anyway.

The setting is Brazil.

Just post current day. Enough so that the tremendous rift between rich & poor has been exacerbated by technological innovations:  the ultra-rich flit from decadent penthouse to their lavish mountaintop retreats in armored helicopters/aircars.

The ultra-poor live in sprawling tent cities in the shadow of the skyrises of the rich, or in the very basements of the buildings themselves.  They sell drugs, their bodies and more:  their dna, their organs, or their humanity. Some get gene therapy to become servants of the rich and are transformed into half-cat/half-human sexual slaves, water-breathing, finned pearl-divers, many forms strange and beautiful....

These changelings are valued by their owners but mercilessly exploited and brutally punished or killed if they step out of line.  They are hated by the common normals, but sometimes are appealed to by the resistance, the land reform movement that organizes mass demonstrations of the people to take over buildings, estates or, even, cities and towns.  The rebels need all the help they can get to fight the paramilitary police controlled by the landed aristocracy.

The civilization is on the brink of civil war.  Unrest walks the cities of Sao Paulo and Rio Dejienero.  You are a changeling, trying to make your way in the world. Perhaps living with a loving master, perhaps trying to escape a hellish existence you didn't choose.  Perhaps escaped and trying to fit in with a world that sees you as less than human and yet you are something more...

Okay.  That's the thematic part.  What is it to be human, shades of Blade Runner fer sure. (and sorry, Matt, I'm laser-sharking like mad. But surely I if anyone can get away with that a little! ; )

Now a technical core.  I'll give it some thought, but Eric, anyone, some suggestions?

Here's something of a technical core for a narrative game about conflict resolution (and maintenance). It's not expressly built about your recipe because most of it is months old but I stripped away some of the detail yesterday and it seems a tighter game for it.

Technical cores I'm good at.  Lessee...

Checking online for Brazilian gambling pastimes it sounds like it's an endemic problem, but avoids both dice and cards in favour of the ponies and bingo-like systems.  Amusingly, from a treatment program:

Further adaptations included replacing references to North American games with culturally compatible options, using proper idiomatic expressions and popular sayings to illustrate cognitive distortions, making analogies between electronic generation of random numbers in gambling machines and dice throwing, actual dice throwing to explain the generation of random number series, and role-playing with fake cash and scratch tickets.

Okay, we can work with this.  Focus on the "random number series" thing.  Do effectiveness-evolution over time using a "random" number series which is actually an author-stance trick.  Call it like this:

Split conflict types up into three or four categories.  Somewhat arbitrarily, to focus on the emotional core of the single individual, let's do it by dominant emotion: Hope, Fear, and Anger.  Those are our stats, but instead of being represented by single values each one is a list of "lucky numbers", down a long narrow vertical column on the character sheet.  At character creation, and indeed throughout, the way you generate these lists is to roll 3dN (d6? not picky), and put one of those values at the bottom of each list.  So at a given point in time a character might be statted as Hope [6, 3, 1, 2, 1, 5], Fear [4, 4, 6, 1, 5, 3], Anger [1, 1, 3, 5, 6, 1].

When called upon to roll, you use the topmost number off of the list you consider relevant, cross that off, and then roll 3d6 again and put one of the rolled values at the bottom of each list, as you see fit.  [Some trick for pruning the lists not used may or may not be needed here.]  The idea is that, PTA-like, you have a foretaste of your effectiveness and can tailor your play to suit.  The value you use is a base, supplemented by a positioning mechanism based on the other players - perhaps they can burn values from their own lists, and this is our pruning trick.  Against this, the GM (representing here the breakdown in traditional values?) rolls dice more conventionally.

To advance requires that you use each list (Hope, Fear, Anger) substantively, after which perhaps we let you roll 4d6 and throw one away, or perhaps 3d10 instead of 3d6, when adding things to the lists.  If we want, we can let the mechanic represent slippage of control and loss of tradition by shortening the list length; not yet sure if this is thematically useful, but it might make a good Zeal/Weariness analogue.

Let's call that a technical core and run with it.

Purviewism vs collaborativism: is this a sole-GMed, multi-GMed, GM-rotating, or co-GMed game?

Purviewed/partitioned: Multi gm-d.  I'm actually thinking about the idea you had, V., about having players take different aspects of the society to provide adversity/mirroring etc.

In this case, the social groups would be: criminal gangs, paramilitary police, organized labor/poor, disorganized poor, the rich, the church. Perhaps there'd be others too. Each player takes a changeling protagonist, and holds proprietaryship over one of these areas.  'K if we steal that?

I like the pseudo-randomization, Eric.  Am I reading it correctly to mean that the character effectiveness stat becomes the number the gm has to beat? Sort of like the reverse of how difficulty levels are normally set. : )  Amusing.

It would be interesting to have mechanics that made the agenda of the social group each person holds sway over tie in to what the player wants.  Have effectiveness for the big bad, or big good, whatever it is depend on what happens in play.  Or have an over-arching agenda that the group is trying to bring into being that will be at cross purposes with 1) the other groups and 2) the protagonists. This would embody the theme extremely well.

This sounds very intriguing.

I must say that pre-generating numbers seems... strange. It might lend itself to play where players try to force checks on unimportant things to get rid of the low numbers. Though I do like the fact that stats are fluctuating.

That said, I want to play the Man From Atlantis Turned Slave Laborer! (Except he won't look like Patrick Duffy.)

And I really like the idea of playing the adversity.

- Christian

Nice, Christian. We could have a maroon (free slave) community of changelings called New Atlantis. Maybe it would be like shangri la, nobody ever really knows where it is, maybe it doesn't exist.

And, let's look at Vincent's list:

1) Mechanical rules for opposition, situation, IIEE, resolution and outcome. They should include both a reward mechanism and a positioning mechanism.

2) Mechanical rules establishing each player's starting position wrt resolution and reward for sure, and the others as appropriate.

3) Rules or guidelines providing each player with an answer, at every moment, to "what should I be doing right now?"

4) Enough material to kick the players without any further work on their part into agreement about at least two of: characters, situation, setting and color. Characters and setting is the easiest, but not-at-all easy to get right; characters and situation is the easiest to get right.

5) Rules or guidelines for coming to agreement about the other two.

6) Violence, sex, children, money, God, or art, politics et al.

We've got 6 covered. We've got a bunch for 4, but are we doing it right or not?  We've got some of 1, but none of 2 or 3. I think we'll need to do five after getting more of 1, 2 & 3.

Thoughts about 3: the players should always either be looking at how events affect their protagonist, or looking at how their agency of adversity is affecting the group of protagonists.  Still leaves the question of what happens when one's own protagonist intersects with your Agency.  If that char could essentially become an npc for the group, that'd be keen.

(Wow, looking at 1 again, I am struck anew by how radical it is to say that positioning mechanics are necessary for completion. They only just barely exist as a concept! )

Christian: no criticizing! We go always forward.

Steve: I'll check it out. I am denied LiveJournal by my workplace netnanny, on account of sometimes it has the sex or something.

Emily, Eric: Groovy.

I think that all the institutions' agendas are: to further entrench their own particular status quos. Wouldn't you say?

1) Mechanical rules for opposition, situation, IIEE, resolution and outcome. They should include both a reward mechanism and a positioning mechanism.

Here's where the scratch list goes.

For opposition, the resources that the institution whose status quo you're disrupting can bring to bear against you. (If you're not acting against any institution's status quo, there's no resolution. No conflict!)

Something like this: I'm the owner of the institution, you're the one with the PC acting against my happy oppressive status quo. If I can bring no resources to bear, I roll 2d6 and take the lower. If I can bring resources indirectly to bear, I roll 2d6 and take the higher. If I can bring resources directly to bear, I roll 2d6 and add them.

If your number is higher than mine, you win. If mine's higher, you choose a) you lose, or b) you "burn" other numbers to make the difference. I think that you must accompany burning numbers with a) a narrated-but-binding disadvantage, that is, a way that the situation resolves non-ideally; or else b) a narrated-but-binding use of your character's changeling powers. In other words, I get a "yes, but," except when your changeling powers are applicable.

There's opposition and positioning. Reward: we really, really want the changelings to act against the institutions. We need to decide how to recognize that when it happens, and then how to reward it.

I also want really solid situation rules. The relationships of the PC changelings with the people around them should be mechanically significant, substantially so.

Furthermore, we need some IIEE wicked bad. Here's a starting question: you say "I tip you out of the helicopter so you fall; you're beaten to death by the mob below." We compare numbers and I win. What am I allowed to say? Here's another: are you allowed to say that in the first place, and if not, what are you allowed to say?

Also, you should replenish numbers more slowly than 3 per. Or else - oh hey, I have a good idea, let me formulate it.

2) Mechanical rules establishing each player's starting position wrt resolution and reward for sure, and the others as appropriate.

Wrt resolution: roll your scratch list. Wrt reward: dunno yet. Wrt situation: establish the mechanical significance of your initial sitch. Maybe that's all we need.

3) Rules or guidelines providing each player with an answer, at every moment, to "what should I be doing right now?"

Suggestions?

4) Enough material to kick the players without any further work on their part into agreement about at least two of: characters, situation, setting and color. Characters and setting is the easiest, but not-at-all easy to get right; characters and situation is the easiest to get right.

5) Rules or guidelines for coming to agreement about the other two.

We gotta get the changeling PCs into motion. Their lives right now, at the beginning moment of play, have to be untenable. Any thoughts? Wanna do it with built in situation, with rules, or with guidelines?

6) Violence, sex, children, money, God, art, politics, or science.

Covered!

I crossposted that with Emily!

Fun.  But let's twiddle those groups somewhat.  Status quos (status quii?) are boring.  It's all about the relationships to the specific people.  As Vincent said, we really want the changelings to be brought into conflict with the institutions.

Instead of giving the groups (GMs) dice based on in-game leverage, give it to them based on that desired situation.  Say one die per PC currently (actively) at odds with said institution, roll and keep yer highest.  "Actively at odds with" is our mechanical recognition of sitch.  Tentatively: each PC has named slots; one opposition group per slot.  "Being pursued by..."  "Being seduced by..." "Working to bring down..." and maybe "Being sheltered by...".  As a GM, the number of mentions of your group is your mechanical leverage.  Conversely your scene-framing and initiation privileges are inversely proportional to this value (poorest roll of those leverage dice, or what have you).

Oh, and per Polaris etc. I would question dividing GM authority along the lines of specific groups rather than along the different GM duties.  I do wonder if this won't lead to stuff falling through the cracks, and/or regions of overlap.  That's been my experience with (pre-theory) multiGM stuff - "the Black Forest is mine" phenomenon.  Not a fantastic way to split it up.  We move forward - but we may wish to modify this.

How 'bout this... if we've got four (or however many) groups designated per my above, "Working to bring down..." and so forth, why don't those denote the GM duties?  "Being sheltered by..." is responsible for scene framing; "Being pursued by..." is responsible for prices; "Working to bring down..." is responsible for stakes, and so forth.  More clearly, if my character Reji (prn. "Heji") has the paramilitary police as his "Being sheltered by..." entry, and Vincent is in charge of the paramils, then Vincent is in charge of scene framing for Reji's scenes.  Regardless of whether they involve the police - in fact, generally they won't want to, they'll want to involve some other group.

The sitch rules above are, I think - I think - an example of where I'd druther refocus discussion.  The six-point checklist rocks, but is easy.  It's the A+B+C of theme that's our topic.  How do you weld A+B+C into the body of the system such that it's not merely easy but inescapable?

- Eric

Edit the above to clarify: As a GM, the number of mentions of your institution total, including all the PCs is your dice pool.

And yes, either scene framing duties should be (a) inversely proportional to current institution score, or (b) a duty associated with the 'slot' thing, but not both (as that post implied).  Both are cool, but contradictory.

- Eric

Let's also remember that we aren't designing this game - I'm not a good design collaborator - we're brainstorming possible ways to design it. If any or each of us go forward and design it, yay, but that's not my goal here today.

This is a reminder for me more than anybody! It's also why it's good, instead of debilitating, that we disagree about how to split up the GM.

Anyway, A+B+C means, name the issue. Violence? Belonging? Love? Confomity? Individuality?

"Humanity" isn't an issue, by the way, it's the answer.

Alright, no more criticism. Only suggestions :)

In accordance with Eric's suggestion re scene framing, would it be too radical if the status quo players were actually the ones creating all the conflicts? Actually, you could have a two-phase game. First, the slave is in the system. The status quo people can throw things at them, beat them up, kill their family, whatever. It's *Them* who are in charge and who call for rolls.

But if the slave rises up and decides to take it no longer, the whole thing changes. It's now the PC player who creates the conflicts and seeks out ways to change or fight the system.

In order for this to work in a way that keeps people from going the liberated way in the very first scene, maybe there's a number of obstacles to overcome that could lead to very bad consequences, so the PC has to gain some leverage first, like relationships or associations the way Eric mentions, that will help in the transition.

Therfore, we wouldn't have an endgame so much as a prelude and a transition that lead into the main game. By that time, there should be enough stuff built up that drives the character to either fight the system or try to flee forever.

Just a thought :)

- Christian

Hmm.  Christian's transitional approach would give us an issue something like "Rebellion."  My own relationship-slots thing would probably lend itself better to an issue like "Belonging" in the sense of shifting membership/participation in the various groups... a little less focused in that it supports stories about moving toward, as well as away from, some of those institutions.  A versatility vs. focus design choice, there.  Vincent, I'd say pick one - whichever you can more easily bite down on - and use that for the purposes of discussion.

(And no, Christian, it wouldn't be too radical to do it that way... although I note the distinction between a player being the one to frame the scene, and a player being the one to serve as the opposition in the scene.  On a mechanical level, though, the transition pacing has some interesting interactions with the scratch list mechanic.)

Question - it feels like pinning down a precise issue could risk running you into a "brittle" game environment, particularly if the issue is implicit rather than explicitly defined.  (Implicit seems overall the stronger way to go, IMO.)  If I came at this game and diagnosed it as about "Belonging" but it had been written centered on "Rebellion" then I could be in for a disappointment.  So part of the answers about how you embed A+B+C into the fabric seems to relate back to the brittle/flexible scale.

- Eric

- Eric

A) You don't have to have a theme up front. You have to have an issue up front. The issue has to have at least a couple of credible sides to it... If a reasonable person couldn't defend the other side, it's not really an issue. You need an issue.
Let's pick Belonging as the issue for argument's sake. It would match the Atlantis shangri la, which is the mythical place where they fit in.  Each of the institutions pose a question about this issue.

From the rich:  "Is belonging worth being enslaved for?" From the poor: "Is belonging worth suffering for?" From the military: "Is belonging worth killing for?" From the rebels and the church: "Is belonging worth dying for?"

Mechanically, this is represented by the relationships Eric proposed (sheltered by etc.) Each interaction needs to set up a way in which the protagonist would be challenged & prodded by the inherent contradictions of their trying to belong in each group, or how is radically rejected them.

B) You need a character with a stake in the issue.
Check.

C) You need a situation. In fact you need a dynamic situation. The character needs to be in it, of course, and it has to be dynamic across the issue.
This is #5 all over. And what V. says about that above.  I'd favor a kicker-like situation framing device to begin play. It could even be that when this resolves, Christian's transition takes place. That would mean to me that the kicker has to be resolved mechanically. Like a "second act" indicator, like the "endgame" cues in MLwM and so on.

Next:

There's opposition and positioning. Reward: we really, really want the changelings to act against the institutions. We need to decide how to recognize that when it happens, and then how to reward it.

I also want really solid situation rules. The relationships of the PC changelings with the people around them should be mechanically significant, substantially so.

Furthermore, we need some IIEE wicked bad. Here's a starting question: you say "I tip you out of the helicopter so you fall; you're beaten to death by the mob below." We compare numbers and I win. What am I allowed to say? Here's another: are you allowed to say that in the first place, and if not, what are you allowed to say?

Emily,

That's a great collection of issues re belonging. I would love to see the rebels as ambiguous, sort of like the Viet Cong, so that the issue doesn't become too clear cut. Here you are, a runaway slave, finding solace among freedom fighters—who, in the name of liberation, terrorize and kill those people who don't join the fight. The church would be the opposite, peaceful, passive, allowing shit to happen and consoling people with the promise of a better afterlife.

BTW, did you see City of God? If you did not, I suggest you do, it's a great movie :)

As for IIEE, this seems to lend itself more to a scene resolution kind of mechanic based on the numbers system that Eric developed. One side sets up a scene, both sides develop a goal, and when there's disagreement there's the roll of dice.

Again, just some suggestions.

- Christian

Christian: "I would love to see the rebels as ambiguous, sort of like the Viet Cong, so that the issue doesn't become too clear cut. Here you are, a runaway slave, finding solace among freedom fighters—who, in the name of liberation, terrorize and kill those people who don't join the fight."

Yeah! I like that.

I suggest for mechanical situation: duress. Your character has some things called duress, with numbers attached to them, like "I must please my spouse sexually 2" or "I must withhold myself from society 3." You start with one, chosen to match your changeling status whatever it is.

Whenever the character is trying to accomplish something that doesn't actively involve those things, you get the number as a penalty to your scratch number. Like, whatever your character's trying to accomplish, if it doesn't involve pleasing her spouse sexually, you get the big -2 to it. This is hard to deal with already.

But for initial situation, you have to choose a second duress incompatible with your first, so that there's absolutely nothing you can do without taking a penalty. "I must remain celibate 3" or "I must seek out like-minded others 2." You need to come up with the changes to your character's circumstances that add this new duress.

And then the resolution rules simply need to incorporate the possibility of increasing, decreasing, removing from, and adding to your duress.

Consider this: for your own character, you choose a first duress, appropriate to her changeling status.

Then adopt the point of view of your institution, consider all the other players' changelings, and give one of them a second duress. You and that changeling's player work out the new circumstances.

So if I'm the freedom fighters, you might choose "I must please my spouse sexually 2" for your own character, and then I might impose upon your character "I must give my body only and always to warriors for freedom 3." Then we get together and decide (for instance) that your character has become awestruck with a local young firebrand and has adopted her ideals to please her.

...And then, in subsequent play, as an institution you're motivated strongly to maneuver the other players' changelings into duress consistent with your status quo.

This suggests a pretty roughshodist design, actually. "Seriously screw up given institution's resources and status quo" should be allowed as conflict stakes.

We're still wanting IIEE, but let's check in.

How's this working for people, as an illustration of how to take a thematic core, a technical core, and develop a game from them?

Working well, although I'm a little fuzzled about the duress thing and how it relates to the focal issue.  Honestly I'd call that a miss, when it comes to establishing the issue (either "belonging" or "rebellion"), making characters who have stakes in it, and setting up an unstable situation.  It provides a mechanism for tension without direction; it's an unsteered mechanic.

I do think this helping me grasp it, though, but in terms of the specific design I'd argue hard that the relationship-slots module and the duress module are sufficiently overlapping that one or the other would have to go... and then I'd argue equally hard that the slots do that in a way which is not only better but is specifically closer to the thread topic.

So it's almost to the point where Vincent's suggestion helps me understand it - but in the manner of a counterexample.  And I'm fairly sure that wasn't what was intended.  So, Vincent, maybe help me out here - talking about the duress module specifically, how does this (a) establish the specific issue we want to address in the game; (b) enhance the players' stake in the validity of both sides of the issue; and/or (c) generate situation which will break across the issue.  All I see in it right now is an engine for strengthening issues in general, and for steering characters into people who straddle the issue that's hidden in the non-overlap area of the two duresses.  What it misses is the bit where it directs which issues to straddle with the duresses chosen, and how to shape duresses so that the incompatibility produces an issue.  Also the bit where it generates player (rather than character) investment in the issue; usually suffer one of two largely equivalent penalties, feh.

If it's just that I didn't grasp the suggested mechanism, cool, but right now I don't see how it really accomplishes A+B+C in a useful way.  So the duress module is helping me with A+B+C, but it's doing so because it's making me phrase why I think it doesn't accomplish A+B+C - does that make sense?

- Eric

Duress would, yes, be incompatible with the relationship slots.

It drives toward the issue by taking two (or more) emotionally charged and equally problematic pressures and demanding that the character navigate their intersection. Whether the larger issue turns out to be "belonging" or "freedom" or "rebellion" or whatever will arise naturally from the particular duresses we choose, and vary from game to game.

What's most important to me is that I can imagine actually doing the duress thing, just the way that you can (I presume) imagine actually doing the relationship slot thing and I can't. Effectively communicating your design comes way later in the process than designing it does - and there's going to be no effective communication of any designs in this thread. That takes a whole game text. Here, evocation is the best we can hope for.

Ooh.  IIEE.  Building on Christian's suggestion of the scale of a roll...

Somebody has the right to request the next scene.  This is mechanically established, right, based on the institution scores.  When they call for a scene, they must specify whether this is to be a Hope scene, a Fear scene, or an Anger scene - per our three scratch lists.  Someone (maybe same someone, maybe different) then has to frame something which will manifest within that category.  Hope scenes, f'rinstance, should have the PC as the active agent, an institution as responsive, and suggests a possible positive outcome.  Fear scenes have the PC as receptive/responding, an institution as active, and suggests the threat of a negative outcome.

Anyway, the insight is let's use imagery to establish stakes.  The player (or maybe someone else, hang on a sec) describes the still tableau which constitutes "end of conflict" with the PC victorious.  The opposed-institution's-player describes a different still tableau which constitutes the other possible outcome, institution victorious.  The constraint upon stakes is simply that it is only the image that is binding.  So a stakes that is so large in scope or complexity that it can't be captured by a single image, is impermissible.  The city on fire - that's good.  Looters in the town hall - alternate and also good.  "The city government toppled" - impermissible.  [I am so stealing this concept for something else, if this game stays in example-land.]

So intent is open discussion mode during the scene framing and scene setup.  Initiation is the description of tableaux.  We're now in conflict and resolving.  We do some back-and-forth stuff... I'm leaving this as a blank right now.  At some point the GM rolls the dice versus the player's scratch value (poss. modified by positioning etc).  The dice tell us which tableau will bring the end of the scene; that's effect.  Naturally at this point it's a fun collaborative storytelling exercise to cap the scene with sequences which end in the designated image.

The blank spot above I left on purpose.  Harkening back to our "anatomy of conflict" stuff, the big thing we're missing in this design is some tools for stretching the uncertainty.  We could make the roll right at the beginning and have the entire scene be done in "we know where this ends" mode, but frankly that would suck.  It would have no tension.  What we're missing is a phase of things where in-game events are happening, and (whether related or unrelated) the resolution odds are being shifted by the players.  It could be that this is as simple as a sort of Baron Munchausen / PTA-style thing wherein a cool contribution to the narrative gets applauded in the form of bennies which go towards the single roll.  It could be as complex as several applications of the scratch list mechanic, with the conflict resolution established by the cumulative results.  Whatever.

But there's our IIEE.  Scene call (incl. Hope/Fear/Anger), scene frame, conflicting tableaux, back-and-forth events, roll, free narration to tableau, cut.  Makes me think that the procedural imagery here (for me) is one of indie cinema, something by Naomi Klein or the like.

- Eric

(The above crossposted with Vincent.)  That's an excellent way of putting it.  Making it clear comes later; making it solid in your own head comes way before that.  Precisement.  Works for me.

- Eric

Eric: "The player (or maybe someone else, hang on a sec) describes the still tableau which constitutes "end of conflict" with the PC victorious. The opposed-institution's-player describes a different still tableau which constitutes the other possible outcome, institution victorious."

Kind of like Shadows.

Mmm - one more filip.  I said "hang on a sec" in the IIEE post, with relation to who describes the tableaux.  Default, the easy way: PC does one, antagonistic institution's player the other.

Fancier way: depending on the type of scene, the player in a specific relationship-slot (assuming that version of the design) has this job.  In a Fear scene, for instance, it's hard-coded that the "Pursued by..." institution's player does one tableau, and the "Sheltered by..." player does the other one.  Likely neither of these is the PC's player, so he can chip in with discussion but the buck stops outside his hands.

Just a filip, but a neat one.  I think it would help make the PCs feel kind of small compared to the institutions around them.  You can't stand entirely alone; no, really, you can't.

- Eric

Or, to stick with the randomness and to play on the scratch tickets mentioned in the quote above: have three cards that are drawn each round. One determines who gets to pick the type of scene, one grants the right to determine the high plateau, one the low.

- Christian

P.S.: I, for one, am truly enjoying this process and have already learned something about how to approach my own designs.

I hope you guys are busy working on this! :)

- Christian

Hey Christian,

I think we accomplished our goal here. I got what I needed. I hope it made sense & was a decent illustration of the process to others.  Game Chef is upon us now!

And, this is a cool base for a game.  Maybe Eric, you (Christian) or I will finish it out sometime.  Another for the list. : )

best,
Emily