[Loqi] A sysem of competing narrations

[Jasper]

I've just posted the preliminary version of the rules for a new game system, which I call Loqi.
You can find it here in HTML: http://primevalpress.com/games/loqi/

I'd appreciate general feedback on it, though there are some key points I think need work.  It has not yet been playtested. (Soon?)


Loqi is the spiritual successor to an earlier system of mine, Symmoira.  I could have simply changed Symmoira (drastically) but my tendency is to work via a slow evolutionary process, and to start with a blank slate if I think things need to be changed a lot.  I abandoned Symmoira because I realized that it was not accomplishing what I wanted; it could not replicate the kind of play I imagined people going through.  Loqi is a second stab at the same core concept, but staying much closer to it.

The core concept which I speak of is competing narrations.  But not between equal-footed storytellers who each want the tale to go down a different road, oh no.  Instead, semi-competitive narrations between a player and his GM, with the player trying to advance the cause of his character, and the GM...making things interesting. Now, I am not always one for strictly adversarial games...and indeed I don't think Loqi strictly is one, but I've realized that a friendly give-and-take between the players and GM is necessary for the dynamic I'm seeking.  Here's a short example of what play might be like between players, adapted from the rules:

Jim's character, call him Tiran, is in a swamp with some fellow pseudo-medieval fantasy warriors, fighting orcs.  Roy, the GM, introduces a 'problem' (a conflict) that Tiran must confront:

Roy: A short, nasty orc jumps out from behind a rock and blocks your path with a scream, followed by guttural jeers.  What happens? (This is the catch phrase of Loqi, and it usually gets said whenever a problem is introduced.)

Now Jim gets to propose one of two possible outcomes to the problem, i.e. one that is beneficial for Tiran. What he says next is not occurring, and it may very well never occur: it is but one option, and this is understood.

Jim: Tiran yells back, then smashes the orc in the face with his shield, then he guts him, kicks him over, and goes on to slay two more orcs who were waiting in the wings.  He's unscathed.  He then runs into the midst of the larger fray.

Now Roy, the GM, proposes the alternative, competing outcome.

Roy: Okay.  Alternately, the orc surprises Tiran and then jumps him.  Tiran fends of a savage bite to the neck, but is thrown to the ground.  They wrestle for a while, splashing about in the muck of the swamp.  Finally, one of Tiran's friends runs over and stabs the orc in the back, saving Tiran.

Next the outcomes (as each narration is termed) is evaluated.  Basically, each gets assigned a 'likelihood' value.  This depends mostly on traits the characters (or the environment) have which apply to the outcome. (E.g. Tiran has "warrior level 4" so Jim's outcome gets a +4 to its likelihood, and Roy's a -4.  Application of traits can get a little complicated, but you get the idea.)

Of just as much importance, though, is how beneficial or harmful each outcome is.  If a player's outcome is really helpful to the character (regardless of what the character is actually said to do in it) then it's made less likely.  Jim's is pretty beneficial, so there would be something like a -5 likelihood applied to it.  Conversely, the GM's outcome is made less likely the more harmful it is to the players' characters.  Roy's outcome is only vaguely harmful, since Tiran comes out okay in the end, so his outcome would be pretty likely.

Then a die is rolled to decide which outcome actually comes true, and this depends wholly on the computed likelihoods.  By default, both are equally likely, with 50/50 odds.  But if the players proposes something really good and helpful, then it might get pushed to 30/70 against him, and so forth.  Basically, the idea is that you can try to gamble with the odds, based on what kind of payoff you want.  You can be certain of a marginal victory, or chance a really big one -- with the concomitant risk of failure.

The players can propose all kinds of outcomes, which may not have much to do with their characters actual actions.  Though since characters have a lot of traits usually, utilizing them helps.

In Loqi's by-line I call it an "improvisation-driven" game.  The GM cannot plan things as he would in a lot of other games, since the players can propose all kinds of interesting outcomes, which the GM is encouraged not simply to oppose, but to play off of.  On the other hand, a lot of general background preparation may be necessary.  It could be a lot like Donjon in this way.



So...there are few parts of the game that are a bit loose and certainly need more work.  I'd particularly like comments on:

[*]The strength system.  Does it add anything (significant or necessary) to the existing trait changing rules.
[*]Goals.  Is it way too open?  Is it functional?  Will having them pinned down in such a way actually work, in real play? (I know, playtest the sucker!)
[*]The section Further Advice on Problem Resolution, and particularly the sub-section What the Numbers Mean.  Is this discussion clear, and is the theoretical basis on which I'm founding problems (as discussed in that sub-section) sound / robust?
[*]Benefit and Harm.  This is a tricky section.  It's hard to provide concrete sorts of guidelines for evaluating impact, since it's going to depend so much on the specifics of the situation.  In the end I've just kind of left it to the GM, with some basic guidelines.  Is there more I can and should do?
[*]Are the examples useful as written?  Do any of them need to be expended on to be useful?
[/list:u]

And anything else you care to say of course.  Does the basic idea have merit, or is it, say, doomed because it's inherently de-protagonizing? (I don't think so, but I'll hear what you all have to say.)

[xenopulse]

Interesting. You've got a lot of things already figured out there. My main question is, how do you resolve scenes which include two characters? Do the players have to agree on the proposed outcome? I could see that as difficult, given that each may want to have his/her character play a bigger part. Do they compete? That would create three different possible outcomes instead of two, which would need a different mechanic to resolve.

[Jasper]

The rules currently state that when multiple players are confronted with a problem, they should concieve an outcome together, after discussing it.  Thus there will only ever be two competing outcomes. (On a theoretical level, I would not be totally against juggling three outcomes, but this would change the tug-of-war dynamic between GM and player and would also requrie a more complex mechanic.)

Of course, creating an outcome jointly may be much easier said than done.  Generally, characters aren't competing amongst themselves so much as striving for a shared victory (at least that is what I had imagined) but you're right to point out that competition between players might still exist here. I don't know that there's any way to make a consensual decision easier.

I suppose an alternative would be to have just one player narrate all of it, perhaps after some kind of bidding, but I think that only reinforces any basic competitiveness, rather than supressing it, as I'd like.

Another option would be to break down outcomes into small parts, so that each player would get to create a certain number.  But this seems very artificial and also difficult to make work in practice.  It might also not overcome the fundamental problem of competetiveness, since having the separate points mesh would still require cooperation.

A hand-waving "make it up together" may be the best I can manage, unless someone else has a suggestion.