[Musketeers!] Who gets to do the scene framing?

[hanschristianandersen]

This is my first earnest attempt at RPG design, and it's pretty close to the point where I start rounding up folks for playtesting.  However, I'm stumped on a core design point - from the layers of mechanics that I came up with, Scene Framing turned into the Big Bogeyman that I don't have an answer for.  (Questions are at the bottom.)

The working title is "The Amazing Adventures of His Majesty's Royal Musketeers";  The players are Musketeers, in the classic Musketeer-movie tradition, who undertake adventures on behalf of their Patrons and their Passions.  The objective is to produce highly colorful action and melodrama by placing those two elements (Patrons and Passions) at odds with one another.

Musketeers are defined by three stats, which are used to perform Actions (Dashing for social acts, Daring for physical acts, and Fencing for anything with a weapon), a number of Patrons, and a number of Passions.  All are rated from one to five.  Finally, a Musketeer's Reputation score is set to equal his highest Patron score, and the Musketeer's Love score is set to equal is highest Passion score.

Musketeers also have Panache Points, which are spent to switch the stat that's used for a contested action. ("I carefully snatch up the letter on the tip of my rapier!" (Fencing)  "I break your concentration by mentioning that your scarf is woefully out-of-step with current fashions!" (Counter with Dashing)  "I ignore that remark and punch you in the gut - and grab the letter with my off-hand"  (Riposte with Daring))  Ultimately, contested actions are resolved with 1d6 plus stat.

Adventures are divided into Scenes.  Each Scene has a Stakes, expressed as a question ("Will Our Heroes manage to prevent the wicked villain Pinot LeNoir from marrying the innocent heiress?"), and a set of Victory Conditions - a number of Successes that must be accumulated and an in-game condition that must be met.  ("Five Successes, and be the one holding the wedding ring.")  You fulfill the conditions, you win the scene for your side, netting all PCs present gain a cumulative +1 or -1 to all rolls for the remainder of the Adventure.

After an Adventure is concluded, Patrons and Passions impacted by the outcome can increase or decrease; this is the game's principle Reward system, in combination with the motivating mechanic underlying the whole shebang:  "Reputation is Everything... but Love Conquers All."  A Musketeer adds his Reputation score to every single roll he makes... UNLESS a Passion is involved in the scene, in which case he adds his Love score instead.

Now, this means that the content, Stakes, and Victory Conditions of the scenes not only determines what the potential rewards are (by determining which Passions and Patrons might be affected), but also how likely the players are to achieve those rewards (by determining which of Reputation or Love is used for the die rolls.)  

Given that scene framing becomes so crucial, who gets to do it?  One extreme is to have a GM do all the scene framing, by putting various Passions and Patrons in direct opposition, and letting things play out.  (But if I go with that idea, why aren't I playing Riddle of Steel, with its meaty Spiritual Attributes?)

Another extreme would be to build upon the Action-Counter-Riposte mechanics by having scene framing be adversarial (either players vs. GM or players vs. players) as everyone tries to construct the framing of the scene to their advantage, perhaps by bidding Panache Points.  However, as the Care and Feeding of Panache Points increase in importance to the system, does that run the risk overwhelming the core thematic conflict of Patron-vs-Passion?    (Can anyone recommend any existing games that use adversarial scene framing?  Pantheon and Baron Munchausen are the only ones that spring to mind.)

As a final thought, the system looks pretty solidly Gamist - doubly so if a scene-framing-bidding-layer is bolted on.  Any real narrativist heft to the Patron-vs-Passion struggle is sort of rendered moot by the fact that they're numerically very similar, with the only real difference between them being a matter of Color.  But given the goals of the game, that might be acceptible so long as there's enough Color being tossed around the gaming table.  Between the inherently silly Action-Counter-Riposte mechanism, the colorful Stakes and Victory Conditions, and the reward system, is there enough material here to generate the desired sort of swashbuckling matinee melodrama?

-Hans

[RaconteurX]

Can anyone recommend any existing games that use adversarial scene framing?

You might wish to peruse Universalis, by Forgites Ralph Mazza and Mike Holmes.

[Rexfelis]

I'm a bush league game designer, so I'd be wasting your time if I tried to answer any of your questions. All I can say is, this game looks "totally freakin' awesome," and I'd be very happy if you posted the final version here or somewhere else on the internet. It's definitely the type of game I'd like to play. Hell, I'd buy it right now if you were selling it.

Rexfelis

[quozl]

I'd also look into Soap and Donjon.

And I agree, this game sounds awesome!

[Jonathan Walton]

I would totally play this game.  Sounds delicious.  Very nice first attempt.

I especially like spending points to switch applicable attributes.  That's very nice.  You examples really show the coolness inherant in those kinds of moves too.

However, not to derail you, but I wonder about defining the Musketeers by their Dashing, Daring, and Fencing ability.  I mean, every Musketeer worth their salt is going to want to be dashing, daring, and accomplished with their sword -- to the greatest extent that they can manage.  Are those things really what differentiate one Musketeer from another?  I don't think so.  They certainly differentiate Musketeers from non-Musketeers, though.

I just wonder if it's going to be boring to have characters that all have very similar stats (5-5-6, 6-5-5, 5-6-5, or whatever you expect them to be).  I love the Patrons and Passions and it seems to me that you already have a way to differentiate the Musketeers, using those.  I imagine Musketeers going about dashing, daring, and fencing, but it's the why that makes them different.  

Would it be possible for all Musketeers to just have a default level of dashing, daring, and fencing and then maybe spend points to "turn the tables" on your opponent and do something surprising, instead of just switching for a better attribute?  I mean, if Dashing is my highest attribute, it currently encourages me to always switch and use Dashing, instead of switching to Fencing or Daring (even if a Dashing stunt seems less appropriate).  Also, that would allow the system to focus more on Passions and Patrons, which seems to be what's really important anyway.

Just a few thoughts.  I'll try to comment on scene framing later.

[hanschristianandersen]

Folks,

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement, and thanks for the reading-list recommendations - time for me to go do some homework.

Rexfelis,

I certainly intend to make Musketeers! publicly available when it's ready, probably as a PDF.  I hadn't thought of actually selling it, although there's nothing like hearing someone say "I'd buy it" to make me reconsider!  Of course, a for-pay version would need some sort of art, a thoughful layout, and a certain minimum level of polish - after all, I'd want the finished piece to be something I was really proud of.  Hmm, that alone might be enough to justify the project.

Johnathan (Walton),

Thanks for the feedback!

The way I see it, Dashing, Daring, and Fencing are not exclusive to Musketeers - it's a Musketeer's Reputation as a Fine Musketeer that sets him apart from the common herd.  Reputation contributes to DD&F equally - and a Paragon among Musketeers (R=5), will *always* be a better fencer than even a master at arms. (1F + 5R vs. 5F)  If that Musketeer was a skilled Fencer already, well, he's that much cooler for it.  And a Musketeer with Reputation 1 isn't really all that much of a Musketeer, now is he... so why should he be automatically a master of all three disciplines?  If he were a master of all three, then *clearly* he has to be a Musketeer with a high Reputation.  Yes, that's ridiculously circular... but drink a few more glasses of wine, and imagine it's being said by some inebriated noble in a ridiculous feathered hat...

The D/D/F split also assists with characterization.  Dashing=5, then, is a player's way of saying "I want my Musketeer to be able to talk his way out of anything", and have the mechanics support his characterization.  Independent of their sponsors and targets of affection, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis were strongly characterized individuals; I see no reason why characters in Musketeers shouldn't follow suit.

D/D/F also feeds into the Counter/Riposte mechanism; just by imagining various swashbuckling actions and the ridiculous ways one might counter them with an unrelated stat, I think this could be a Color goldmine.  I could have gone the Sorcerer or Wushu route and accept any "suitably cool" narration of a counter, but I was hoping that tying the narration into the D/D/F split would help to enforce a certain minimum level of silliness.

The split also plays nicely into the rough "adversarial scene framing" ideas I'm kicking around; the GM could spend from his own pool of Panache Points to frame scenes that play to a Musketeer's weakest stats - a costume ball for a Fencer Musketeer, a marketplace brawl for a Dashing Musketeer... but in doing so, the GM has fewer Panache Points with which to fuel NPC Counters and Ripostes.  Of course, since it doesn't matter *which* Musketeer achieves the Victory Conditions for a given scene, the disadvantaged Musketeer could "bribe" a more appropriately skilled fellow Musketeer to come along to the scene and help out.  This bribery might itself be in terms of Panache Points.

And lastly, you're absolutely correct that it will be boring to have characters with similar stats.  My current drafts say "Divide 10 points among the three stats", but I'm thinking that should be changed to "Set one stat equal to Five, another equal to Three, and the third equal to One".  If everyone has one Very Bad Stat, that might motivate a lot of Counters, in all their innately silly glory.

[clehrich]

As far as scene framing, it seems to me that you might as well go with the mild Gamist element.  I happen to be a believer in hybrids, and it seems to me you've got one here.  What I'd do is have each Scene have a minimum number of actions or something of the kind, where long-term development is dependent on how much you risk.

For example, let's suppose that for a given Scene, D'Artagnan risks only one chip (or whatever).  He's only got to beat the odds by one factor, and then he gets his reward.  Thing is, the reward is very small.

Now you increase rewards drastically (even exponentially) as the risk goes up.  So if you risk 5 chips or whatever the maximum is, let's say the maximum of the Patron score or whatever, you've got to be really amazing to win; if you do win, however, you score massive points for everyone.  If you don't, you don't lose anything, but you don't gain anything at all.

That way, in a given Scene, everybody might have a chance to bid.  Perhaps, though, you can't have the same Musketeer take the Scene twice in a row.  That way, with 3 players, there's only 2 players bidding on most Scenes at a time.  Only those who risk can win, but everyone wins with a big score; if you allow loss, only those who risk lose -- the others can't be hurt by a stupid bid.

The GM can close any Scene so long as the minimum actions have been fulfilled, but he can be stopped by the other players.  Maybe the Scene runner can't stop it, but everyone else can.  That way if everyone else thinks things are going poorly, they let it close, while if they think there's still potential they let it go on.  You'd want to structure it so that the side players, if they close a weak Scene, risk nothing.

If you want to get a little crazy, you could have a bid for GM of a Scene as well, where losing by more than X amount is bad (so that things are skewed in favor of wild and wacky Scenes).  This would make the Gamism spread, rather than everyone gang up and beat the GM.

My concerns about this are:

1. It means there's a dominant Musketeer every Scene, which might not be helpful

2. It's not clear how you'd scale the rewards, given that the system is extremely granular.

3. You'd have to give some sense of how long, as a rule, a Scene takes.

Probably a few more when I'm more awake.

Rocking system, though.  First try?  Jeez!  I wish I could do so well....

Chris Lehrich

[hanschristianandersen]

Chris,

Thanks for the suggestions!  One comment in particular really got the ol' mental hamster wheel fired up -

The GM can close any Scene so long as the minimum actions have been fulfilled, but he can be stopped by the other players. Maybe the Scene runner can't stop it, but everyone else can. That way if everyone else thinks things are going poorly, they let it close, while if they think there's still potential they let it go on. You'd want to structure it so that the side players, if they close a weak Scene, risk nothing.

At the moment, defining a scene requires specifying a lot of variables - What Passions/Patrons are involved (determines reward and which of Rep or Love gets used), the Stats of the opposition (determines the GM's D/D/F), the Situation (determines how immediately relevant each of D/D/F are), the Victory Condition (color), and the Number Of Successes required (determines scene length, but little else.)  Right now, these are all independent variables, which is rather cluttered.  

And all that is just to define a scene, whose outcome simply gives you bonuses on further scenes... Meanwhile the *real* reward system (permanently increasing/decreasing Patrons or Passion) doesn't kick in until you've gone through several scenes and concluded the "adventure".  I've decided that this is far too many independent layers; I feel like it's dragging down the burger/bun ratio.

Taking a cue from your ideas, I'm thinking about streamlining things as follows:

The Number of Successes required per scene is fixed at some number - let's say Five.  That means that any participant (a player or the GM) who accumulates five successes and meets the Victory Condition can end the scene on their turn.  This is called a Minimal Victory, and neither improves nor decreases your rating with the relevant P/P.  In order to increase the relevant rating, you have to earn a number of successes equal to the 5 + the current rating + 1; so, to raise a rating from 4 to 5, you have to earn a herculean 10 successes before the GM manages to accumulate 5; after all, all the GM needs only a Minimal Victory to cause the players to lose the scene.  You don't *have* to go all the way to 5+rating+1; as long as you have at least 5 you can end the scene; maybe you can "cash out" any points you have above and beyond 5 for Panache Points.

The Victory Condition should be decided by the same person who describes the Stakes, which in turn should be decided by the person who described the Situation; after all, Stakes and VC are a direct outgrowth of the Situation.

So far, the difficulty of the scene is dependent on the relevance of a character's D/D/F to the Situation, on the applicable P/P, and on how far the players are willing to Step On Up to get their reward.  That seems like plenty of variables to me, so I'm going to say that the Stats of the Opposition is always fixed; perhaps at some combination of 5/3/1, just like a brand-new Musketeer.  (Since Opponents aren't Musketeers -after all, no Musketeer would fight another! - Opponents get no Reputation or Passion.)

Now that the relationship between P/P and the difficulty of an individual scene is so tightly bound, I'm making the Reward system (increasing/decreasing P/P) kick in after every scene based on the outcome of that scene.  While I'm at it, I'm culling the Chapter/Adventure distinction; The temporary +1/-1 carryover is also gone; it always felt a little redundant with the main reward system.

So, scene framing is now reduced to two variables:  Situation and Relevant P/P.  Everything else is either a fixed value or a direct consequence of those two variables.  Perhaps the player nominates one, and the GM nominates the other?  Perhaps the player - or the GM - can spend Panache Points to forcibly define both to their advantage, at the cost of having fewer points to throw around during the actual scene...

-Hans

[Bluesboy]

This game sounds fantastic and I would definitely buy it if it was released professionally or as a PDF , there sure needs to be another Musketeers game on the market !

My tip is to change the term Fencing to Duelling , then you have Dashing , Daring and Duelling ( which is also less rapier-specific and so can apply to fights using various weapons , including firearms ! )

Best wishes !

[hanschristianandersen]

Bluesboy,

Thanks for the feedback and kind words.  

As for your tip: *smacks forehead*  Dueling!  Duh!  How the heck did I miss that?  (time for a little search-and-replace action...)

I am working on a second draft that incorporates this thread's feedback, and I have several friends lined up for playtests in the coming weeks.  

-Hans