and some face it and overcome it without having to come to physical blows or eliminate their former Masters.

Incarnate jockey for position both laterally (across their ‘rung’ of the Pyramid) and vertically (both above and below them). This jockeying for position ever-verges on becoming a very directly, aggressively hostile and open war – it is a Shadow war fought between god-like beings for potentially mind blowing stakes. Incarnate measure their relative positioning among one-another by assessing the total Inheritors and Inheritor-Incarnate that serve them. Of course, the bigger the Tithe from below, the greater the expectations and Obligation required from above – but with so much power available to them, no Incarnate can feel at all safe from attacks mounted against them.

Because, under most circumstances, a one-on-one battle between Incarnate winds up with one of them losing – and the loser is not genuinely believed to likely be the more powerful Incarnate – most of them avoid this type of confrontation at all cost. Furthermore, where possible, Incarnate form secret cabals among small groups of their fellows – to provide a sort of mutually assured destruction. “Sure, you could destroy me, but you don’t really know whose on my side, if they are watching right now – and whether or not they are watching through the scope of a very high-powered rifle or an electronic bombsight, do you?”

If an Incarnate is known to belong to no group – with a reasonable degree of certainty, he or she is often quick fodder for their fellows. Most Incarnate assume, until there is proof to the contrary, that their brother and sister Incarnate are part of at least one, and potentially more than one such cabal.

Because of all of this competition and paranoia – their conflicts tend to be waged by proxy – typically but not always by Inheritors and/or mundane humans under their direct or indirect control.

More tomorrow.

Comments, questions, suggestions?

Cheers,

Jason

The Economics of Dissonance, Resonance, and Paradigm among Inheritors & the Incarnate
A restatement of Premise, Part II

Clearly Dissonance will play a key role in the game – and it is the primary currency/resource for the players to manage. As stated above, Dissonance is a measure of the Incarnate character’s belief in their own personal Paradigm. Dissonance will rarely be used directly – as are the other character Limits (Physical, Mental, and Emotional).

A character’s Paradigm, in game terms, is defined by Words. These Words are concepts or objects, and in a very real sense, an Incarnate is a living embodiment of the Words that define their Paradigm. It is possible for two different Incarnate to have the same or very similar Words as expressions of two very different Paradigms. It is important to note, then, that an Incarnate’s Words should be interpreted through the lens of their Paradigm.

Once an initial set of Words are chosen, the player needs to rank each of these Words in terms of their Trump value (from the Trait Scale). A Word’s Trump value describes which cards act as wild cards for the purposes of resolving actions with the cards. When using such wild cards, the Incarnate is attempting a Stunt – a use of his Aptitudes that will likely violate the understood laws of the Consensual Hallucination.

In game terms, the player must describe their character’s actions using one (or more) of their Words to invoke a Stunt. In so doing, the character is attempting to bend the Consensual Hallucination (at least locally) to accept their Paradigm as supreme. When a player describes an action thusly, they gain the benefit of the Word’s Trump – that is they may use the Word’s designated Trump as wild cards during action resolution.

Each time a character invokes at least one Stunt in a given scene, they may cause Stress to their Dissonance – in other words they may in fact have to give up some of their belief in their own Paradigm in order to force the Consensual Hallucination to co-opt and accept their Stunt. Players need to keep track of the total number of successes achieved in any Exchange where a Stunt was invoked. At the end of the scene, the GM (or another player) gets to draw as many cards as the player had stunt successes into their hand – while the player gets to draw as many cards as their rating of Dissonance. Both sides may make a number of plays equal to the characters Current Dissonance. If the player wins, their character maintains their current level of Dissonance. If the GM wins (scores at least one success) the character’s dissonance drops by 1. If the GM Slams the player, their character’s dissonance drops by 2. If the GM Grand Slams the player, their character’s Dissonance drops by 4. If any of these drops would take the character’s Dissonance below zero, they loose their Paradigm (at least temporarily), access to the Trumps represented by their Words, and gain a number of Resonance equal to their ‘negative’ Dissonance.

FREX: Joe Player playing Jack Flash has finished a scene wherein his character invoked a Stunt. The Stunt scored 6 successes, and Jack Flash’s current Dissonance is 1. The GM draws a hand of 6 cards, and Joe draws a measly 1 card. The play proceeds, and the GM scores a Slam against Joe, whose Dissonance drops by 2 points as a result. Jack Flash loses his Paradigm, his access to the Word Trumps, and now has a Resonance of 1. In the game world, this means that Jack, for the moment, has given up his Paradigm and is at least tenuously folded back into the constraints of the Consensual Hallucination.
Character gain Dissonance in a couple of ways (at least, I may think of more). First, anytime they achieve a Slam against an opponent, they gain 1 Dissonance. Anytime the character achieves a Grand Slam against an opponent the character earns 2 Dissonance. Conversely, anytime the character is the unfortunate recipient of a Slam, they lose 1 Dissonance. Anytime the character is the very unfortunate recipient of a Grand Slam, they lose 2 Dissonance.

Characters also gain a point of Dissonance when their player supports another players Narrative control – when the supporting player can provide a justification for how supporting the other character actually supports their Paradigm at least tangentially. These reasons should be in game-explained/ roleplayed support.

Characters may give up a point of Dissonance to ‘veto’ another player’s stipulation of difficulty. In most cases, for static actions, the player attempting the action gets to decide on how difficult such an action is (static actions are thought of as Man vs. his Environment conflicts – like jumping over a chasm) for their character. If another player sitting at the table thinks that the acting player is over or understating the difficult, that doubting player may give up one of his character’s Dissonance levels to choose a different difficult or required degree of success.

In play, when a ‘veto’ comes up, it is not necessarily the character who is vetoing the action, it is the player acting as their character’s Paradigm, in a sense. This mechanic is not truly intended to be used much, as most troupes should have the wherewithal to come to a consensus about these things. However, in some cases, if a player feels strongly enough about a situation, and would like to have a certain level of narrative input, and they are willing to give up some of their own character’s power, they should be granted that narrative input. This will need to be more fully systematized – but it is here to provide a mechanic when such narrative disputes cannot be settled by a brief consensus discussion.

Other players may be tempted to ‘veto’ the ‘veto’, which is okay – but this can lead to bidding ward of Dissonance, which can be bad for the characters depending on how tense and dramatic the story is – but again, if they are willing to veto their characters down to 1 or even 0 Dissonance (which is as low as they can go with this sort of thing), the GM should not stand in their way. The GM may feel free to take advantage of the character’s weakened states, however.

Characters also gain a point of Dissonance for passing the Edge in an exchange to a friendly character. They gain 2 points of Dissonance for passing the Edge to their opponent during an Exchange (but they may not stay conscious long enough to enjoy this new found Dissonance).

Anytime the character’s other limits are Stressed to the Incapacitated level (i.e. 11 levels of Stress), they loose a point of Dissonance. Characters may freely give up a point of Dissonance to avoid taking a level of stress to another limit – on a one for one basis. This choice must be made before the stress is applied.

Again, any comments would be appreciated.

More to come later today.

Thanks,

Jason

I'm liking this more and more: mostly because it's very similar to an idea I was developing some months back called "Storypunk."

I really like the potential for an antogonistic relationship between the GM and the PCs (something I think should be explored in more games). Just like the Computer in "Paranoia" or the Animator in "Toon," it sounds like the GM's job is to try to keep the players down, trapped in the limited reality of the Collective Halluncination. Of course, the GM wouldn't actually be trying to do this, since that would make the game very boring. But the antagonism caused by the appearence of the GM trying to limit players could be used to fuel frustration and the desire to "break out."

By the way, you've read Daniel Quinn's stuff, right? This so reaks of "Ishmael" and the sound of Mother Culture ringing in your ears. It's like systems thinking applied to reality itself, which rocks on toast. If you want any help at all on this project, I would so love to have a piece of the action, even if it was only illustration or design work.

On to the actual mechanics...

The reality-bending vs. backlash mechanic is sweet. Again, the problem is going to be avoid the cliches of Mage and its Paradox mechanics or Changeling's Banality rules (both of which are evoked by your conceptualization). Still, some of that is probably unavoidable with any reality-bending or magic system. After all, there's nothing new under the sun.

I love the use of Words too. It's as if you took "Mage," stuck in large helpings of "Nobilis," added the Resonance and Dissonance rules from "In Nomine," and then injected it with "Fight Club" and "Highlander." I think that, overall, your task is going to be giving the game a tone and character all its own, so people stop trying to think of it as a hodge-podge of other things. Right now, even though I know you're trying for something unique, I keep trying to imagine "Incarnate" in terms of other things, and that's not good.

One thing that might help is just changing the terminology behing "Resonance" and "Dissonance." Your use of those terms mirrors In Nomine's in ways that are both helpful and unhelpful. In Nomine's characters can gain Dissonance by being untrue to themselves, which is the exact opposite of what characters in Incarnate would do. Then again, since In Nomine is pretty strongly ingrained in me, I just may be overreacting a bit.

I'm really excited by where you're going with this, so keep me posted.

Later.
Jonathan

Jonathan Walton wrote:
By the way, you've read Daniel Quinn's stuff, right? This so reaks of "Ishmael" and the sound of Mother Culture ringing in your ears.

Jonathan Walton wrote:
If you want any help at all on this project, I would so love to have a piece of the action, even if it was only illustration or design work.

Johnathan Walton wrote:
I love the use of Words too. It's as if you took "Mage," stuck in large helpings of "Nobilis," added the Resonance and Dissonance rules from "In Nomine," and then injected it with "Fight Club" and "Highlander." I think that, overall, your task is going to be giving the game a tone and character all its own, so people stop trying to think of it as a hodge-podge of other things. Right now, even though I know you're trying for something unique, I keep trying to imagine "Incarnate" in terms of other things, and that's not good.

Johnathan Walton wrote:
One thing that might help is just changing the terminology behing "Resonance" and "Dissonance." Your use of those terms mirrors In Nomine's in ways that are both helpful and unhelpful. In Nomine's characters can gain Dissonance by being untrue to themselves, which is the exact opposite of what characters in Incarnate would do. Then again, since In Nomine is pretty strongly ingrained in me, I just may be overreacting a bit.

deadpanbob wrote:

Johnathan Walton wrote:
I love the use of Words too. It's as if you took "Mage," stuck in large helpings of "Nobilis," added the Resonance and Dissonance rules from "In Nomine," and then injected it with "Fight Club" and "Highlander." I think that, overall, your task is going to be giving the game a tone and character all its own, so people stop trying to think of it as a hodge-podge of other things. Right now, even though I know you're trying for something unique, I keep trying to imagine "Incarnate" in terms of other things, and that's not good.

You've provided me with a dizzying array of potential influences to consider - but I'm not sure that I'll ever get to the point with this where it is unique enough to not be compared to any other game. I may save that as a design goal for my second game...;-)

Mike,

Yeah, I really need to make up Incarnate style names - things that would hopefully help re-inforce the 'vibe' that Johnathan and Eddy are picking up on.

I need some time and space to think.

Cheers,

Jason

deadpan once again wrote: Each time a character invokes at least one Stunt in a given scene, they may cause Stress to their Dissonance – in other words they may in fact have to give up some of their belief in their own Paradigm in order to force the Consensual Hallucination to co-opt and accept their Stunt.

wyrdlyng wrote:
From the stance of game balance I can see this. Now explain to me how forcing my reality on the area somehow weakens my disassociation from consensual reality. This just seems contradictory to me from an in-game perspective.

deadpanbob wrote: Well, my thought on this is that, in essence, the CH is Co-opting a small piece of the character's Paradigm.

Resonance = Confluence?
Resonance = Hegemmony?
Resonance = Meld?

Dissonance = Solipsisim?
Dissonance = Will?
Dissonance = Schism?

I woudn't justify the loss of Paradigm to the CH. Or do it in a loose way like Johnathan does above (withought the mechanical representation), probably as speculation on the ineffeble nature of reality. The characters would simply be aware of it as The Great Paradox. Which would be cool, and I think fit the vibe.

Mike

Hi,

I thought originally that having multiple threads would make this easier, but I'm having a hard time keeping up with everything - a flood of really good comments and encouragement.

I posted some responses to some of the stuff suggested above over here in the other Incarnate thread.

Cheers,

Jason