All,

Been off The Forge for quite some time due to RL issues. I've been slowly slogging toward completion of my game, Incarnate.

The original threads can be found here and here.

Below please find my first set of revisions - starting with the Social Contract/Point of the Game section and an outline for how Character Creation will proceed.

Any commentary/suggestions would be more than welcome.

incarnate

Social Contract
Incarnate is a roleplaying game that emphasizes two different styles of playing decision-making by the participants, although not necessarily equally well for any given troupe or playing session. Specifically, the game can effectively support competitive play among all the players (including the Game Master), or a more collaborative play designed to support a more narrative style.

The game is designed around the concept of Troupe style play, with either a single player acting as the Game Master or with each player taking on that role in turn, even within the same game session.

Troupe style play entered my consciousness through a game called Ars Magica – a game I was fortunate enough to encounter in it’s 1st edition before beginning to play any of the Storyteller System games. Where there is much to commend and much to deride in Ars Magica, this one concept represented the first real sea change in my own internal desires and expectations about what an RPG could do. Regardless of any shortcomings in the system – failures to solidly support any particular mode of play - I think that the Troupe style introduced to me therein makes a fitting starting point for Incarnate.

This style of play, as outlined in that game, is set up so that each player ends up controlling a multitude of characters throughout the life of any given game – often times even within a single session. Each player creates one primary and many secondary characters through which to Explore the System, Setting, Color, Characters, and potentially a variety of Premises.

The decision about whether or not a single member of the Troupe will act as the Game Master is the first, and probably most important aspect of the game that will determine which of the two style of play the rules best support. When a single Game Master is chosen, the Consensual Hallucination is said to be hostile to the Protagonists, and the game will tend to better support a more competitive style of play. If the Troupe decides instead to share, in turn, the responsibilities generally reserved for the Game Master in most mainstream RPGs, the Consensual Hallucination is said to be neutral to the Protagonists, and the game will tend to support a more collaborative, narrative style of play. It’s important to note that in either case, the game should provide secondary support for the style of play not chosen, and in fact play-testing of the game has shown that at times it can approach equal support for each style within the same Troupe in a single session.

The Consensual Hallucination refers to the shared reality that all of the normal (i.e. non protagonist/player characters) perceive to be true, with all of it’s incumbent laws, theorems, stipulations, and codicils. It also represents the perceptual framework by which everyone in Creation communicates with one another. Within this basic framework, a single character can said to be first among equals – but all of their actions must conform to the basic rules of everyday life. Incarnate is a game about breaking all of these rules and trying to take over reality.

The Protagonists within Incarnate are character’s who have experienced a Transcendent moment of lucidity in their lives – and have awakened from the Consensual Hallucination to find that everything they ever knew about reality was at best a joke, and at worst a lie. The Protagonists refer, in game terms, to the primary character for each player. Incarnate should be played with a one-to-one relationship between each individual player and each single Protagonist.

When the Troupe chooses a single player to act as Game Master, they are making a decision to pursue a more competitive style of play, where the players will compete with each other, and together or singly against the Game Master through the agency of their Protagonists in order to win. In this case, winning is nothing more or less than the total domination and control of the entirety of the Consensual Hallucination. In essence, each character’s motivation boils down to wanting all of Creation to validate their own Paradigm – denouncing all others and elevating him to Godhood. In meta-game terms, each player should want to topple the first selected Game Master and take her place as the new representation of the Consensual Hallucination.

Incarnate asks that the Troupe, during character creation, create a character for the Consensual Hallucination. The CH, in effect, is personified, or more appropriately protagonized by providing CH creation rules analogous to the character creation rules. Typically, the Game Master (regardless of whether the Troupe chose a single GM or is choosing to share the GM role) controls the CH. While the CH-as-character concept is central to the rules mechanics, the CH-Character will probably never actually appear or manifest as a personified entity – but may be played with a sort of subtle undercurrent of passive aggressive personality by experienced Incarnate GMs who want to turn up the paranoia and competition.

Incarnate actually defines the Consensual Hallucination – which in RPG terms can be thought of as everything that GMs usually control (setting, props, NPCs, initial plot points, perhaps even control over the course of the narrative created during play – although this last issue is dealt with specifically and explicitly by the rules) – in a way very similar to creating a character.

One thing to note about this style of play, however, is that the Troupe as a whole, and by consensus, acts as the referee of any rules issues that may arise. In many mainstream RPGs, this duty of enforcing the rules and ensuring their fair application and adjudication amongst the players typically falls under the sole authority of the GM – with accompanying admonishments to be as fair as humanly possible.

Incarnate asks that all players in the Troupe, including the GM, have a voice in the all decisions about the game and in all disputes that arise strictly out of interpretation of these rules – and that such decisions be reached in a consensus fashion – with admonishments to be as fair as humanly possible. Note that all decisions about the game in this context refer to disputes about how to interpret a specific rule or how to apply it in a given situation. Decisions about player character and non-player character actions, resolutions of such decisions, and any and all decisions related to the development of a narrative, the description of a setting or props or the like, and any other elements that could rightly be construed as the game proper, are actually handled by the remainder of the mechanics. This conflict resolution mechanic, therefore, is intended to be used in the unlikely event that this developer is somehow being unclear or ambiguous in the remainder of this text (highly unlikely, really).

Should a consensus be impossible for the Troupe to reach, each player can sacrifice one level of Verve (or gain 1 level of Ennui if their Verve is down to 1 or 0) in order to veto a given decision. This should be considered a last resort – and an indication of the strength of conviction that the vetoing player has about this particular issue. If, after duly considering the strength of this player’s sentiments, any argument still remains, other players may match this expenditure of this very important in game resource to, in effect, veto the veto. Such bidding wars, hopefully will never occur during the course of a game, but if they do they should be allowed to continue to the point where either a) every player involved is out of levels of Verve to give, or Ennui to gain or they refuse to give/gain any further and a single player has bid more levels than anyone else or b) all players agree to a consensus before they reach this point. The Game Master will be giving up levels associated with Codicils (aka World Laws), should he decide to get into the bidding. Levels given/gained in such a bidding war are non-refundable to the characters – regardless of when in the bidding a final decision was made.

The above-described method of rules adjudication and Social Contract decision-making should be used for any and all disputes that arise out of in game issues. If the Troupe is experiencing trouble as a result of out of game social concerns, included but not limited to the logistics of playing, the interpersonal relationships between two or more players, or other real life issues, I strongly encourage the Troupe to explicitly talk these things over in an adult and constructive fashion – attempting to eschew any associated strong emotions – to try and reach some form of resolution. It should probably go without saying, but I’m generally thought of as a pedantic bastard, that a set of rules designed to resolve disputes within the context of a game have no place in discussions of real life social issues.

Often times a given Troupe of players will already know who their elected Game Master would be, should they choose one person to go first or choose one person as the constant GM. However, this choice should also rightly be considered the first in-game choice made at the Social Contract level – that is to say before play begins, before characters are made, even before the milieu and potential premise(s) of the story being told are decided. To help resolve any disputes that might arise during even this first important Troupe decision (wow, you’re a contentious bunch, aren’t you?), the above method of rules adjudication should also be applied.

Wait, you say, we haven’t created characters or, well, anything yet, so we don’t have any levels of whatever you said earlier to give up…

True. Hopefully the Troupe can come to a consensus here, but if not, merely keep track of how many vetos each player makes – with a strict limit, never to be exceeded (except by Troupe consensus) of 20 vetos per player. This limit applies from the moment this first decision gets made, right up to just before the first scene of the first session of the game begins. Use your votes/veto power wisely – and remember that with each such veto you cast, you’re draining away the power of your eventual Protagonist to win or to create satisfying narrative explorations.

It’s interesting to note that for the more psychotically competitive Troupe of players, the competition, horse-trading, manipulation, and subtle psychological warfare can begin even now. Perhaps you, the elected solo GM should think about kicking up a few rules disputes between the other players even now to weaken your competition. Of course you, the players, won’t fall for such a ruse…

Game Outline

Each player starts with 20 votes/chances to veto.

The Troupe decides who will take on the role of Game Master – an whether or not this role will rotate among each of the players or remain constant. This decision should be made via consensus – but the players may cast their votes if need be to settle a dispute. Once cast, a vote is gone.

The Troupe decides what the starting conflict will be and what resources, settings, props and personae are involved in the starting conflict. Consensus again is encouraged, but players may cast votes to add something rejected by the group or reject something added by another player. They should also choose a starting Premise – with the default Premise being something like: “What price would you pay for ultimate Power?”

The victory conditions for the story/campaign should be set last, just prior to creating characters. This is merely a choice between 1 and 10 – the number representing the levels of the ladder/pyramid that exist between the Protagonists at the start of the first session and the Consensual Hallucination.

Once the initial story’s conflict is set, and the personae are known, the Troupe creates their Protagonists (that is to say each player creates their primary character, their Incarnate) as follows:

· If no votes were used by a player, they start with a Verve limit of Legendary (10) and an Ennui limit of Terrible (also 10). For each vote a player cast, reduce their starting Verve limit by 1. For each vote cast beyond 9, increase their Ennui limit by 1 to a maximum of 10 (Legendary). Verve measures the character’s personal power and belief in their personal Paradigm. Ennui measures their connection to the Consensual Hallucination, and how well they function within it.

· All Incarnate start out with Physical, Mental and Emotional Limits of Legendary (10).

· Each Incarnate must have a Paradigm – a brief statement about their strongly held world-view. Example Paradigm: I view the world as a programmed construct whose matter is merely dimensional representations of data and whose natural laws amount to nothing more than a code base that I can edit to meet my desires. Note that each Incarnate’s Paradigm should relate in some way to the central Premise of the campaign.

· Using free association, come up with a set of words/concepts that relate to the Incarnate’s paradigm. These words or concepts become the Incarnate’s Trump – the functional source of their power within the game world. Trump represent an Incarnate’s control over the substance of the word/concept, and allow the Incarnate to accomplish astonishing feats during play called Stunts. No set limit on the number of Trump is placed on any player’s Incarnate – except Troupe Consensus. Should veto voting be required at this point, the vetoing players either lose one level of Verve from their character, or gain one level of Ennui – depending (see above). Note that the overall limit of 20 votes still applies, such that in the worst case scenario a vote happy player will start with a character whose Verve Limit is in Crisis (0) and whose Ennui Limit is Legendary (1).

· Each Trump chosen is then ranked according the Trait scale from Terrible to Spectacular. No Trump may be rated as Legendary to start out.

· Add up the numeric rating of all the character’s Trump. Then create an equal total value of Anchors for the character. For example, if your character has Three Trump all rated at Spectacular, you need to pick any number of Anchors whose ratings add up to 27. Anchors are connections to the Consensual Hallucination that should connect to the premise in some way, provide the character with story hooks that allow an exploration of the premise, and provide a potential for significant threat/weakness/damage to the character. Example Anchor: One of Jumpin’ Jack Flash’s Trumps is “Secrets”. A fitting Anchor for him might be “Jack is unnaturally curious and nosy, and can’t help but try and uncover any secret(s) he comes into contact with”. One of Thornton’s Trumps is “Violence”. A fitting Anchor for him might be “Thornton’s Son rules a power street gang in Chicago attempting to dominate local drug markets through violent street warfare.”

o Note that a character with any Anchor whose numeric value is greater than the numeric value of their Ennui Limit is in Crisis – and in danger of losing rather than resolving the Anchor. Resolving Anchors is one of the ways players can advance their Incarnate Protagonist toward eventually victory – losing an Anchor is a good way to loose ground relative to the other players.

· Finally, pick a number of Aptitudes and rank them from Terrible to Legendary. Aptitudes are usually broad areas of study/competence/skill sets that represent what the character has specific and special experience/talent with. Example Aptitudes: Cunning, Ancient Kung-Fu Master, Over the road Truck Driver, Jedi Knight, Super Strong, Leap Tall Buildings in a Single Bound, Crack-shot, Daredevil.

Cheers.

So this is kinda Narrativist-style Mage, with the players coming up with limitations and setting parameters like in Universalis? Any guidelines for this? I hope so, because if not, this thing could go off the tracks pretty quickly.

Consensual Hallucination being neutral or hostile is good to start, as is making Reality a character in the game. Nice touch!

But there should be some guidelines as to how many points/levels to put into Stunts/Skills/etc.

Please continue to explain. I like already, but some examples of play might be nice.

Incarnate asks that the Troupe, during character creation, create a character for the Consensual Hallucination. The CH, in effect, is personified, or more appropriately protagonized by providing CH creation rules analogous to the character creation rules. Typically, the Game Master (regardless of whether the Troupe chose a single GM or is choosing to share the GM role) controls the CH. While the CH-as-character concept is central to the rules mechanics, the CH-Character will probably never actually appear or manifest as a personified entity – but may be played with a sort of subtle undercurrent of passive aggressive personality by experienced Incarnate GMs who want to turn up the paranoia and competition.

One thing to note about this style of play, however, is that the Troupe as a whole, and by consensus, acts as the referee of any rules issues that may arise. In many mainstream RPGs, this duty of enforcing the rules and ensuring their fair application and adjudication amongst the players typically falls under the sole authority of the GM – with accompanying admonishments to be as fair as humanly possible.

Should a consensus be impossible for the Troupe to reach, each player can sacrifice one level of Verve (or gain 1 level of Ennui if their Verve is down to 1 or 0) in order to veto a given decision.

· All Incarnate start out with Physical, Mental and Emotional Limits of Legendary (10).

· Using free association, come up with a set of words/concepts that relate to the Incarnate’s paradigm. These words or concepts become the Incarnate’s Trump – the functional source of their power within the game world. Trump represent an Incarnate’s control over the substance of the word/concept, and allow the Incarnate to accomplish astonishing feats during play called Stunts. No set limit on the number of Trump is placed on any player’s Incarnate – except Troupe Consensus. Should veto voting be required at this point, the vetoing players either lose one level of Verve from their character, or gain one level of Ennui – depending (see above). Note that the overall limit of 20 votes still applies, such that in the worst case scenario a vote happy player will start with a character whose Verve Limit is in Crisis (0) and whose Ennui Limit is Legendary (1).

· Each Trump chosen is then ranked according the Trait scale from Terrible to Spectacular. No Trump may be rated as Legendary to start out.

· Add up the numeric rating of all the character’s Trump. Then create an equal total value of Anchors for the character. For example, if your character has Three Trump all rated at Spectacular, you need to pick any number of Anchors whose ratings add up to 27. Anchors are connections to the Consensual Hallucination that should connect to the premise in some way, provide the character with story hooks that allow an exploration of the premise, and provide a potential for significant threat/weakness/damage to the character. Example Anchor: One of Jumpin’ Jack Flash’s Trumps is “Secrets”. A fitting Anchor for him might be “Jack is unnaturally curious and nosy, and can’t help but try and uncover any secret(s) he comes into contact with”. One of Thornton’s Trumps is “Violence”. A fitting Anchor for him might be “Thornton’s Son rules a power street gang in Chicago attempting to dominate local drug markets through violent street warfare.”

o Note that a character with any Anchor whose numeric value is greater than the numeric value of their Ennui Limit is in Crisis – and in danger of losing rather than resolving the Anchor. Resolving Anchors is one of the ways players can advance their Incarnate Protagonist toward eventually victory – losing an Anchor is a good way to loose ground relative to the other players.

· Finally, pick a number of Aptitudes and rank them from Terrible to Legendary. Aptitudes are usually broad areas of study/competence/skill sets that represent what the character has specific and special experience/talent with. Example Aptitudes: Cunning, Ancient Kung-Fu Master, Over the road Truck Driver, Jedi Knight, Super Strong, Leap Tall Buildings in a Single Bound, Crack-shot, Daredevil.

Spooky Fanboy wrote:
Okay, but in a practical sense, how is this done? How is the Total of Phenomenal Reality statted up? And how does it enter into conflict with players? How does this change if the Troupe decides to go with a more neutral stance, with everyone responsible for deciding the world?

Spooky Fanboy wrote:
What guidelines/rules do they enforce?

Spooky Fanboy wrote:
Okay, so if you disagree with a proposed rule, you lose a chunk of character strength. Somehow, I think Universalis had a better way of negotiating the world rules. I dislike having to hurt my character just to overrule a law of the world that I dislike, or that I believe is poorly implemented.

Spooky Fanboy wrote:
Does this decrease if their Verve drops due to voting?

Spooky Fanboy wrote:
Wouldn't the Ennui be up to 10 if the player used all the Vetoes?

Spooky Fanboy wrote:
Okay, so the strength of the Trumps is based on the strength of the Anchors (ties to the Consensual Hallucination.) This makes sense, and I applaud.

Spooky Fanboy wrote:
So, resolving the problems found in Anchors is the "experience system" for Incarnate? Also, why does having a high Anchor value put the character In Crisis?

Spooky Fanboy wrote:
What are these tied to? Are the skill number and ranking totals completely arbitrary? If not, how are they determined?

Spooky Fanboy wrote:
Play examples to demonstrate these concepts would help immensely. As it is, I have only the vaguest idea how this think is supposed to work.

DPBob

Hey, finally finished reading through the other threads and your website about the game. So anyway, I have a general interest in the troupe style play and collaborative/adversarial split you propose in your game. My game project, The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle (usually abbreviated as TMW:COTEC) works on a similar collaborative group style based around the troupe concept.

So, a couple of points/reccomendations. Find a different term other than GM for the CH player. Perhaps CH guide or something similar, since GM carries alot of expectations. You have already divested the rules adjudication from the role, reserving it to the entire group. SO calling him the GM means you have to undefine certain aspects of that term, and redefinite it for your game, which is likely to cause some confusion for potential players.

Another point, you talk about each player having a single protagonist character, plus some secondary and extra characters. What do these other character's do? You make no further mention of them.

Since you have postualted the vote mechanic as a kind of punishment, you are going to want to have some solid, practical advice on how to come to a consensus without using the vetos (going to war, to be current eventish.)

Another huge area IMO that you kind of gloss over is this part

Deadpanbob wrote: The Troupe decides what the starting conflict will be and what resources, settings, props and personae are involved in the starting conflict. Consensus again is encouraged, but players may cast votes to add something rejected by the group or reject something added by another player. They should also choose a starting Premise – with the default Premise being something like: “What price would you pay for ultimate Power?”

RobMuadib wrote: DPBob
Hey, finally finished reading through the other threads and your website about the game. So anyway, I have a general interest in the troupe style play and collaborative/adversarial split you propose in your game. My game project, The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle (usually abbreviated as TMW:COTEC) works on a similar collaborative group style based around the troupe concept.

RobMuadib wrote:
So, a couple of points/reccomendations. Find a different term other than GM for the CH player.

RobMuadib wrote:
Another point, you talk about each player having a single protagonist character, plus some secondary and extra characters. What do these other character's do? You make no further mention of them.

RobMuadib wrote:
Since you have postualted the vote mechanic as a kind of punishment, you are going to want to have some solid, practical advice on how to come to a consensus without using the vetos (going to war, to be current eventish.)

RobMuadib wrote:
What conflict, the basic conflict I see is the ascension of your protagonist, right? Is this some secondary world based conflict? The Premise bit seems kind of second hand to me, and likely to be ignored in favor of the more solid gamist premise, if only by the sheer weight of the gamist facilitating rules, it seems to me.

RobMuadib wrote:
I have run up against the fact that the meta-game elements that are kind of glossed over here so far, are the most trying to develop mechanics and play guidelines for. If only because it is hasn't been done. I am still struggling a bit with developing meta-game elements and process for TMW.

RobMuadib wrote:
So how do the anchors work? The meta-physical resolution of these elements seems kind of shakey at the moment. Is resolving them divesting yourself of them, thus to truly transcend your worldly bonds or what? This is the chief means of scoring, so how does it work? Also, how about talking more about the whole Pyramid Scheme to remaking the world in your image, that is the victory condition bit.

RobMuadib wrote:
How about some more discussion on the use of Verve/Ennui (not terribly fond of these terms btw, kind of a weak wishy washy existential angst connation that doesn't represent the reality shaking importance of them.)

RobMuadib wrote:
So I guess I am more interested in the meta-gamey elements and explanation of how-to play, because like the typical action resolution & character creation type stuff is kind of easy to do, if only because of precedent and familiarity.

RobMuadib wrote:
So, a couple of points/reccomendations. Find a different term other than GM for the CH player.

I completely agree that the terminology needs to change - that GM carries it's own baggage in the form of players' expectations. I'm still in the process of trying out terms for this, so GM makes a good placeholder for me - and that's all it is.

Yep, another area that needs more treatment in the available information about the game - but an area that's pretty fully developed. Terminology is tough. I started with Dissonance and Resonnance - but that evoked images of In Nomine with a couple of people here.

Another option considered was Ego/Participation - which didn't work for me either.

Any suggestions regarding terminology would be greatly appreciated.

deadpanbob wrote:

RobMuadib wrote:
Hey, finally finished reading through the other threads and your website about the game. So anyway, I have a general interest in the troupe style play and collaborative/adversarial split you propose in your game. My game project, The Million Worlds: Chronicles Of The Eternal Cycle (usually abbreviated as TMW:COTEC) works on a similar collaborative group style based around the troupe concept.

I'll do a search on the game title and see what pops up on the Forge. Any other places online where I can find information about your game?

deadpanbob wrote:

RobMuadib wrote:
Another point, you talk about each player having a single protagonist character, plus some secondary and extra characters. What do these other character's do? You make no further mention of them.

Yet another area that's not been fully explored in the rules, but that I have notes and outlines for. Essentially, each player will, throughout the course of a given game session, play Extras and/or Supporting Cast when their Protagonist isn't involved in a given scene.

deadpanbob wrote:

RobMuadib wrote:
What conflict, the basic conflict I see is the ascension of your protagonist, right? Is this some secondary world based conflict? The Premise bit seems kind of second hand to me, and likely to be ignored in favor of the more solid gamist premise, if only by the sheer weight of the gamist facilitating rules, it seems to me.

Well, conflict is the fuel for the game. And you are right that the ascension-competition will be the primary conflict in the default setting. I'm also shooting for the Troupe to be able to determine a different default conflict when choosing the neutral version of the CH.

I was actually hoping that the mechanics could facilitate narrativist play in a primary role as well. In playtests, making the CH neutral and allowing for everyone in the Troupe to help define the over-arching conflict of the story really help to bring out the narrativist elements of the mechanics. However, that may just be a result of the preferences of the playtest group.

deadpanbob wrote:

RobMuadib wrote:
How about some more discussion on the use of Verve/Ennui (not terribly fond of these terms btw, kind of a weak wishy washy existential angst connation that doesn't represent the reality shaking importance of them.)

Yep, another area that needs more treatment in the available information about the game - but an area that's pretty fully developed. Terminology is tough. I started with Dissonance and Resonnance - but that evoked images of In Nomine with a couple of people here.

Another option considered was Ego/Participation - which didn't work for me either.

Any suggestions regarding terminology would be greatly appreciated.

RobMauadib;

Thanks for the links to the threads and information about your game, I'll check them out as time permits ;-).

I also appreciate the link to Ergo, I'll look at that as well.

RobMuadib wrote:

Hmm, I'd probably go with Transcendence (There is no Spoon), and rate it as positive or negative, squishing your scale together.

best

So, how is this beast coming along?

Spooky Fanboy wrote: So, how is this beast coming along?