![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Dream Sequence
To play, you need players, pencil, paper, and cards.
All players are researchers on the Human Oneirome Project. You are collectively studying a sleeping subject. They might have a number designation, or might simply be referred to as "the subject".
One researcher records the subject’s dream. They narrate a short but vivid scene - one or two sentences. The others debate the dream’s meaning. Majority vote decides the official interpretation. If there is a tie, the recorder casts the deciding vote; otherwise they provide no input.
The recording researcher writes the scene and interpretation on paper. They choose one symbol from the dream and its interpretation to write on a card and place in the center. Recording duties pass to the researcher on the left.
Recording researchers may choose to either narrate novel scenes or pick a symbol from the center to involve. The latter reopens the debate on that symbol’s meaning; the recorder is encouraged to narrate scenes that support alternate interpretations. If the symbol is revised, note the revision on the card.
The game ends when everyone loses interest, the paper is filled, or all are satisfied with the interpretations’ implicit narrative.
Once per cycle around the table, anyone can describe the behavior of the subject in their sleep. Researchers are free to incorporate or ignore the subject's behavior in future interpretations. The subject cannot wake up.
EXPANSIONS:
Publish or Perish
All researchers have a stat, reputation. Reputation starts at zero.
Every time a researcher’s interpretation on a novel scene is made official, that researcher gains one reputation.
Every time a researcher’s interpretation supersedes another’s on a preexisting symbol, the successful researcher gains one reputation and the outdated researcher loses one reputation. (It is useful to note on cards who has supplied the current interpretation.)
At the end of the game, the researcher with the highest reputation is made lead author and wins.
Subjectivity (by my wonderful partner)
One of the players is the sleeping subject. They lie down in the center of the circle. The subject’s sleep may be as restful or disturbed as they wish, but they cannot wake up.
Lucid Dreaming (by my wonderful partner)
One of the players is the sleeping subject. They sit in the middle. For any turn, the sleeper may choose a single symbol from those present. The current recording researcher must either choose that symbol or narrate a de novo dream. Alternatively, the sleeper may choose to reject all symbols and the recording researcher must make a de novo dream.
Partner’s note: “I could also see a version where the subject never gets to hear the symbols’ interpretations, they just know the ones the researchers have picked out as important, and they reject or keep as appropriate
varying degrees of knowledge and control”
My note: the original game is centered around the lack of autonomy and voice of the subject - the researchers operate off of no personal knowledge about the subject, yet their interpretations are canonized. A subject as the player character with mechanical power changes the feel of it significantly.
NOTES:
Inspirations are The Shab-Al-Hiri Roach (rpg), Mysterium (board game), human rights abuses in research.
I originally wrote this to be under 200 words for the, well, 200 word rpg contest, but I missed the deadline. So I'm padding it out a bit.
All players are researchers on the Human Oneirome Project. You are collectively studying a sleeping subject. They might have a number designation, or might simply be referred to as "the subject".
One researcher records the subject’s dream. They narrate a short but vivid scene - one or two sentences. The others debate the dream’s meaning. Majority vote decides the official interpretation. If there is a tie, the recorder casts the deciding vote; otherwise they provide no input.
The recording researcher writes the scene and interpretation on paper. They choose one symbol from the dream and its interpretation to write on a card and place in the center. Recording duties pass to the researcher on the left.
Recording researchers may choose to either narrate novel scenes or pick a symbol from the center to involve. The latter reopens the debate on that symbol’s meaning; the recorder is encouraged to narrate scenes that support alternate interpretations. If the symbol is revised, note the revision on the card.
The game ends when everyone loses interest, the paper is filled, or all are satisfied with the interpretations’ implicit narrative.
Once per cycle around the table, anyone can describe the behavior of the subject in their sleep. Researchers are free to incorporate or ignore the subject's behavior in future interpretations. The subject cannot wake up.
EXPANSIONS:
Publish or Perish
All researchers have a stat, reputation. Reputation starts at zero.
Every time a researcher’s interpretation on a novel scene is made official, that researcher gains one reputation.
Every time a researcher’s interpretation supersedes another’s on a preexisting symbol, the successful researcher gains one reputation and the outdated researcher loses one reputation. (It is useful to note on cards who has supplied the current interpretation.)
At the end of the game, the researcher with the highest reputation is made lead author and wins.
Subjectivity (by my wonderful partner)
One of the players is the sleeping subject. They lie down in the center of the circle. The subject’s sleep may be as restful or disturbed as they wish, but they cannot wake up.
Lucid Dreaming (by my wonderful partner)
One of the players is the sleeping subject. They sit in the middle. For any turn, the sleeper may choose a single symbol from those present. The current recording researcher must either choose that symbol or narrate a de novo dream. Alternatively, the sleeper may choose to reject all symbols and the recording researcher must make a de novo dream.
Partner’s note: “I could also see a version where the subject never gets to hear the symbols’ interpretations, they just know the ones the researchers have picked out as important, and they reject or keep as appropriate
varying degrees of knowledge and control”
My note: the original game is centered around the lack of autonomy and voice of the subject - the researchers operate off of no personal knowledge about the subject, yet their interpretations are canonized. A subject as the player character with mechanical power changes the feel of it significantly.
NOTES:
Inspirations are The Shab-Al-Hiri Roach (rpg), Mysterium (board game), human rights abuses in research.
I originally wrote this to be under 200 words for the, well, 200 word rpg contest, but I missed the deadline. So I'm padding it out a bit.