Badass City is a Step on Up game that I'm making primarily to figure out certain problems I'm having with a couple other games. But it's also shaping up to look fun. Quick synopsis of the premise (small-p): "You're a badass. You wanted to prove your badassitude, so you moved to Badass City. Badass City is populated with hundres of other badasses like you, and they all think they're more badass than you are. What are you gonna do about it?"
The central technical issue that I'm looking at is gaming the circumstances rather than just the numbers, but with numbers in support of that. One thing I've hit upon is a system of favored circumstances, somewhat stolen from Sons of Liberty, by which custom-written circumstances yield bonuses to Effectiveness. This idea, and it's implementation (flat additive bonuses to single-die rolls, of varying size based on the stat being used -- thus your d4 stat with its piddly 25% success rate can be beefed up by manipulating the SIS to fulfill your favored circumstances), I'm feeling quite strongly about.
A secondary issue stemming from that is making sure that the actual actions and positions narrated for the characters have a meaning to the mechanics. To that end, I've divided up the mechanically allowed maneuvers into 12 "Moves," each of which is associated with one of the four stats: Hard, Slick, Cool, Fucked Up:
"Hard" moves: Bring the Pain, Suck It Up, and Tear the Place Apart
"Slick" moves: Look Sharp, Put on a Show, Get the Drop
"Cool" moves: Save Face, Blow Smoke, Stand Your Ground
"Fucked Up" moves: Take It Too Far, Don't Give a Fuck, Pull Some Crazy Shit
I've got good, concrete definitions for what behaviors = what Moves, and I've got clear ideas of what they all do. There's plenty of intentional overlap between them, but the idea is that while Taking It Too Far," "Pull Some Crazy Shit," and "Tear the Place Apart" can all inflict physical injury on someone, none of them are as good at it as "Bring the Pain." For the most part, I've worked out what each Move is best at in relation to other Moves.
What I'm having trouble with is figuring out how to implement the Effects (as in IIEE) of these various Moves. I really really really want the Effects to deal with concrete changes to the SIS, not just the adjustment of numbers on paper. For instance, I was toying around with the idea of "Advantages" being concrete advantaging factors that yield temporary bonuses, and having the effects of some actions be "Force your opponent to give up 1 Advantage," with the idea being that 1 concrete advantaging factor was lost, thus also reducing the Advantage points, but I realized that the concrete factor then didn't actually matter – it could be done away with and nothing would change in terms of being able to continue to interface with the mechanics.
So, here's a brief summary of what the Moves are for. The idea is that each has a set of Effects it can yield, and you get to pick a number of them based on how good you roll.
Bring the Pain: cause physical injury (primary), take something by force, physically dominate someone, force someone into a disadvantageous position
Suck It Up: withstand physical injury (primary), maintain a position of advantage, resist domination
Tear the Place Apart: break stuff (primary), modify the immediate physical environment, cause physical injury, cause distraction, force someone into a disadv. position
Look Sharp: resist/recover from distraction (primary), avoid physical injury, maintain a position of advantage, gain further advantage
Put on a Show: cause distraction, impress an audience (haven't decided whether this or the previous is primary), avoid physical injury, gain a position of advantage, make someone look like a fool
Get the Drop: take an advantageous position (primary), trick someone into a disadv. position, cause distraction, take something by subterfuge
Save Face: recover/defend against being made a fool (primary), work the audience, cause distraction, make someone look like a fool
Blow Smoke: cause distraction (primary), work on someone's nerves, work the audience, trick someone into a disadv. position
Stand Your Ground: resist/recover from intimidation (primary), maintain an advantageous position, resist/recover from distraction
Take It Too Far: work on somebody's nerves, cause physical injury, work (esp. shock) the audience, force someone into a disadv. position (not sure which is primary)
Don't Give a Fuck: withstand physical injury, resist domination, recover from being made a fool, work on somebody's nerves (again, not sure of the primary)
Pull Some Crazy Shit: establish advantage, cause physical injury, cause distraction, work on somebody's nerves (yet again, not sure of the primary. The Fucked Up moves are kinda hard to decide on).
So. Let's start from the bottom and think about ways to implement these effects in such a way that they have a mechanical effect tied to a concrete effect in such a way that neither makes sense without the other. As I said, I'm a bit stumped. Any ideas?
-Marshall
The thing about the SIS is that it's often refered to like it's an object or thing that you can do things to. But the SIS is rather like soylent green...it's made of people.
If you think of the objects in the imagined space not as what they are imagined as, but instead fleshy things, made of the flesh of your fellow players (more specifically, their mind) - well, you realise if you try and make or force things in the SIS, your not forcing things, your shoving around other real people. The SIS is not an object because it's made of people and people are not objects.
Unless you want to push people around intellectually/imaginatively, there can't be definate concrete effects. There can be suggestions. But no definate thing. And if I'm reading where you were going right, because of this you can't build up concrete effects in the SIS in such a way as it will lead to a final result. That's why mechanics are so important to resolution. Writing this small in case it just appears to be a wild tangent.
Callan,
You probably know by now that I don't think it's true that the SIS isn't something that can be treated like an object. Somebody says a thing, he has the credibility and authority to make it true, it is now part of the SIS. Demonstrably and concretely. Yes, it all comes down to credibility and assent, but when you're doing a game like this, the assent must be given when sitting down to play. We will be playing X game, using Y rules and codes of behavior. That's not a problem with non-roleplaying games, and I don't see why so many people find it a problem with RPGs.
I would say because doing it that way stops the shared part of an SIS. It's ceasing to share the imagined space and instead taking control (single person controlled imaginative space). If you don't work via genuine suggestions, it stops being shared.
You might argue it's still shared, but what I'd ask is if you could give a hypothetical example of where you yourself would actually say it ceases to be shared and someones just taken control - it could be a silly, over the top example, like someone drawing a gun and aiming it at everyone saying "No, MY character takes the peaches!" and you'd say at that point it's not a shared imagination anymore. I'm asking that because it's really hard to discuss where that boundry is if the other person hasn't thought of a boundry at all yet/hasn't decided for themeselves whether there needs to be a boundry at all. Speaking of that, perhaps you don't see any need for a boundry and it'll always be shared no matter what, even in the gun example? For myself I think there needs to be a boundry and alot of other people would too, I'm thinking (though our boundries might not match entirely, we do match in deciding there is a boundry). That's not to say you'd have to, but it'd be confusing folks who have decided a boundry is needed, to not note that here it's treated as if one isn't needed.
Marshall:
I'd suggest a set of mechanical effects that don't match the in-fiction effects directly, but are fully compatible with them. Like this:
QuoteBring the Pain: cause physical injury (primary), take something by force, physically dominate someone, force someone into a disadvantageous position
And for mechanical effects you might have:
- If you have a broken bone, you're in terrible pain plus you're physically impaired.
- If you're in terrible pain, taking any action requires a successful suck it up move.
- If you're physically impaired, any gross physical actions are at a -1.
- If you're bleeding badly, you have ten minutes until you pass out.
- Breaking out of a body-hold means tearing the place apart, but at a -1.
- If someone's behind you, they get +1 to whatever they do to you.
- If someone has you in a pain-hold, they can inflict terrible pain at will, before you can act.
- If there's a physical object in play, it's worth +1 and it's available to everyone.
Right? So if I ace my roll to bring the pain, and I choose to physically dominate you, I can't just say "I physically dominate you," because then we won't know which mechanical effects prevail. Instead I might say "I twist your arm behind you and pin you against the wall," which means that I have you in a body-hold and a pain-hold, I'm behind you, and there's a physical object in play (the wall). When you try to escape, I'll inflict terrible pain, so you'll have to first successfully suck it up, then tear the place apart at -1, but if you're able to use the wall to help you somehow you'll get the +1 for it. (I won't get any benefit from being behind you until I make another roll.)
-Vincent
That's a nice idea Vincent, because it instantly ties the fiction back into the game mechanisms.
Perhaps each degree of success allows an additional negative mechanical effect to be applied to a victim (or allows a single mechanical effect to be removed by a victim).
Hmm...almost links back into that other topic on injury trees.
one problem i see is that for a more casual player they will have to learn, remember, and interpret 12 different special attacks. these can be arbitrary depending on definition. so someone could argue that they want to do attack A and it should have this effect and another could argue that attack A has that effect.
you could control this on the character sheet with a circle or chart that indicates response actions verses an overt action.
I like the idea because it works with social situations too and even crafting. i think it might be confusing or hard to control.
would a person with a high charisma have an advantage to "cool" actions?
Locke, compare that list to the average D&D 4e character sheet, and he's doing pretty well in terms of complexity with only 12 choices! Cool is the stat, they don't have high charisma to get a bonus to cool actions, they have high cool (or perhaps are triple cool, if we turn stats back into adjectives) so they have a bonus to cool actions.
Marshal, it's a real shame you don't have fix up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZGvnI37mxk) as an action under slick.
Ok, looks like you have these things in the fiction that the moves change, the nouns/adjectives to match the verbs, which means those are the things that need interpreting. In order of mention they are:
injury
property
domination
position
environment (and whether stuff is broken)
distraction
non-position based advantage
looking like a fool
audience attitude
intimidation
nerves
Now looking at this, only "non-position based advantage" is divorced from fictional elements, what fictional elements is "look sharp" supposed to affect to make an advantage? It could be intimidation, because currently you only have something to resist it, nothing to cause it, unless intimidation is the same as domination or nerves (no reason for that to be so).
Next, why do these things above matter, why are they things worth fighting over, and how do they effect conflicts themselves? This then creates a set of inputs of what the game mechanics care about, and what the setting cares about, which should encourage players to care about them too.
Callan,
It's not "Shared" in the sense of "It belongs to all of us because we're sharing, now let's pass flowers around and sing songs," at least not in this kind of game. It's "Shared" because it's the stuff that we're all imagining, as distinct from the stuff that we're imagining on our own and not communicating to anyone. Yes, it comes down to assent, but you can do the assenting beforehand when sitting down to play, as in "I assent to grant you authority and credibility wherever mandated by these rules." I know this because I've done it. I've played and designed this kind of game before. Badass City is an attempt to recreate that game with a fuck of a lot less math.
Vincent,
Yes, that is
perfect. That's exactly the sort of thing I've been trying to think of.
Locke,
I don't worry about things like that. I'm kind of a sonofabitch when it comes to pandering to potential audiences; my attitude is, if they don't like it, fuck 'em. It's not
for them.
Josh,
(I don't have the resources to watch videos on YouTube. Can you define/describe fixing up?)
You've lost me on non-position based advantage. Where is that one coming from? Is it the "gain further advantage" from the Look Sharp move? My intent for that is that, by Looking Sharp, you can locate and gain control of advantaging factors, or strengthen an advantage you've already got, by being clever and alert.
QuoteNext, why do these things above matter, why are they things worth fighting over, and how do they effect conflicts themselves?
Ok. So, everyone in Badass City has a Badass Score that indicates how badass they are considered in general. This Badass Score is a marker of social standing, and also serves as a currency. There are parts of town you can't even get into until you've got a high enough score, dig?
Naturally, the whole reason you're here is to get the highest score in the city. There are a few ways to increase your score:
Wagers, in which you bet someone that you can do something risky, difficult, and/or inadvisable. What you wager is Badass Points.
Contests, in which two or more people put up Badass Points to compete in some sort of contest with each other (such as fighting, racing, who can pick up the most chicks, etc.), and the winner takes the pot.
Deathmatches, in which two or more people fight to the death. The winner gains all of the loser's points. (By the way, the only way to kill someone intentionally is to take It Too Far)
Badges, which are things you earn for fulfilling specific requirements, sort of like Achievements on the latest gaming consoles. The requirements are of course badass things, like "Too many murders" or "Fall out of a tall building and live."
Also, any time that you make someone look like a fool, do something impressive, and/or beat someone into submission, and there are people who saw it, there is some gain in your score.
So, for all of the above, the 12 moves are your means for accomplishing those things. You can't accomplish anything without using one or more of those moves, at least not reliably. Those 12 things are how a badass interacts with the world.
Quote from: Marshall Burns on February 18, 2010, 01:17:59 PMYes, it comes down to assent, but you can do the assenting beforehand when sitting down to play, as in "I assent to grant you authority and credibility wherever mandated by these rules." I know this because I've done it. I've played and designed this kind of game before. Badass City is an attempt to recreate that game with a fuck of a lot less math.
Assuming I understand the ramifications of this right, for myself I like imagining what I want to imagine, with some
influence from others. I find that fun. While agreeing to be
told what to imagine is...not fun at all for me. Even if it's imagining what I want mostly and only sometimes being told - that'll still be suckage sometimes. I would have thought most people are that way inclined. My initial post was assuming that was the case here too - really didn't expect it not to be. Well, there you go!
Callan,
Yeah, it's a certain kind of play, one that won't appeal to everyone. It requires an ability to shut up and take what's given to you sometimes. The really cool thing about it is that everything that's introduced, no matter who's immediate benefit it was introduced for, is now a solid thing that can be manipulated, subverted, and used as a weapon by anyone who's clever enough. Which is a hell of a lot of fun.
For an example, in my old old game Misadventures in Nowhere (which gradually mutated into The Rustbelt, with parts sloughed off of it currently becoming MADCorp), we could use "Luck-Out Rolls" to introduce useful objects into the surroundings. On one of these occasions, a violent confrontation taking place in an old abandoned house, I Lucked Out to get a heavy steel bathtub that I used for cover. That tub was there now, everyone had to imagine it. But another player, whose PC was freakishly strong, proceeded to lift the tub by main strength and crush me between it and the wall behind me. That kind of thing, and the kind of thinking that goes with it, is a lot of fun for me.
Well, to me either they don't have to be clever enough, because they just have the credibility and authority to tell you what to imagine.
That or people insist something is the case in something where no objective, impartial measure can be employed. What could be done or happen next in the imagined scene? It's imagined - there is no way of impartially measuring what would happen next or what could be done. No way I'm aware of, anyway, beyond raw assertion. Yet time and time again I'll see roleplayers who are so certain X could be done that the other guy must be cheating/skipping out on the assent and credibility they promised prior.
That's why I stay in suggestion territory, and where eventually people might choose numbers the rule set asks them to decide, based on their own imagination (as the rules I envision ask them as individuals). At this point where it leaves the subjective, imaginary world and becomes a hard number, the rule set can take it to a conclusion through a transparent ruleset everyone recognises. I call it an imagination coupler where the fluffy, vague and uncertain world is finally rendered into a hard, cold, perhaps even cynical number. Kind of like moving from the artistic right hemisphere of the brain to the logical, calculated left. And of course the results of that number end up giving suggestions to the group, so it goes from the left to the right again, and back, and so on.
Quick example that came to mind: How long is the piece of string your imagining?
"The rules totally say that if the string is 15cm then your character loses 10 hp!"
And indeed the text does say this.
"And it's well over that at 20cm!"
And how does anyone else know this or could check this for themselves? The string is in your head.
It's effectively just taking someones word for it.
And when taking someones word for it, they don't have to be clever. Your just taking their word for it. Sure they might say something that sounds clever to you, but again how would you check to see if it isn't clever? Or do you just succumb to the comforts of confirmation bias, where you only look for evidence that confirms your own theory?
I like imagining things so as to come up with what seem like clever ideas. Doesn't mean they are though. The bathtub thing - I wouldn't say it's a clever move with things that exist and would work that way. I would say that it seems like a clever idea, and I'd let down my defenses a little and not use any protest options I have when he used it (after all, he still may fail his roll as well - I can still break even!). And if someone tries to insist I had to follow it because that's 'how it works' and I'd be cheating if I don't, that person can't seem to realise they can't provide any objective physically measurable evidence for their position and are simply asserting over and over, but they are all the same willing to tell others what to do and lay sanctions on them for cheating if they don't. It makes them really borish, even though they genuinely think they are enforcing rules
Callan,
It's a lot easier than you're making it. You simply lay down rules for what sort of things you're allowed to assert and when. Everyone assents to play by these rules. Then, when things are asserted and become solid parts of the fiction, everyone tries their best to take advantage of them.
I make my roll to establish position. Woot! I'm like, "I get up on the scaffold, where I can reach the block and tackle that's holding up the huge I-beam." BAM, that's solid. So, when somebody else establishes that they're in the space underneath that I-beam, I'm like, "I cut the cable" (when authorized to make such an assertion). Nobody can say, "Nuh uh, you can't reach it," because we already established that I can. The poor victim of my maneuver can't be like, "So what, I'm out of the proper area," because we already established that he was in it. Maybe the rules allow him a last-ditch effort to get out of the way before being crushed that might or might not work, but the upshot is he made a misstep.
As for why anyone would get into that space, as I said, it's a misstep. He would have better attempted to negate my advantageous position somehow before getting into that situation.
With a situation such as your string example, when I'm asserting such a 15cm string into the fiction, I'm doing it with the aim of making your guy lose 10 hp. I'm going to assert its existence in such a way that, hopefully, you'll be forced to be hurt by it, or I can hurt you with it directly. And if I have to assert the existence of a thing that may or may not hurt me based on its properties, of course I'm going to make it something that won't hurt me (unless I've got plans for later advantage up my sleeve).
When playing like this, are people likely to try to obtain as much advantage as they can, and avoid opening themselves to as many as such attacks as they can, and try to strike from unassailable positions as much as they can, and so on? YES. That's what it's about. Everyone strategizes their hearts out, and the loser is the one that makes a mistake (which includes taking the wrong gamble).
Well maybe I missed something, but he has several options for each of the 12 listed. So I saw this as having to remember 48-60 things. I think its fine, I just suggested that the character sheet have some sort of cheat to help players remember. In DnD and Star Wars Saga they suggest making cards to remember what has and hasn't been used which isn't a good option IMHO. Do some have advantages over others like Mouseguard's system?
I would think "Pull Some Crazy Shit" would be a penalty when in a disadvantageous situation. Since the word "Crazy" describes as something that isn't logical or doesn't make sense, hence its a long shot. Players could feel as if everything they were doing was completely arbitrary to what the GM wanted or decided w/o a certain heirarchy in place with expected results within the randomness of the system.. But maybe I'm thinking of it in a far too complicated light.
Quote from: JoyWriter on February 10, 2010, 11:54:07 AM
Locke, compare that list to the average D&D 4e character sheet, and he's doing pretty well in terms of complexity with only 12 choices! Cool is the stat, they don't have high charisma to get a bonus to cool actions, they have high cool (or perhaps are triple cool, if we turn stats back into adjectives) so they have a bonus to cool actions.
Marshal, it's a real shame you don't have fix up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZGvnI37mxk) as an action under slick.
Ok, looks like you have these things in the fiction that the moves change, the nouns/adjectives to match the verbs, which means those are the things that need interpreting. In order of mention they are:
injury
property
domination
position
environment (and whether stuff is broken)
distraction
non-position based advantage
looking like a fool
audience attitude
intimidation
nerves
Now looking at this, only "non-position based advantage" is divorced from fictional elements, what fictional elements is "look sharp" supposed to affect to make an advantage? It could be intimidation, because currently you only have something to resist it, nothing to cause it, unless intimidation is the same as domination or nerves (no reason for that to be so).
Next, why do these things above matter, why are they things worth fighting over, and how do they effect conflicts themselves? This then creates a set of inputs of what the game mechanics care about, and what the setting cares about, which should encourage players to care about them too.
Marshall, if we ran a secret multiple choice question just after "I get up on the scaffold, where I can reach the block and tackle that's holding up the huge I-beam." and people tick option A if they think that that also means your character could cut it, but there are also options B, C and D which have other options entirely. What happens if after everyones chosen and shows their choice, someone or several people in the group have ticked something other than A? Do you call them cheats?
How do you get over that bump? Me, I take it everythings suggestion, nothings 'solid fiction' and this doesn't resolve any actions, it's just asking (ala the original lumpley principle) with a coat of dream like causality painted over it. It's just asking "Can your character take a strength 10 hit, please?" in a much more interesting way than just asking it directly.
Hey Marshall,
I have totally lost track of what you currently want out of this thread. Are you looking to add more strategic options for the players to master on top of the ones you already have? Or is the strategic game done, and you're just looking to add color to the process of playing it?
I could make some suggestions for the latter. For the former, I'd need a clearer idea of how the strategic element currently plays.
Locke,
Oh, yeah, of course there'll be a cheat sheet. But I want to point out that when you pull off a Move, you're authorized to do any combination of the effects listed for it. So, if I Bring the Pain, I can harm you and move you and physically dominate you, and so on.
The idea for Pull Some Crazy Shit is that it's how you do weird, unorthodox, desperate, and unpredictable stunts. There's no penalty for this; if you're really Fucked Up, then you're good at it. Maybe even better at pulling crazy shit than you are doing things in a more normal, controlled, or planned manner.
(To give you an idea of what "Fucked Up" is supposed to mean in the game, Tyler Durden from Fight Club and Rorschach from Watchmen have maxed-out Fucked Up scores.)
Callan,
What? Seriously, what are you talking about?
It's like this: a warehouse is established (by whatever system; in this game, one person is usually authorized to define the environment of a conflict, with the expectation that he'll try to advantage his guy as much as possible) in such a way that there's an I-beam hanging, a scaffold that you can reach the cable from, and a path underneath the I-beam that somebody is going to have to walk through in order to get to somebody who's on the scaffold. BAM, established, it's there, nobody's arguing about it. Examining this situation, and empowered (by whatever system; in this game, a Get the Drop roll) to get there first, I get up on the scaffold and prepare to drop the I-beam on my opponent, who is going to be forced to walk under it in order to get to me.
David,
I've got a handle now on the initial question (re: effect mechanics) I had; Vincent gave me what I needed, and now I'm ready to playtest. So, as far as that goes, the thread's done its job. But I'm still totally open to questions and requests for explanation about anything I've said (or that I've left out) regarding the game, 'cause answering those questions is helpful to me.
I'm not interested in adding any more layers of strategy to the game, at least not at present. In addition to the Moves, I've got a social system of boasts, bargains, threats, and rumors that I'm really excited about, and that is heavily derived from Bargains in Poison'd.
Also, anything that you've got to throw out there in terms of coloring the process, I'd be glad to listen.
-Marshall
By the way, I'd like to share these example PCs from the playtest document, because they're so damn fun:
QuoteEXAMPLE BADASSES
FIRE CHIEF HANK
Badass fireman
Hard d10
Slick d4
Cool d8
Fucked Up d6
Tags:
+1 to Bring the Pain with my fire ax
+1 to Tear the Place Apart with my fire ax
+1 to Pull Some Crazy Shit with a fire extinguisher
+1 to Get the Drop when the place is on fire
+1 to Look Sharp when the place is on fire
+1 to Put on a Show with my fire engine
-1 to Suck It Up while not wearing my fireman's helmet
Location Die:
1 – Neutral territory
2 – The fire station
3 – The fire station
4 – At a fire
5 – On the way to a fire
6 – At the town hall
Swag: fireman's helmet (sturdy), fire ax (sharp sturdy), fire engine (big heavy loud moving sturdy), fire extinguisher (cold hard), killer dalmatian (moving hazardous)
DR. SLAYER, PHD.
Badass vampire hunter
Hard d6
Slick d10
Cool d8
Fucked Up d4
Tags:
+1 to Put on a Show with my opera cape.
+1 to Pull Some Crazy Shit with a bullwhip.
+1 to Take It Too Far with a wooden stake.
+1 to Look Sharp in the dark.
+1 to Blow Smoke while smoking my pipe.
+1 to Stand My Ground while smoking my pipe.
-1 to Look Sharp while not wearing my spectacles.
Location Die:
1 – Neutral territory
2 – In a dark alley
3 – At the Badass Gentlemen's Smoking Club
4 – At the Hellfire Club (looking for vamps)
5 – At the tobacco store
6 – At the lumber yard (acquiring stakes)
Swag: opera cape (fancy long), bullwhip (long ranged), spectacles (small flimsy), pipe & tobacco (hot small), several wooden stakes (sharp)
BIG MAGUS
Badass archmage gangsta
Hard d4
Slick d6
Cool d10
Fucked Up d8
Tags:
+1 to Bring the Pain with sorcerous fire
+1 to Tear the Place Apart with telekinesis
+1 to Put on a Show with my levitation
+1 to Pull Some Crazy Shit with sorcerous fire
+1 to Blow Smoke while rapping
Location Die:
1 – Neutral territory
2 – At the Hellfire Club
3 – At the Hellfire Club
4 – The edge of the Abyss
5 – My ivory tower crib
6 – Another dimension
Swag: Giant pentagram medallion & chain (fancy long), embroidered robes (fancy long), lots of big rings (fancy hard), athame (sharp small), grimoire (heavy)
CRAZY CHARLIE
Badass taxi driver
Hard d4
Slick d8
Cool d6
Fucked Up d10
Tags:
+1 to Put on a Show while driving
+1 to Pull Some Crazy Shit when in heavy traffic
+1 to Blow Smoke while smoking my stinky cigars
+1 to Bring the Pain with my hook hand
+1 to Look Sharp when in the street
Location Die:
1 – Neutral territory
2 – The garage
3 – My favorite diner
4 – Driving a fare in my cab
5 – Off-duty in my cab
6 – In my apartment
Swag: taxi (big heavy loud sturdy moving), cigars (hot small), hook prosthesis (sharp), fuzzy dice, revolver (hard ranged loud)
Marshall, in your example, with the words you gave in it, you didn't ask/establish that you could cut the cable. You just left a heavy suggestion of being able to reach the cable. Now some people might think hey, yeah, along with reaching it Marshall could cut it - without you even having to ask for that. Maybe there's even a sense of solidness there in how people might very well think you could cut it. However some other people might not think you could cut it. That skism is what I'm illustrating. I'd like to examine that with you, but now you've gone off into pure "I get up on the scaffold" examples when no, your not doing that, nobodies doing that, you'd just be sitting around a kitchen dinner table. I want to discuss the real life interactions between people - what are they doing, what options would they actually pick, what are they saying, etc, but your talking exclusively about the fiction. Me, I'm going 'What?' as well, because this is like around seven years ago when people would talk exculsively in terms of what the characters wanted, and we'd have to correct them that the characters don't exist and to talk in terms of the real people at the table. Your cable, your i-beam - they don't exist. If you just want to talk about the cable and i-beam - well, perhaps this is a subject for seven years from now and I'll save it.
Quote from: Marshall Burns on February 18, 2010, 01:17:59 PM
Josh,
(I don't have the resources to watch videos on YouTube. Can you define/describe fixing up?)
Lol, I've been skewered by the internet's ability to mask tone. I deadpan passed you an amusing link, and you politely passed it back. If I explain any further what I was after, my brain will explode with absurdity.
Quote from: Marshall Burns on February 18, 2010, 01:17:59 PM
You've lost me on non-position based advantage. Where is that one coming from? Is it the "gain further advantage" from the Look Sharp move? My intent for that is that, by Looking Sharp, you can locate and gain control of advantaging factors, or strengthen an advantage you've already got, by being clever and alert.
Yeah, I chucked it in separately based purely on the words you used. An interesting thing here is that it means that advantages can't be handled like streight tags; look sharp gives them a
magnitude. Now presumably you want that magnitude to be expressed in new advantageous descriptions rather than "I'm standing silhouetted in really bright sunlight with my gun aimed at you x2", but I can't yet picture how to do that. One idea is to have certain +1 traits cue off stylistic stuff, which you set up with Look Sharp. So "+1 to make someone look like a fool when flipping a coin" or "+1 to work on someone's nerves when sharpening your blade on metal".
Now you already have those stylistic things, but how do they get into the scene? Well I'd put it in as a side effect to Look Sharp, if you can fit it in.
Have you considered having the non-primary effects be more conditional? In other words have things they normally do, without restriction, and then conditions on using them in other ways? So if you happen to have set things up to meet all the conditions, (perhaps that's one thing that gaining advantages does?) then you get the whole set!
So the primary action for Take It Too Far is work on someone's nerves, because actually killing someone with it requires they be immobilised/seriously injured or something, work the audience requires an audience etc.
Actually if working it this way, I'd make Pull Some Crazy Shit be the default way to get new advantages, and Get the Drop be the default way to introduce new disadvantages. Stuff like this would mean that certain skills can always add things to the world, but other skills can take better advantage of those things once created.
An equivalent change would be to make Put On A Show have it's default position as making the opponent look like a fool, with other things triggering where appropriate.
Quote from: Marshall Burns on February 18, 2010, 01:17:59 PM
Wagers, in which you bet someone that you can do something risky, difficult, and/or inadvisable. What you wager is Badass Points.
Contests, in which two or more people put up Badass Points to compete in some sort of contest with each other (such as fighting, racing, who can pick up the most chicks, etc.), and the winner takes the pot.
The interesting thing here is that the skills at the moment don't seem to directly affect this stuff, which puts actual victory or not in the hands of interpretation, I wonder whether this suggests a place for guidelines for ad-hoc minigame creation...
At the risk of introducing some topos theory I barely understand, and adding quite a bit to an already dense post, I think what Callan is talking about relates to this:
You can think of laws of physics and rules of inference in logic in vary similar ways; given some starting statement, what happens next?
Now you can build a world with different laws of physics, or equivalently different rules of logic. These act on the states of the world, in order to produce new states. So the current system assigns authority for you to declare the starting statements, but not the logic by which those statements will turn into obvious consequences.
In logical form, the rules of inference in logic require you to say
j=f
f=c
:. j=c
but they only "require you" to do so if you already subscribe to that logic. And there are many sheltered people, children for example, who haven't had to test out their logic in the real world. So they might find it perfectly logical that you can't chop the cable because "Cables are supposed to make things safe, so you won't be able to break them when that could hurt someone". Real world experience might tell them otherwise, but they haven't got there yet.
But should you be playing this game with small children? No probably not! But this being fiction people may bring all kinds of funny action-movie logic to it, often from different films.
So it might be helpful to either assign authority in conflicts as to the
logic of the setting (consensus, vote etc), or set up guidelines at the start so people can get on the same page. Usually people can handle the first part themselves, but it's generally good to build the skills of the good players into a game, so crap players can learn them. Not only that, this may allow players who have never yet been able to get a grip on this kind of game to do so, which would be quite a success.
By the way, those character sheets are really awesome. I like the way that everyone is described as badass streight off, and all experience suggests a story behind it. I imagine for the players of these characters, those things would start to act as cues to how their character behaves, beyond what they explicitly mention.
Callan,
That sort of a discussion is going to have to wait for a playtest or something. I can't tell you what the people around the table are doing when there aren't any people around a table yet.
As for whether or not it's possible to cut the cable: you're playing a
badass. You can cut anything if you Tear the Place Apart.
There's another rule that I haven't mentioned, only implied. If I narrate something outside the scope of effects afforded by a successful Move, then it can be blocked, avoided, prevented, hand-waved, etc. by equally easy methods: simple narration. If you want to do something and have it stick, use a Move. If you pull it off, and the thing you want to do is in the allowed scope of the Move's effects, then it sticks and nobody can argue with it (although they can deal with it by using a Move). Even if it isn't "realistic" or any of that.
Because this game doesn't function on regular logic and physics. It functions on
awesome logic, where the the scope of possibilities is directly determined by how awesome those possibilities are.
Josh,
I think I've got a handle on what "an advantageous position" means. Taking Vincent's cue, I wrote up a Table of Consequences:
QuotePHYSICAL
- if you're physically impaired, all gross physical actions are at a -1.
- if you're in terrible pain, you can't do anything unless you do something about the pain. After that, the pain effect can be renewed, in which case you'll have to do something about it again.
- if you're maimed, you're impaired and in terrible pain, plus you can't use the maimed body part unless you Don't Give a Fuck.
- if you're put out of commission, you're at the mercy of everyone around you until the end of the scene, unless you Don't Give a Fuck.
- if someone has you in a body hold, you are under at their mercy until you find a way to escape or they release you.
- if someone has you in a pain hold, they may inflict terrible pain at will before you can act.
- if you're pinned down by something, you must get free before you can do anything physical.
- if you're bleeding badly, you will be out of commission after ten rounds.
- if you suffer a deadly wound, make a Bargain for your life or else die.
PSYCHOLOGICAL
- if someone has surprised you, he gets a free move against you. If you didn't know he was there, and he shows himself, you're surprised.
- if your nerves are rattled, you get -1 to any actions against the guy who did it to you.
- if you're angry, then you can't do anything other than vent it by harming the person who made you angry or Tearing the Place Apart, or cope with it (Stand Your Ground or Don't Give a Fuck)
- if you're distracted, then you can't react or respond to anything until you recover. You'll recover automatically upon suffering harm.
- if you're made to look like a fool, then you lose 1 audience support level, unless there is no audience.
- if you submit to someone, then you're at their mercy.
POSITIONING
- if someone is behind you, they get +1 to whatever they do to you.
- if you are at optimal range for a weapon that you're using, you get +1 to use it.
- if you're behind cover, people get -1 to hit you with ranged attacks. (Yes, holding someone in front of you counts as cover.)
- if you're in the open, people get +1 to hit you with ranged attacks.
- if you're in command of an object, other people can't use it unless they first deal with that situation. (Ex: blocking a door, standing over a weapon)
- if you're in command of a space, you get a free move against people moving into that space. (Ex: if you're standing at the top of the stairs, you're in command of the stairs, and get a free move against anyone trying to climb them.)
- if you're out of reach of something, you can't use it unless you do something about that.
- if you're in imminent physical danger, you'll be harmed unless you do something about it. (Ex: standing in the path of a bus)
I also re-wrote the Move descriptions, which is relevant:
Quote
Bring the Pain (Hard)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: harm someone through direct violence (repeatable), take something by force, physically force someone into a different position, physically dominate/overpower someone.
If you blow it [ie if you roll a 1], pick one that's applicable: open yourself up to a free move, suffer harm from an opponent of your choice, give up a position of advantage, look like a fool.
Tear the Place Apart (Hard)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: rearrange features of the physical environment, break something, harm someone indirectly via objects in the environment, distract someone with the ruckus you're making, force someone to change position or render his position untenable/unusable/nonexistent via changes in the environment, gain audience support for spectacular usage of the above.
If you blow it, pick one that's applicable: suffer harm, give up a position of advantage, suffer distraction, get yourself into a disadvantageous position.
Suck It Up (Hard)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: block or absorb harm or force, shrug off terrible pain, pull a stunt requiring stamina or endurance, block an attempt to overpower you, block an attempt to change your position, gain audience support for your endurance/indomitability.
If you blow it, pick one that's applicable: suffer impairment momentarily, suffer terrible pain momentarily, suffer harm, give up an advantageous position, look like a fool.
Get the Drop (Slick)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: beat someone to something, set yourself up in an advantageous position, conceal your position, sneak up on someone, take something by subterfuge or skill, block an attempt to gain advantage, pull a weapon before someone else can, catch someone in a trap, trick or deceive someone, slip past someone.
If you blow it, pick one that's applicable: open yourself up to a free move, lose an advantageous position, look like a fool.
Put on a Show (Slick)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: pull a flashy or impressive stunt (changing position and/or avoiding harm if you wish), gain audience support for your skill and style, improvise something flashy or impressive, distract someone, make someone look like a fool by outpacing them.
If you blow it, pick one that's applicable: open yourself up to a free move, suffer harm, give up an advantageous position, look like a fool.
Look Sharp (Slick)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: identify and avoid danger and threats, find and reach a source of advantage, recover from distraction, block an attempt to trick/deceive/distract you, block an attempt to change your position, block someone from gaining advantage, improvise something cleverly, slip away from someone.
If you blow it, pick one that's applicable: suffer distraction, open yourself up to a free move, lose an advantageous position, look like a fool.
Save Face (Cool)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: block an attempt to make you look like a fool, make someone look like a fool with a comeback, gain audience support with your snappy comebacks or cool reactions, block an attempt to distract you, recover from a grave error.
If you blow it, pick one that's applicable and isn't what was going to happen anyway: suffer distraction, open yourself up to a free move, give an opponent the support of the audience.
Blow Smoke (Cool)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: rattle someone's nerves through intimidation or headgames, make someone look like a fool by taunting or out-talking, manipulate someone psychologically, gain the support of the audience with your speech and attitude.
If you blow it, pick one that's applicable and isn't what was going to happen anyway: suffer distraction, open yourself up to a free move, look like a fool.
Stand Your Ground (Cool)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: block an attempt to rattle your nerves, recover from rattled nerves, keep your calm, block an attempt to distract you, block an attempt to change your position, gain audience support for your guts and calm.
If you blow it, pick one that's applicable: suffer harm, look like a fool, open yourself up to a free move.
Take It Too Far (Fucked Up)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: harm someone who's at your mercy, harm someone with gratuitous and shockingly vicious violence, rattle someone's nerves with your viciousness, shock the audience with your viciousness, force someone into a different position.
If you blow it, pick one that's applicable: lose audience support, suffer harm, look like a fool, lose an advantageous position.
Note: Take It Too Far is the ONLY way to harm someone who is at your mercy.
Also, this is kind of a weird Move. "Harm someone with gratuitous and shockingly vicious violence"? What does that mean exactly? Well, the best way I can think of to explain is to think of Rorschach from Watchmen. Rorschach is Fucked Up for a d10.
Don't Give a Fuck (Fucked Up)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: relentlessly block or absorb harm, relentlessly bounce back at someone and force them to change position, shrug off psychological or emotional effects or manipulation, endure pain or maiming or being put out of commission, shock the audience with your relentlessness.
If you blow it, pick one that's applicable: suffer harm, look like a fool, open yourself up to a free move.
Note: this is also kind of a weird move. The best example I can give you is in the movie Fight Club, when Tyler lets Lou beat the shit out of him while Tyler laughs and laughs, then finally pins him down and drips blood all over him.
Pull Some Crazy Shit (Fucked Up)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: pull a weird/crazy-ass/unlikely stunt (changing position and/or avoiding harm if you wish), improvise something crazy-ass, force someone into a disadvantageous position, harm someone in an unexpected and unorthodox manner, distract someone with your crazy-ass antics, rattle someone's nerves with your unpredictable and weird behavior, shock the audience with your unpredictable and weird behavior.
If you blow it, pick one that's applicable: suffer harm, look like a fool, give up an advantageous position, open yourself up to a free move.
QuoteThe interesting thing here is that the skills at the moment don't seem to directly affect this stuff, which puts actual victory or not in the hands of interpretation,
Hang on, you've lost me.
I'm starting to like this system.
Can you give us some scenarios of the resolution mechanics in action?
Like a step-by-step example? Hmm. That's tough because, while I know what Move you're about to attempt (because you have to announce it), I don't know what your stats and Tags are (they're kept secret from the other players) until I feel you out for long enough to do the math and deduce them. This lack of knowledge is a big factor in me deciding what Move I'm going to attempt in response to/despite of your Move, so it's tricky to come up with an example when I know all the data. Give me a bit and I'll try it though.
I'm looking forward to the example.
Just curious: Marshall, do you have a preference as to whether these fights get played out in a richly detailed environment versus a vague and sketchy one?
In movies, set elements are key for these kinds of colorful combats. If I can declare, "I hit you with a chair!" because it fits my Move, and the chair itself didn't have to be established previously, ond confers no mechanical advantage, then that works fine. On the other hand, if you have a set that's filled with objects that are good for certain Moves and do give mechanical advantages, then you'd create the opportunity for some nice movement contests (trying to stop each otehr from getting to the gun, etc.). I'd think that might be strategically richer... or it might just be more cumbersome.
David,
I'm shooting for the latter. The circumstances of every conflict are defined before the conflict, usually by one player. For instance, if I'm calling you out, then I get to set the stage. If I go looking for you, I've got to roll your location die to see where I find you, and then you get to set the stage. The exceptions to this are a.) when "neutral territory" is rolled on the location die, in whcih case we take turns adding things to the set until somebody makes a Move, and b.) when we stipulate certain conditions as part of a Wager, Contest, or Deathmatch.
I am strongly considering that Look Sharp lets you add something in that "wasn't noticed before," though. I'm gonna have to playtest it to see if I like it.
Okay I need to comment. I just want to be sure this has been thought of.
Occam's Razor: Variables should not unnecessarily be multiplied.
I just want to ask?
Whats the difference between "Pull some crazy shit" & "Bring the Pain"?
I might light a torch and burn you that does 3 damage or punch you in the kidney which does 3 damage. In the end I am doing 3 damage. It seems like they are both combat to me. And how the damage is done is cinematics. I could argue that Tyler Durden has his "bring the pain" maxed out. You just see the two combat styles and differentiate them. So whats the difference? When I RP I CAN SAY I am doing the attack how I want. Shouldn't there be a situational or mechanical advantage. Thats why I asked about "pull some crazy shit" being a latch ditch effort. Otherwise it seems like my 5 points of "bring the pain" faces off against you 5 points of "pull some crazy shit". And really its 5 points vs 5 points. Or just combat.
What I'm reading for those two actions they have the same penalties for success and failure. I would suggest making the abilities more situational and differential. That means that someone who can't bring the pain can make up for it and do the same function by pulling some crazy shit.
I think you'll see this in play testing.
An example: "Pull Crazy" is done at a -2 penalty from your roll (combat skill, negotiation skill, or engineering skill), but if successful it blocks the opponent's usage of "bring pain" skill for 3 rounds. Unless you have a special ability you can only do "pull crazy" once a encounter (or every 10 rounds). Maybe another ability mitigates the stun effect for bring the pain.
See cause and effect. If you are rolling good in combat you might not need to mezz the opponent but can if you are good at crazy shit or to save your ass.
Quote from: Locke on February 25, 2010, 06:48:26 PM
I might light a torch and burn you that does 3 damage or punch you in the kidney which does 3 damage. In the end I am doing 3 damage. It seems like they are both combat to me.
"In the end" is exactly the point, I'm sure marshal would be quite happy to never mention points of damage at all, because he's interested in a different simplification. A punch in the kidney makes you double up in pain, a burn from a torch makes you roll on the floor. Why should we try to create some variable that combines them into the same thing?
I'm sure you can answer that, as can I, but the point I'm ineptly making is that simplification can be done in many different ways, and using an old simplification as if it is the only one limits our possibilities. Combat skill/negotiation skill/engineering skill are arbitrary categories, useful for some situations and not others; "What does it matter if I defeated him by negotiation or engineering? I still kicked his ass!" Equally, in this case stylistic categories are more meaningful than more academic ones: It's not which type of conflict you specialise in that is important, but because this is not about teams where the members give each other space to do their thing, this is about people going one on one in their own style.
But you do make a good point about being situational; they should play out differently, offer different options and put different constraints on what actions people can do. If "Bring the pain" lets you be Batman and "Pull some crazy shit" lets you be Joker, then in a simplistic situation it's going to be harder to use the latter approach, because you as a player will have to keep adding strange elements to what you do, whereas the other player will just be able to go very straightforward, pounding you down. Of course, in a very complex environment, the difficulties might be reversed, with straightforward pounding being more difficult to justify in narration.
Of course, that is not much of a trade-off because the person who wanted to play the joker will likely be quite prepared for that kind of thing, it may be there needs to be some way of putting a scale on "what's better at doing what", so that instead of flexibility being the primary discriminating factor, efficiency at a specific task becomes relevant too. This may happen if the appropriate creative perimeters for each skill mean that one dominates the others or another becomes particularly weak. But if this doesn't happen, and people don't have to ignore skill deficiencies when putting their tactical hat on, then awesome, massive simplification!
Quote from: Marshall Burns on February 24, 2010, 12:42:46 PM
QuoteThe interesting thing here is that the skills at the moment don't seem to directly affect this stuff, which puts actual victory or not in the hands of interpretation,
Hang on, you've lost me.
Ok, at the moment, you're building up two nice sets of triggers; one from the experience list and the other from that list you just posted. These are affected by moves and refer to them, in a sort of semi-loop. Now the thing is that this doesn't yet attach explicitly to the question of who won a conflict, fulfilled a wager etc. I can imagine that badges will be the first to come right, (because they are explicitly designed as triggers that you set) then Deathmatches (because the skills are focused in that direction at the moment, even if death isn't explicitly among the triggers) then wagers (because triggers are explicitly defined at the start, even if applying skills to them feels like a stretch) then finally contests (because success might be some apples to orange comparison that the skills barely apply to).
Now the last category will pretty much only ever be do-able by interpretation and "yeah obviously he won", unless you create a squillion minigames, so you'll need to put some work in setting the ground-rules of this world (is someone seriously going to "pick up chicks" with "take it too far"?) probably by suggesting options/alternatives/boundaries. I can seriously imagine someone getting right into some hardcore improvisational violence, and then someone suggests a contest that takes it totally out of the region they are comfortable with, and then it's not just like "You did that awful thing, but it suits your character" it gets like "you did that awful thing, and the table numerically salutes you for it"! That's when "fits the world" and consensus hits smack up against actual morality and stuff about complicity and framing, which is dynamite.
Basically unbounded conflicts towards an external end in a macho paradigm need some watching, some guiding into not turning seriously dodge, even if it's just an arrow pointing a better way. Maybe your interested in finding where that line is, or maybe you want to hedge it out so nothing goes sour, or maybe you want to make people aware of that possibility so they can choose one or the other. It may even be that you allow everyone at the table to set no-gos for contests when suggested, maybe with some book help, so you kick this stuff out on an as/when basis.
There's also the much more mundane problem of applying moves to the wager "I can catch that seagull" and making wager difficulty meaningfully dependent on the described situation, so putting in varying points becomes interesting.
Now all this is an expansion on what I was saying before, which may or may not help you get the drift of what I was saying!
Locke,
Both Bring the Pain and Pull Some Crazy Shit allow you to inflict harm, but BtP doesn't let you pull a crazy-ass or inadvisable stunt (changing position if you want), and PSCS doesn't let you physically dominate someone, etc. While many of the Moves' effects overlap, none of them match up completely. I have no intent or desire to balance them, and it's up to the players to take advantage of that. You have to pick a Move that has the combination of allowed effects that you want -- which is going to change radically from situation to situation.
I ran a playtest yesterday, playing through three scenes. I'm preparing a post on it. Josh, I'd like to invite you to continue that line of discussion in the new thread once I've posted it. We had a scene centering around a badass plumber fixing a leak.
-Marshall
Ha! That sounds like it kicks my ass! All that highbrow talk....
Look forward to reading it.
Okay just making sure. It didn't seem clear to me in the description.
Quote from: Marshall Burns on March 04, 2010, 06:43:43 PM
Locke,
Both Bring the Pain and Pull Some Crazy Shit allow you to inflict harm, but BtP doesn't let you pull a crazy-ass or inadvisable stunt (changing position if you want), and PSCS doesn't let you physically dominate someone, etc. While many of the Moves' effects overlap, none of them match up completely. I have no intent or desire to balance them, and it's up to the players to take advantage of that. You have to pick a Move that has the combination of allowed effects that you want -- which is going to change radically from situation to situation.
I ran a playtest yesterday, playing through three scenes. I'm preparing a post on it. Josh, I'd like to invite you to continue that line of discussion in the new thread once I've posted it. We had a scene centering around a badass plumber fixing a leak.
-Marshall