Let's talk Nine Worlds. See, at this point it's floundering a bit, as I "wait" for artists to reply, a.k.a. procrastinating.

Maybe that's a good thing, because Ron has brought up lots of issues (his "Infamous Five" issues, as I've been calling them) that have me thinking about this game in terms of who it's for and what it does.

The who it's for, very specifically, is the "Hartford crew" -- my "other" gaming group, which has in fact become my primary gaming group of late (Hartford is just the tiny town in which that grou plays). The game concept and design is a reaction to my perception of what kind of Forge-theory-driven game they might really enjoy. I believe them to be a group that could benefit (indeed, they already are) from ideas often discussed at the Forge.

In the larger, more general sense, it's for all the folks out there who play other games like Mage and Nobilis (particularly Mage, since I can't speak much of Nobilis) who either don't know what they're missing (in terms Forge issues, like Coherency -- see below) or have become frustrated with game play of games they should enjoy -- again, Mage is one example I'm consciously thinking of.

As for what it does, well, I'll be getting to that.

Ok, now of the topics Ron has presented, the two I'm really interested here are: 1) Mainstream vs. Alternative and 2) Vanilla vs. Pervy

I'll start with topic number 1. My initial reaction about mainstreaming is that my ambition with this game is the inverse of what Ron's been talking about overtly in several posts (though he's not ignoring what I'm going to say next ... ). That is, Nine Worlds isn't my attempt to bring in non-gamers to the fold. Rather, it's a reverse effort -- trying to "de-geek" gamers to recognize new ways of approaching the hobby in the guise of a very far-out genre, perhaps one they're already familiar with. In so doing, I think I may be indirectly encouraging them to redefine their hobby, even just slightly, which opens their hobby up piece by piece to the mainstream world. (EDIT: You know, I think a log of Forge games already are doing this, so I'm hardly innovating. I guess I'm just thinking about it consciously, unlike when I created Dust Devils.)

How will it do that? Well, I think the most important issue is Coherency. The game must make it perfectly clear what it is about and what the mechanics 1) let you do as a player and 2) DON'T let you do as a player. Obviuosly, this is not a new goal for design here on the Forge! Once again, Snyder's just catching up (having lucked into it mostly on Dust Devils).

So, immediately I need to recognize whether it's a Sim or Nar. game. It's Narrative. That's that.

But, for those of you who know me, you can guess this decision was about as clear as mud for me. I waffled for two reasons: 1) I wanted the game to appeal to folks who do like Mage, and therefore I believed (perhaps wrongly) they might prefer a Sim. game and 2) The premise I've stated seemed too squishy to me. The premise is: "How can you inflict your identity on the universe to save it from oblivion?" Or just shortened to: "Create or perish." However, the Sim. premise could be: "What is it like to be the penultimate creative force in the universe?" (That is, Sim. Exploration of Character)

Anyway, lets assume that "Create or Perish" is sufficient. (Comments are welcome on that topic, of course.) So, the issue is creating a coherent game that sticks to that premise.

This should be no problem. The game rules allow player to portray only Artisans, and they only approach conflicts that put creativity and artistry at stake. Fights with street thugs or driving cars is irrelevant in the game. What's relevant is assailing the universe -- and its scourges, the titans -- with your artistic viewpoint. Inflicting your identity (even as a player!) on the world is what the game is about. So, this might mean fighting thugs or drivign a car, if it matters -- if doing so jeopardizes the shape of a celestial conflict.

(By the way, what is it about creating coherent Narrative games that seems so much easier than coherent sim games? Sim. is a hydra, and I suppose that's the problem, no?)

Now on to topic 2: Vanilla vs. Pervy. First, a warning: Just like all the other terms I had to learn over and over, I'm sure I'm going to get this one wrong. But here goes. I think it's a pervy game. That's because it codifies narration, converting success in conflict into a kind of currency that players use to dole out to describe events and resolutions. (To read how it does so, please check out: Nine Worlds: Initial mechanics explanation, but keep in mind these have already been altered. However, the "tricks" idea is key and remains as stated there.)

Said again: The game converts narration (via a fortune mechanic using cards) into currency that players dole out to various effects, not unlike, say, Plot Points in octaNe.

So, because I'm still chewing on what Ron's got up his sleeve, I'm curious to know whether the "ambition" might be better served with a more Vanilla approach, or if the pervy approach is just the ticket for the folks I'm kinda-sort aming for.

IN SUMMARY:

What am I asking?

1) Is the premise sufficient and/or appropriate?

2) Is your assessment of the mechanics as described thus far that they are pervy or narrativist?

3) How do 1 & 2 above address the ambition to "mainstream" gamers, or at least provide a more coherent magical realism-like game?

Hi Matt,

Bearing in mind that I'm well out of the target audience (never did like the "reality is shaped by the collective belief" thing), here are my thoughts.

1) Simulationist or Narrativist? Part of the problem is solved by recognizing that Exploration of Character is not itself, a Simulationist thing to do. People always mix that up. Instead, it's when you prioritize that as itself, away from either real-person competing/strategizing or real-person theme creation, that you get Simulationist play.

So if you want it to go Narrativist, then it's all about Premise. It's not about whether you do or don't Explore Character.

2) A strong Narrativist Premise offers alternatives - or at least, the negative response is potentially as exciting as the positive one. In Dust Devils, if you shoot, it could well or badly; but if you give up the gun, it could also go well or badly. In Sorcerer, you may or may not drop Humanity to 0, but either way, it's cool and it means/says something.

By contrast, "Create or Perish" reads to me as, "Create or don't play." Not a lot of options there. The way around that is for perishing to be really interesting and fun, but I'm not sure that's possible for what you've described already about the game.

One possibility, offered only as an example not as a suggestion, to render it more Narrativist-rich is, "If reality is shaped by creativity, where do right and wrong come from?" Or perhaps, "When is creativity a bad thing?"

All that is really abstract, of course; it could be sharpened up to more specific issues easily given some thought to the elements of the game.

3) Yup, Pervy, in my terms. That's a good thing, if your target is the person who already role-plays. Pervy Coherence is the same thing as System Does Matter.

4) Can't say about the "appeal" issue - as I said, I always twitch and lose my willingness to have fun with something when the perceiver-creates-the-reality business enters the picture. Personal failing, I suppose.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
1) Simulationist or Narrativist? Part of the problem is solved by recognizing that Exploration of Character is not itself, a Simulationist thing to do. People always mix that up. Instead, it's when you prioritize that as itself, away from either real-person competing/strategizing or real-person theme creation, that you get Simulationist play.

So if you want it to go Narrativist, then it's all about Premise. It's not about whether you do or don't Explore Character.

Ron Edwards wrote:
By contrast, "Create or Perish" reads to me as, "Create or don't play." Not a lot of options there. The way around that is for perishing to be really interesting and fun, but I'm not sure that's possible for what you've described already about the game.

Ron Edwards wrote:
One possibility, offered only as an example not as a suggestion, to render it more Narrativist-rich is, "If reality is shaped by creativity, where do right and wrong come from?" Or perhaps, "When is creativity a bad thing?"

Ron Edwards wrote:
4) Can't say about the "appeal" issue - as I said, I always twitch and lose my willingness to have fun with something when the perceiver-creates-the-reality business enters the picture. Personal failing, I suppose.