Topic: Document: Elsewhere Narrative System
Started by: Kuma
Started on: 10/14/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 10/14/2002 at 6:44pm, Kuma wrote:
Document: Elsewhere Narrative System
All -
I've realized that these fora here are good for one thing: they push me a bit harder to get things done so I can show them off (and get them shot full of holes).
Here is the URL to the narrative derivative of the Elsewhere system that I've been slaving over for a few years. It's just a brief overview, but here it is:
http://kuma.2serv.com/elsewhere/elsewhere-n.pdf
The game is essentially this in a nutshell: players all draw cards (or roll dice, etc) to get a hand of 10 concepts - Verities (basic ideas such as justice, beauty, faith, love, death), Forms (symbols, ideas, locales, people) and Spheres (academic, military, political). On their turn, the players lay out a 'hand' of cards, narrating an achievement of their civilization, or an important event in their history.
Everything else in the game branches off that single concept. Players may use their play to start conflicts with other players, cause trouble inside other player's lands or even give them gifts if they are so inclined.
I'm working on expanding the metrics of the system to include things like a culture's Good v. Evil factor ... but the document simply presents the basic rules of play and some guidelines for creating achievements.
Fire away!
On 10/14/2002 at 7:22pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Document: Elsewhere Narrative System
Hmmm.
Lot's of subjectivity, here. I can't see this being played competitively. One player would claim that something had merit in a certain case and could be played and then another would declare that it didn't. Is there supposed to be a GM to referee?
Also, the tokens are purely metagame. Nobody will give any away to other players in a competitive game. Further, since their use does nopt have to be justified in any way (you don't have to describe them representing anything), there is no reason not to use them all in a conflict. Essentially, you can look at what you are challenging, do a little math, and decide whether or not you can win. If you can, you commit everything. If youcan't win, you don't play.
There are some ways around these "problems", but I want to know what the goal is here before I continue. Is this collaborative storytelling? If so, then why am I penalized so hard for losing, and rewarded so well for winning in the metagame? If it's competitive, how does it not fall apart?
Mike
P.S. Where is the scaling? If the number associated refers to both the power and scale of the object, then that makes larger numbers way more powerful than smaller, and seems to leave out some relevant combinations.
On 10/15/2002 at 1:01am, Kuma wrote:
RE: Document: Elsewhere Narrative System
Mike Holmes wrote: Lot's of subjectivity, here. I can't see this being played competitively. One player would claim that something had merit in a certain case and could be played and then another would declare that it didn't. Is there supposed to be a GM to referee?
I suppose there could be a final arbiter in the group if necessary. I envision the play proceeding pretty much by vote ... someone necessarily challenges the card in play, then the rest can vote up or down. This is more a check against people randomly inserting cards into their hands in order to inflate their achievement's strength. The token economy comes in as a check against that, keeping players from arbtrarily removing cards from others' plays. But you address this more later ...
Also, the tokens are purely metagame. Nobody will give any away to other players in a competitive game. Further, since their use does not have to be justified in any way (you don't have to describe them representing anything), there is no reason not to use them all in a conflict. Essentially, you can look at what you are challenging, do a little math, and decide whether or not you can win. If you can, you commit everything. If youcan't win, you don't play.
Thought about this while I was at the laundromat, where most of my good game thinking has come from lately. The token economy was a way toi reward people for helping others (white tokens) and keeping them in check against harming them (black tokens). It's also a good example of how reading others' materials can get you in trouble ... I was reading the Forge threads on Dreamspire when I was writing the notes on Elsewhere-N. Hence pawns were in my head and there they stayed.
Instead of a pure token economy, I'm considering simply making the cards themselves tokens. If you remove a card from someone else's play, you get it ... but it carries a negative connotation. You place a black marker on it, and must play the card in your next achievement. The card removes -1 from the achievement strength.
Similarly, if you give another player a card, you get it back after they've recorded it, and it has a +1 value. It also must be used on your next hand.
There are some ways around these "problems", but I want to know what the goal is here before I continue. Is this collaborative storytelling? If so, then why am I penalized so hard for losing, and rewarded so well for winning in the metagame? If it's competitive, how does it not fall apart?
Hmmm ... it is supposed to be collaborative storytelling ... I think that I just went too far trying to make sure that players don't use a lack of consequence as an open door to loot the other players.
I should tone down the consequences of normal conflict, though - just to make sure that it isn't discouraged.
P.S. Where is the scaling? If the number associated refers to both the power and scale of the object, then that makes larger numbers way more powerful than smaller, and seems to leave out some relevant combinations.
The scaling is part of the strength of the achievement. While I tend to agree that it precludes local, powerful and widespread, minor changes to the culture, this is circumvented in two ways: minor achievements could be put into the 'overall' bucket, so that their effects are felt all over the culture. This can't be done with anything that has a concrete nature (such as a temple). Strong (10+) achievements can certainly be restricted to a local area (by associating it with a person or site), but such an achievement is going to have an overall effect on the rest of the culture that shouldn't be ignored. The Pyramids are a good example. They were (ostensibly) a local phenomenon, but their construction and the religious implications that are associated with them completely altered the social structure of the entire Egyptian culture.
A purely physical achievement which has no overt effect on the rest of the culture *is* possible, and would be represented in the decription of the achievement.