Hi all

I have just finished the first draft of the Game Concepts: Shared Play
chapter for The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle (TM).
This chapter lays out the basic what is this game, what do you need to
play it, and how do you play it stuff. So anyway, it is available as a
PDF to anyone who would like to take a look at it and offer some
comments. A warning however, it is a bit over 10K words, around 24
pages of stuff, oh, and without any examples yet, so I am sure it is dry
reading. Oh, and it is a first draft with minimal to no editing, so I am sure
there mass typos and editing errors and such.

Given those caveats. to the two or three of you who might still slog
through it, some questions. I am wondering what you think of the
whole, "play concept", it proposes? Are there any explanatory
shortcomings or things I failed to discuss that I should have? What do you
think of the Nomenar reward/input system as proposed? Any other
comments you might offer are appreciated.


Speaking of appreciation, some acknowledgements are due. The
Production Scripts are a port of Universalis' Tenets concept, as is the
Citing Facts in a challenge idea, and the whole Script system was inspired
by Universalis' coin system. The rewards system was influenced by the
Experience Dice system from Fang's Scattershot work. ( Two great tastes
that taste great together I hope:) ) Oh, and Ian Millington's Ergo text
informed my collaborative concepts and methodology/procedural advice.

Oh, and any recomendations for better Scene management are
appreciated. Also, what do you think of the Play Awards for Narrative
favored narrative techniques/devices concept?


Oh, and did the games thrust of kewl stuff simulationism come through?


Anyway, as I said comments are much appreciated. I am like so happy to
be finished, well with the first draft at least.


Thanks for your interest.

First a bit on the presentation so far. What's with all the one and two sentence paragraphs? Very disjointed, and hard to read to me. And there are lots of statements that seem to be references to rules, but with no reference given (wil these be put in later?). Also, you often have headers that are the same style as those which they are supposed to be under. This is a tad confusing. OTOH, your instructions direct the game activities well, and give a clear vision of what each phase is supposed to be like.

Now, on to rules.

If only one person volunteers for a Guide Position, and you feel that they are unsuitable, is your only recourse to volunteer, too, and hope to win the roll? I think you might mention that players should have some discussion, perhaps a considerable amount, on what makes up a good candidate, what each Role entails, and who everybody thinks would be good for what role. Then when everyone agrees that they are prepared, the first Role can be brought up for volunteering.

Why the particular order of presentation for the guides? You put the two that relate to play most first, which seems counterintuitive. In fact, I think that you might consider leaving them out entirely of the setup phase discussion and only introduce them in the play phase description. Just an idea. OTOH, for reference, I'd think alphabetical would make most sense.

Another idea is to present them in order that they should be volunteered for. That is, The Rules Guide seems like it should be taken first, so that he can immediately start adjudicating the rules. He can also assume the Role of Play Guide temporarily until the next assignment which would be the Play Guide. Who would then take over control from the Rules Guide, and direct the assignment of the Game Guide (In case play should break at this point). And lastly the Setting Guide.

There may be a better order. And I may be overdoing the rigor. But this is the first act of play, and will set the tone for it. Anyhow, going by such a rigid set of rules seems fun to me.

I know, I said I wasn't going to do this, but it's text editing, not post editing:
Appraise - to determine value
Apprise - to inform or suggest
Tim apprised Bob that he needed to have his house appraised.

You point out that the Setting Guide and Rules Guide positions can be split. How is this performed? How is it decided, and by whom? When, any time, or just during setup?

I assume that the most important denominations other than ones is fives, given the fact that many rewards are five. What is the starting Anwa? I coudn't find it anywhere. The whole Nomenar terminiology (Mithal, Anwa), threatens to be offputting. I can take it, but some people really don't like learning a lot of new terms with no mnemonic value.

Also, while discussion of Nomenar as tokens seems pertinent to setup, the rewards and fines seem to be part of play to me. Maybe it'd make more sense to introduce rewards in the Play Phase description.

You might want to include notes on how to transfer from setup to play. Does the Play Guide just decide (perhaps refering to some checklist) , or does somebody have to make a motion and a vote be called?

To find how a Payoff is determined, I have to look under Director Scripts. Took me reading to that point to find that out.

A problem with the blind bidding thing and ties is that players may repeatedly acidentally tie. At some point they may even both give up and bid zero more (I assume that this is an option). While I'm not too concerned about duration of this activity, the idea that players may end up spending a lot of Nomenar to get a scene arises. Weird coincidences may cause the cost to be very high, occasionally. Is this just a risk that a bidding player takes?

Thought about letting people bid for other people than themselves?

I'm assuming that Cues allow the Narrative Guide to interrupt Speakers (they do not have to yield to allow him to do things)? This is one section where examples will be particuarly important.

The text says that during scenes "actions" are resolved using the mechanics. What constitutes a valid "action"? Who calls for this to occur, the Narrative Guide?

Are the System Mechanics in fact realistic as the section under scenes relates? Or is it intended to be Plausible, or even Dramatic or "Cinematic? Haven't seen them so I have to ask. Also, just to be clear, the controller of an Entity narrates the effects generated by the system? But they don't narrate entry of their Entities, or Narrative scripts that they propose? This seems a bit odd. The latter effect means that Player A will tell Player B what will happen, then Player B will narrate the effect. Seems like it would lose some drama in the re-telling.

Play Guide recognizes Script Interruptions? Not the Narrative Guide? Is that correct? Actually, I think that's cool. Keeps the Play Guide engaged, and gives the players a way to go "over the head" of the Narrative Guide who may not be interested in recognizing Interruptions. Cool.

Why does a Scene "pot" concept come in from out of the blue? It costs me to introduce something, but then the Narrative Guide gets to spend that Nomenar on whatever? Your statement that the Narrative Guide does not pay for Casting Scripts seems contradictory. I get what you mean but it sounds confusing. This all seems shakey; perhaps an overview outside of the Script section? This mechanic alone makes the opening bid worth the price of admission (as it were).

I'm assuming that "Take Overs" last for the entire scene? Otherwise, if I give you a Nomenar to take an Entity that I currently control, then I can just give you the Nomenar right back and take control for myself. This sort of interruption seems to be stated as an exception to the rules; basically, it doesn't acknowledge that the player has to be recognized by anyone to do it.

Does "renting" an Entity happen similarly with just an announcement by the interested parties?

Cast of Thousands might be very problematic. All depends on the way that things are crreated within the frameworks, which I've not seen.

Your color vs. impact rule needs some help. Who decides what events have Impact and which do not? By what crieteria? And how does the player know before hand how much something will cost (so he can plan accordingly)? This is an opportunity. Have this be part of the Narration Guide's mandate. He just decides what things cost for players. They say, "How about if this happens?", and the NG says, "Sure, for 5 Nomenar." In the end the price is determined by haggling. Perhaps the player can go over the head of the Narrator Guide to the Rules Guide for this, instead, or something so the Narrator Guide can be overruled. Lot's of cool possibilities here to make it easier than the "one event, one Nomenar" rule.

Unlike Casting, the Narrative Guide does not need to do Narrative Scripts? Hmm. That seems inconsistent. Why not have him have to pay like anyone else, and then get it back at the end, just like Casting costs? Provides a limit to the scene then. OTOH, it does speed play if he doesn't have to do this....

Director Scripts are problematic. I pay to set up a reward, and then hope that somebody takes the bait? What if they never do? Seems like a big gamble. Couldn't payment be delayed until after the Expectation is met? Making these, essentially, bribes to have players do things your way?

Storyboard Scripts seem confusing. Again, why do I want to explain what will happen in that great a detail all before hand?

The penalty for borrowing (IOUs) seems arbitrary, and unimportant. Sure, I'll take out 10,000 Nomenar, please. Are you going to Challenge everything I do with it? Are you going to borrow as well to do so? There needs to be interest charged or something, and some other limit to make being in debt uncomfortable. How about being in debt means that you can't call a Challenge until it's paid? And/or can't be Narration Guide (which avoids players borrowing heavily to take control of scenes)? That sort of thing.

"Challenges" in the play section should instead be labeled "Script Chellenges". So that people don't get the idea that this is where all Challenges are referenced. There is another reference, right? Script Chalenges are "first come, first served" in terms of who gets to do the one Challenge to a particular Script? The voting mechanism seems to be comon to all these sorts of Challenges; it might make better sense to just describe the mechanism and refer to it in each section with particular diffences noted (the Special Challenge tie).

On a Conditional Challenge, you can't ask for more Nomenar? You can only downbid? The disbursements methodology seem a bit lengthy.

Again, how does transition to Record Keeping occcur? I assume that someone calls for it after the end of some scene? Or can it be called just after a conflict has been estalblished in a scene, thus creating the "Cliffhanger" effect? Or just whenever?

Also, how about a formal method for adjourning? Just to keep the whole thing tight from stem to stern. Which also suggests that there should be a formal method for play to be brought to order at the beginning of a session after the first (since the Guides are still assigned).

I think that I understand the decision to introduce the Genesis Session concept so late, but it seems out of place. Hey, now I know how many Nomenar we start with (is that it?). Is there any way you could see clear to putting it up front? Knowing how that works makes understanding the rest much easier.

Hmmm. No rule for changing the rules on the Narrative Level? Hmmm.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: First a bit on the presentation so far. What's with all the one and two sentence paragraphs? Very disjointed, and hard to read to me. And there are lots of statements that seem to be references to rules, but with no reference given (wil these be put in later?). Also, you often have headers that are the same style as those which they are supposed to be under. This is a tad confusing. OTOH, your instructions direct the game activities well, and give a clear vision of what each phase is supposed to be like.

Mike Holmes wrote:
If only one person volunteers for a Guide Position, and you feel that they are unsuitable, is your only recourse to volunteer, too, and hope to win the roll? I think you might mention that players should have some discussion, perhaps a considerable amount, on what makes up a good candidate, what each Role entails, and who everybody thinks would be good for what role. Then when everyone agrees that they are prepared, the first Role can be brought up for volunteering.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Why the particular order of presentation for the guides? You put the two that relate to play most first, which seems counterintuitive. In fact, I think that you might consider leaving them out entirely of the setup phase discussion and only introduce them in the play phase description. Just an idea. OTOH, for reference, I'd think alphabetical would make most sense.

Mike Holmes wrote:
I assume that the most important denominations other than ones is fives, given the fact that many rewards are five. What is the starting Anwa? I coudn't find it anywhere. The whole Nomenar terminiology (Mithal, Anwa), threatens to be offputting. I can take it, but some people really don't like learning a lot of new terms with no mnemonic value.

Mike Holmes wrote:
A problem with the blind bidding thing and ties is that players may repeatedly acidentally tie. At some point they may even both give up and bid zero more (I assume that this is an option). While I'm not too concerned about duration of this activity, the idea that players may end up spending a lot of Nomenar to get a scene arises. Weird coincidences may cause the cost to be very high, occasionally. Is this just a risk that a bidding player takes?

Thought about letting people bid for other people than themselves?

Mike Holmes wrote:
I'm assuming that Cues allow the Narrative Guide to interrupt Speakers (they do not have to yield to allow him to do things)? This is one section where examples will be particuarly important.

Play Guide recognizes Script Interruptions? Not the Narrative Guide? Is that correct? Actually, I think that's cool. Keeps the Play Guide engaged, and gives the players a way to go "over the head" of the Narrative Guide who may not be interested in recognizing Interruptions. Cool.

Mike Holmes wrote:
The text says that during scenes "actions" are resolved using the mechanics. What constitutes a valid "action"? Who calls for this to occur, the Narrative Guide?

Are the System Mechanics in fact realistic as the section under scenes relates? Or is it intended to be Plausible, or even Dramatic or "Cinematic? Haven't seen them so I have to ask.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Also, just to be clear, the controller of an Entity narrates the effects generated by the system? But they don't narrate entry of their Entities, or Narrative scripts that they propose? This seems a bit odd. The latter effect means that Player A will tell Player B what will happen, then Player B will narrate the effect. Seems like it would lose some drama in the re-telling.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Why does a Scene "pot" concept come in from out of the blue? It costs me to introduce something, but then the Narrative Guide gets to spend that Nomenar on whatever? Your statement that the Narrative Guide does not pay for Casting Scripts seems contradictory. I get what you mean but it sounds confusing. This all seems shakey; perhaps an overview outside of the Script section? This mechanic alone makes the opening bid worth the price of admission (as it were).

Unlike Casting, the Narrative Guide does not need to do Narrative Scripts?
Hmm. That seems inconsistent. Why not have him have to pay like anyone else, and then get it back at the end, just like Casting costs? Provides a limit to the scene then. OTOH, it does speed play if he doesn't have to do this....

Mike Holmes wrote:
I'm assuming that "Take Overs" last for the entire scene? Otherwise, if I give you a Nomenar to take an Entity that I currently control, then I can just give you the Nomenar right back and take control for myself. This sort of interruption seems to be stated as an exception to the rules; basically, it doesn't acknowledge that the player has to be recognized by anyone to do it.

Does "renting" an Entity happen similarly with just an announcement by the interested parties?

Mike Holmes wrote:
Your color vs. impact rule needs some help. Who decides what events have Impact and which do not? By what crieteria? And how does the player know before hand how much something will cost (so he can plan accordingly)? This is an opportunity. Have this be part of the Narration Guide's mandate. He just decides what things cost for players. They say, "How about if this happens?", and the NG says, "Sure, for 5 Nomenar." In the end the price is determined by haggling. Perhaps the player can go over the head of the Narrator Guide to the Rules Guide for this, instead, or something so the Narrator Guide can be overruled. Lot's of cool possibilities here to make it easier than the "one event, one Nomenar" rule.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Director Scripts are problematic. I pay to set up a reward, and then hope that somebody takes the bait? What if they never do? Seems like a big gamble. Couldn't payment be delayed until after the Expectation is met? Making these, essentially, bribes to have players do things your way?

Mike Holmes wrote:
Storyboard Scripts seem confusing. Again, why do I want to explain what will happen in that great a detail all before hand?

Mike Holmes wrote:
The penalty for borrowing (IOUs) seems arbitrary, and unimportant. Sure, I'll take out 10,000 Nomenar, please. Are you going to Challenge everything I do with it? Are you going to borrow as well to do so? There needs to be interest charged or something, and some other limit to make being in debt uncomfortable. How about being in debt means that you can't call a Challenge until it's paid? And/or can't be Narration Guide (which avoids players borrowing heavily to take control of scenes)? That sort of thing.

Mike Holmes wrote:
"Challenges" in the play section should instead be labeled "Script Chellenges". So that people don't get the idea that this is where all Challenges are referenced. There is another reference, right? Script Chalenges are "first come, first served" in terms of who gets to do the one Challenge to a particular Script? The voting mechanism seems to be comon to all these sorts of Challenges; it might make better sense to just describe the mechanism and refer to it in each section with particular diffences noted (the Special Challenge tie).

On a Conditional Challenge, you can't ask for more Nomenar? You can only downbid? The disbursements methodology seem a bit lengthy.

Mike Holmes wrote:
I think that I understand the decision to introduce the Genesis Session concept so late, but it seems out of place. Hey, now I know how many Nomenar we start with (is that it?). Is there any way you could see clear to putting it up front? Knowing how that works makes understanding the rest much easier.

Mike Holmes wrote:
Hmmm. No rule for changing the rules on the Narrative Level? Hmmm.

RobMuadib wrote: Hey, thanks for feedback, I appreciate your taking the time to look it all over.

Good idea there. Definitely should address that more. Perhaps I should use some type of Nomination/Vote method. Where people can volunteer for each guide, or be nominated by someone else. And then have people vote for it. That would facilitate the process you describe above.

On the other hand easy of use/familiarity may have to win out. will try to make universe relative terms more accessible in next draft.

Hmm, didn't think about it as being particularly blind, or at least wasn't my intention, just came out that way in writing it. I suppose having the Play Guide asking for Bids would work better. He recognizes whoever
wants to bid, they give their bid, and then he asks for any higher bids
auction style. When no one is willing to bid. The player with highest bid
wins, he pays up, and is awarded NG card and is recognized as Speaker.

Good point, think I will change it so that the NG is technically the Speaker while conduction scene, he then cues for information informally, but remaining speaker for whole time, until at such time that someone calls for an Interruption, then Play guide recognizes that player and he is given Speakership to make his case.

I haven't posted much about my system mechanics as I am pretty happy with them,

If you would like to take a look, have the following relevant PDF's
available

Which is where some of the reality rules concepts come in, letting you favor your character with more "cinematic" authoring oomph by players via Agent Scripts. Also by mitigating the results of the Resolution system to favor the outcome you want. But still working through the use of the system. Also, option for Cinematic/Realistic/Brutal damage stuff.

Hmm, good point. I meant that Entity controller isresponsible for
generating his Success Rating or Effect Score to provide the NG, rather
than the expectation that the NG or RG will do it for you. But perhaps I
should soften that somewhat, to allow for newbness. Still, the expectation
is that you will learn the system and love the system. Which I guess
means I meant the NG to add it to the narrative too, you just had to do
the grunt work.

What do you think of this concept. I see it as facilitating, these are the toys I want to play with, roll them in for me, or this is the stuff I want to explore, give it to me on a silver platter. Heres a service fee.

Oops, it would seem that i didn't explain this very well. It should be that he pays for both Casting and Narration scripts, but gets them for free after a rebate, as it were. But by limiting him to what he can spend at the moment, still limits his power.

Set up a simple impact/scope rating or similar. (Impact is largely tied to mechanical effect here.) So a 1 Nomenar Narration would be purely Atmosphere, or for more, he can have it cause a mechanical effect, and thus become Detail. . So if he says there's a light rain, and it's overcast as you travel to the castle that would be pure atmosphere (1 Nomenar). But if he said there is a light rain and it's overcast as you travel to the castle (1), the ground is slick, and you will have to watch your footing (Movement penalty of -1, 1 Nomenar). The
light is wan and there is a mist, making things difficult to see, the water
getting in your eyes. (Visibility Penalty -3, 3 nomenar), paying 1 more for
each Personae in the scene, for first 10, etc.

Hmm, good point, perhaps having it go into an "escrow" account, until it's time for the payoff, then, those Nomenar go into the Mithal, and the players each get that many from the Mithal. If no one bites, the NG gets them back, and will have to improvise or something.

Hmm, I guess I didn't set that one up as well as I should have. Basically it was meant to be a "GM fiat as outcome resolution" device, suspending the use of the system mechanics, as well as normal interaction by the players, to make things happen in the game. So, I should have said it was only available for use by NG. The NG would narrate events, outcomes, and Effects. Paying the nomenar costs as he goes. So first he would pay to "take over" or rent each entity he was storyboarding, then narrate things, paying for the outcomes and effects as he goes. With the option for players to Challenge with regards to the effects on their Propietary Personae. It is meant to allow the GM to either gloss over stuff for pacing concerns, or play the Auteur where desired, and accepted by the players.

What would you reccommend for the conditional challenge, a quick
negotiation phase tied to the price?

I am drawing a blank here as to what you mean with the narrative level rules, care to elaborate.