Hey all

[I edited a few things here, hopefully making things clearer, so like
make some comments or something. Oh, and refined the Narrative
Bid mechanics.]

By my rash Subject, you can tell I am happy with myself. The Muse came
over tonight, and she brought her bisexual nymph friend. Well after
much sweat and joy, I found that I had finally nailed the core mechanic,
the uber meta-system that has been stewing in my brain for a long time.

Anyway, I came up with a hefty outline of the Rewards System that
will drive my Opus Magnum. I know it's long, but it's neo-evolutionary
state of the Art RPG stuff. My influences here were Universalis by Mike &
Ralph, Scattershot by Fang, Ergo by Ian Millington, Rune, TAoBM, Aria,
Ars Magica, and one or two of my own ideas.

Feel free to shower me with adulation, or comments, or questions, or
even more brilliant ideas I can incorporate into it. [Which is to say,
any feedback you might have is appreciated. Currently the actual
transactional mechanics are in their infancy, so some fine-tuning
is needed there.]:)

Design Notes - The Rewards System
====================================

The central meta-mechanic of The Million Worlds:Chronicles
Of The Eternal Cycle is the point based rewards system. The
rewards are referred to as Nomenar, a reference to the Ubiqnomen
of the Omyrii from the game universes' Mythos. [This rewards
system is meant to provide the vehicle for "GM-less" play,
whereby authority must necessarily be shared]

What do these currency buy you?
------------------------------------
Put simply, Nomenar are the means to sharing in the play of the game.
It is through spending and earning of Nomenar that you engineer and
define the nature of the game setting and world, by defining Tenets. It is
through Nomenar that you introduce Entities into the game world. By
investing Nomenar in a entity, you can exercise authorial control over that
entity within the game world. Finally, Nomenar allow you to Script events,
situations,and even outcomes within the game.



Tenets -

Tenets represent the basic building blocks of the game,
they define the outline and foundation upon which all
play occurs. They represent the guiding principles,
expectations, and limits within which the game is to be
conducted. All players have equal opportunity to define
the Tenets of the game. This is usually done during a
"Genesis Session"

Setting Tenets - These tenets define the nature of the setting
and what exists within it such as it's geography, races,
cultures, nations, and it's technologies and metabilities.
Note, the Setting Tenets automatically include the Omyrii
Tenets as described in the Game Universe chapter.

Narrative Tenets -
These tenets define relationships, conflicts,
and situations involving a world's Setting tenets.
These also include considerations of Genre, Theme,
and other storytelling constructs.

Player tenets -
These tenets define agreements between the
players about what kind of social contract they
want the game to operate under. This includes
"Table Rules" regarding the conduct of play,
as well as expectations of play among the players.

Rules tenets - These tenets define the rules that will be
used while conducting the game. Specifically they are used to
set any variables within the game mechanics, such as
switches, and dials altering how things work. As well default
power levels and point totals for designing game entities.



Entities

Entities are the actual entities within the game world as
defined by the game mechanics, or systems/effects that apply
to entities within the game world. These Entities include
Personae (characters), Metabilities, Metabilities Systems,
Vehicles, Weapons, Equipment, Cultures, Nations, Religions,
Organizations, Locations, misc Props & FX. etc. Pretty much
anything that will interact with a Personae within the game
reality.

The central focus of play is involved in players
designing Entities via the Design Architecture for use
in the gameworld. You gain Nomenar for Entities designed
by you being used in the game. Nomenar earned
this way are referred to as Royalties.

Players may also pay Nomenar to introduce entities into a
Narrative. When points are payed this way, they go to the
Proprietor of the entity, such as a Persona. Players that are
the Proprietor of a entity can also Invest Nomenar in that
entity, allowing them to spend Hero Points for that entity to
alter how the game mechanics effect it. They can even spend
points to alter/improve the entities Traits.

Nomenar can also be spent to rent or buy Entities from other
players in order to invest in them or exercise authorial control
over them.



Scripts

Scripts are a device used to exert Narrative control, exercised
by a player, over the action of the game. Scripts include
various narrative devices such as framing scenes, instigating
events, introducing Personas, as well as conflicts, and
relationships between Personas. They can also
be used to script outcomes and introduce complications.

In general it costs more for players to Script Entitites
of which they are not the Proprietor, and costs more to
script implausible outcomes for actions by Entities.



How Do You Earn Nomenar?
---------------------------------------------------------

Nomenar are earned by 4 chief means, designing Entites that are used in
the game, either in Session Play or Non-Session Play, taking on various
Guide or support roles to facilitate play for the other players, through
transactions between players during play of the game, and by
Player Rewards as awarded by vote of the players.


Designing Game Entities
=============================================

At it's heart, TMW:COTEC is all about the players collaborating to
design an unique fantasy world. Thus, each player earns Nomenar by
contributing Game Entities of their own design to the communal fantasy
world the players have created. There is no limit beyond the
players' ambition and desire to the richness and detail with
which this world can be created. Each Entity designed adding
depth and substance to the world the players have created.

After players create an Game Entity using the Design Architecture, they
can show it to the Setting Guide. The Setting Guide will then review
your Entity to see that it fits into the Setting Tenets established by
the group for the world. Once it passes review, you will be rewared a
number of Nomenar based on the nature of the Entity you created.
Obviously, designing a spell is less of a contribution than designing
Ukvolorian Blood Sorcery, or designing the Village of Kial, is less of a
contribution than designing the City State of the Obsidian Spire.

The Setting Guide will then make copies of your creation available to
the other players, so that it is available to the Narrative Guide when
designing a Narrative, or Set-Piece, or to the players when desiging a
Persona.

The beauty of Designing Game Entities, is that it is something that
can be done even when the players are not together in a game session.
Players can design Game Entities and share them through means such as
Email,IM's and IRC, even when they can't meet face to face.


Acting as a Guide
============================================

In order to conduct the game, there are various roles that the players
must take on, each with it's own duties, responsibilities, and powers.
Unlike traditional RPG's however, these duties, responsibilities, and
powers are divided between the players, rather than a single player
taking the majority of the roles, as in traditional RPG's utilzing a GM
with Players paradigm.

These Roles include.

Persona Guide
===============================================

The traditional role of a "player" in an RPG is to guide a single
Persona, typically called a Player Character, controlling his actions
within the game, and approaching the unfolding story from the Point of
View of the Persona. The GM generally acts as a Persona Guide to
Adversary Personas, often called NPCs.

A player acting as a Persona Guide earns Nomenar by playing to the
Persona's Disadvantages, such as physical or psychological
limitations, Dependents, Rival, Enemies, Passions, etc. That is, players
earn Nomenar when portraying the Persona's Traits in ways that
engage and entertain the other players. A player can also earn
Nomenar by having his Persona fulfill a Narrative Role (such as playing
the sidekick, or Hero, or Dastardly Villian), or by conforming to the
Narrative Tenets, or a Narrative Expectation set by a Narrative Guide
(in this case it will be paid to you by the Narrative Guide).

Should another player feel a player doesn't deserve a "role playing"
award, he has two options. He can Challenge that player for part of
his Reward by making a Negotiated Challenge, or he can make an
Unconditional Challenge.

When making a Negotiated Challenge the challenging player states how
many Nomenar he is challenging and makes his argument based on how
he feels the player did not meet the Trait/Role/Narrative Expectation.
Either the challenged player can capitulate giving that share of the
reward to the objecting player, negotiate a different amount, or a Vote can be taken.

If the Vote goes against the challenging player, then the player whose
reward he challenged still recieves his Role Playing Reward, further the
Challenging Player must pay that player a number of Nomenar equal to
the share of reward for which he challenged.

Also, a player can also Challenge a Role Playing Reward altogether,
bidding Nomenar against the other player, this is called an
Unconditional Challenge. A Vote is then taken by the non-involved
players as to whether they agree or disagree. If they agree with the
objection, then that player loses the RP reward, and he must pay the
Challenging player that many Nomenar in addition. However, if the
objecting player is outvoted, then he must pay the Nomenar he bid to
that player, and the challenged player still recieves his RP reward.

In the case of a tie vote, the Character Guide wins.

Note, In general whoever designed a Persona is considered it's
Proprietor, if they paid to make it a Named Persona or a Main
Persona. Only the Proprietor of a Persona can act as his Persona
Guide. Other players can rent a Persona for a scene or Narrative to
act as his Persona Guide, any such awards earned this way are payed
to the Persona's Proprietor as royalties however. Additionally, a player
can buy a Persona from it's proprietor outright, and thus be able to
act as it's Proprietor. Personas which are not Named or Main
Persona's are not eligible for Narrative Rewards, however,
they may be used by any player, at not cost.



Narrative Guide
--------------------------------------------------------

The traditional Role of a GM in an RPG is to introduce story elements,
by framing scenes, introducing Personas, situations, establishing
relationships and other narrative devices for the players to interact
with, thus creating an unfolding story.

The job of the Narrative Guide in TMW:COTEC is much the same.
Except that his authority is limited by the vote of the other Players.
His chief duty is to guide play according to the Narrative Tenets established by the players.

The Narrative Guide Role is up for bid by each Player (Say 10 points
per scene, or better yet some kind of bidding mechanic like in
Universalis?). While acting as the Narrative Guide, a player doesn't have
to pay Nomenar to use Scripts. Thus, he is able to control the flow of the
Narrative for free. He can also assign Narrative Roles, and create Narrative Expectations.

If another player wishes to play Scripts to alter or add
to the Narrative, he pays the Nomenar costs to the current
Narrative Guide, who then works that players contributions into
the narrative. The Narrative Guide can object to a player's Script by
instigating a Negotiated Challenge or a Unconditional Challenge
as described under Persona Guides above. Any such Challenges
must be payed out of the "pot" he bid to be the Narrative Guide.
When his pot is reduced to zero this way, the players rebid
to be the Narrative Guide.

In the case of a tie vote, the Narrative Guide wins.

While acting as a Narrative Guide, a player who introduces Designer
Game Entities into the Narrative pays the player who designed that
Entity a Design Royalty, the amount of which is based on the nature
of the Entity. These Design Royalties must also be paid out of the
"Pot" he bid to become the Narrative Guide. The Narrative Guide
doesn't have to pay anything to introduce Stock Game Entities,
or Entities that become Shared Game Entities by having already
been added to the Narrative by other Players.

The Narrative Guide is also responsible for keeping the Narrative
Chronicle of the game. Which is a record of the story lines and
events the players have played through.

Rules Guide
------------------------------------------------------
Another traditional Role of the GM is to implement
and resolve the use of the game mechanics to resolve
in-game situations. Often, this role included the authority
to act as the final arbritrator in the case of dispute.

The Rules Guide in TMW:COTEC is largely the same, however his
authority is limited by the Vote of the players as well. His chief
duty is to see that the Rules Tenets decided on by the Players are
enforced.

Any player can volunteer to be the Rules Guide. While acting as the
Rules Guide, he earns 1 Nomenar from each player at the table for
each set-piece or scene he referees.


His rulings can be challenged, by a Unconditional Challenge, with
the cost of the Bid set by the players depending on the situation. If the
player challenging the rules guide proves to be wrong, as determined
by checking the relevant rules, he must pay the Rules Guide an amount
equal to twice his Bid, and must pay each other player an amount of
Nomenar equal to the bid.



Setting Guide
--------------------------------------------------------
Another traditional role of the GM is to act as the
creator of the various elements and entities of the
games setting. This includes creating races, and monsters,
cultures, backdrops and locations, and other props that the
Personas interact with within the world.

The Role of the Setting Guide in The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The
Eternal Cycle is significantly different. In the Million Worlds all the
players take part in the design of the Setting. The Setting Guide acts
in a coordinating and oversight role, his chief duty to see that the
Entities designed by the players follow the Settings Tenets set by
the players.

His second major role is to keep a record of the designer
of each Game Entity, so that the necessary "Designer Royalties"
can be paid by whoever introduces them into a Narrative.
He also sees that each player recieves the necessary
Design Rewards for Meta-Entities within the game world.

The Setting Guide role is a volunteer position. He receives a
payment of 10 nomenar from each player for keeping the Setting
Chronicle from session to session. Like all Guide roles, this Role can be
shared among the players. Different players can also take on different
Setting Guide roles for different classes of Game Entities, etc.



Play Guide
-------------------------------------------------------
Another traditional role of the GM is to act as the moderator
of play. Keeping the game moving, making sure people
take their turns, and otherwise directing the players
through the procedures of the game.

The Play Guide performs much the same duties in
The Million Worlds: The Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle,
however is chief duty is to see that the Play Tenets established
by the Players are followed. He can levy fines against a player,
which may be Challenged, using either a Negotiated Challenge or a Unconditional Challenge.

In the case of a tie vote, the Play Guide wins.

The Play Guide is also a volunteer position. Each player pays the
play guide 1 Nomenar per session, or more for longer sessions.

Facilitating The Game
====================================

In addition to the guide roles, there are additional
support roles that players take on in order to facilitate the
play of the game, these are outlined below. Traditionally,
many of these support roles are often performed by the GM
as well. Players can choose to provide Nomenar rewards
to players who are gracious enough to facilitate
the game in these ways. Such rewards are generally
decided upon as a Play Tenet.

The Table & Chair Person
-------------------------------------------------
The player that hosts the other players by providing
the necessary space and fixtures to play the game.

Munchie Master
------------------------------------------------
The guy providing the all important frosty beverages
and tasty snacks. Or, the guy who bought the
pizza.

Storage Stalwart
------------------------------------------------
Someone who keeps all the Persona sheets,
maps, and other game materials safe between
sessions.

Social Secretary
------------------------------------------------
Person who works on organizing play and keeping
everyone informed of the actual game schedule.
Offers updates from the various Guides, and
generally helps keep the game working.



Player Rewards
========================================
In addition to the "transactional" rewards above,
the players can also call for Player Rewards.
Player Rewards are set by the Players as part of
the Play Tenets when setting up the game.

Common Player Rewards are awarding a player
a reward for in-game actions that the
other players find entertaining. These could
include having their character say
a really funny line. Of if a Narrative Guide
frames a really awesome scene. Or if
someone acts out a really dramatic scene
with a character. They can be for comedy,
drama, anything the players like.

Anyone can call for a player reward for another
player, that player gets 1 Nomenar for every
player that agrees, if all the other players
agree he gets 2 Nomenar for each player.

On the flip side of Player Rewards, are Player
Fines, these are based on the Play Tenets
that the characters set. Maybe all the players
have a rule about no Blackadder jokes. Or no
movie qoutes as in game dialogue, etc.

Any player may call for a Player Fine as well. For each player that
agrees with him, that player has to pay 1 Nomenar for each player
agreeing. If all the players agree, he has to pay 2 Nomenar for each
player agreeing. However, should the no one else agree with him that a
Fine is warranted, that player must pay that player 1 Nomenar for each
player disagreeing, and 1 Nomenar to each person who disagreed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. It's still quite rough and in need of some editing and revision and all,
but don't mind the imperfections, it's alive, alive!

thanks for your interest and attention

Rob Muadib
Kwisatz Haderach of Wild Muse Games
(C) 2002 Wild Muse Games/Robert A Mosley

Hey, this looks pretty cool.

Quick question: How do you deal with a two-player game - seems like the challenge mechanics with voting would break down with less than three players, unless I missed something.

Silk

Hey, you also bring up a good question. I have since revised my Challenge mechanic to a more general form, which I will post here.

Basically, in the case of only two players. No player can Call for a Vote,
since there is only two players. Thus the players either have to Accept
the Challenge, and the Nomenar bid, or they can Veto it, and pay off the
other player making the challenge. So, essentially, between two players,
it is basically pay up or shut up.

The currently revised "challenge" mechanics are as described below.

General Challenge Mechanic
=======================================

Conditional Challenges
----------------------------------------------

In the Conditional Challenge, the Challenging player would bid some
number of Nomenar and his proposed changes/conditions to the
challenged player. The Challenged player can then accept that change,
or counter-negotiate, bidding some nomenar amount less than the
amount bid by the Challenger back to the challenging player along with
his counter proposal, or he can Veto the Challenging Player's proposal.


If his Proposal is Vetoed, the challenging player can accept the Veto,
with the Challenged player paying him a number of Nomenar equal to the
amount the Challenging player originally bid. Optionally, the
Challenging player can Call for a Vote (or just Call), in this case, a
Vote is made. If the Challenging player wins the Vote, then the
challenged Player and each person voting in his favor must each chip in
an equal amount of Nomenar. This amount is such that each player voting
with the Challenging Player, as well as the Challenging player, receive
Nomenar equal to the amount bid by the Challenging Player, when
making his challenge. That is, each player who joins in a losing vote is
responsible for an equal part of the amount going to the winning voters.


If the Challenged player wins the Vote, then the challenging Player and
each person voting in his favor must each chip in an equal amount of
Nomenar. This amount is such that each player voting with the
Challenged Player, as well as the Challenged player, receive Nomenar
equal to the amount bid by the Challenging Player, when making his
challenge. That is, each player who joins in a losing vote is
responsible for an equal part of the amount going to the winning voters.

Note, that Players can choose to abstain from such votes, thereby
avoiding having to pay any Nomenar. If they abstain, however, they also
don't gain any Nomenar as a result of the challenge, and are still bound
by the results of the Challenge.

Unconditional Challenge
---------------------------------------------
The Unconditional Challenge works similar to this, except that the
Challenger is Vetoing the players proposal altogether. When making an
Unconditional Challenge, the Challenging player Bids some number of
Nomenar, and indicates his Veto of the players proposal.

The Challenged player can then either accept that Veto, getting the
number of Nomenar bid by the Challenging player, or he can refuse the
Veto, paying the Challenging player an amount of Nomenar equal to the
amount bid by the Challenging Player.

Alternately, the Challenged Player can Call for a Vote. The Vote
procedure works like that described for Conditional Challenges above. In
general Challenges are limited to a cycle of One Challenge/One Bid/One
Vote on any particular subject, to keep things focused on playing, and not
farking around with the meta-system for points.

In order to discourage frivolous Unconditional Challenges, say someone
making unconditional challenges for 1 point to extort Nomenar from a
player, or just be disruptive. Players can set an Ante for making
Unconditional Challenges, of say 1 Nomenar. This can be established as a
Play Tenet as well.

---------------------------------------------------------

I could certainly use some input in finetuning these. I am interested in what people think of this mechanic. The game will essentially have a Traditional, if fluid, play structure. I want to keep a good balance between
use of the Nomenar mechanic by the players to share in the game, but at the same time, I don't want it to totally overshadow play. That is, I imagine stretches of play that would seem a traditional players/GM setup while someone is acting as a Narrative Guide.

TFYI

Rob

I'm a bit concerned that with all this spending of nomenar, this would tend to entrench earlier tenents in "stone" as it were. This would then not allow the players to refactor all the tenents. It would seem easier to discuss all the tenets of the game all at once. But this could just be my impression. How would the the system work, if one player changed their mind, and asked to change one or more of the first few tenets?

Andrew

Hey, another good question. I guess I did consider the Genesis Session to
be a bit of chiseling. I would say that if someone wanted to change an already established Tenet, they would have to pay to repeal it, which would cost a number of Nomenar equal to the number of Nomenar that have been invested in that Tenet, plus an Ante of 1. I.E. to repeal the Mecha Tenet would cost 3 Nomenar, since It has been established as a Tenet and has one associated Sub-Tenet, and they would likely face a Challenge. So it pays to know what you want early, I guess.

You do bring up a good point about being able to consider the Tenets collectively, perhaps using Universalis' 1 Tenet Per Turn rule would help by giving the players more time to consider the evolving world concept.

I suppose a general procedural rule that nothing is established until the chips have been paid to the bank would help too. That is, on their turn, players could simply place their bid on the table and propose their idea, allowing for discussion if they like. Then, when they are satisfied, they can push their chips, banking them. And then, allowing for formal challenges and such.


One thing I also want to decide is whether players should be allowed to establish Tenets after the Genesis Session. Technically I would like to, but as play goes on, and more Game Entities have been designed and introduced into play, it would be bad to allow the creation of a new Tenet, or the repeal of an Established Tenet that would invalidate any existing In-Game Entities.

Given the games heavily simulationist style, and the amount of actual designing and such that will be associated with Game Entities, I think it should not be allowed as a General Rule, barring a special Play Tenet, of course. That is, after the Genesis Session, no player may propose a Tenet that would invalidate Game Entities that have been introduced into the Narrative.

Second, I think that any new Tenets that players would like to establish after the Genesis Session should probably cost like twice as much, again as a General Rule.

What do you guys think of that?

TFYI

Rob Muadib

RobMuadib wrote: The Setting Guide will then review
your Entity to see that it fits into the Setting Tenets established by
the group for the world. Once it passes review...

Jonathan

Good point about the Setting Guide stuff. I am still trying to decide
how I want this stuff to be dealt with relative to the Design Rewards/Royalties concept. I didn't intend for the SG's authority to be absolute, however, at the same time, I want to be able to allow for players to do Design work between play sessions.

If I make the "Royalty" awards contigent upon the Game Entity being used in the game, by being added to the Narrative or used in a Set-Piece, then it could allow for group input and challenges more easily. That would reduce the Setting Guides role to a more "secretarial" aspect.

That is, he would review a Game Entity to see if it Fits the Setting Tenets, otherwise it would have be considered by the whole group before it is eligible for use in the Narrative and thus, earn it's designer Royalties. So any Entites that he felt didn't fall within the Setting Tenets he would flag these as needing review by the group, requiring the Designer to justify his Game Entity, and possibly pay to alter or add to the Setting Tenets. Before it is added to the Game Entity "pool" for a particular Sphere/Narrative.

For stuff that clearly falls within the Setting Tenets, he would merely make note of the type of Game Entity, and the Royalties required to add it to the Narrative, and make a copy available to each of the players.

I have decided that there is a general Challenge Mechanic as well, which I discussed earlier in the thread. My assumption was that this was available for any addition to the Narrative or Narrative Environment someone might want to make during play. So players always have the option to Challenge someones contribution, by offering Conditions under which they would agree to it, or by vetoing it, paying off the person challenged based on how much it is worth to them. Thus giving up some of their future input.

Oh yeah, forgot to add the rule that you can only have One Challenge Cycle on any particular subject or game situation. This is to prevent repeated Challenges, and to maintain the flow of play. Since actually playing with all the cool toys people design is the focus of the game.

Oh, that reminds me of a conversation I had with Pale fire about what the game is about, he liked my "quintessential essence" statement about the game. So I thought I would share it to help people understand the intent of the game.

Essentially, this game is all about, to flashback to my childhood, bringing over all your cool GI Joe stuff to your friends to put together with his to play a big game, and having an equitable means to share the story while still getting to use your OH so cool Snake Eyes figure to kill Storm Shadow, so to speak.

Hey Rob. My group's regular game is fully co-gmed. I've been on-again-off-again following your game for a while, but my understanding of it may be bad and wrong.

Here's my (anti-system biased) general solution to shared setting creation:

All the players sit down and talk the setting out. They agree to general principles and specific details as they like. They volunteer for or accept authority over certain parts of the setting, as called for (this might include things like "Vincent's in charge of the fairy wood, don't mess with it" or "okay, I'll make rules for working out how giant monster robots are implemented in the game system, I'll bring 'em next session" or anything else.) Eventually they're ready to play.

That said, I'm going to ask:

What do your structured, formal mechanics contribute to the process? I'm sure you have reasons why settings should be created by a system other than the purely social; what are they?

I think your answers will help me understand and talk about your game.

-Vincent

(My standard rant explains where I'm coming from in more detail, I think, if you haven't read it.)

Vincent

Ok, let me try this again, my post was getting entirely too long:)

Why the explicit method for sharing authority/power within the game.

1. Collaborative RP is still uncommon. For every 1 game that does it, there are 50 that don't. Put simply, it makes the concept explicit and
a focus of the game.

2. The Nomenar not only facilitate the Authority sharing, but they also reward the players, thereby driving the thrust of the game. Specifically, the games thrust is the players to collaborate in creating a detailed, realistic game world to stage in which to stage their Narratives. that once introduced into the Narrative earn your more Nomenar for the trouble. By creating Game Entities that meet the Setting Tenets established by the group that are introduced into the Narrative, you earn more Nomenar.

3. Nomenar let you steer the game towards things that interest you, thus allowing for explicit drift towards the GNS priorities of the player. (though my particular game is not Narrativist, but does provide for drifting of the Sim mechanics via Nomenar towards Narrativist gaming, and Via the sharing of the Story Guide role by being able to create Narrativist Roles and Expectations.)

4. The Nomenar bidding makes the entire RP process more dynamic, in that the Narrative Guide role changes regularly. Thereby, making everyone more actively involved. This precludes illusionism. Instead, players may create Narrative Expectations and Roles for character's, that if the players' Character Guide meets those Expectations, he is directly rewarded by the player who established those Narrative Expectations. These expectations are clearly defined, but optional, thus directly facilitating "functional" play.

This makes the process of play much more explicit, particularly the idea of sharing authority and collaborating to play the game. In essence they provide a dymanic, descriptive game language with which the players can express their desires and expectations of the game. If they don't get what they wanted out of play, it is because they chose to be passive, and not pay for it. (hopefully)

5. The Nomenar system ties directly into the game systems Simulationist Priorities. Though players can introduce elements and situations via Narrative Expectations as the Narrative Guide, Scripting outcomes is cost prohibitive, by default, barring the consent of the group. Instead you may invest the Nomenar in a Persona or other Game Entity as Hero Points, increasing the odds of the Success of their actions. The emphasis is on in-game casualty.

Hey Rob.

1. Excellent. My 1-paragraph guidelines might leave players wondering what to do. With your system, players will sit down and go -- okay, I've got fifty points, what'll I spend them on? (Have you read my (incomplete) game Before the Flood? It also uses a (very different) specific structure to guide collaborative setting creation.)

2. Let me understand. In my role as co-setting-designer, I spend some points on, say, "there are giant monster robots that people drive around and fight each other in." That's a tenet, yes? Then I spend some more points and say, "here are the rules for representing giant monster robots in the game mechanics: their traits are Big, Strong, and Shooty..." etc. That's an entity?

Now, whenever any of the players introduces a giant monster robot into actual play, I get points back. Am I with you?

4. Can you give me an example of a Narrative Expectation?

4. and 5. So when somebody introduces a giant monster robot into play and I get points back, I can spend them on: a. bidding to be the GM for a bit, b. boosting my guy's effectiveness, c. giving other players' characters Narrative Expectations (is that right?) or d. other things too (creating new entities, tenets, or characters, whatever else).

Can you give me an official (if tentative) list? (Or point me back to where you've already given it. I'm sorry if I'm a bad reader.)

So to sum up: everybody starts out with equal creative power in the setting, 50 points apiece or whatever. You spend your points introducing things into the setting that you hope the other players will use. If they do, your power in the game grows. If they don't, it doesn't.

a. Is that about right?

b. Do you intend this to replace the normal social processes of the group, or to operate on top of them? Examples of the normal processes I'm talking about: Player A has a cool idea, and gets happy every time the group mentions it. Player B has a cool idea, but nobody else seems to dig it, so she feels marginalized.

c. When I get points, does that take power away from you? If we're bidding for GMship, it seems to. With Numenar being the driving force of the game, and Numenar being a resource for which the players must compete, how will you keep the game Simulationist, not Gamist?

(Finally, forgive me a bit of personal defensiveness.

...the important thing is that it is not as static as you have implied by your groups play.

Hey Rob, I'm reading your post over here in Theory, and I say:

Ah! Simulation focused on Exploration of System. Here I was mistaking it for Exploration of Setting.

Your game makes much more sense to me now.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: Hey Rob, I'm reading your post over here in Theory, and I say:

Ah! Simulation focused on Exploration of System. Here I was mistaking it for Exploration of Setting.

Your game makes much more sense to me now.

-Vincent

Very interesting. Some thoughts:

This seems like a very decent system for empowering and encouraging all participants of a game to take on the various aspects of gm-ship, and other assorted duties (bringing munchies etc). It seems implied from some of your posts that there will be types of mechanics from which participants who wish to introduce entities/elements can use to support their use in the game. You said it will be a "buffet" somewhere, nice description.

All (?) of the guide positions are flexible, can change from person to person, yes? Do they all have to be occupied at any given moment? How does the system account for gaps at any given time? By assuming that there will be competition for each of the main positions? (Persona guide, Setting Guide, Narrative Guide) That's possible, but not necessarily going to be the case all the time.

(This reminds me of what I was getting at in my own standard rant-ish post Common Sense Guidelines to Group Concensus Play. You may find that of interest, Rob. It got side-tracked onto figuring out the GNS interests of the participants, but that's wasn't my main point.) My experience of doing what you are outlining in your game has been free-form and not defined by a single system, and has been extremely satisfying. I can see you system functioning as a bridge for folks who are used to the gm/player divide, to help them get the jist of working collaboratively and just used to the idea that more than one person can do it at a time! There can be many ways of doing this.

What else? You are very clear in stating the intended priorities of your game: Sim first, some Gamist and allowing for Narrativist exploration but heavily weighted against it. You said:

Rob Muadib wrote: Narrativism relies on being able to Narrate Outcomes that address and support premise.

lumpley wrote: Hey Rob.

1. Excellent. My 1-paragraph guidelines might leave players wondering what to do. With your system, players will sit down and go -- okay, I've got fifty points, what'll I spend them on? (Have you read my (incomplete) game Before the Flood? It also uses a (very different) specific structure to guide collaborative setting creation.)

lumpley wrote:
2. Let me understand. In my role as co-setting-designer, I spend some points on, say, "there are giant monster robots that people drive around and fight each other in." That's a tenet, yes? Then I spend some more points and say, "here are the rules for representing giant monster robots in the game mechanics: their traits are Big, Strong, and Shooty..." etc. That's an entity?

Now, whenever any of the players introduces a giant monster robot into actual play, I get points back. Am I with you?

lumpley wrote:
4. Can you give me an example of a Narrative Expectation?

lumpley wrote:
4. and 5. So when somebody introduces a giant monster robot into play and I get points back, I can spend them on: a. bidding to be the GM for a bit, b. boosting my guy's effectiveness, c. giving other players' characters Narrative Expectations (is that right?) or d. other things too (creating new entities, tenets, or characters, whatever else).

Can you give me an official (if tentative) list? (Or point me back to where you've already given it. I'm sorry if I'm a bad reader.)

lumpley wrote:
So to sum up: everybody starts out with equal creative power in the setting, 50 points apiece or whatever. You spend your points introducing things into the setting that you hope the other players will use. If they do, your power in the game grows. If they don't, it doesn't.

a. Is that about right?

lumpley wrote:
b. Do you intend this to replace the normal social processes of the group, or to operate on top of them? Examples of the normal processes I'm talking about: Player A has a cool idea, and gets happy every time the group mentions it. Player B has a cool idea, but nobody else seems to dig it, so she feels marginalized.

lumpley wrote:
c. When I get points, does that take power away from you? If we're bidding for GMship, it seems to. With Numenar being the driving force of the game, and Numenar being a resource for which the players must compete, how will you keep the game Simulationist, not Gamist?

lumpley wrote:
(Finally, forgive me a bit of personal defensiveness.

...the important thing is that it is not as static as you have implied by your groups play.

I don't believe that bidding for the GM position will be "less static" than simply having any or everyone adopt whatever parts of the GM position the group feels is appropriate in the moment.)

Emily Care wrote: Very interesting. Some thoughts:

All (?) of the guide positions are flexible, can change from person to person, yes? Do they all have to be occupied at any given moment? How does the system account for gaps at any given time? By assuming that there will be competition for each of the main positions? (Persona guide, Setting Guide, Narrative Guide) That's possible, but not necessarily going to be the case all the time.

Emily Care wrote:
My experience of doing what you are outlining in your game has been free-form and not defined by a single system, and has been extremely satisfying. I can see you system functioning as a bridge for folks who are used to the gm/player divide, to help them get the jist of working collaboratively and just used to the idea that more than one person can do it at a time! There can be many ways of doing this.

Emily Care wrote:
I believe I disagree. Narrating outcomes can refer to at least two things: the interpretation of conflict resolution results, and (gm) fiat regarding events. If what you meant was either of these, I disagree.

Instead, using your terminology, I might say that narrativism relies on being able to introduce entities, mechanics and direct narrative flow. Entities (be they villains, political plots, or rival nations) are what allow a game participant to express the conflict they would like to explore in a narrativist campaign. Premise is a question, "What would I do to gain my freedom? Who would I sacrifice for success?" Outcomes instead may represent answers to the question of premise.

--Emily Boss

Just a note, Rob, to follow up on Emily's question. We find in play that occasionally no player wants to take on a certain role. For example, in framing the upcoming scene, we had to include a rule about what happens if nobody bids for it. Which happens all the time. In Universalis, the player to the left of the player who ended the scene has to pick up framing the next scens if nobody bids.

This sort of rule is to keep continuity in the game. What happens in your game if nobody buys the Narration Guide for a scene? What happens if nobody volunteers for a particular position.

Also, you seem to assume that some of your positions will be filled, but only one person will volunteer. That seems unlikely. What happens if more than one player volunteers for a particular role? Who gets it?

In general terms, to streamline things, I'd make the rules regarding the guide positions as univeersal as possible, the difference being not the rules surrounding the position, but what it controls. So I'd have one method for determining who is in a position at a given time (including what happens if more than one player wants it, or none want it). And one method for how they make determinations. And one method for how those determinations can be overruled.

The way I see it now, it seems like a guide can make a ruling, and then playeers can challenge the rulings. That's pretty cool. But just make sure that it's clear that any ruling can be challenged. Otherwise, it looks like one can challenge something that the Setting Guide let in, but not something that he excluded. Or do you wnat to have particular positions have certain absolute veto powers? I can see that, too; it just needs to be explicit if that's the case.

BTW, I'd expand the explicit power of the Play Guide. In Universalis, we considered having a position called First Player. A sort of "less than GM" participant who's only real additional power was the ability to keep play moving, and direct traffic. Something like a Speaker at an assembly. I think with your system, it would be very cool iand probably very effective, if that sort of power were explicitly invested in a single player. He'd be allowed to do stuff like "call for order" and the like (presumably he'd also act as his own Sergeant at Arms should the need arise to kick ass ;-) ), and generally have the authority to force players to do their job. Essentially I'm suggesting that the Play Guide have explicit powers such as you'd find in Robert's Rules of Order, instead of just the traditional casual authority that you find residing with the GM in most RPG play.

Here's an example of what I think a sample of play would look like:
The Play Guide runs the purchase of the Narration Guide position for a scene, and then cedes the floor to him. Then another player wants to interrupt with a script, he raises his hand, and at an opportune pause, the Play Guide recognizes that player. That player then states a rules objection. The Play Guide refers this to the Rules Guide who makes a ruling. The Play Guide then runs the voting on the subsequent cahllenge of the Rules Guide's ruling. Then he cede's the floor back to the Narration Guide. A further interruption happens, and a player is recognized by the Play Guide, and purchases a script for the scene. The play Guide monitors his length, and oince this is finished, the Play Guide again turns the scene back over to the Narration Guide. When the Narration Guide closes the scene, the Play Guide then orchestrates the next Scene's purchase.

Sounds very formal, but it appeals to me quite a bit. By making one player responsible for keeping things going you can remain very focused (its up to the social committee chairperson to call for breaks at the appropriate time :-) ).

It's a very cool idea to distribute these duties out amongst the players. One thing that I think you've overstacked, however, is the job of recording. If that job falls to the Narrative Guide, and that job rotates as each player Narrates, then that tmeans that not only does that player control the scene, but also has to record it simultaneously. We've noted in Universalis, how this is a distraction, and not a good idea. What I suggest is that the "Secretary" position rotate as often as the Narrative Guide does. In fact, since this is a sort of minor power (more of a responsibility, really), I suggest that it be automatically assigned. Something like the player seated to the left of the current Narrator Guide is always the Secretary (this would facilitate the secretary whispering questions to the Narration Guide if need be). Alternatively some masochistic player might volunteer for the role, and that's fine as well; however, if/when he becomes the Narrative Guide, he should have someone to pass the duty off to so he is not distracted.

In fact, you might want to consider that the Narration Guide should pass off most of his other positions temporarily while he remains the Narration Guide. I'm envisioning little placcards with the positions name on the front, and a list of duties and powers on the back for each role. Such that on transfer of the role, all that need be done is transfer the placcard in order to avoid confusion about who is who.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm envisioning little placcards with the positions name on the front, and a list of duties and powers on the back for each role. Such that on transfer of the role, all that need be done is transfer the placcard in order to avoid confusion about who is who.

Mike

Hey, thanks for the suggestions. I would seem the best thing to do is write up a draft How to Play chapter. Indicating the roles and how things are done. The Nomenar system, etc. I appreciate your suggestions, and making the assumptions that I have thus far worked on explicit is a very good idea. Also thanks for the round table rule of assigning Guide positions by default. As well as the Play Guide ideas. As I said, going to start on a how to play chapter next.

Emily

Hey, thanks for your suggestion as well. Thinking of it, It would seem instead of a placard, per se, just use 3 by 5 cards, with Guide Position Written on front, and duties/powers on back. (This will fit well with poker chips for nomenar.)

Other idea I had along this line, is that when a player is acting within a Guide position, he could hold up his Guide Role Card to officiate. When the roles change, the Cards change hands as well. This "Carding" (think Soccer) behavior would support the shared play concept. Since the "power" of the card goes to whoevers holding it as it were, rather than someone holding all the cards, like say your traditional GM. (Well, at least it seems clever for explanation purposes:) ).

Thanks for your input guys, now just do to start a new draft.