Games that actively support reincorporation

Reincorporation is so central to good stories that I'm amazed at how many games that leaves this to the players to know and achieve. Good stories end when all introduced story elements have been joined together with no loose ends.

Which games do you know that actively support reincorporation? How do they do that?

Examples of reincorporation:
Indiana Jones: First scene establishes that he hates snakes. Later he faces a zillion snakes that he must cross to get the McGuffin.
Star Wars Episode IV: First scene establishes that the Empire is building a death star. It blows up in the climax.

Comments

  • It's probably a side point, but isn't that abscence the idea behind Ron Edwards brain damage idea? Games which say their storytelling, but contain nothing like reincorporation*. But the book and it's gaming culture keeps insisting it's making a story - during the gamers formative teen years.

    But yeah, it not in any books I own. What's funny is how suited this is to actual mechanical rules - introducing the problem, and a resolution point latter.

    * I'd call that introducing then resolving an issue, btw. Just my prefered name.
  • Well, there're some games that do it obviously and others that do it on a less obvious level.

    Covenant does it in a fairly overt way, with conventions and motifs that you brainstorm pre-play and then get a benefit for incorporating into narration.

    Prime Time Adventures does it by providing a feedback mechanism that means when something does get re-incorporated, people show their appreciation, I've seen this a lot, but it's not so overt. It's TV-alike structure helps with this too.
  • Universalis does that pretty actively from what I can tell. (I'm still reading it.) As Components are built and introduced in play, there's a great incentive to come back and use established parts, as they are cheaper then building everything from scratch. Also, they come more important as play goes on, accumulating Traits and other Facts and so are a great asset in Complications and Challenges.

    Somebody who actually played the game might correct me here, of course. Like I said, I'm still reading.
  • edited March 2008
    Remi Treuer's Suburban Fantasy/Young Adult RPG is very explicit about reincorporation. It's a game mechanic. He's still playtesting, but it may be the first game that says "here is a thing that you must do".

    The Shab Al-Hiri Roach supports it obliquely by requiring nine prominent NPCs to reappear at set intervals across six events.
  • I've tried to build reincorporation into the storytelling games I've been working on. Muse, for instance, forces you to reuse all the main story elements in important events before the game ends.
  • Ok, keep 'em coming.

    Jason and Paul, can you be more specific on how the mechanics in Suburban Fantasy & Muse force reincorporation. Is it like an end game criteria?

    One trick that you can use in almost every game, is to write down a note on an index card with the name of a character, an item, a location etc. Keep the cards visible on the table during play. Nothing requires you to use the pool of previously introduced story elements, but it is easier to remember and you can also point at them and hint other players to use them.
  • My upcoming game, 44, does this. It creates links among distant characters in the form of agents. Agents are the robots of a nefarious conspiracy -- the Section 44 conspiracy (hence the name).

    Basically, the "NPC" agents act as crosses. Crosses are things in one scene that later appear in another scene with different characters, hence "crossing" the identities and meanings of the characters in each scene.

    Anyway, as an example, at the start of the game, each player describes who else in their character's life has just been replaced by a robotic machine. These robots then become the "bad guy" roster the GM controls. The creepy part is, as play proceeds, the GM is free to introduce any of his roster among any of the player character's scenes.

    Turns out, it really elevates connection among distant characters. It also tends to really creep people out. So, say one character's milkman is now a robot. Another character knows, say, his wife is a robot. When the second character hears the milk truck coming, people playing the game really start to groan. It's fucking great.

    And, generally (but not always) these kinds of cross-connections get resolved. For example, often the characters "hook up" later and help each other out -- maybe by defeating that nasty milkman!
  • Well Continuum's method of dealing with Paradox, with players noting events which are in their 'yet' (events the know will transpire, or know need an explanation) and having to complete they yet to avoid 'Frag' (damaging effects of time righting itself) has the surprising effect of producing very clean stories where everything gets resolved. I don't think it was the authors intention, but it is the end result of the mechanics.
  • Frederik, when you say "reincorporation" are you referring to some phenomenon distinctly different from "recurrence" or "resolution"?

    Recurrence (NPCs in the Roach) is a very different thing from resolution (blowing up the Death Star).

    Callan, I think Ron Edward's Brain Damage Idea (REBDI(tm)) is very apropos for this thread. The lack of resolution - and thus, the lack of any kind of coherent story - is among the biggest problem I've had with "story games", especially when played with more trad gamers.
  • Okay, so when I say 'reincorporation' I also want 'heightening', I'm using both as they're used in improv. It's no good enough to just bring something back, you've also got to add to it. In Suburban Fantasy/YARPG this is done through a process called wonderization.

    Suburban Fantasy takes place in a mundane world, which is introduced by a series of vignettes at the beginning of the game. Then an element of fantasy, called The Strange is introduced. From then on, any element from the mundane world can be brought back and shown that it has a connection to, or has been effected by, The Strange. This is wonderization.

    Reincorporating in this way, wonderizing things, is the only way to gain mojo to succeed and advance your character.

    So you have a normal suburb with a school and a crossing guard and a corner store and nice little houses. The Strange is a little door in the main character's basement. Monsters keep coming out of this door, and chasing the main character around. He's chased to his school by a monster, and says, "Oh! The Crossing guard puts up his Stop sign and the monster stops!" Thus we have revealed a connection between the crossing guard and the Strange, and the main character's player gets a Power token for wonderizing the crossing guard. The guard can be wonderized again for a second token, but after that, even if he continues to be wonderized/reincorporated he runs out of mojo.

    So it's a specific action that I want people to take, linked to the main mechanical reward in the game. Blatant? Maybe. So far it works OK, but the other structures in the game aren't supporting it 100%.
  • Iachek, I got the term from Keith Johnstone's Impro.

    Here's a link to a definition: http://greenlightwiki.com/improv/reincorporation

    You want the events in the fiction to form a story, not just a series of random, unrelated events.

    It's like a game of connect-the-dots, where new dots can be added during the game. You cannot finish the game before all dots are connected.

    Remi, wonderizing sounds cool. It gives me a feel of Alice in Wonderland. Now, how do you stop the wonderizing? How do you make the story reach a conclusion?
  • Shock does this. You write down background elements of the world, defining them as you go along, with the intention that they will be seen/addressed/controlled again later in the story.

    -Andy
  • Frederick,
    It's not quite the total-body surreality of Alice in wonderland (though you could play it as such). The intent is more bits and pieces getting weird in an otherwise-normal world.

    Right now there are endpoints built into the game, but I don't know if it works. The beginning/middle game is all that I've played. I'm pretty unconcerned with tying up all loose ends, though. Simply by reincorporating things, you're creating and reinforcing thematic connections. It's easy to resolve those connections, though. Keeping them going in an energetic middle state is the hard part, and that's what I'm aiming at with wonderization.
  • Frederick,

    My game The Committee for the Exploration of Mysteries heavily relies on reincorporation as a means of shaping the storytelling and generating mechanical currency for the players. Essentially, an "expedition log" is put in the center of the table and story elements (characters, items, ideas, etc.) are written on it during play that folks want to see again. When someone other than the player creating the story element connects it to another one in some way or uses it as the basis of a hazard (the game's GMless), then they receive a point of currency to power their own character's exploits. Since there's a competitive element to amassing currency, players are given a clear incentive to reincorporate on a regular basis.

    Remi, Suburban Fantasy sounds like it is coming along nicely. Let us know when you're ready for beta testing.
  • in my horror game and my 4e supplement I have a mechanism where when you bring something in that was introduced you add to it. So it's not neccessarily a resolution mechanic per-se but it's certainly a reintroduction mechanic. There are a few elements that basically allow you to introduce and resolve the components in a single scene but I think that's kinda rare.

    BW/BE subtley supports this through resource and circles rolls. If you fail either you gain a trait or an emnity that is going to bite you in the ass later on (although the specifics to when is not xplicit it is implicit in the GMs roll as opposition to the characters). Consequently there is n awesome mechanic in BE that says before you "burn" tech (give technology mechanics) you have to have it apprear in a color scene first. For instance if you're going to burn up some spiffy armor you might have a scene early on where you're polishing said armor then later you can actual roll for it's mechanical inception into the game.

    - Don
  • Mountain Witch does this in a big big way. Players introduce plot threads via their Dark Fates, and the gamemaster builds on them. And then in the climax, everything must be resolved.
  • edited March 2008
    In Secrets, the game I keep writing about instead of actually writing, players can invent elements of the game (called Secrets) by investing currency into them. They can use these Secrets as tokens of control to affect the game, and in effect, cause them to recur. Other players can reveal the Secrets by paying an equal amount of currency - that is, resolving them.

    Reading the Impro definition, unfortunately one cannot make the Secrets disappear from the eyes and minds of the players, and reintroduce them at a point when nobody expects them, as that would rob the other players of the ability to reveal (resolve) the Secret. Neat concept though.
  • Sans heightening, role playing games specialize in reincorporation. Every character sheet is a marvel of it.

    Resolution mechanics (and other things) allow us to escalate, bringing that heightening back home.
  • In Muse, the process is fairly simple. The story centers around large-scale events, which include important story elements (like central characters, locations, items, etc). To complete the game, each story element used in these events must be reused, i.e. included in some other important event. In playtesting so far, the players' minds and natural storytelling tendencies have used this to produce reincorporation, heightening, and resolution.
  • edited March 2008
    Damn, Emily beat me to it by a minute. ;)

    A game that does a fantastic job of reincorporation, both for characters and the setting, is Alex Duarte's unWritten, which is in the latter stags of playtest. I dunno how much Alex wants public, but the rules of the game guide players into orbiting around stuff that they've established. It produces really tight, really cool play.
  • Posted By: Frederik J. JensenWhich games do you know that actively support reincorporation? How do they do that?

    Examples of reincorporation:
    Indiana Jones: First scene establishes that he hates snakes. Later he faces a zillion snakes that he must cross to get the McGuffin.
    Star Wars Episode IV: First scene establishes that the Empire is building a death star. It blows up in the climax.
    Looking at these, it seems to me pretty clear that such games have been around for a while. The Indiana Jones example is a classic case of disadvantages, as introduced in Champions (1981). The GM is encouraged to regularly hit these, and thus creating recurring issues for the PCs. This was very much modeled on the recurring issues like Indiana Jones' fear of snakes. Besides Psychological Limitations, it also makes recurring NPCs via the Dependent NPC and Hunted disadvantages. There's been some development of this idea, like recently Spirit of the Century has Aspects that fulfill a similar role.

    Cases like the Death Star are encouraged by rewards for completing a mission or plot, as opposed to just rewarding for particular encounters. So, for example, James Bond 007 (1983) has mission rewards.

    I think the difference between tabletop roleplaying and improv are showing here. i.e. In improv, there are no character sheets or notes. Thus, to get recurring bits, you need to remember something created on the spot and deliberately make it recur later. However, in tabletop RPGs, recurring bits are often generated by specifying bits to recur at the start and writing them down. Those recurring bits can change -- i.e. you can switch out disads or get new missions or plots. However, the approach is still very different than improv.
  • edited March 2008
    Posted By: jhkimThe Indiana Jones example is a classic case of disadvantages, as introduced in Champions (1981). The GM is encouraged to regularly hit these, and thus creating recurring issues for the PCs. This was very much modeled on the recurring issues like Indiana Jones' fear of snakes. Besides Psychological Limitations, it also makes recurring NPCs via the Dependent NPC and Hunted disadvantages. There's been some development of this idea, like recently Spirit of the Century has Aspects that fulfill a similar role.
    This is true - unfortunately, the explicit reward systems in most games featuring Disadvantages as part of character creation counteracts reincorporation, as the player usually tends towards actively opposing the situations where such reincorporation could occur. A GM continuously hitting a player with the consequences of their choices during character creation is seen as cruel and vindictive.

    A counter-example is 7th Sea, where Backgrounds (which as I understand often act as disadvantages, f. ex. Nemesis) cost points, on the notion that you're choosing flags which provide you with role-playing opportunities.

    Also compare Spirit of the Century, where creating a situation where an Aspect affect you negatively is the only way to get resources in game. Champions, GURPS, oWoD etc essentially give you a loan which you're encouraged to dodge amortization of in play.
  • John (Kim),

    I think that's a bit of a different thing you're talking about. Reincorporation isn't about recurring elements, but about their role in the story. The snake scene servers to explain to us why it is that, later in the story, it is hard for Indiana Jones to cross that pit. It heightens the tension in that scene and gives us some insight into how the character is feeling.

    Another example is the classic "gun above the mantlepiece". You know the one: if it appears in Act One, it must be fired in Act Three.

    Two thoughts:

    1. In a linear format (beginning to end), this is more difficult to arrange than in a medium where you can back and edit hat has come before, removing elements that do not recur and emphasizing elements that do recur. However, games that allow the narration of flashback scenes and the like can do that. How important is it that the *players* experience it in a certain order?

    2. Could we design a system where players gain an advantage in conflicts by referencing previously introduced elements? For instance, you're in a fight with the Big Bad in the Third Act. If you grab the gun mentioned in the First Act and shoot him with it, you gain a bonus of +1 for each scene that has gone by since it was last mentioned.

    Something like that could work... maybe.
  • edited March 2008
    Posted By: Frederik J. JensenWhich games do you know that actively support reincorporation? How do they do that?

    Examples of reincorporation:
    Indiana Jones: First scene establishes that he hates snakes. Later he faces a zillion snakes that he must cross to get the McGuffin.
    Sounds like an aspect ("Why did it have to be snakes?") in Spirit of the Century to me. The presence of the aspect actively encourages to GM to consider bringing it into play as a character foil. Unlike traditional disadvantage systems, it rewards the player for dealing with such a situation instead of up-front, so the player is liable to suggest it to the GM.
  • Posted By: lachekThis is true - unfortunately, the explicit reward systems in most games featuring Disadvantages as part of character creation counteracts reincorporation, as the player usually tends towards actively opposing the situations where such reincorporation could occur. A GM continuously hitting a player with the consequences of their choices during character creation is seen as cruel and vindictive.
    Really? That's very different from my experience. My Champions GMs (and me as a Champions GM) would frequently do things like bring in PC's Hunteds, without ever being called cruel or vindicative that I recall. In my experience, we enjoyed having known NPCs like their Hunteds or DNPCs show up rather than unrelated NPCs. Similarly, my current Burning Wheel GM tries to challenge the PCs beliefs pretty regularly, and we enjoy that.
    Posted By: Paul T.Reincorporation isn't about recurring elements, but about their role in the story. The snake scene servers to explain to us why it is that, later in the story, it is hard for Indiana Jones to cross that pit. It heightens the tension in that scene and gives us some insight into how the character is feeling.

    Another example is the classic "gun above the mantlepiece". You know the one: if it appears in Act One, it must be fired in Act Three.
    Well, OK. It seems to me that most of the examples previously cited, like the recurring NPCs in Shab-al-Hiri or the recurring elements in Universalis or The Committee for the Exploration of Mysteries are parallel to what I was talking about. My experience of improv was that reincorporation was very loose re-appearance -- as opposed to having an element planned for a specific story function.
    Posted By: Paul T.1. In a linear format (beginning to end), this is more difficult to arrange than in a medium where you can back and edit hat has come before, removing elements that do not recur and emphasizing elements that do recur. However, games that allow the narration of flashback scenes and the like can do that. How important is it that the *players* experience it in a certain order?
    Surely the *characters* don't care about reincorporation. Now, that said, there are good uses for flashbacks. But the only thing that matters for the story principle of reincorporation is how the audience experiences it. i.e. A flashback matters insofar as when it appears in the story, not when it appears in the fictional timeline. In a murder mystery, if you introduce the killer in a flashback in the third act, that's not at all the same as having it be an established character.
    Posted By: Paul T.2. Could we design a system where players gain an advantage in conflicts by referencing previously introduced elements? For instance, you're in a fight with the Big Bad in the Third Act. If you grab the gun mentioned in the First Act and shoot him with it, you gain a bonus of +1 for each scene that has gone by since it was last mentioned.
    It'd be interesting to try. You'd need to do record-keeping of scenes and elements for this to work, I think. Maybe printed index cards with a checklist of scenes?
  • edited March 2008
    I think this conversation is suffering a bit from imprecision. The simple re-introduction of elements is fun and useful, and John/Emily et al are right, it's been around forever because it's the bread we butter with story butter. I think we're really talking about heightening, which a point buy game's disadvantages don't map to, because it's inherently situational.

    My guy's a drunk. I'm going to reference his drunkenness by having a one-night stand. Reincorporation.

    Yeah, we know he's a drunk and you're telling us he's a drunk again.

    My guy's a drunk. I'm going to reference his drunkenness by having a one-night stand with Clinton's character's sister. Heightening. You're telling us what we already know and then adding to it in an interesting way. Of course somebody could latch on to the first example and introduce my guy's anonymous sex partner as a real person later, and that would also be heightening - probably more satisfying heightening, since it side-steps any hint of the Czege Principle*.

    *creating your own adversity and also resolving it, pretty much.
  • To Emilys comment on character sheets:

    To a certain degree, yes, what a player writes on a character sheet is usually elements that will be reincorporated later, and possibly resolved. PTA issues, traits and relations spring to mind. Keys in TSoY is another good example. GURPS disadvantages and D&D languages are examples that the character sheet is not always relevant for the story (I guess this is related to a discussion of flags).

    What about story elements that are not tied up to a player character? E.g. a crime investigation tv drama, where the murderer appears on screen in the first two minutes of the show?

    Still in most games, nothing forces the players to reincorporate. They are encouraged to do this, but no mechanic ties this up to the story. Is this because we still very often think in open ended stories?

    Anyway, I'd like to keep the focus in this thread on examples of games that actually does provide a mechanic for reincorporation (and how they work).
  • Posted By: jhkimReally? That's very different from my experience. My Champions GMs (and me as a Champions GM) would frequently do things like bring in PC's Hunteds, without ever being called cruel or vindicative that I recall. In my experience, we enjoyed having known NPCs like their Hunteds or DNPCs show up rather than unrelated NPCs.
    Champions at least had an explicit frequency requirement that served as direction to the GM of when to use the disadvantage. Many games have disadvantages that were more situational in nature, which then the player very typically would subsequently avoid.

    I prefer the idea as presented in 7th Sea, nWoD, Spycraft 2.0, etc., where the player gets compensation when its actually a problem.
  • edited March 2008
    OK, so I'm creating unWritten for the express purpose of having play that produces stories like those found in film and literature. One of the key elements is reincorporation. the interesting thing is that these elements (cues) get reincorporated are generated through play. Ultimately, what ends up happening is the cues direct the story. Additionally, character traits develop through play, based on the characters interaction with the cues, thus reincorporation is further... what? experienced? occurred?

    There are more things going on that helps create the film and literature story thing, but as far as reincorporation, it is a key element of the game.
  • Great, alejandro, this was the sort of thing I was looking for. Let me know if you need feedback on a draft edition, I'd like to have a look at how you approach the subject.
  • An interesting thing about reincorporation is that it seems to make each characters input into the game/story be more about their own story. So, you get a story where each character is the protagonist for their own story, while still being a supporting character for the other characters.
  • Frederik: I have a playtest copy now, I'm just waiting back from a few people who are "editing" it right now.
  • Speaking as one of the "editors" (goes like this: Alex gives me a copy of the latest version, I tell him I'll get back to him, I never do, because I'm an ass), let me tell you, unWritten has got the reincorporation thing nailed. The whole game starts with just three cues -- sort of story- or game-seeds, little ideas or phrases that you want the game to be about -- and no other prep. Then the action of the game continues to reincorporate, heighten, and develop those cues as well as make a few more.

    Character traits work the same way -- you start with just one trait on your sheet, and the game actually develops your character as you go. You can literally start with "my guy is a jock" and the game will take you through the paces of a story, developing the character by figuing out what that one trait means and adding more as a result of the story and what the "jock" does. And again and again, everything that you do cycles back into the story later.
  • There is a book written by Stephen King called "On Writing". It's a very good, short read about the craft of writing--and partially an autobiography, as well.

    He says that it's important to make sure that important elements are presented early on, so their use later seems more significant and logical. But here's what he does, which I found interesting:

    He goes back, once he's finished writing, and inserts the important items or characters into the beginning or earlier scenes of the story.
  • Posted By: Paul T.There is a book written by Stephen King called "On Writing". It's a very good, short read about the craft of writing--and partially an autobiography, as well.

    He says that it's important to make sure that important elements are presented early on, so their use later seems more significant and logical. But here's what he does, which I found interesting:

    He goes back, once he's finished writing, and inserts the important items or characters into the beginning or earlier scenes of the story.
    Yes. That's generally part of King's philosophy of writing and rewriting. Writing the first draft, as he describes it, is exploratory. His first draft is finding out what the story is, and includes many bits that go nowhere or non-story-related parts. In the quote below, he's talking about good advice he got from a friend.
    "When you write a story, you're telling yourself the story" he said. "When you rewrite, your main job is taking out all the things that are not the story.

    Gould said something else that was interesting on the day I turned in my first two pieces: write with the door closed, rewrite with the door open. Your stuff starts out being just for you, in other words, but then it goes out. Once you know what the story is and get it right -- as right as you can, anyway -- it belongs to anyone who wants to read it. Or criticize it.
  • Alejandro, check, I'll keep an eye out for posts on unWritten.

    Thanks everyone for all the input.

    Maybe we could discuss exploratory play versus expressive play in another thread, this could be interesting.
  • Posted By: AndyShock does this. You write down background elements of the world, defining them as you go along, with the intention that they will be seen/addressed/controlled again later in the story.

    -Andy
    The problem I had playing Shock was that almost all of the elements never got used for anything. We wrote them down because we had too (going "oh oh oh" with excitement as we did so) and that was it, we never looked at them again. I didn't see what we (in our particular group) got from writing them down, over just making up something cool.
  • edited March 2008
    I'll chime in as another dude whose game-in-progress includes something along these lines.

    In Blazing Rose, you have a hand of cards that give you your options in conflicts. You can pick up an extra card if you incorporate (a) complications from the overarching situation troubling the setting, which the players brainstorm at the game's outset; (b) efforts toward the resolution of a Goal the Beloved (a central NPC) is working toward, also collaboratively invented by the players; or (c) most apropos, narration that "chains" an outcome from a prior scene's conflict into the current scene.

    It's had some interesting results in playtests, since you can do any one of those in a given scene for the bonus. Depending on what players groove on, we might get lots of little episodic scenes all tied into the Situation, or a string of related "chained" scenes, or a mix.

    Goals get resolved at specific points in the game's structure, too.
  • I'm incorporating reincorporation into Fleeting Worlds (still working on that name).

    The concept seems simple: an element comes up with little story-relevance, and the system rewards the player for using that element later on to support story theme. In my mechanic, much like SabreCat's (c), players can reincorporate Insight gained from failure in order to enhance their chances in similar situations. Any side-conflict not drawn from the main Threat of the game also provides an element to reincorporate (if the players don't opt for advancement). I've done this in hopes that the game feels more like a cohesive story; I.E., all seemingly-unrelated events are related to the main storyline. But now that I read Alejandro's ideas on keeping every player the main character, it makes a lot of sense in that light, too.

    About the Stephen King rewrites, maybe that backwards-reincorporation would work well for games that don't use linear time. For instance, after a scene where some element or character didn't make sense, a player could have the option of calling for a flashback which adds more depth to the out-of-place element.
  • edited March 2008
    See...I think reincorporation is a powerful tool, but we're in danger of generalising it beyond usefulness.

    I don't think that writing down something at the beginning, then incorporating it later, is "reincorporating", in the sense it's usually meant. By that token, "reincorporating" stuff from the character sheet isn't reincorporation. It's just incorporating.

    Reincorporation, I think, is when you introduce something into the story - in the course of play, not in the preparation - then reintroduce it later. Eric's example, in Committee for the Exploration of Mysteries, is reincorporation.

    Graham
  • I'm with Graham here - I take it you are with Remi when he talks about "spiking" the reincorporation with Heigthening as well? (just checking, say if you're not). I know this technique from film writing, where it's sometimes called "Setups/Payoffs" - it's a way to nurture audience expectations.

    Shock and unWritten are the clearest examples I can think of right now (I believe I played in that game Hituro/David mentions above, and created elements/minutiae were certainly re-incorporated, but maybe not heightened, so I disagree there) - unWritten actually incorporates reincorporation (sorry) in its mechanics and elements will keep coming back, sometimes changed, as play progresses. (I've only read it, not played yet).
  • Burning Empires: you must have a color scene in order to introduce technology that will be used later in the first game. It's the classic "show the gun in the first act."

    Both Burning Wheel and Burning Empires encourage reincorporation via player flags like Beliefs, Instincts and Traits. The player flags them, the GM incorporates them and thereby gives the player an opportunity to reintroduce them.
  • You could be right Per, about the distinction between Heightened and Reincorporated. Yes we mentioned the minutae that we had introduced, but we didn't do so for mechanical benefit. So I don't know where there was a difference between creating a rich fictional world just because that is what you do in a game, and reincorporating stuff for mechanical benefit.

    i.e. its not as if future bonus dice required us to grab existing minutiae off the table and incorporate them into the narrative, on the contrary, the bonus dice required us to make new minutiae each time and leave them in the middle of the table.

    So I saw the minutiae not as a tool for encouraging reincorporation, but as a method for encouraging us to create a rich and complex setting / fiction with many details. They did that brilliantly, but that isn't the same as what is being asked for. Of course maybe we used them wrong?
  • One of the main issues that showed up in the playtest of Console Legends was that it didn't do this enough. Stories tended to be very disjointed, with people not wanting to use each other's elements. It was lame. This discussion has really helped me put my finger on exactly what was (or wasn't) happening, and perhaps now I can fix it.
Sign In or Register to comment.