Basic, basic roleplaying; a draft of a Cog Wars page.

---------

THE BACK-AND-FORTH OF PLAY

Most of this game is played verbally - the guide sets a scene, the players describe what their characters are doing in that scene, the Guide responds by describing how this affects the setting around the characters, telling them what happens next, and on and on it goes.  If the Guide described a scene that was a ruined manor, a player might simply say "I explore the ruins, looking for anything interesting".  The Guide might check in with the other players to see what they're doing at the same time, and then get on to the first interesting thing in the search, or the first thing that interrupts the search.  Or the Guide might ask the player what they think is interesting, to tailor the results of the search.

This means that the Guide is making stuff up all the time, adding detail, fleshing out the setting and adding to it.  That's absolutely the way things are supposed to be; that's a big part of their job.  

IT ISN'T ALWAYS BACK AND FORTH

There are two main circumstances where play will leave this "Guide describes, characters act" setup.  The first is when there's a conflict or a challenge that needs to be resolved.  Let's say a player wants to knock out a guard by sneaking up behind them and cracking them on the skull.  The Guide could simply say "Sure.   He's unconscious.  Now what?" - or the Guide might make a challenge out of it, as described in the challenge chapter.  Second is when the player characters are talking to some other character in the world; in those circumstances, players often change over to talking as if they were their characters, and the Guide speaks as the other character, holding a conversation as the characters.

WHO CAN DESCRIBE WHAT

The Guide has the final word on what exists in the setting, but they don't have the only word.  Players will often add minor details 'on the fly' as well, though any one at the table can stop that addition if it ruins the scene.  Say that in the middle of sneaking through a ruined manor, if a player states "I duck behind a pile of rubble".  Now, the Guide may not have specifically described a pile of rubble there, but that doesn't matter - it makes sense, and it's not like the player is trying to get something special out of the scene; they're just going with the way it sits in their head.  If the Guide knows something about the scene that the players don't, and it means that there shouldn't be a pile of rubble, then they can stop the player and get them to do the action over, without the rubble, but most of the time, it's good for players to throw in little bits of color like this.

------------

Like I said, rough.

Thoughts?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWHO CAN DESCRIBE WHAT

The Guide has the final word on what exists in the setting, but they don't have the only word.  Players will often add minor details 'on the fly' as well, though any one at the table can stop that addition if it ruins the scene.  Say that in the middle of sneaking through a ruined manor, if a player states "I duck behind a pile of rubble".  Now, the Guide may not have specifically described a pile of rubble there, but that doesn't matter - it makes sense, and it's not like the player is trying to get something special out of the scene; they're just going with the way it sits in their head.  If the Guide knows something about the scene that the players don't, and it means that there shouldn't be a pile of rubble, then they can stop the player and get them to do the action over, without the rubble, but most of the time, it's good for players to throw in little bits of color like this.

------------

Like I said, rough.

Thoughts?

Just one thought on this section:  the stop-start sort of dialogue this might encourage might discourage the flow of the game.  Basically, you'd really have to have people on board for your game not to lag or sort of mess with the storyweaving.  If a person is narrating, and is continually being asked to "do over", I think it would sort of ruin the narrative flow.  Basically, I guess if you're operating under the assumption that everyone is board, that's fine, but I might put in a little warning as to how important it is to keep things going.  My own feeling is if you're allowing "narrative assists" from the players, you may want to stress continuity, feasibility, and the importance of keeping any herky-jerky stop-start narrative to a minimum.  Just my personal opinion.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstMy own feeling is if you're allowing "narrative assists" from the players, you may want to stress continuity, feasibility, and the importance of keeping any herky-jerky stop-start narrative to a minimum.  Just my personal opinion.

Hmm.

You do have a point.  Strip out that last paragraph and change to:

---

PLAYER ADDITIONS TO SCENES

The Guide has the final word on what exists in the setting, but they don't have the only word. Players will often add minor details 'on the fly' as well, though any one at the table can stop that addition if it ruins the scene. Say that in the middle of sneaking through a ruined manor, if a player states "I duck behind a pile of rubble". Now, the Guide may not have specifically described a pile of rubble there, but that doesn't matter - it makes sense, and it's not like the player is trying to get something special out of the scene; they're just going with the way it sits in their head.

If a player adds details that don't fit with what the Guide has set for the scene, they can be asked to re-describe their action without that detail, or the Guide can redescribe it for them - the Guide might ask "Well, there aren't any piles of rubble, but there are several large pieces of rotted-out furniture; you're duck behind one of those?" and keep moving.

Players should ensure that details they contribute are sensible, believable, and fit the continuity of the scene.  In return, Guides should be relaxed with regards to the trivial details of the scene.

-----

Better?

I think that gives you a little more protection for what you're trying to do, yeah.

Sounds good to me eiht the revision.