[The Journal] Attribute Damage Ideas?

[RangerEd]

A new version of The Journal is at https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=8F9106052E03292C!731&authkey=!AOXr79FMMcfOOdE.

Since sharing the game last, I have gutted the D&D-like mechanics in favor of Vincent's otherkind dice to create a gambling-like tension as well as reproduce the magic trick described here http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/759. With a casual read, I think most of you will appreciate how much harvesting I have done from the indie-gamers that post or link around these parts of the internet. Perhaps footnotes were in order, but such rigor seems to fly in the face of the gaming culture.

That said, I am stumped in one particular regard. How should offensive actions cause damage? The system allows for damage from inherent risk from actions and for physical damage from weapons. How could the game mechanics resolve actions meant to cause emotional, mental, or moral damage? The Attributes and Action Check sections of the rules provide the rule mechanics associated with this question. I have considered a few options.

1. The player in charge of the damaged character chooses which attributes are damaged and rationalizes the choice during action resolution. Other players can adjudicate the choice, per the adjudication procedure described in the action check rules.
2. The player doing the damage follows the same procedure as number 1.
3. The system could expand to include specific rules about sources of damage and the attributes they affect. This is my least preferred option because it entails adding several hundred words of lists and things, which I would like to minimize in favor of player narratives and imagination at the table.

I have yet to share this version of the game with anyone else or playtest it. I want to find a solution for damage before doing so. I think you all can help me find better options than I have developed. My evaluation criteria for options are coherence with the rest of the rules, simplicity of implementation, and brevity of explanation.

Thanks in advance,
Ed

[Ron Edwards]

Hi, and bear with me while I take the time to look this over. It's end of quarter, students in crisis time, and my head won't really be back in the Adept Press game until their finals are over and grades are in.

At first glance, I guess I don't understand your concern. Isn't there a damage mechanism already? If it works for weapons, why not use it for the other kinds as well? I might say, "I slice at him with my sword," or I might say, "I tell him that I slept with his wife" - same rules, different category of damage.

I apologize in advance if I didn't understand well enough; it's possible my question merely betrays the minimal amount of time I was able to give to the draft.

Best, ron

[RangerEd]

Thanks Ron,

No rush. You are correct that the mechanism is partially there, and that the acting character gets to state an intent to cause damage. My question points to an option I envisioned where a character may have multiple kinds of damage from a single event, possibly assigned in more than one way.

"I secretly loosened the stuntman's harness so he falls off the stage during the live premier of Spiderman on Broadway." The player rolls success with damage, so now what? The character obviously intended to damage the stuntman. Damage to the stuntman could be any combination of emotional (shock), mental (head injury), moral (embarrassment), or physical (broken this or that).

I think wounds from gunfire could just as easily be emotional or mental as well as physical. The weapons and armor rules are in the rules in draft form for now. To be honest, I find them...too definite. If I can find a good way to assign damage, those tables will likely go away.

Assuming a particular story situation (endogenous and exogenous) informs the decision and given the adjudication procedure, who makes the initial damage assignment decision? Given my disdain for option 3, perhaps my real question is should the actor or the victim make the initial call? Or is there another option that brings the rest of the table into the decision in a quick, Delphi-like way?

Hmmm. I think I just talked myself into a new evaluation criteria: involvement by other players at the table. That might increase the investment of the players in each other's characters, even when the spotlight isn't on their own.

I look forward to any ideas you have. Thanks for the time.
Ed

[Ron Edwards]

If you don't mind throwing money around, then the game to check out is Matt Snyder's Dust Devils (it also happens I think it's one of the best games available too, which I do not say lightly). The way this works, is that hands of cards are compared. They are rated in terms of poker value, but there isn't any bluffing, so it's not like playing poker, that's merely how you read the cards. That tells you who actually wins the stated conflict at hand.

However, the details of what happens are determined by two things: (1) the suits of the cards in the winning hand, which lets you know what attributes are actually damaged, and (2) the owner of the high card in all the hands involved in the conflict, which may well not be the winning hand, who narrates. The narrator has surprising power - for instance, if Spades is the suit that gets hammered, then the relevant attribute is brought low ... but fictionally, the narrator has complete authority over whether the losing character gets knocked off his horse, gets his gun shot out of hands, or is drilled right between the eyes. It takes a little getting used to, especially since you don't know who the narrator's going to be.

Player-character death has a few other nuances which makes it more interesting than merely "narrator's whim," but the interplay of card outcomes, narration, and the chip mechanic are remarkably strong even when that particular issue isn't directly in jeopardy.

Best, Ron

[RangerEd]

Ron,

Thanks for the reference. The mechanic from Dust Devils inspired me to keep it random. Damage not resulting from risk inherent to a check is assigned by a d6 roll per point. One for each of the four attributes, with a victim's and actor's choice thrown in to make six options. I think random assignment will challenge the players to fill in the fiction in ways they might not otherwise consider. Sort of like David Schwartz's predictive modeling, you have to challenge yourself to fill in the blank.

Ed

[RangerEd]

New write up posted at: https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=8F9106052E03292C!733&authkey=!AAVAxt8t0xifGC4&ithint=file%2c.pdf

It has the new damage resolution mechanic in it, as well as a new descriptive section for equipping effects.

Ed