The Forge Archives

Please consider this post a possible framework to develop ideas from, not a provocation for those not aggreeing in the goal of it all. I think these ideas are best pursued with a positive attitude. The goal is to create roleplaying games with all the traditional elements and powers, and to see if this opens up for a new/other/broader range of RPG's.

In another discussion ("There's only players in RPG's") Mike Holmes wrote on the methodic powers in RPG's (usually considered GM-powers). His talk of reapportionment of these powers, is exactly what I'm aiming at when talking about the GM being one of the players, nothing more.

I got the feeling he had discussed these powers before, and asked him to post some general list over them, to help our further discussion on the subject.

Mike was kind enough to answer like this:

Quote from: Mike HolmesWell, Ralph and I are the posterchildren for this subject as we "discovered" during our creation of Universalis, that you could apportion out all the various authorities to all the players evenly. That's why we sometimes say there are no players in Universalis, only GMs.

The thing is that we did come to this conclusion by "paring down" the GMs authority bit by bit. At one point we were going to have a "first player" who's job was mainly to direct traffic in play. But, as Ron points out, we found that unneccessary, as someone just does that anyhow. It's still sometimes neccessary, but you just don't have to have any rules about it as it turns out. That player is like the guy who read the Monopoly rules and is teaching all the other players. He doesn't have any real authority to do anything, he's just given deference so that he can point out how things should go in terms of procedure.

In this thread we discussed the break up of the powers as seen by Rob for his game COTEC:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4303

I hope the link to his site still works.

At this site, I'm working with the designer on a simular split-up of powers with a little more hierarchy:
http://www.legendaryquest.com/

As mentioned, the big power that tends to be somewhat contentious, is generally referred to as Director Stance Authority. That's the power that's generally reserved for the GM in most games to create (narrate into existence) things beyond the actions of a PC. That is, if a player in most games is suddenly allowed, for example, to create an NPC out of thin air, that's Director Stance. To an extent this power is always available to players on a small scale, at least through tacit GM approval. Some games make uses more powerful or explicit. See The Pool for a classic example, or the use of Fate Points in FATE (www.faterpg.com) for something less defined.

This power is so broad that it can be divided up in myriad ways. For example, you can have different people responsible for plot and for setting. Different participants can even be given their own setting sections to deal with. The varios ways this could be apportioned are probably limitless, though I do think the number of practical or useful divisions is likely much less.

The other most identified power is as final arbiter. When a question of interpretation of the system comes up, the GM is usually the person who makes all final decisions on such matters.

Another power is on the more social level. As mentioned, the host certainly doesn't have to be the GM, and the host can have the social level responsibility to monitor social behavior (if on their property, they have the legal right to remove violators). Other social powers involve organizing session dates, times and locations. In many groups all this is handled on an ad hoc basis, and it works just fine.

I'm sure we can come up with other powers if we think about it.

I'm sorry to say the links in this post helped me little. I have no program to use on PDF-files (waiting for my new computer, yes).

But I've tried to think further on the elements Mike write on in the post itself. Please hold in mind that I am thinking aloud here. I have some experiences close to the reapportionment of powers, but no actual experience with the formal "roles" proposed here:

1 - The plotter
- this player has the task of creating the plot of the story, both big and small plots, sideplots and complications. He may introduce any active or passive element linked with the plot, and may link to the plot elements created by other players.

2 - The Painter
- this player is responsible for creating atmosphere in the game, and to strenghten it in elements by other players. He may create active elements to highten the atmosphere, modify both the in-game and out-of-game environment, and place atmospheric demands on the players.

3 - The Dramatist
- this player's responsibility is to develop relations between characters and NPC's, to introduce and play family-members and friends of the characters, and to stimulate relations between characters.

4 - The Explorer
- his is the task to create setting. That is geography, cities, nature, cultures and leading NPC's in the places the characters travel to. His task is to fill the places with possible elements for the other players to use, and to create his own elements pertaining to the setting i particular.

5 - The Judge
- this is the player handling the conflicts of the game, formulating them, modifying them, making rulings on outcome, and interpreting the consequences. He may introduce any elements affecting the conflicts, or participating in them.

No one is appointed chairman/moderator/time keeper of the game. This is a joint venture, and as such the players must relate to eachother in a polite and intuitive way.

An explanation of the term elements
Elements are the various bits and parts by which the fiction are created. It is the tools by which we create our drama. It may be the fundaments for the drama, like setting, atmosphere and cosmology. It may be the particulars of the drama, like NPC's, scenes, artifacts or conflicts.

The roleplaying game itself and it's preplanned parts, is broken down into easy to handle elements (preferrably by the gamesmith), and distributed amongst the players, each player given elements pertaining to his powers in the game.

There is also the necessity to produce a sheet on tools pertaining to the different powers. This one-sided flyer, with simple and substantial advice, will make it easier for the players to act in accordance with their powers, and make a positive contribution to the drama.

That's all folks. What do you think?

Quote from: TomasBut I've tried to think further on the elements Mike write on in the post itself. Please hold in mind that I am thinking aloud here. I have some experiences close to the reapportionment of powers, but no actual experience with the formal "roles" proposed here:

1 - The plotter
- this player has the task of creating the plot of the story, both big and small plots, sideplots and complications. He may introduce any active or passive element linked with the plot, and may link to the plot elements created by other players.

2 - The Painter
- this player is responsible for creating atmosphere in the game, and to strenghten it in elements by other players. He may create active elements to highten the atmosphere, modify both the in-game and out-of-game environment, and place atmospheric demands on the players.

3 - The Dramatist
- this player's responsibility is to develop relations between characters and NPC's, to introduce and play family-members and friends of the characters, and to stimulate relations between characters.

4 - The Explorer
- his is the task to create setting. That is geography, cities, nature, cultures and leading NPC's in the places the characters travel to. His task is to fill the places with possible elements for the other players to use, and to create his own elements pertaining to the setting i particular.

5 - The Judge
- this is the player handling the conflicts of the game, formulating them, modifying them, making rulings on outcome, and interpreting the consequences. He may introduce any elements affecting the conflicts, or participating in them.

No one is appointed chairman/moderator/time keeper of the game. This is a joint venture, and as such the players must relate to eachother in a polite and intuitive way.

An explanation of the term elements
Elements are the various bits and parts by which the fiction are created. It is the tools by which we create our drama. It may be the fundaments for the drama, like setting, atmosphere and cosmology. It may be the particulars of the drama, like NPC's, scenes, artifacts or conflicts.

The roleplaying game itself and it's preplanned parts, is broken down into easy to handle elements (preferrably by the gamesmith), and distributed amongst the players, each player given elements pertaining to his powers in the game.

There is also the necessity to produce a sheet on tools pertaining to the different powers. This one-sided flyer, with simple and substantial advice, will make it easier for the players to act in accordance with their powers, and make a positive contribution to the drama.

That's all folks. What do you think?

Hey Tomas, looks good. Universalis (Mike and Ralph's game mentioned in the links) is great because not only does it identify all the things that are usually reserved for the GM to do, but it let's every player have the opportunity to do all of them.

Rather than giving people roles like Dramatist or Explorer, it kind of lets players take on those roles at any time for the cost of one coin. It's a very powerful idea - instead of saying "Ok, I'm the Plotter, it's my job to come up with the plot", in Universalis anyone at any time can pay one coin to make a contribution to the plot, or pay one coin to create some setting (like your Explorer), or pay one coin to define some relationships (like your Dramatist). This ability to have your finger in every pie is wonderful, and certainly I think I would need to have access to all the different elements in order to be sure that I'll be able to bring my contribution to the story.

After all when I think about bringing a personal contribution to a story I would normally think of my contribution of being a mix of elements rather than just one. eg An idea for a minor villain would have him being from a certain place, knowing certain people and having certain plans. Although my little villain might be a very small contribution to the story, it depends on me having control over quite a few elements at once. I might find it hard to be satisfied with my contributions if I'm only permitted to bring one element.

My own game Theme-Chaser (its a PDF so I won't bother linking it) has a different view of apportionment, instead it shares out the actual imaginary people, locations, times, and even themes that exist in the game.

Anyway, I like the way you've split up the roles, and I look forward to reading more. I notice that several of the roles are concentrated on the activities of NPCs. Do you see it as most of the players having control over their own PCs, and then each player having control over one element of NPC activity?

The data in the links shouldn't neccessarily all be in PDF format. The link to COTEC discussed in a thread here how Rob is dividing things up (not just roles, but how to establish the roles). At the legendaryquest site, look at the forums there under "New Rules" and one of the rule proposals about giving players more dramatic powers.

In any case, you ought to be able to download Acrobat Reader. Or are the only machines that you have access to policed? Or are you on some bizarre OS?

It's interesting that one of the ideas about plot that you see around here is that all you need is good NPCs and nothing else. Not to say that other methods don't work. But under this assumption, you'd only need the Dramatist, and not a Plotter.

I'm a big fan of the Explorer and Painter ideas.

The one big potential problem that I see is that you haven't discussed at all how things are introduced into the narrative. You give some borders, but no directions on what these people actually do in play. For example, can the Explorer just jump in at any time with a setting note? Can the Painter do the same with something atmospheric? Or are these things planned out pre-session? Basically who gets to speak when? Even if it's a free-for-all, that ought to be mentioned.

Another big potential problem is jurisdiciton. If I as the Explorer drop in a note about the music being played in the tavern, is that stepping on the Painter's territory? If he objects, what happens? Can the Judge adjudicate these conflcits? If so, doesn't that give him a very potent final arbiter club to wield over the other players? Or is there some other way to deal with conflicts?

And, as in the COTEC thread, how are these positions determined? Can a participant do more than one (this option leads to the potential that a player accumulating them all would be just like a GM, which might satisfy some who want to play that way).

Just what occurs to me off the top.

Mike

I've given an explanation of the term elements in the first post. However; it seems to be lacking in clarity. Here's what I hope to be a better explanation:

Elements are the various bits and parts by which the fiction in a roleplaying game are created. It is the substantial parts of the fiction, to which we apply our narrative tools, to create our drama.

It may be the fictional framfor the drama, like setting, atmosphere and cosmology. It may be the particulars of the drama, like NPC's, scenes, artifacts or conflicts.

Setting-elements, passive
These are the elements that make up the fictional frame for our drama. It includes elements like geography, architecture, furniture, infrastructure, passive persons in the environment (anyone not involved, but described to be there), "inactive" conflicts (not engaging the characters), atmosphere, cosmology, etc. These elements may be converted into active elements by the players, but they are considered passive for the purpose of this definition.

Drama-elements, active
These are the elements powering the drama. It includes all fictional elements that relates actively to the characters in one way or another. It may be particular scenes, active conflicts, monsters, non-player characters, characters and their qualities (outfit, skill, abilities, race, etc.).

The roleplaying game itself and it's preplanned parts, is broken down into easy to handle elements (preferrably by the gamesmith), and distributed amongst the players, each player given elements pertaining to his powers in the game.

How an element is used is the decision of the player introducing it. When a player has introduced an element, there is no way back. It can only be modified by other players, not removed.

Example:
John is the painter of the game. He introduces heavy rain to underline the dark atmosphere in the drama.

As he describes this, Tom's character (a witch) find this a nice oportunity to introduce his water demon. He summons it in the air before them, the judge of the game giving him positive modifiers due to the torrent. he plans to make use of it in the groups attack on the caravan (the group being highwaymen).

At this time the plotter of the game make use of it (thus modifying the demon, and using it for his own purpose). He has a plot where the water demon fits nicely, and let the demon give the characters a challenge:

Go to the peak of Mount Excelcium, and summon me in the hearth of fire there!

Then the demon vanishes, willing itself to break the bonds the witch has made for it. The characters are left to grope for themselves, in their dirty attack on the traders.

Tom's character wonders on this, as his judge tells him the water demon must certainly perish in the intense fires on Mount Excelcium. Why then, does the demon want him to summon it there, bringing certain death to it?

The painter further develops the idea, by stating that demons are considered beings with no ethics or compassion. They are the dark forces of confusion and corruption, and serves the strong magi. How then, could the demon refuse to help the witch in this situation? Could it be that the flash of tristesse all of them felt the moment before it vanished, was emanating from the demon?

The judge on his side is actively trying to feed the possible conflict between the characters, as the witch failed to deliver the support promised for the attack. The attack had to be cancelled. He simply states that the character of John needed those money... desperately!

The plotter is not sure how all this modulates the plot he has introduced, but his first task was to get the characters to Mount Excelcium, so he congratulates himself with a nice first step on the way.

Heh, sounds like a game of Universalis :-)

I read a couple of reviews of the Universalis game, and it brought back old times. In 1989-90 my friend Jon Venbakken and me created a small series of experimental RPG's called the Impro-games. The descriptions of Universalis in the reviews leave me with the same feeling we got then, playing the various Impro-games.

The Impro-series
These games were basically all about making setting and simple methods for some drama, and then improvising roleplay with it. Some of them got a method for the improvisastion, some were quite freeform.

Come to think of it; all of them, save one, were close to being totally freeform.

- Impro 1 had GM's, but the players chose the setting between them. Play commenced with a high grade of improvisation.

- Impro L had a director, a narrator and left the rest to be actors. The director decided everything. The narrator described it. The actors got to play various characters at the directors whim.

- Impro N went the other way, making the "GM" almost powerless. His only functions was to decide who got to tell the story, and to speak when NPC's were expected to say something. The players agreed on setting and conflict, and took turns telling the story from the viewpoint of their own characters. We named it "The Noble Method".

- Impro M'tu was by far the most simplistic in the series, and the last. There's nothing much to it; you only start making characters, and make a story. The rest is up to the players.

There was only one rule for the design of these games: we had one sheet of paper to describe each one of them, nothing more.

We had great fun with these games back then (cheers to you Jon, where ever you are), and it certainly got me thinking on RPG's in new ways.

Tomas,

I'm struck by how well your five roles correspond with the five Explored elements from (sorry, another link) Ron's essay :

Character = the Dramatist
System =  the Judge
Setting = the Explorer
Situation = the Plotter
Color = the Painter

So I think your identification of categories for the "stuff" that goes into play is quite accurate.  Having an individual responsible for each of these categories is intriguing.  I suspect many people prefer to have "power" in more than one domain, but even if we are going to allow that, there's a real advantage in knowing what the categories of that power-use can/will be.

And yeah, I'll support Ralph and Mike in saying that your example of play reads very much like a Universalis session.  Add a Gimmick (Universalis-speak for a created-in-play "rule") that says each of the five roles is split among the players, and I suspect you could literally do your example with Universalis.

I think there's definitely something gained by having clarity about the existence of these roles.  I'm not so certain what the effect (positive or negative) of splitting them to seperate people would be, but it sounds like a fun experiment.

Gordon

Quote from: Gordon C. Landisyour five roles correspond with the five Explored elements from (sorry, another link) Ron's essay :

Character = the Dramatist
System =  the Judge
Setting = the Explorer
Situation = the Plotter
Color = the Painter

I agree with you; it corresponds, loosely.

I've printed the essay by Ron, and read the first four chapters. The three first chapters was an interesting read. But chapter four; "The basics of roleplaying design", did not convince me. The terminology and structure presented in this part of the essay is vague, not up to the clear and constructive standards in the three first chapters. And as a gamesmith I have special interest in design. I hope the last two chapters of the essay offers more usable designers-stuff to bite into.

Quote from: Mike HolmesIt's interesting that one of the ideas about plot that you see around here is that all you need is good NPCs and nothing else. Not to say that other methods don't work. But under this assumption, you'd only need the Dramatist, and not a Plotter.

No, I do not agree in this. It is of course right that all you need is love... for NPCs and characters. Played wtih careful consideration on values, ethics and powers you may create RPGs of great standard. However: not everybody has the abilities to perform to such loose standards, and I sincerely want to make games for mr. Normal and miss Jollygood.

You need to impose a method on the characters in play, to be able to create a great drama. Someone got this method within them, as jazz-musicians may improvise great music. But most of the people need notes to play by...

Quote from: Mike HolmesI'm a big fan of the Explorer and Painter ideas.

Thank you! I feel compelled to recommend a one year course in eskimo-painting :)

Quote from: Mike Holmesyou haven't discussed at all how things are introduced into the narrative. ... For example, can the Explorer just jump in at any time with a setting note? ... Basically who gets to speak when?

I've given an example of play in a previous post. Still; that is not enough to answer your misgivings about the functionality of a method with players empowered in such a way.

First of all: - every one of the players must be issued a "powersheet", showing him the powers he is meant to wield in the game, and giving sound advice on the use of the powers.

Secondly: - to make the powers easy to use, they should be given a very clear and viable core, and still each power should overlap other powers. Each power can and should be used in it's broadest sense. The powersheet must encourage this.

Third: - the use of a power is the sole responsibility of the wielder. When a power is activated there is no way back, unless the wielder himself at once rephrase his use of it, or withdraws it. Rephrasing is not encouraged! There is no need to doubt the use of powers. Any conflicts on the use of powers is worse than any bad use. The game will develop according to the sum of players, using their powers and characters. Trust your intuition, trust the intuition of fellow players, and explore the consequences.

Fourth: - try to develop a calm rythm of play, to facilitate the use of powers, the shifting of focus between powers and characters, and to give all players the chance to "have the table". "A calm rythm" is best achieved when no player instill himself with a dramatic goal. Let the game float, and follow the shifting focus of it with ease. As the players get used to the shiftings, any one of them may increase the rythm in scenes were they consider it will strenghten the drama.

Fifth: - remember that all players may feed the drama both through the use of their powers, and through the use of their characters. Try to share the guidance and feeding of the game as often as possible, engaging other players in your actions as a character, and in your use of power. Use powers to support the creativity of other players.

Sixt: - you may decide, before the game starts, on one power to initiate all scenes, and one power to end all scenes. This may be any powers/players, at your own preference. You may also decide that anyone may initiate or end any scene. And finally; you may decide that anyone initiating a scene, is the one entitled to end it. Make this ruling before you start the game.

Seventh: - the powers are divided amongst players at will. If more than one player asks for the same power, let them agree, or throw dice. You may divide the powers differently for each new game session, but every player have the right to keep the power he had last time (not switching). In case of six players, two players will share the Judge. In case of seven players, two players may share any other power too, depending on the groups preferences.

I think this could constitute a skeleton lay-over method for use with any traditional RPG, as long as an energetic player makes the effort to produce the powersheets.

It may also become an important part of my own Subsurian RPG (sci-fi, my second RPG in english), presently under construction.

Any comments?

QuoteNo, I do not agree in this. It is of course right that all you need is love... for NPCs and characters. Played wtih careful consideration on values, ethics and powers you may create RPGs of great standard. However: not everybody has the abilities to perform to such loose standards, and I sincerely want to make games for mr. Normal and miss Jollygood.

I think you're selling people short.  In my experience the natural tendency of Mr Normal is to play in the manner Mike describes and only after years of having it beat out him by "traditional" rpg methods does it then become difficult.  

Plus you're misconstrueing Mike's point about good NPCs.  He isn't advocating some free form structureless play.  He's suggesting that "plot" is something that comes about because of the player's choices for their characters and how and when and whether they decide to interact with NPCs  vs.  "plot" as something that is designed or sketched out in advance.

In otherwords, set up a situation, wind up all of the principle characters, and let it go.  The plot then comes from how all of the parts interact with each other instead of a preconcieved notion of where it should go.

Quote from: ValamirPlus you're misconstrueing Mike's point about good NPCs.  He isn't advocating some free form structureless play.  He's suggesting that "plot" is something that comes about because of the player's choices for their characters and how and when and whether they decide to interact with NPCs  vs.  "plot" as something that is designed or sketched out in advance.

In otherwords, set up a situation, wind up all of the principle characters, and let it go.  The plot then comes from how all of the parts interact with each other instead of a preconcieved notion of where it should go.

Exactly. What you term "plot" for the plotter seems to me to simply be character motivations in this style.

Now, we can say that part of the plot is dodging the landslide on the way to the badguy's lair. But that's an event, not really plot in any traditional sense. As such it could easily be handled by the painter. That is, the director of the Planet of the Apes said that the landslide early in the story is meant merely to generate tension. It doesn't advance the plot one bit. As such, it would seem to me to fall under the Painter's domain.

Given this perspective, everything that I can think of that you might be considering as Plot would fall under the aegis of the Painter and the Dramatist.

That's not to say that I advocate getting rid of the position. In terms of situation, I think that the plotter could be instrumental in moving things along. That is, while the Dramatist could make the character's motivations, it would be up to the Plotter to put things into action. He'd have the appropriate NPCs show up at the appropriate times, for example. That makes the Dramatist more of a background player potentially, it seems to me, but that's only if he doesn't make up motives on the spot during play. Which he could if communication was handled correctly.

My point is that both divisions could work. It's all in the interperetation of the positions, etc.

For large groups with sharing, what happens in one player creates something that contradicts another player's creation? In general, given the "broad" interperetation of powers, there will be cases when this occurs. Is it up to the Judge to decide what stands? What if there are two judges (first multiple allowed to be introduced), and they disagree?

Familiar with Parliamentary Proceedure? Roberts Rules specifically? IMO, one of the niftiest game designs ever.

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesThat is, while the Dramatist could make the character's motivations,

The characters motivations are made by their players. The Dramatist has relations as his main concern. Whatever motivations the characters derives from his efforts, and how they follow up on his ouvertures in the relations department, is entirely in the hands of the individual player.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThat makes the Dramatist more of a background player potentially, it seems to me

Yes. He's meant to be a background power, in as far as the NPCs and character relations do not come to the center of focus (I consider it very likely for variable relationships to steal focus in a game, depending on how the Dramatist-power is used). I have considered changing his name to "The Relative" or "The Familiy".

I expect you could get a whole lot of variable ways of doing all powers, due to the differences in players mood and abilities.

Quote from: Mike Holmeswhat happens in one player creates something that contradicts another player's creation? Is it up to the Judge to decide what stands? What if there are two judges (first multiple allowed to be introduced), and they disagree?

I consider a rule, a real rule, forbidding the contradiction of former initiatives to be wise. It's simple, tested in other games, and may function as well in a game with this method.

The Judge is a judge of in-game conflicts, not meta-game conflicts.

If there is two judges they will alternate in doing judgement, and always doing judgement on the characters of eachother.

Quote from: Mike HolmesFamiliar with Parliamentary Proceedure? Roberts Rules specifically?

No. Is it something like Nomic?

I translated Nomic into Norwegian some years ago, and played it a fair bit. Still, it is not my kind of game. I prefer more strict procedures, a more steady frame to build suspence and/or drama on.

Quote from: Tomas HVM
The characters motivations are made by their players. The Dramatist has relations as his main concern. Whatever motivations the characters derives from his efforts, and how they follow up on his ouvertures in the relations department, is entirely in the hands of the individual player.

That's a little confusing. Are there PCs and NPCs? How is a relationship different from the attitudes that the participants have towards it?

QuoteI consider a rule, a real rule, forbidding the contradiction of former initiatives to be wise. It's simple, tested in other games, and may function as well in a game with this method.

But sometimes it's a judgement call.

Player A: "I go to the tavern."

Player B: "I beat him there."

Player A: "But I'm already there, he can't beat me there!"

Who decides? Believe me, things don't always have a simple consensus. I'm not saying that this happens constantly, and it might not happen at all in a particular group. But if it does, it's good to have an arbiter.

QuoteThe Judge is a judge of in-game conflicts, not meta-game conflicts.

Do you mean Social conflicts? Because if they're ruling on rules, that's metagame.

QuoteIf there is two judges they will alternate in doing judgement, and always doing judgement on the characters of eachother.

Standard "Conflict of Interest" statement. What happens if both Judge characters are involved? Also, if there's one judge, and his character is involved, who judges? Is there a succession of power?

Quote

Quote from: Mike HolmesFamiliar with Parliamentary Proceedure? Roberts Rules specifically?

No. Is it something like Nomic?

Heh, only in the vaguest ways. Parliamentary Proceedure isn't a game, really, I was being facetous. I refer to the rules actually used in large meetings and actual Parliaments. Where there's a speaker, who yields the floor to members by recognizing them to speak. The point is that these sorts of rules can give you ideas about how to handle some things formally if that's interesting to you.

QuoteI translated Nomic into Norwegian some years ago, and played it a fair bit.

We ran across Nomic while crreating Universalis. The Gimmick Rule is, more or less Nomic.

Mike

I wrote:
The characters motivations are made by their players. The Dramatist has relations as his main concern.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThat's a little confusing. Are there PCs and NPCs? How is a relationship different from the attitudes that the participants have towards it?

You're right, I'll have to rephrase:

The Dramatist - has the feeding of relations as his first concern, as well as the introduction of NPCs in the spheres of family and friends. He's wields the power to invest NPCs with conflicts of loyalty and love towards the characters. He is the "family-man", handling the family background of the characters. He may introduce and play the mother of a character, and the lover or friend of the same character, but he will never play the character. The character belongs to the realm of the player, not any power.

Basics

- Each player makes his own character, to play in the game.

- Each player is given a power, to wield in the game.

- The player himself decides when to act his character, and when to use his power. He is free to do so to highten his own amusement, the amusement of other players, and on behalf of the drama.

- There is no formal in-fiction connection between power and character, but the player may use his power to strenghten the impact his character has on the drama. We may call this power-positive-gaming :)

- All NPCs belongs to the realm of powers. A NPC may be used within the realm of each and every power in turn, as the individual player see fit with the purpose of his power. This is also true for any other element in the game, with the exception of player characters.

Quote from: Mike HolmesBut sometimes it's a judgement call.

Player A: "I go to the tavern."

Player B: "I beat him there."

Player A: "But I'm already there, he can't beat me there!"

Who decides? Believe me, things don't always have a simple consensus. I'm not saying that this happens constantly, and it might not happen at all in a particular group. But if it does, it's good to have an arbiter.

First: there is no contradiction in these two statements. Player A stated that he went to the tavern, not that he already was there. So player B was in his right to "beat him". Also: as this may be considered an in-game conflict between two characters, not players, the judge could easily find an ability to decide it by (or something).

On the "it's good to have an arbiter" statement; well, not always. Sometimes the group is best served with solving some problems themselves. It will give them insight into the essence of the activity, to set words on the values they wish to fill their games with.

However: this is not a principle to make games on (not my kind of games, at least). RPGs are best off leaving the players with easy to handle conflict resolution, both in the fictional and social arena, pertaining to the game. A possible answer to your question could be to introduce The Host, a new power in the game, being the arbiter in any player conflicts relating to the game. But I'm not sure it is necessary, or beneficial.

I wrote:
If there is two judges they will alternate in doing judgement, and always doing judgement on the characters of eachother.

Quote from: Mike HolmesStandard "Conflict of Interest" statement. What happens if both Judge characters are involved? Also, if there's one judge, and his character is involved, who judges? Is there a succession of power?

I'd have to give some advice on such situations, wouldn't I? What would you do? How would you solve it, and write it?

Quote from: Mike HolmesParliamentary Proceedure isn't a game, really, I was being facetous. I refer to the rules actually used in large meetings and actual Parliaments.

Oh yes, I do know about such rules and procedures. And I know about social "procedures" as well, and the power of dialogue, and the methods used by children in play. I use all these things when explaining a roleplaying game.

In the creation of the method I'm always applying as much as possible of the dynamics from these common fields. In my view they are a dead give-away for the gamesmith. The threshold really lowers when players are able to use their lifelong abilities.

Only to think how inventive everyone are each and every day, doing their dialogues on the spur, improvising the most complex of communications, with their future very often dependant on it. It certainly take some courage to live like this!

We are everyday heroes, if you ask me, every one of us! Heroes!

Cool clarifications.

Quote- Each player makes his own character, to play in the game.

- Each player is given a power, to wield in the game.

- The player himself decides when to act his character, and when to use his power. He is free to do so to highten his own amusement, the amusement of other players, and on behalf of the drama.

When using your power, can you use it to directly affect another player's character? To what extent? I'd assume that the Judge can adjudicate that a falling rick does or does not injure the character. Can he also say that the character is scared by some very scary creature? Can he say that the character runs away as a result?

Control of characters is considered a given in RPGs but it probably actually even more loosely defined than the GM's role. That is, there are real questions as to where control starts and stops. Often the player has inviolate control of the character's feelings. But there are often exceptions as in the case of fear.

What does the player control in terms of his own character? What can other players do to that character with their powers?

Quote- There is no formal in-fiction connection between power and character, but the player may use his power to strenghten the impact his character has on the drama. We may call this power-positive-gaming :)

I like that. :-)

QuoteFirst: there is no contradiction in these two statements. Player A stated that he went to the tavern, not that he already was there. So player B was in his right to "beat him".

Permit me to continue this as though you were another player saying this, and I was player A.

"Wait, you mean that I have to be so specific in every declaration that I have to say that I'm not only doing an action, but that it's also complete when done? That's ridiculous! You mean that if I declare that my character is going swimming that he's not actually in the water until I say he is. Instead he's just walking to the water if I say he's 'going'?"

Now, I'm not that player. But that player might exist. Further, if you really want, I can come up with an example where it truely is ambiguous.

Player A: "My character is eating his meal. Now he's done." (sticks out tongue at player B who can now not claim that he finishes first)

Player B: "I take his character's drink and throw it in his face."

Player A: "Ah, but I've finished my drink, it was part of my meal."

Player B: "But you didn't say it was part of your meal."

There's a point at which we all assume certain things. And, since we don't all make the same assumptions, there's a point at which you have to be able to enforce a single interperetation of the issues. In Universalis, we have the Challenge mechanic for these cases (basically the player who pays more gets his way). There has to be a final authority. Even if the rules just say that "the players must work it out between themselves." That's fine if that's what you want, but not listing it, and listing all the rest of the powers, is asking for trouble, IMO.

QuoteOn the "it's good to have an arbiter" statement; well, not always. Sometimes the group is best served with solving some problems themselves. It will give them insight into the essence of the activity, to set words on the values they wish to fill their games with.

Quite true. If that's how it works, put that in the rules. I'm not saying it has to be a player, just that there's some statement of how the game expects conflicts to be resolved best.

Quote

Quote from: Mike HolmesStandard "Conflict of Interest" statement. What happens if both Judge characters are involved? Also, if there's one judge, and his character is involved, who judges? Is there a succession of power?

I'd have to give some advice on such situations, wouldn't I? What would you do? How would you solve it, and write it?

Succession of powers. If all current Judges are involved, then the Painter adjudicates. If he too, then the Dramatist. Etc.

Or, just trust the judge. IMO, that works just as well. We trust the GM, right?

Quote

Quote from: Mike HolmesParliamentary Proceedure isn't a game, really, I was being facetous. I refer to the rules actually used in large meetings and actual Parliaments.

Oh yes, I do know about such rules and procedures. And I know about social "procedures" as well, and the power of dialogue, and the methods used by children in play. I use all these things when explaining a roleplaying game.

I mention it because it's in this that we find concepts like succession of power and the like. Governmental procedures are full of this game stuff. For instance, in the US, if there's a vote in the Senate that's tied, the President of the Senate, who is the Vice President of the USA and not othewise a senator or able to vote in the senate, casts the deciding vote.

So, for example, you could say that if there are two Judges and they disagree, that the Dramatist casts the deciding vote. It's nifty little rules like this that can inspire well defined, well designed, separations of powers.

QuoteThe threshold really lowers when players are able to use their lifelong abilities.

Agreed. So empower that. Enumerate how the players are so empowered to use these abilities. That's what the rules are for. :-)

Mike