[Shock]

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I'm working on a science fiction RPG called Shock, about the collision of social issues with new technologies. The system has a few features, and a few, oh, let's say, weaknesses. No, let's say gaping flaws.

Characters are defined primarily as the crux between a Shock (technologies, alien invasions, time travel, and other McGuffins) and a social issue (slavery, democracy, race, &c.). That point defines both tagonists. These are defined at the beginning of the game, during world creation.

The remaining elements of a character are the action matrix and traits.The action matrix is like two Trollbabe scales (1 to 10, choose a number), but they're used a little differently (see below to that end). The ends of those scales are chosen at world creation, also. They're the ways protagonists can confront issues, e.g. Violence vs. Negotiation and Passion vs. Logic. Like Trollbabe, you choose a number between 2 and 9 during character creation

Traits are written down at character creation, too, like "I don't know if I was ever a human: Passion"

In the current incarnation, conflict resolution works like this:

- First, roll two d10, each of a different color or whatever, predesignated . If it's smaller than you're number, you succeed by the first descriptor (e.g. Violence) or, at your choice, you fail by the opposite (e.g. Negotiation). The antagonist then plays enough traits to make it fail, bidding coins to make them happen. The Protagonist Player can then bid on hir own traits. At the beginning of the game, the PP won't have enough to win, ever.

- When the PP loses a conflict, a couple of things happen: The PP writes down a Relationship with the antagonist; and the PP takes either a coin for bidding purposes or a new Trait. There is not yet a mechanic for determining which. Maybe it's just a choice.

My questions:

How do I integrate the Shock/Social Issues with the Action Matrix?

How do I make conflict resolution funly tense? (Does having such a small amount of fortune make the game unfun and deterministic? Does bidding feel redundant on top of the Trait negotiation process?)

And, there are many more questions, of course, but I'd like some feedback on this.

I think this is my first time posting in this forum, so I'm having a little party over here right now.

Very little.

[M Jason Parent]

The bidding is not my thing, but that's... well... my thing.

I definitely feel, that for me, there is too much bidding going on to keep tension and fun working hand in hand. But then again, I have a knee-jerk reaction to bidding systems - and making it painfully set up so the player cannot win a contest initially would turn me off. I would give the player the chance somehow in some circumstances (like in Greg Stolze's In Spaaace), but make it so the major conflicts are definitely beyond his/her abilities initially. As it looks now for me, I go into the game unable to succeed, keep failing at events, and then win because I have more points in the end-game.

That said, I love the basis of the game - I'm a huge CyberPunk and Transhuman fan - and both are about these colisions and the ripple effects they have on society, on humanity, and on individual humans.

[Allan]

Really glad to see this thread up, I've been looking forward to playing with this game.  And now I feel like I'm going to have to read Trollbabe.

The bidding seems unneccessary so far, but maybe I'm not seeing what it does. 

Is Shock GMd or not?  If not, what makes one character a protagonist or an antagonist? 

I'm seeing each character occupying a separate point on the graph between the issue (Humanity) and the technology (Cybernetics).  And a scene could begin at one point on the graph, and the characters try to move the scene along those axis closer to their own position. 

The Shock/Social Issue seems to fit well into 1-10 scale the Action Matrix (if that's the Violence vs. Negotiation and Passion vs. Logic mechanic).  Either one scale, with the Issue at one end and the Shock at the other, or two scales, one for the Issue, one for the Shock.  In the case of two scales, than both the Shock and the Issue need to be split into two ends of the scales.

Issue: Humanity vs. Machine
Shock: Cybernetics vs. Ghost

As for fun resolution mechanic, just the 1d10 roll looks good.  Its fast, and tense, because the player has to choose when to suceed and when to fail. So choosing success should cost you something, and choosing failure should get you something.  Maybe being able to move the scene towards the trait you fail with.

So you might choose to fail at Negotiation just to move the story long the Issue line toward Negotiation (or Humanity)?

Am I way off here?

[iain]

I think if you want a bidding system, you need much more back and forth within conflict and it sounds like you want more of a one-shot deciscion kind of thing. At the moment I don't really understand the purpose of bidding other than to extend the length of the conflict. Defining what is at stake at the start of the conflict seems fine, but maybe you could make it more fundamental to the setting. If the game is about technology and social issues colliding, maybe you could define every conflict round those two things.  If people choose to use their technology to solve a problem, they have a risk of losing something of themselves. If they choose to actually interact with people, they start to see their technology as soul destroying? Could you maybe put up a sample conflict, so I can get a clearer picture.
Cheers
Iain

[Graham W]

Joshua,

Firstly, can I check something about the coins? At the moment, if I was playing, I'd be very, very wary about bidding more than one coin, because I know I'd only get one back at the end.

I think that's a shame, because (in a sense) you want players to be imaginative about bidding as many traits as are applicable. The coin bidding will hold them back on that. Having all that, I rather like the idea of bidding traits, in some form.

Can I just pick holes in the dice rolling and bidding system?

- First, roll two d10, each of a different color or whatever, predesignated . If it's smaller than you're number, you succeed by the first descriptor (e.g. Violence) or, at your choice, you fail by the opposite (e.g. Negotiation).

If, say, I have Violence vs Negotiation 8, that would seem to imply that I'm better at Negotiation than Violence. But, when I roll 2d10, I'm going to roll above 8 more often than I roll below. And that means I'll succeed by Violence much more than than I succeed by Negotiation. Is that right? - I may have made a mistake.

The antagonist then plays enough traits to make it fail

Just to check: does "enough traits to make it fail" mean the difference between the actual roll and your "Violence vs Negotiation" number? Or is it that difference + 1 (which would be the amount needed to reduce the dice roll to below the Violence vs Negotiation number)?

And I noted above that traits have an associated "way of solving problems" - so above you've got "I don't know if I was ever a human: Passion". Can I only bid traits which are applicable to the current conflict (so can I only bid a "Passion" trait in a conflict involving Passion)?

How do I integrate the Shock/Social Issues with the Action Matrix?

My quick first thought is that the issues could be used as some sort of super-trait for bidding. So that if you're in a conflict that affects your Shock/Social Issues, you get a bonus for dealing with that conflict.

I hope that helps. I very much like the setting, by the way - there's something very Bladerunner about it.

Graham

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

This is why I shouldn't write instead of going to sleep. In an effort to be terse and succinct, I left out some critical information.

Firstly, can I check something about the coins? At the moment, if I was playing, I'd be very, very wary about bidding more than one coin, because I know I'd only get one back at the end.

Ah, yeah, good point. There has to be a way to get coins faster than losing them. Duh. But this isn't where the action is here, I don't think. I think you get coins from the Antagonist (which I'll write about in my answer to Allan's question in a minute).

I think that's a shame, because (in a sense) you want players to be imaginative about bidding as many traits as are applicable. The coin bidding will hold them back on that. Having all that, I rather like the idea of bidding traits, in some form.

This idea started with using traits one or two at a time - each trait being associated with a particular direction on a particular axis, and each trait being worth +1 on that axis. You use them back and forth to shuffle the die roll around. In order for the Antagonist Player to not roll over dead in the first conflict, sHe has to have either more traits or has to be able to pull those traits in when the Protagonist Player can't.

Can I just pick holes in the dice rolling and bidding system?

- First, roll two d10, each of a different color or whatever, predesignated . If it's smaller than you're number, you succeed by the first descriptor (e.g. Violence) or, at your choice, you fail by the opposite (e.g. Negotiation).

If, say, I have Violence vs Negotiation 8, that would seem to imply that I'm better at Negotiation than Violence. But, when I roll 2d10, I'm going to roll above 8 more often than I roll below. And that means I'll succeed by Violence much more than than I succeed by Negotiation. Is that right? - I may have made a mistake.

Yeah, this is the obscurity of writing while too tired interfering with my clear writing, I think. each of those dice is predesignated for one axis. So, for instance, I have a greed die and a red die (because we're playing Red Mars, I guess), and the red one always means Negotiation vs. Subterfuge and the green one means Intuitive vs. Planned.

Also having Violence vs. Negotiation at 8 means that I will succeed Violently 70% of the time while failing at Negotiation, and succeed at Negotiation 10% of the time, failing at Violence. I think during a tie, no one wins the stakes, but the Protagonist raises the Relationship by one.

The antagonist then plays enough traits to make it fail

Just to check: does "enough traits to make it fail" mean the difference between the actual roll and your "Violence vs Negotiation" number? Or is it that difference + 1 (which would be the amount needed to reduce the dice roll to below the Violence vs Negotiation number)?

There are two ways a Protag can fail to win the stakes: wind up with a modified roll above 10 or below 1 (whichever is shortest), which yields failure; or have the die roll modified to exactly the position on the axis.

So let's say The Major has these axes:

Violence |----x-----| Negotiation (That is, her number is 5)
Logic |------x---| Passion (i.e. her number is 7)

... and rolls 7,8.

Transcript of hypothetical play:

PP: "I want to talk the guy down." That is, she's choosing to succeed via negotiation.

AP: "The guy says 'Don't come any closer or I'll kill myself!' , which he'll do because he's got "Belief in afterlife: Violence 2"

PP: "'Your sister is on her way. She wants to talk with you. She says your cat is sick.'" and marks off "I can find anything out about you. Negotiation 1"

... and so forth.

And I noted above that traits have an associated "way of solving problems" - so above you've got "I don't know if I was ever a human: Passion". Can I only bid traits which are applicable to the current conflict (so can I only bid a "Passion" trait in a conflict involving Passion)?

How do I integrate the Shock/Social Issues with the Action Matrix?

My quick first thought is that the issues could be used as some sort of super-trait for bidding. So that if you're in a conflict that affects your Shock/Social Issues, you get a bonus for dealing with that conflict.

Yeah, that was my first thought, too. Like, maybe they automatically nullify one of the Antagonist's actions in a conflict. Or maybe they give you bigger bonuses for failure? I kinda like that one.

I hope that helps. I very much like the setting, by the way - there's something very Bladerunner about it.

Heh. Bladerunner is definitely a big influence here, but I don't think there will be much of a setting, other than a running example. The examples I've given here are from an excercise I keep giving myself with this project: I ask myself if I could play a given favorite situation with the rules as they sit. I've gotten enough nos that I'm starting to think about Shock as being the first of a series of science fiction games, cuz sometimes very good stories don't fit here. Childhood's End and 2001 deal with issues that Shock can't do very well, for instance. So maybe in a year, I'll be working on book 2.

Thanks for the input!

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Really glad to see this thread up, I've been looking forward to playing with this game.  And now I feel like I'm going to have to read Trollbabe.

Yeah, Trollbabe's neat for the way it treats color: basically, choose how much of which color you want (troll vs. human, if I recall), and then you use that to succeed or fail.

The bidding seems unneccessary so far, but maybe I'm not seeing what it does.

IT DOES NOTHING. Screw you, bidding! Kick you to the curb!

... that is, the coin bidding is ditched. The bidding traits on traits is still there.

Is Shock GMd or not?  If not, what makes one character a protagonist or an antagonist?

Ah, yeah, well, kinda. It uses a Polarisoid (Polaroid is too confusing a term) GM system; that is, someone else at the table provides your opposition. So when I create my Protag, I create another character, my Antagonist, who exists at the same Shock/Issue crux. Someone else plays that character and the influences thereof. That Antagonist doesn't have to be a particular person, by the way; it can be an organization, too. It has to be a concrete actor, though; if you want to oppose a philosophical perspective, your opponent has to be an Antag who represents that. No declaring "Fascism" as an opponent.

I'm seeing each character occupying a separate point on the graph between the issue (Humanity) and the technology (Cybernetics).  And a scene could begin at one point on the graph, and the characters try to move the scene along those axis closer to their own position.

Oh, that's an interesting idea. I was assuming a Trollbabe-like "Move your number however you want to" thing, but that's possible fallout, innit?

Interesting.

The Shock/Social Issue seems to fit well into 1-10 scale the Action Matrix (if that's the Violence vs. Negotiation and Passion vs. Logic mechanic).  Either one scale, with the Issue at one end and the Shock at the other, or two scales, one for the Issue, one for the Shock.  In the case of two scales, than both the Shock and the Issue need to be split into two ends of the scales.

Issue: Humanity vs. Machine
Shock: Cybernetics vs. Ghost

... weelllll.... everyone's got their own Issue and Shock (though they can overlap), but they have to have the same Action Matrix during a given story, particularly because they can come into conflict with each other.

As for fun resolution mechanic, just the 1d10 roll looks good.  Its fast, and tense, because the player has to choose when to suceed and when to fail. So choosing success should cost you something, and choosing failure should get you something.  Maybe being able to move the scene towards the trait you fail with.

Yeah, this fits OK with the design principle that you can choose to win stakes or build character.

The Traits have to be interesting mechanically; it shouldn't come down to "whoever has the most Negotiation traits wins". That's what the coin bidding is for. You bid for each trait to bring in.

Dammit, now I'm talking myself back into coins.

So you might choose to fail at Negotiation just to move the story long the Issue line toward Negotiation (or Humanity)?

Am I way off here?

... Interesting. Gotta think about that.