A few changes I tested out in last nights face-to-face play session have really gotten the Debt/Story Token/Inspiration economy running at full steam. Here they are:
- If the player(s) who win an Event are not the player who proposed it then the proposing player gets the first Story Token awarded and as many more as people choose to award (from their won debt) for the coolness of the Event.
- Other Story Tokens may only be awarded to a player who actively participated on the losing side
- Any player may now claim their side of an Event at the start of a Page, not just the controlling player. If they end up controlling the Event then they resolve it.
- Inspirations are now derived by subtracting the lowest of the losing sides dice from the highest of the winning side.[/list:u]This combination of rules really did a good job at distributing the wealth: At the end of a frantic evening's play, every player had within one token of the same number (one player had four, the rest had five). This is in strong contrast to last weeks session where ST inequality was a definite issue.
Now there's an embarrassment of riches. Every single player is getting so many Story Tokens that under the current system it's virtually impossible for them to spend them all. A scene where one (or worse, EVERY) player spent five STs on Prominence would be impossibly long and unwieldy. I like the more vigorous economy, but it requires reworking on how STs are spent.
Thoughts so far:- No more Prominence, as such.
- Including a character in a scene costs one ST, unless you have no STs in which case you can include your hero for free.
- Each active character acts once at the beginning of each Page
- Taking an action in a Page beyond your first costs one ST per action.
- Claiming an Event costs one ST.
- If you have no STs you may claim your side in an Event that nobody else wanted, after all other claims have been made
- Resolving an Event earns you one ST.
- Gloating on an Event earns you three STs.
- Players may offer any number of STs to "buy" a claim on an Event from them (so player #1 claims it, player #2 who wants it more says "I'll pay you 2 STs right now for your claim", player #1 accepts, the Event is now claimed by #2).[/list:u]And that is all I can think of, so far, as uses for Story Tokens. But as far as I'm concerned it's open season on ways to use them. Under the new mechanics they are not rare, they are absolutely ubiquitous. Anyone have more ideas for how they could be used?
I think you definately want to cover:
Adding a character mid-scene. ("What? When did Specter get here?") This may be inherent in your "include a character in the scene", but that was not clear to me.
Perhaps some sort of additive cost to bring a character in again. That is Kate is already helping the Heroes, now the Villains bring Kate in to simultaneously slow the Heroes down. Then the Editor brings Kate in on her own side with her own agenda.
Why does Resolving provide an ST, I strongly disagree with that idea. I much prefer the idea that since Claiming costs STs you end up with fewer STs when you Claim and Resolve. This provides incentive to get involved on stuff you are willing/planning to lose in order to earn more STs.
I would also present the idea that STs are an in-game currency that can be used to override the basic rules. Normally you can not play other PCs, but if you offer enough that the player is willing to let you have a go at it then you can.
Oh, and I think that ditching Prominence is probably a good idea... A pure ST economy also shifts focus for the Editor on effeciently guiding the Story with little nudges using well placed STs....
Thomas
On Resolving, Claiming and ST costs, there are three behaviors that I'm looking at.
- Claiming an Event because you intend to do your best to win it
- Claiming an Event in order to put pressure on the opposition
- Claiming an Event because you can, even if you have no real interest in it[/list:u]My intuition is that we would like to encourage the first two, while discouraging the third. The solution I proposed was aimed at that, but it's probably not the best solution.
Quote from: TonyLBOn Resolving, Claiming and ST costs, there are three behaviors that I'm looking at.- Claiming an Event because you intend to do your best to win it
- Claiming an Event in order to put pressure on the opposition
- Claiming an Event because you can, even if you have no real interest in it[/list:u]My intuition is that we would like to encourage the first two, while discouraging the third. The solution I proposed was aimed at that, but it's probably not the best solution.
I would think that rewarding one ST for successfully resolving would encourage 1 over 2. Though I definately think that charging one ST to Claim should discourage 3 (and I agree, that is a good thing).
Thomas
That's true. It is sort of a tax on playing a convincing opponent with an eye toward eventual loss. That's pretty well counter to what we want to encourage. Hrm.... This one's a little tricky.
First up, I like this, especially the idea of a 'pure ST economy' as Thomas puts it.
I'd take it a stage further; as well as standing in for Prominence, I would argue that ST can
also stand in for InspirationsThis may be anathema, but I feel that there is a real opportunity here to simplify the rules.
Here's one way of delivering this:
- 'Turning up' as a Hero or Villain does not cost ST, but each player can only take one 'main' character to a scene.
- Introducing an Event costs one ST
- Introducing another 'supporting' character also costs one ST, but this does not give you control over that character
- Each page, the main characters get one action for free
- For one ST, a player can either give their main character an additional action in the same page, or control a supporting character for one action. Only one ST can be spent in this way per Page
- Claiming an Event is free, only one Event can be claimed per player. Being the first player to Claim gives you first 'dibs' but you also have to roll first, so it's easier for everyone else to thwart you.
- If you resolve an Event, turn your debt into STs and give it to the losing side, just as the rules say
- Alternatively, you can Gloat and keep the STs for yourself! Roll all your dice down to '1' if you do this.
- Instead of a Tension threshold, impose a limit on the number of STs that can be spent. Once this limit is reached, all Events will resolve at the end of the next turn.[/list:u]
[Note: One feature of the system the way I've presented it is that successfully resolving Events actually places the player at a disadvantage, as they have to pay the other side Story Tokens. I'm hoping that this will discourage players from claiming Events that they aren't interested in - but it may discourage them from claiming any Events, so it may be a step too far!]
I don't know if this balances or not, please pick it apart. I just want to offer it as a demonstration that it may be possible to take four of the existing mechanics (Inspiration, Prominence, Tension and Story Tokens) and replace them with a single currency.
Okay, I'm going to address some side points before digging into the main meat here.
I definitely like the idea that the STs you get back from Gloating should be related to the Debt you've got Staked. That's such a natural synergy I can't imagine it going wrong.
I suggest adding a little fillip of strategizing by saying that the villain can choose how many dice to turn down to one, and get as many STs as they turn down dice: The N dice chosen must be the highest available, and must all be greater than one.
And Tension... I think Tension is unnecessary when you can have both sides claiming on an Event. Things seem to resolve with quite satisfactory speed when flip-flopping control no longer initiates a whole new Page.
Now, to your main point: I'm not seeing what modification you propose to how Inspirations will function as a secondary, intertwined currency. Can you clarify?
A couple of things:
First, the big change. Instead of having a Hero and a Villain die on every event you may pay one ST in order to put your first die down. This means that three Heroes get three dice. Where it gets interesting is where people decide to combine their dice. So three Heroes could put their three dice on one side and easily beat the Villain (unless the Villain Stakes), or they could split three ways each vying for their own version of the Event. (Skater X anyone?)
If you put it all together then it takes a lot of STs to field and claim an Event: 1 to get a character in play, 1 to start an Event, 1 to put a die on said Event, 1 to Claim. That's 4 STs.
One of the big (big, big, big) advantages here is that it is clear which Hero is doing the most, even when they are all on the same side of the Event. I think that is an admireable goal. I am not totally sure what it does to balance either... Though it seems that it will encourage serious Stakes to be saved for those times when you are outnumbered.
I am also not sure whether we want introducing and Resolving an Event to be so expensive. The upside is that it limits the number of Events in play, the downside is that it limits Event introduction to the "rich".
Thomas
Okay, I'm confused: What's the difference between people putting more Story Tokens on an Event (for more dice) and staking Debt to split (for more dice)?
Sorry, I knew that I was not being clear enough. You can only buy that first die. That is, if you want to participate in an Event you may pay a ST for that first die or you may Stake one Debt. If you want more dice you can only Stake. So this (hopefully) keeps things from becoming too cluttered.
Thomas
Quote from: TonyLBNow, to your main point: I'm not seeing what modification you propose to how Inspirations will function as a secondary, intertwined currency. Can you clarify?
Inspirations can be spent to introduce new Events. If Story Tokens can be used to perform the same task, Inspirations aren't as necessary.
Granted, it doesn't allow players to start a die at a higher level, but I don't think this is necessary any more. Therefore, are Inspirations necessary?
Thomas, that's an interesting idea, I confess I have no idea how this would balance out! My only concern is that this may devalue Staking in some way; at the moment, you can only get extra dice by Staking. That's not to say it's a bad idea at all; I'd like to see this played out.
One alternative: each hero can place their own dice onto an Event, but only the highest total counts. A Hero can still 'roll up' another Hero's dice (teamwork!), but they can only split their own dice by Staking.
One more thought before I go to bed; if we do move to a 'pure Story Token' economy, the only resources a player has are their Story Tokens, and their Debt. Is there a way of unifying the two?
[There is already an 'exchange rate' insofar as Debt is exchanged for Story Tokens when an event resolves. I'm just wondering whether it's possible to make the two equivalent in some way. Especially as both appear to signify the 'importance' of an Event.]
I'm going to sleep on this and post later, good night!
How about each Hero having one die that they can move around. Spend a ST to move your personal heroic die from your character sheet to an Event or from an Event to another Event. This provides the interesting possibility of "jumping ship" to a new Event and leaving your team mates out to dry. Hopefully this would produce some incredibly cool Events since you will run into cases of "I have to get Zip to move his personal die from Ninjas crash through the skylights so that I can win that... What can I create to get him to move?"
Thomas
Quote from: Doug RuffInspirations can be spent to introduce new Events. If Story Tokens can be used to perform the same task, Inspirations aren't as necessary.
Granted, it doesn't allow players to start a die at a higher level, but I don't think this is necessary any more. Therefore, are Inspirations necessary?
Well, they still serve the game system by providing a thematic chain of events ("Love of Jessica" -> "Won challenge against Gigantor" -> "Galactic Renown" -> "Asked Jessica to marry me") and they're the backbone of the current non-conflict mechanic. I don't see Story Tokens as being descriptive enough to really handle either of those tasks.
Quote[There is already an 'exchange rate' insofar as Debt is exchanged for Story Tokens when an event resolves. I'm just wondering whether it's possible to make the two equivalent in some way. Especially as both appear to signify the 'importance' of an Event.]
There's definitely an exchange going on there, but remember that it's not "Your Debt = Your Story Tokens"... it's "Anybody Elses Debt + Your Support in telling their Story = Your Story Tokens". So if it's an economy it's not a capitalist economy. If anything it's a gift economy, in both directions. People do well by doing good.
Tony,
Good points, both of them.
Although I think Story Tokens could be used to handle these tasks, it would probably bend the game all out of shape, so I'll leave this.
And, yes, it's definitely a "gift economy" which is what makes it so nice. I wouldn't want to change that.
What I'm thinking more about is whether there it is possible to extract a genuine "exchange rate" between the different resources in play.
For example: 1 Debt = 1 Story Token = 1 Die
Thomas' last post is another example: 1 Story Token = 1 "move"
This doesn't, and shouldn't, prevent resources from being given by one player to another. But it may help to provide guidelines for what a player can do with a Story Token (or a point of Debt), without "breaking the game".
I have no idea whether you can draw an explicit exchange rate. The fact that a Debt token now is only a Story Token later throws the economic theory into realms I'm not equipped to explore formally. Maybe I'll ask my wife... she's much better educated in this particular area than I am.
Informally, I can draw you a little map on two axes, though:
Horizontal Axis: Debt
Vertical Axis: Total Inspirations vs. Story Tokens
Players migrate from point to point in this map. In the Debt + Story Token corner you win, even if you aren't trying to. In the No-Debt + Inspiration corner you can put up a good fight, but still have the control to lose. Winning shoves you toward the losing corner and losing shoves you toward the winning corner. The Debt + Inspiration and No-Debt + Story Token corners are self-correcting... there are clear lines of action to drift them in whatever direction the player chooses.
Aside: Your economics slant on things has opened up a pandoras box of thoughts in my brain for non-conflict scenes, but I'm going to try to codify them before starting another thread.
I actually kind of liked prominence, though maybe I misunderstood what it did.
If I am not mistaken it gave a) initiative to claim cards and b) more actions.
The reasons why I liked this(once again I may have misunderstood) is becaue of the balance of prominence between heroes and villains.
Say you want to do a 'master villain' plot. Do you have to make the character sheet any differently or more 'twinked' than a normal sheet? No, just throw more prominence on this central villain until he is equal with the heroes. Then that villain can react a few extra times and sort of pick and choose what he would like to deal with. More actions = more power to choose what the villain is trying to do. Note that some players might feel a bit railroaded with this technique, but at the same time dice are an equalizer.
But that was just what it seemed like to me. Though I believe a richer story token system is much better. More uses is also a good thought.
You can still have more actions at a cost in Story Tokens. It's just that you don't keep getting that advantage in actions, Page after Page.
I agree (and worry) that this undercuts the ability to make a singleton villain so strong that he can challenge a whole team of heroes, page after page after page. Basically, if you've got one guy fighting five, and you want equal actions for him, then it costs five STs for the heroes and five STs for the villain in the first page. But then the next page it costs zero STs for the heroes and four STs for the villain.
The Editor needs to have some substantial resource advantage before he can whip out such a villain and hope to play him effectively. And these resources are going to go away (barring investment strategies... see below) as the pages go on, so the villain will eventually run out of stamina and succumb to greater numbers.
That having been said, I sort of think that the Editor
should lose resources for whipping out such a villain. You're talking about delivering a fairly humiliating loss to the heroes, which is all well and good, but which should set them up for a later victory.
Investment StrategiesThe advantage a singleton villain can have over a group of heroes is that he can more easily control how he spends his resources. Specifically, he has better opportunities to win the easy battles and lose the hard ones. This leads to a lot of flexibility for investing your energy precisely where it is most useful.
- If an Event has been ignored by the heroes, you control it and resolve it. This gives you strong Inspirations in exchange for very few Story Tokens.
- If an Event has gotten a lot of attention from the heroes but isn't a big deal to you, you use an Inspiration to up your singleton die (to force them to spend actions running up their many dice, and to prevent them gaining big Inspirations, because of the high-low formula) and let them win it. This gives you lots of Story Tokens in exchange for mid-level Inspirations.
- Always sieze and Gloat on the Events where your victory would violate the Comics Code. It's an out and out win for you, and not to be neglected.
- Following those three strategies at good rates of exchange gives you a net income of both Story Tokens and Inspirations, with which to sieze and resolve the Events that matter to you.[/list:u]