Markers, Currency, Character Ownership [long]

[xenopulse]

I am designing a system for a court intrigue game. However, it could probably be used for pretty much anything. I'd like to get some feedback on the basic idea and see if it's feasible or even something that furthers my design goals.

The system starts from a "freeform" (not in Forge jargon) perspective, where I define that type of play to refer to games where players have complete ownership over their characters, including decisions about anything that happens to them.

My design question was, how can I keep that core concept, but lure people out of their comfort zone and reward them for dramatic events that happen to their characters?

Another important issue I wanted was to have a system where players are never punished for things that happen to their characters. Traditionally, failure of a character leads to reduction in efficiency of the character (and thereby of the input the player has into the story). This dynamic has recently been broken with DitV, Capes (I believe), and other indie systems, and I think that's great.

This system is based on one overarching currency. Let's call it Drama Points, or DP. DP can be used to augment skill rolls, raise stats, and invest in potential events that the player would like to see occur.

Characters have 4 skills: Charm, Coerce, Persuade, Fight. The latter one will be rarely used in the setting I imagine, with persuade and charm being the most important ones.

Skills are rated 1-5. Roll D6 in that amount, compare to opponent's skill rating. Everything over the opponent's skill rating is a success. Example: I have charm 3, you have charm 2. I roll 3D6. Every roll above 2 is a success, so I can have zero, one, two or three successes.

For each DP spent, the player can roll an additional D6. DP can also be used to raise skills (for like 15 DP per step or so).

The impact of successes depends on whether the opponent is a main or a minor character. All player characters are main characters. Central NPCs are as well. All others are minor characters.

For minor characters, the GM determines and announces before the roll how many successes are needed for a certain result. It is also established whether these successes need to be achieved with one roll, or can be accumulated over several scenes.

For main characters, however, successes create potential DP. The player against whose character the skill is used then decides whether to give in and claim the DP, or whether to reject them.

Example: Someone tries to persuade your character to vote for their cause at the next council meeting. They roll persuade and gain 3 successes against you. Now you can decide to claim 3 DP and have your character be persuaded, or not claim anything and have your character resist the persuasion.

If a character tries to seduce a main character, successes will be cumulative. Over time, a big amount of claimable DP will pile up that tempt the player to give in. That simulates the temptation on the character to give in to the seduction. For long-term persuasion, the same applies. Think of Iago and Othello. Iago keeps sowing doubt. The pressure builds up. In the end, Othello gives in, for a highly dramatic result (and would earn ungodly amounts of DP for it).

Now for markers: players and the GM alike can create potential events and invest DP in them. For example, a player could create "Character B starts a fistfight with his rival" or "Character C professes his love to Character D." They place some of their own DP on the potential event, and if the player of the event character actually acts it out, the DP are being transferred. This allows players to show each other what they believe would be cool turns for the story, thereby creating markers.

The GM will have to make use of this for injuring the main characters, for example. The GM could say, "Your skill roll shows you won the fight. If you let your character come out of it with a slashed bleeding arm, I'll give you 2 DP." Therefore, any negative event for the character rewards the player (unless the player acts it out voluntarily).

This whole mechanic will be tied into a higher level mechanic in which the player characters try to win influence and resolve certain political issues in favor of their faction (House, kingdom, guild, whatever). The DP can help there, too, so that DP don't only trade hands, but have value beyond the character's own goals.

I could post a section of "How I imagine play to go," if that would be helpful.

Overall, my two main questions are:

- Does this system support my design goal of keeping character ownership but bringing about dramatic events nonetheless?

- Is the fact that DPs are the only currency going to diminish their value as markers? (I.e., people hoarding instead of establishing potential events for one another.)

Thanks.

[Bill Masek]

that type of play to refer to games where players have complete ownership over their characters, including decisions about anything that happens to them.

xenopulse,

I fear that your goal is impossible.  Consider this situation.  Player 1 wants something to happen to him that involves Player 2's character.  Player 2 does not want this to happen.  It is impossible for both players to have complete ownership of what happens to their characters.

So I am going to assume, and please correct me if I am wrong, that you want to get as close to "complete ownership" as possible while still keeping the game interesting.  (Because lets face it, its hard to write a game where the PCs always win that is also fun.)

I think that your system does exactly that.  I really like the way you propose running temptation, persuasion and seduction.  This is the first game that I have seen which both allows NPCs to make persuasion rolls and gives the PC the choice whether or not to give in.  And it does it beautifully.

You should make it clear what rolls give the characters DP.  Obviously not all situations result in the players being able to choose whether or not to receive DP.  Some (like a duel to the death) simply result in death or not death.  Some nonlethal situations (like the PC and NPC both trying to court the same girl) also seem inappropriate.  If the PCs can just turn down DP in all situations in order to succeed then there is no reason to ever take the DP.

Also consider giving NPCs a threshold which the players need to reach before convincing them.  Perhaps it will take 15 successes to seduce the countess but only 3 to seduce the maid.

I think you game has a lot of potential.  The bare bones you have now look good.  Flesh it out a bit and I think you might have a great game.

Best,
       Bill

[xenopulse]

Bill,

Thanks for the response. You're right regarding total control over what happens to a character in the positive way--I just want to make sure that bad things do not happen without player approval (and reward).

So the PCs don't always win, but they have a large input into whether others win against them.

You should make it clear what rolls give the characters DP. Obviously not all situations result in the players being able to choose whether or not to receive DP. Some (like a duel to the death) simply result in death or not death. Some nonlethal situations (like the PC and NPC both trying to court the same girl) also seem inappropriate.

Well, the idea is that yes, if someone is trying to do something to the character, they have control over that. So I would not allow a character to get hurt or killed without player approval. Since this is a game of intrigue and drama, however, and not of battles and slaying evil monsters, that should be fine. And if they compete for achieving something with regards to a third character, then they compare successes, or something like that.

If the PCs can just turn down DP in all situations in order to succeed then there is no reason to ever take the DP.

My plan is that the reason to take the DP in some circumstances is that it makes you more likely to achieve other goals by providing bonus dice. I.e., you let someone else hurt or persuade you, so that you have more power to do the same to someone else.

I am realizing that you've probably said all there is to say prima facie--now it needs to be playtested.

So again, thanks for the comments.

[SPDuke]

xeno--

I think your questions would be best answered with some gametesting, but I'll say this: I think players will want to have the most possible FUN with your game (as any game) and I think playing it as you intend it to be played and not abusing DP rules will provide the most possible fun.

As an aside, and something you may want to consider after developing your court setting, is that this system would make for an excellent High School or Middle School rpg.  It would be like playing a show on the WB!

Be Well,

Steve

[xenopulse]

Steve,

Thanks for the comment (looks like it's your first, if so--welcome!).

You're right, it's playtesting time. I need to find myself some playtesters now. :)

I agree that it has potential for any drama environment where character interactions are the core function, such as school settings. Maybe I'll actually expand the whole concept into a "plug in one of these settings" system.

[Bill Masek]

xenopulse,

If I were you I'd stick with the court setting for now.  It works beautifully with the system you have in mind and will help you focus your goals.  I've played to many games with cool ideas which well flat because they tried to do too much.

That said, once the game is completed, you could build supplements based around other scenarios.  This is the route Dr. Ron Edwards took with Sorcerer.  (The main book focuses on Sorcery within a dark modern world.  The second supplement deals with high fantasy, etc.)

Question, what happens if a player controlled character dies?  I know you said the game was not about combat but Byzantine like politics can be as deadly as a battle field.

There is a couple of ways you could do it.  The most obvious way is to make them build a new character and loose all DP.  I would recommend against it because its not much fun and players will never let characters die.

You could force players to build a new character but let them keep their DP (and possibly their stat increases.)  This would give players a reason to let their characters die in a poisoning/duel to the death situation.  The down side is it might make characters seem disposable.

A third option would be to let players spend DP to create NPCs.  When a player dies she can take control of one of those characters (transferring all DP).  This would give the players a reason to let their characters die while at the same time letting them retain an emotional attachment to the character they are playing.

Best,
       Bill