A Framework for interactive storytelling and roleplaying games

edited August 2015 in Directed Promotion
Note: I continuously edit the first post in order to let new readers find the latest info.

Hi all... I'd like to share with you the work I'm currently conducting.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 1: Narration Games Fundamentals
Definition, general aspects and application domain
The process of fiction generation
Truth and aesthetic at game table
Validated and Non-Validated Fiction
Personal Imaginary Space and Shared Imaginary Space
The validation sequence

http://www.levity-rpg.net/it/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/LevityIV-Draft-CAP-I-Eng.pdf
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 2: The pillars of Levity
The Three 'Essences'
The Three Powers
Levity in one page
Your first rpg system

http://www.levity-rpg.net/it/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/LevityIV-Draft-CAP-II-Eng.pdf
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 3: Creating your own system
Fixed Systems
Variable systems
Management of Information during game
Introducing game economy
Complex game systems


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 4: Simple game systems ready
Ludic Enviroment
Educational Environment
Family Environment
School Environment
Working Environment
Environment


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 5: Considerations over social aspects
Players Groups
Changing systems according to players groups


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chapter 6: Levity relations with Other Worlds
Comics
Movies
Theatre
Interactive Fiction
Roleplaying Games
CYOA - books
Traditional storytelling
TV Series


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It's a concept draft but many key elements are discussed and presented.
If any of you is interested in giving feedback or discuss it, is welcome.
Rob

Comments

  • Looks like a meta-gamesystem (or even meta-framework)?

    I like the explanation of the theoretical background, the pictures are very understandable
    It would be great to start with some practical display of the system (instead of abstract theoretical introdction). How does your system work at the game table? Any handout sheets? Example gameplay round?
    As presentation format, I'd prefer a format closer to a book format. This looks more like Powerpoint/Web site.

    Looking forward to seeing more!
  • Nice explanation. I would suggest using two different colors for "Shared Aesthetic Criteria" and "Personal Aesthetic Criteria". Right now they use the same colors as "Plausible World" and "Not Plausible World", respectively, which (to my mind, on first reading) implied a connection that actually doesn't exist.

  • edited August 2015
    I like this. I like this a lot.

    It follows my own thoughts about interaction and how it form learning by constantly adding new things up through the interaction itself.

    I like the term »narration game«.

    I also like the presentation. 55 pages took no time to read.

    PAGE 37
    I didn't understand A «dystonia» of imagination /.../ makes the validation process difficult" because Google defined dystonia as "a state of abnormal muscle tone resulting in muscular spasm and abnormal posture"

    I also only half understood "What happens is a syntactic and semantic evaluation of the statement and then a transposition in the imaginary spaces". I kinda understand semantic evaluation but not syntactic. I hoped that it would be explained on the following pages, but it wasn't.

    ---

    Pages 27 and 39 haven't been translated.
  • I guessed that "syntactic evaluation" means an examination of not only the words but also their timing, order, and affect. I would consider this as being necessary for an accurate "transposition" to occur in the imaginary space, because (for instance) the second half of the sentence might apply easily, but the first half might be conditional, or vice-versa, or because the statement needs to be broken into several parts in order to fit in with the timing of other events occurring in the imaginary space, etc.

    Let's see if I was right.

  • First of all let me thank you for taking time to read and give me feedback. My asnwers/comments below.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    @BeePeeGee
    > Looks like a meta-gamesystem (or even meta-framework)?

    Yes, it's a meta-gamesystem.

    > It would be great to start with some practical display of the system (instead of abstract theoretical introdction).

    That's what the chapter 2 and 3 do.
    Chapter 2 introduces elements (which are basically three) to design your own game system and Chapter 3 presents some sample systems that can be derived from the framework.
    Chapter 2 is in italian at the moment and I wasn't planning to translate it because I wasn't expecting some interest, infact I've been surprised. :) Given the interest I'm going to translate chapter 2 in english and post it here for feedback (that's more than one hundred slides but explains the core of the framework).
    I'm working on writing chapter 3 at the moment. This chapter discusses the pros and cons of having fixed or variable systems during the game and how and when switch them during the game.

    > How does your system work at the game table? Any handout sheets? Example gameplay round?

    It's 8 years that I'm working on and let players playing with the framework so there are many examples with different games and different systems derived from the framewor. They're in italian. I've published some free games in english (for very young kids) and "Pride and Prejudice" for two players. I'm currently working on "Flashback Bullets" for three players.
    Anyway the framework gives the most when you cath the basic underlying concepts that allow you to 'change' the system on the fly at the table in order to adapt it to the group and to the fictional context being played at the moment.

    > As presentation format, I'd prefer a format closer to a book format. This looks more like Powerpoint/Web site.

    You're right. Infact that's a concept draft material that I write and send to italian friends that take time to review it.
    Once the draft is completed (and consistent) for all chapters I'll write the final version.

    > Looking forward to seeing more!

    Sure. :)
    Thank you.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    @AsIf and @Rickard

    > I would suggest using two different colors for "Shared Aesthetic Criteria" and "Personal Aesthetic Criteria".

    I'll have a look. In any case in the final version of the manual all drawings will be re-done.

    > Pages 27 and 39 haven't been translated.

    You're right. I'm going to amend it asap.

    > PAGE 37
    > I didn't understand A «dystonia» of imagination /.../ makes the validation process difficult" because Google defined > dystonia as "a state of abnormal muscle tone resulting in muscular spasm and abnormal posture"

    Well, I maybe used a wrong term, I'll be more precise in the final sketch of material.
    What I wanted to say is that the "Personal Imaginary Space" (i.e. how a single player is imagining the fiction) and the Shared Imaginary Space (i.e. an impossible 'space' representing the common features between all the players as if they were imagining exactly the same things in the same way) are never aligned. This is good, because leaves space to interpretation and expectation about how the fiction can be modified. But if this two spaces are too much far (dystonia as opposed to syntony, maybe the right term would be unsync) no validation can occur because players are imagining the fiction too much differently between them, so some sort of sync is needed (no, the warrior was not near the door, no the snake had only three teeth, and so on).

    > I also only half understood "What happens is a syntactic and semantic evaluation of the statement and then a > transposition in the imaginary spaces". I kinda understand semantic evaluation but not syntactic. I hoped that it would > be explained on the following pages, but it wasn't.

    AsIf is right.
    Also (maybe this comes from my time spent on computer based interactive fiction) it is very important what you say in terms of syntax of the statement in order to avoid ambiguity. Some consequences for this will be clear in the chapter 2.
    Rob
  • Great. Do you have a link to the current italian version? (my italian is rusty, but I guess I should manage understanding most of it)
  • edited August 2015
    Sure
    http://www.levity-rpg.net/it/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/LevityIV-Draft-CAP-II.pdf

    Feel free to ask for any help for translation
    Rob
  • mille grazie!
  • rgrassi: If you ever translate more bits, be sure to let me know in this thread. :)
  • edited August 2015
    @Rickard: I'll continue the work From Monday. Most of the effort will be concentrated on the new game, nevertheless I think that I should have a version ready by the end of the month
  • Oh man this is sooo good. Now I can understand more clearly why I love Fiasco and Vast & Starlit so much. We want the 2nd chapter :)
  • edited August 2015
    Quick Update. I've published updated version of first chapter with translation of slides 27-39.
    Also, I've updated the first post including the table of content for the first chapter.

    @hamnacb: thank you very much. I'll work on it as soon as possible.
    Rob
  • I have read the second chapter with Google Translator and I found it extremely insightful! I think it needs to be translated. I feel very excited about your project and cant wait for chapter 3!

    I love your conceptualization of Powers. I did something similar when I tried to 'fix' Ars Magica but failed because I could not see the big picture and express clearly my vision of the Powers. Now i have good tools to use :)

    Also, I realized that the games Fiasco, Vast & Starlit and Swords Without Master seems very streamlined in their design of Powers.
  • Hi @hamnacb. My comments below. :)

    > I have read the second chapter with Google Translator and I found it extremely
    > insightful! I think it needs to be translated. I feel very excited about your project and
    > cant wait for chapter 3!

    Well, you may wait for a bit, because Chapter 3 is still in Italian and partial. :)

    > I love your conceptualization of Powers. I did something similar when I tried to 'fix'
    > Ars Magica but failed because I could not see the big picture and express clearly my
    > vision of the Powers. Now i have good tools to use :)

    Great. :)
    All narration games are determined by the configuration of Three Powers.
    - Power of Narration
    - Power of Opposition
    - Power of Decision
    The three powers constantly flow during the fiction process generation.

    > Also, I realized that the games Fiasco, Vast & Starlit and Swords Without Master seems
    > very streamlined in their design of Powers.

    I never played any of them, nevertheless all games I've played and/or read, so far can be described in terms of the framework.
    Rob
  • edited August 2015
    - Power of Narration
    - Power of Opposition
    - Power of Decision
    Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. :-)

  • @AsIf: yes, kind of. :)
    Viewing narration games in that way, "conch shell games", for instance, are simply games in which only Power of Narration is present. The two other powers are lacking.
    - Power of Narration: 1
    - Power of Opposition: 0 (turned off)
    - Power of Decision: 0 (turned off)
    Rob
  • Bit registers. Nice.

  • - Power of Narration
    - Power of Opposition
    - Power of Decision
    Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. :-)
    Idea, Opposition, Agreement.

    I can see these, but what differs between (Power of) Opposition and Decision? A decision assumes, to me, an opposition. Otherwise you wouldn't have anything to choose between.

    [I'm brainstorming now] If I look at the words @AsIf used, perhaps Conclusion could be another word for Decision, as it's the consequence of the Decision?

    But if I do that, then I see it more as Narration (idea) -> Opposition -> Conclusion and that resembles Freytag's Dramatic Curve a lot.
  • edited August 2015
    @Rickard:
    I can see these, but what differs between (Power of) Opposition and Decision? A decision assumes, to me, an opposition. Otherwise you wouldn't have anything to choose between.
    The Power of Narration is a 'precise' thing. It implies that someone has the right to propose statements on fictional elements. It also implies that "that someone" has ownership of those fictional elements. Power of Narration infact requires a "narration scope". All these aulic words serve the purpose to identify exactly that if you have the ownership of let's say "X" (And X is something in the fiction), you're not allowed to propose statements about Y. If you do, you are subject to Opposition by the other player who owns Y (and there should be always someone who controls Y).
    Someone at the table must have this power. It may be distributed or be concentrated in one player, or other stuff like that (I'll be more precise later) but at least one player must have it (also implicitly), otherwise no statements about the fiction can be created.

    The Power of Opposition is another 'precise' thing. It comes in form of three elements:
    A. Constraints (these are fictional constraints/aspects/statements that cannot be touched or modified). Constraints are of a lot of different types. I'll get back later on this because it's not so simple to identify them.
    B. Vetos, basically 2 kind of. Aesthetic Vetos and Coherence Vetos.
    C. Conflicts. Conflicts are raised whenever two players that owns different things in the fictional world do not agree about the proposed statement.
    Someone at the table must have this power. It may be distributed or be concentrated in one player, or other stuff like that (I'll be more precise later) but at least one player must have it (also implicitly), otherwise no statements about the fiction can be opposed.

    The Power of Decision is another 'precise' thing. Basically answers to the question. "What do we do when someone narrates something and someone opposes? Who do we solve the 'stalemate'?" The framework identifies five types or resolution (the types of resolution say nothing with respect WHO exercises that power) and mixed solutions between them:
    1) Random (dice, cards)
    2) Authority
    3) Negotiation
    4) Voting
    5) Resource Based

    In order to keep things "clean" you should think about the powers separated from the players. However you're right that if you turn "Opposition" on, you've to turn on "Decision" also.
    In the simplest case, a single configuration or instance of the framework simply assigns the Powers to the Players and ask them to use the powers. You may have a 'bad system' and change it on the fly. Or, alternatively, you may design a more sofisticated game system and keep it fixed for the entire duration of the game.
    About Freytag's curve, I think I'm still far from that. It will be treated in chapter 6, when I'll talk about "cultural mix" between "interactive narration games" and "static dramatic storytelling".

    If I succeed I'm going to describe in one of the next posts how the framework 'sees' for instance "The Pool" or "D&D", two games, that I assume are known by everyone here (and I hope for a 'charitable reading' mode to be switched on). And I'll also make "basic" play example to see the powers in execution.
    Rob
  • edited August 2015
    Thanks for taking the time to answer. It feels like I'm dissecting the table of content and not the ideas itself so it was interesting to follow your thought of process. I'm really curious about the Constraints in the Power of Opposition so I'm looking forward reading about them later.
  • edited August 2015
    @Rickard
    I have to thank you for taking time to read. I'm sure that answering your questions I'll clarify most of the doubts I have (Chapter 3, for instance, is a bit halted because I'm moving in 'uncharted' world. Each new slide is like a 'step in the dark' :D )

    Most games have different framework configuration throughout the game.
    Back to 'games example'.
    Note: I've edited the post to keep all considerations about "The Pool" in one single post.
    "The Pool", at the very beginning, has different 'configurations" occurring.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Chapter One: CHARACTER CREATION
    FROM THE MANUAL - Once your group has decided on a setting you can begin creating characters.
    The bolded statement does not mean "everyone can says what he/she wants" but implies the following configuration.

    Power of Narration: Each player owns the whole fiction and can propose what he/she wants (saying vague statements like "Yes, zombie must be present", or says explicit statements on specific fictional elements like "There must be a white tree at the centre of the world").
    Power of Opposition: Each player (given that owns the whole fiction) may oppose to each statement made by another player and may propose another option, or simply reject the proposal.
    Power of Decision: Negotiation (Agreement is achieved through discussion until a "win-win" result is obtained).

    After that, "The Pool" may start, and the game configuration changes (as you'll see in my next post). You may simply note that this framework configuration is potentially subject to "stalemate", because you may have players that disagree about the setting and all its related elements and rules-as-written say nothing about that, implying that people generally agrees if all players want to play and have fun.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Chapter One: CHARACTER CREATION (later on)
    FROM THE MANUAL - Making a character is simple: just write a 50 word Story. Pretend you’re writing a book and this is the introduction of your main character.
    (Me thinking): So this means that it is something a player can do in "stand alone" with complete authority? Of course not.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Chapter Two: ASSIGNING TRAITS AND BONUSES
    FROM THE MANUAL - Though you can word a Trait any way you wish, make sure it doesn’t contradict or expand your Story.
    (Me thinking): Some more info... That's basically a check for Congruence or a check to verify if a Constraint has been violated.

    What about the Powers in this case?
    Power of Narration: Each player owns his/her character and has some control over some minor setting elements that can be slightly modified with additional info if accepted.
    Power of Opposition: This is not clear because there's no explicit assignment about who can raise opposition if player makes something wrong. Looks like it's the player itself (or the group) that makes another check. Opposition in this case is done through "Constraint" check (no contradiction is allowed, also for pre-established setting) and "Congruence Veto".
    Power of Decision: Negotiation (Agreement is achieved through discussion until a "win-win" result is obtained) or Authority, in case the single player amends directly the fiction for his character.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Chapter Three: CASTING THE DICE
    FROM THE MANUAL - Dice are cast to determine the general outcome of conflicts.
    FROM THE MANUAL - Anyone can call for a die roll whenever a conflict is apparent or when someone wants to introduce a new conflict. Just broadly state your intention and roll.
    Power of Narration: Each player owns his/her character and has some control over some other fictional elements. In order to explain this I've to introduce the "equivalent statement" concept. Putting it simply, it's the statement that 'forces' the Opposition.
    Damart is in an ancient library. I want him to find a piece of knowledge that will help him on his quest, so I ask for a roll based on the Trait “searching for the means to bring his love from the dead +1”.
    To me, this means that the following "equivalent" statement is trying to enter into the fiction: "Damart finds into the ancient library a piece of knowledge. This knowledge will help him on his quest."

    Power of Opposition: Looks like all the players can oppose, asking for Rolling.
    Power of Decision: Who decides how to solve and how? Decision is "Resource Based" (the number of dice you have, and economy associated to them in terms of resource creation and consumption) and "Random (Dice Rolling)" mixed together. It's not important for the framework how sophisticated the type of resolution is. It's just one of five suggested or a mix between them with some sort of prioritization.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    And now we come to the great "The Pool" framework configuration in case of winning or losing the conflict

    If you win:
    A) You prefer to get the die for the pool
    Power of Narration: The GM has the right to take control of the fictional elements "in scope" for the conflict and narrates "not exactly what you intended".
    Power of Opposition: No one can oppose.
    Power of Decision: No one can oppose, so it is not needed.
    This configuration is 'weak', infact it's prone to discussion (there's a discussion on the forge forum regarding 'how far' a GM can go about narrating).
    B) You take the "Monologue of Victory"
    Power of Narration: The player 'expands' his/her narration scope including his character and other elements "in scope" for the conflict (and even beyond). The narraton scope has boundaries ("Don’t make alterations to the characters of other players.")
    Power of Opposition: All other players may oppose if the scope is violated or if aesthetic and/or continuity are violated ("Keep your narration in synch with the established facts and tone of the game". "Keep your narration reasonably short".)
    Power of Decision: What to do in case Opposition is raised? Decision is by Authority by GM ("If you ignore these rules, the GM may end your MOV at any time.")

    If you lose the roll:
    Power of Narration: The GM has the right to take control of the fictional elements "in scope" for the conflict and narrates "exactly not what you intended" ("The details of the outcome are entirely up to him. He may introduce new complications for your character or simply narrate a scene that is opposite of what you wanted.")
    Power of Opposition: No one can oppose.
    Power of Decision: No one can oppose, so it is not needed.
    This configuration is 'weak', infact it's prone to discussion (there's a discussion on the forge forum regarding 'how far' a GM can go about narrating).
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    And here's a table resuming all the post.
    image
    Now I go back to complete translation of chapter 2.
    Rob
  • Vast & Starlit

    There is a vague starting situation.

    You make your character and the your spaceship by answering questions from other players (one must be from a cool list). Are these constrains?

    You can create alien species, cultures, enviroments and technology together by picking one or two interesting things for starting, then another player picks one of its aspects and a third player twist them. At the end you synthetize only the twisted elements into a new thing. I think this is a complex resolution with sub-authorities. Am I right?

    Players direct scenes in turn. When it's your turn, you narrate the plot and the frame. Anyone can play their own focus characters or any sidecharacters and narrate their interaction with their enviroment.

    Anyone can call for a conflict. Then the other players give you three possible outcome (one is difficult, one costs you something and in the third you fail) and you choose from them. Maybe it's a special way of negotiation?

    Anyone can call for a veto (aestetics and coherence) by naming the problematic part and the 'why?'. A third player has the right to resolve the problem the way they want by refining the problematic element following the 'why'. This is a bit similar to the creation stuff.
  • edited August 2015
    Vast & Starlit
    There is a vague starting situation.
    You make your character and the your spaceship by answering questions from other players (one must be from a cool list). Are these constrains?
    Yes. They cannot be changed or be subject to "opinion".
    Important: Note that are not the stats itself to be 'contraints' but the derived 'fictional statement', such as: "Gerigold (your character name) is very strong, tall, blond, loves pets, ..." and so on.
    Also, who says that answer is good and is accepted? If the answer is "all the other players" than the decision is "By Authority" and authority is shared between all the other players.
    If, instead, the player can 'negotiate' with other players and the final decision is still up to them than the decision is "Negotiation" (First) + "By Authority" (Later)
    You can create alien species, cultures, enviroments and technology together by picking one or two interesting things for starting, then another player picks one of its aspects and a third player twist them. At the end you synthetize only the twisted elements into a new thing. I think this is a complex resolution with sub-authorities. Am I right?
    I see no "authority" here.
    "Authority" as decision is: "I take the decision and don't have to justify it even if it's wrong."
    What I see is that players have together "Power of Narration" and "Power of Opposition" over the same elements and then reach an agreement through "Negotiation" (i.e. discuss until they reach an agreement) and/or "Authority" (by the third player). But I need more info to give a precise answer.
    Players direct scenes in turn. When it's your turn, you narrate the plot and the frame. Anyone can play their own focus characters or any sidecharacters and narrate their interaction with their enviroment.
    Anyone can call for a conflict. Then the other players give you three possible outcome (one is difficult, one costs you something and in the third you fail) and you choose from them. Maybe it's a special way of negotiation?
    Yes. A negotiation in which one side has the right to impose a non-negotiable list of choices ("take it or leave it"). So the framework configuration is.
    Power of Narration: The "it's my turn" player has a wider narration scope (plot, frame, his character, ...). The "other players" have a narrower narration scope (still, greater than traditional games.)
    Power of Opposition: All the players by simply saying "Conflict!" (my question: can a player raise a conflict over something that is not in the narration scope under his/her control? I presume not).
    Power of Decision: Negotiation (one side offers a predefined list of choices) and the other side chooses one of them.
    Added: By the way, this kind of decision (or resolution as I call it in the framework) is the same type of the one in gamebooks game (which is another form of storytelling games intertwinned with rpg games).
    Anyone can call for a veto (aestetics and coherence) by naming the problematic part and the 'why?'. A third player has the right to resolve the problem the way they want by refining the problematic element following the 'why'. This is a bit similar to the creation stuff.
    Yes.
    I can make a table similar to "The Pool" one to synthesize this.
    And here it is.
    image
    Rob

  • Also, who says that answer is good and is accepted? If the answer is "all the other players" than the decision is "By Authority" and authority is shared between all the other players.
    If, instead, the player can 'negotiate' with other players and the final decision is still up to them than the decision is "Negotiation" (First) + "By Authority" (Later)
    The 'book' is under 500 words so it's very vague. Maybe others can use veto in character generation, but maybe only in actual play (when doing scenes). Maybe you can use creation rules in character generation, maybe not (we did use them). I'm not sure. But the answering player definitely has the right to interpret the question:

    'How do you got a parasite?'
    'I was here and there, doing this and that when things happened and the parasite did this to me and now it feels this way.'
    'Since high school I do feel something is wrong with me.'


    I think both of these sentences can answer the question, but the second is maybe not space opera. Maybe it is!

    If the other players can only accept it or veto it, then it's only authority which can be opponed, right?

    I see no "authority" here.
    "Authority" as decision is: "I take the decision and don't have to justify it even if it's wrong."
    What I see is that players have together "Power of Narration" and "Power of Opposition" over the same elements and then reach an agreement through "Negotiation" (i.e. discuss until they reach an agreement) and/or "Authority" (by the third player). But I need more info to give a precise answer.
    It's not freeflowing negotiation, it's very structured. Works like this:

    1st Player: I want a new space race! I choose octopus and hedgehog as inspiration.
    2nd Player: I choose tentacles as an aspect.
    3nd Player: I twist is. It has 28 tentacles!
    3nd Player: I choose spikes as an aspect.
    2nd Player: Some of the tentacles can erect spikes.
    4th Player: I choose head unseen as an aspect.
    2nd Player: It has no face, it can communicate in 360 degree!
    ...
    1st Player: Because nobody wants more twisting I synthetize it. They are round lik a ball, could communicate and move in every direction. They have 28 tentacles, some of them can erect spikes. They can spit some kind of goo too! They are called the Khuls.


    Maybe you can veto someone's decision, maybe not.

    Can a player raise a conflict over something that is not in the narration scope under his/her control? I presume not.
    Literally everybody can say that something is difficult, dangerous or both, which automatically involves the conflict rules.
  • edited August 2015
    Real life examples help very much in identify the real powers infact the configuration is very precise. Just let us focalize at the character creation step.
    'How do you got a parasite?'
    'I was here and there, doing this and that when things happened and the parasite did this to me and now it feels this way.'
    'Since high school I do feel something is wrong with me.'
    I think both of these sentences can answer the question, but the second is maybe not space opera. Maybe it is!
    If the other players can only accept it or veto it, then it's only authority which can be opponed, right?
    VAST & STARLIT - Configuration of play at the beginning, when creating the characters and the starships. (This procedure ends when each player has created his/her own character and starhip).
    "Narration Power" (remember, it's the right to propose statements that try to enter into the validated, i.e. shared and agreed, fiction).
    Who has the power: The player creating the character.
    On What (the Narration Scope): On everything! (I was here and there, implies, if validated, that here and there exist in the setting).
    How (how the fiction is created): By simply saying statements.

    "Opposition Power" (remember, it's the right to block the fiction, before it enters into the validated, i.e. shared and agreed, fiction).
    Who has the power: All other players
    On what (the Opposition Scope): On everything! (Apparently, I need more info on that. Can I "Veto" your "I was here and there..." for instance?)
    How (how the proposed fiction is blocked): Vetos, by simply saying "I disagree"

    "Decision (or Resolution) Power" (remember, it's HOW an Opposition is resolved, and by whom). It also incorporates the Post-Resolution Narration, if it's different from the Narration Power stated above.
    Who (is involved in decision process): The player creating the character, only
    On what (the decision scope): On the blocked fictional statement.
    How (the opposition is resolved): By Authority

    Rob
  • I forgot to tell you that there is oly one ship at the start and you create it together equally by answeing written questions.

    I checked the text and realized we played it 'wrong': you can only veto in the creation phase.

    Thank you for you answers, Rob! I start to get familiar with you vocabulary and system, which is great! :)

    Mátyás

  • Thank you for you answers, Rob! I start to get familiar with you vocabulary and system, which is great! :)
    Thanks to you. I'm happy you're getting confident and like my approach to interactive storytelling games.
    And... there are good news for chapter 2. An italian friend offered to help me in translation, so looks like that chapter 2 in english is going to be ready in the next days.
    Rob
  • edited August 2015
    To all people interested, I've published the pdf for chapter 2.
    @Rickard.

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Chapter 2: The pillars of Levity
    The Three 'Essences'
    The Three 'Powers'
    Levity in one page
    Your first rpg system

    http://www.levity-rpg.net/it/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/LevityIV-Draft-CAP-II-Eng.pdf
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Cheers,
    Rob
  • edited August 2015
    Thank you for the English translation! I've already read the original one, but it's more clear now.

    I also realized that a list of 'What can you do' is an extremely helpful tool for any game, but let's be fair: is a quite rare thing for RPGs (even Story Games). I hope Levity will change that ;)

  • I also realized that a list of 'What can you do' is an extremely helpful tool for any game, but let's be fair: is a quite rare thing for RPGs (even Story Games). I hope Levity will change that ;)
    Are you referring to example tables like those above?
    Also, it comes in mind that "What can you do" are "The rules of the game". :)
    They should be clear. :D
    Rob
  • Yeah, those tables. What I mean is that
    1) in a lot of Story Games you are playing with Author stance or Director stance (so you have more Narration rights than in Actor stance trad games) or you have various narration rights about different elements of fiction but the texts are usually not clear about what can you say precisely.
    2) in a lot of GMful games you can oppose other's ideas but you're not absolutely sure what and how.

    So I'm missing summerizing tables and lists.
  • So I'm missing summerizing tables and lists.
    It wouldn't take so much to do those tables.
    Once you know the criteria it takes minutes. And they're also easy to amend.
    We may try but I need to know what a game is expected to be played "in real life".
    Rob
  • Any news? I loved this thread. Constantly thinking in Levity terms now when designing games.
  • Hi @hamnacb. I'm overloaded at work and in the spare time I'm focused on the writing of the new game for three players. About Levity framework I'm stuck at chapter III.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Chapter 3: Creating your own system
    Fixed Systems
    Variable systems
    Management of Information during game
    Introducing game economy
    Complex game systems
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    I'm working on the discussion about fixed and variable systems (first two topics).
    The good new is that the third topic is almost done (already developed for the third edition).
    "Introducing game economy" and "Complex game systems" are the real big thing here.
    Rob

  • Rob, these are indeed complex topics! Take you time, we can wait ;)
  • edited September 2015
    Thanks! :)
    A quick note (that will be useful also to me).

    Management of Information during game will deal about:
    Is there any relation about the "quantity of information" that the different players have about the fictional elements they own and between them and an "optimal" system to handle it at the best?
    (Quick Answer: Yes, there is.)

    Introducing Game Economy will deal about:
    What happens when you introduce "economy" (i.e. finite number of resources and their consumption / recharge cycle) in a system with powers defined (which are assumed to be based on "infinite or fixed resources" available")
    (Quick Answer: It may be a mess, depending on how much complex the economy is.)

    Complex Game Systems will deal about:
    What happens when you put together all the info already presented to you and you have to deal and (re)configure a system continuously at the table WHILE playing?
    (Quick Answer: It may be a mess, unless you know how to do that)

    Rob
  • A quick bump just to say that Chapter 3 is available in Italian.
    I'll start to work on English translation as soon as I can.
Sign In or Register to comment.