[King Rat] Change log + To randomize or not?

[Przemyslaw F. Szkodzinski]

Due to my laziness and other objective reasons my work on King Rat's been proceeding very slowly. Basically, I've been reconsidering many ideas included in the 24hour version and pondering about the issues raised by the game. So, right now the underlying concept stays the same, but the general mechanics are going to undergo an almost complete overhaul. I believe the ideas I've come up in the meantime would help achieve the goals I've set for the game to a much greater extent than the simple "point-for-point" resource management with very vague outlines.

Here's a short something of a change log for all those interested. There are still some pretty weak points and it still requires serious tweaking (and I hope your comments will help in doing just that), but nonetheless I think that what I've got now is better than the original version. Watch out, it could get lengthy:

1. Basic resources are left unchanged and are going to be the main axis of the mechanics, although their uses are going to be made at least a bit more specific.

2. Character creation - now players have to choose/create two Goals for their character: one Short-term Goal (something very much resembling Sorcerer's Kickers) and one Long-term Goal - the Long-term Goal being the idee fixe of the character, something that they might strive to become King Rats to achieve. Both goals are object to change in the course of the game, depending on the way the story unfolds  I decided to include them in the design in order to make character creation less limiting when it comes to character motivation (in the original 24-hour RPG version King Rats would have to be ad hoc ruthless to a certain extent, but with additional motivation in place even morally upright characters could be forced to choose whether or how to act). There's another catch - each character's Long-term Goals have to be connected with each other in a way - for instance they all concern the same person or event, but need not be similar - they can even be contradictory. Fun, eh? I'm considering borrowing something from a winning Ronny entry, Rats in the Walls, in order to make this system clearer and more intuitive.
In one-shot games, there's no need for Long-term Goals, but then it'd be required to make Short-term Goals relate to each other.

3. Although the game's got a competitive edge to it, I decided to smoothen it a little and make the game's narrativist heart shine a bit more. In order to do this, failure at achieving a Goal or becoming the King doesn't mean a complete failure in game terms - I want it to open new, different possibilities to the player. That is why I'm going to introduce additional mechanics on how the game operates when someone becomes the King. When a character fails at achieving a goal, it means Complication - not only for him, but for everyone. I still need to figure out how to pull it off smoothly.

4. Complication system is moved more into the hands of the Game Master, but it's still a tool for the players to further their own goals by hindering other players. But, since it's not necessary to work against each other, Complication is to become more of a story-driving device than a neat way to annoy co-players.

5. Hatred - left almost unchanged. It's still easy to be hated. There's a great possibility that I'll tweak this mechanic, though.

6. Friends and Enemies - now that's something I decided to change almost completely. In the original version, it required spending a given amount of points in a given number of rounds to befriend someone, from now the outcome relies more on the given NPC (and as such, on the GM and the importance of the NPC to the player - I'll outline this system in another thread later, since I'd like to read some comments on it). I still want to leave a lot of room for creativity on the players' side when it comes to Friends and Enemies. Enemies are now moved completely into the GM's sphere, but they still can be called into action by other players. The issue of Relationships leads me neatly to the question I'd like to ask:

The point-for-point system is very mathematical and doesn't reflect the way in which I want the Relationships in King Rat to work. That's why I'm trying to figure out a way of making it less predictable. Randomizing it a bit is an option I've been giving serious thought to, but it could lessen the impact I want the players to have on their NPCs (the point is - I want all NPCs of players' choosing - both Friends and Enemies, although Enemies are going to be a lot harder to control - to become important supporting cast in a story whose main protagonists are the PCs). I'm also considering gradual player control over their Friends, gained step-by-step, allowing the player to define their Relationship detail after detail, up to gaining complete control as defined in the rules.

What's your take on that? I know that many of the statements in this post are pretty vague, but that's because I don't have the rules written down in a way that a normal mortal could grasp (that is, they're not really written down except for some unintelligible notes and the old 24-hour Ronny-entry). But before I continue making the game a-new, I'd like to know your opinion on the direction I'm heading. If you want anything specified in more detail, just ask (guess that's obvious, but I simply couldn't bring myself not to write that).

[Malcolm Craig]

As always, delighted to hear about progress with King Rat.

I'm intrigued as to the interweaving of the Goals, Complications and Conflicts. Just to get things clear in my head, say the game were set in a PoW camp; the players would communally come up with a broad-based long-term goal, but put their own individual spin on it? Such as 'Escape from the camp' being the broad goal, but for one character this might be 'Escape from the camp whilst prevent Jim, whom I believe to be a traitor and spy, from leaving'. Would this be correct?

What are the opportunities to change goals during play? Is this simply down to player choice on when and how to change or are there strict guidelines/mechanical elements that affect this. Is it only possible to change a goal in a post-conflict situation, after you have interacted with certain characters or gained certain things within the game? As a very simplistic example, would it be something like "After a conflict that involves your goal(s), you may change X number of words within the description of your goal"? An interesting element would be the potential for the other characters to start to exert influence over your goals (particularly the King Rat), bringing you 'onside' to further their own goals and achieve their aims. The fight to achieve psychological and motivational dominance would be most interesting.

Looking forward to hearing more.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Przemyslaw F. Szkodzinski]

I'm intrigued as to the interweaving of the Goals, Complications and Conflicts. Just to get things clear in my head, say the game were set in a PoW camp; the players would communally come up with a broad-based long-term goal, but put their own individual spin on it? Such as 'Escape from the camp' being the broad goal, but for one character this might be 'Escape from the camp whilst prevent Jim, whom I believe to be a traitor and spy, from leaving'. Would this be correct?

Basically, yes, the example you've given is spot-on. The broad-based goal doesn't have to be the same for every player's character, though. Depending on the scope desired by the players, they can either connect their goals the way it's done in your example (broad goal + personal spin) or make it more specific by, for instance, having it all something to do with a given person or an item (eg.: Player 1: "Getting my father out of the camp by convincing comrade Whomeverski to let him go", Player 2: "Getting revenge on Whomeverski for putting me in the camp"). That is why I'm seriously considering borrowing an amazing idea from Lance D. Allen's Rats in the Walls - namely player-created sheets which would show how Goals relate to each other.

What are the opportunities to change goals during play? Is this simply down to player choice on when and how to change or are there strict guidelines/mechanical elements that affect this. Is it only possible to change a goal in a post-conflict situation, after you have interacted with certain characters or gained certain things within the game? As a very simplistic example, would it be something like "After a conflict that involves your goal(s), you may change X number of words within the description of your goal"? An interesting element would be the potential for the other characters to start to exert influence over your goals (particularly the King Rat), bringing you 'onside' to further their own goals and achieve their aims. The fight to achieve psychological and motivational dominance would be most interesting.

Yes, I'm planning to implement a mechanical system for changing goals. Actually, the basic idea is similar, if not identical, to what you proposed. When a goal is mentioned during a conflict, it can be changed by the player, but only under the condition that the aspect connecting it to other goals remains unchanged.

That, I believe, would allow PCs to exert their influence on other PCs. For instance, continuing the example with com. Whomeverski:

Player no. 1's father's health is suffering badly under the inhumane conditions the prisoners are made to live in (Complication). Player 2, having much more Sustenance amassed than Player 1 could possibly give to his father, offers to spend some of his own riches on upkeeping the old man's health. In return, he asks Player 1 to blackmail Whomeverski instead of trying to befriend him (in hopes of using the fact that Whomeverski's been blackmailed as a means of humiliating him). Now, Player no. 1's got to choose, and one of the choices he could possibly make would result in him changing his Long-term Goal from "Getting my father out of the camp by convincing comrade Whomeverski to let him go" to "Getting my father out of the camp by blackmailing comrade Whomeverski to let him go".

Thanks for asking very thought-provoking questions. They do help in shaping the game.

[Malcolm Craig]

Basically, yes, the example you've given is spot-on. The broad-based goal doesn't have to be the same for every player's character, though. Depending on the scope desired by the players, they can either connect their goals the way it's done in your example (broad goal + personal spin) or make it more specific by, for instance, having it all something to do with a given person or an item (eg.: Player 1: "Getting my father out of the camp by convincing comrade Whomeverski to let him go", Player 2: "Getting revenge on Whomeverski for putting me in the camp"). That is why I'm seriously considering borrowing an amazing idea from Lance D. Allen's Rats in the Walls - namely player-created sheets which would show how Goals relate to each other.

Excellent. I should have picked up on that before, goals connecting in to a person as well as the possibility of connecting in to a place. Would it therefore be possible to have the goal set as focussing on a specific PC? Carrying on the camp example: goals that revolve around Captain Bloggs, the disgraced former senior officer who has the knowledge and wherewithall to affect and escape, previously court martialled another character and so on. Would this be in any way beneficial in the game or would it (as I could see happening) place too much emphasis on one single player?

Yes, I'm planning to implement a mechanical system for changing goals. Actually, the basic idea is similar, if not identical, to what you proposed. When a goal is mentioned during a conflict, it can be changed by the player, but only under the condition that the aspect connecting it to other goals remains unchanged.

So if I get you right, comrade Whomeverevski must remain as the goal, but the circumstances relating him to an individual characters goal can alter. How far would the players be allowed to go with this and would their be some narrative consequences arising out of it? For example:

That, I believe, would allow PCs to exert their influence on other PCs. For instance, continuing the example with comrade Whomeverski: a character has the goal "Getting my father out of the camp by convincing comrade Whomeverski to let him go" but,as the result of a conflict, changes the goal to "Getting revenge on comrade Whomeverski because my father has now died in the camp". Would there be mechanical opportunities for connecting the death of the father into play, or would it be up to the player to handle it in a more narrative style?

Cheers
Malcolm

[Przemyslaw F. Szkodzinski]

Excellent. I should have picked up on that before, goals connecting in to a person as well as the possibility of connecting in to a place. Would it therefore be possible to have the goal set as focussing on a specific PC? Carrying on the camp example: goals that revolve around Captain Bloggs, the disgraced former senior officer who has the knowledge and wherewithall to affect and escape, previously court martialled another character and so on. Would this be in any way beneficial in the game or would it (as I could see happening) place too much emphasis on one single player?

I'd leave it up to the players, but I personally believe that the scene framing system used in King Rat should ensure that no one steals the show (each in his turn + GM's interludes which can be used effectively to make sure nobody feels left out). The story would still revolve around the chosen PC, but, as I said, it's the players' decision.

That, I believe, would allow PCs to exert their influence on other PCs. For instance, continuing the example with comrade Whomeverski: a character has the goal "Getting my father out of the camp by convincing comrade Whomeverski to let him go" but,as the result of a conflict, changes the goal to "Getting revenge on comrade Whomeverski because my father has now died in the camp". Would there be mechanical opportunities for connecting the death of the father into play, or would it be up to the player to handle it in a more narrative style?

The only requirement for changed goals is that they make sense character- and story-wise. The motivation sheets should help in establishing connections between given aspects of the plot/story. I don't want to restrict players too much when it comes to story-crafting and the narrative.

[Malcolm Craig]

6. Friends and Enemies - now that's something I decided to change almost completely. In the original version, it required spending a given amount of points in a given number of rounds to befriend someone, from now the outcome relies more on the given NPC (and as such, on the GM and the importance of the NPC to the player - I'll outline this system in another thread later, since I'd like to read some comments on it). I still want to leave a lot of room for creativity on the players' side when it comes to Friends and Enemies. Enemies are now moved completely into the GM's sphere, but they still can be called into action by other players. The issue of Relationships leads me neatly to the question I'd like to ask:

The point-for-point system is very mathematical and doesn't reflect the way in which I want the Relationships in King Rat to work. That's why I'm trying to figure out a way of making it less predictable. Randomizing it a bit is an option I've been giving serious thought to, but it could lessen the impact I want the players to have on their NPCs (the point is - I want all NPCs of players' choosing - both Friends and Enemies, although Enemies are going to be a lot harder to control - to become important supporting cast in a story whose main protagonists are the PCs). I'm also considering gradual player control over their Friends, gained step-by-step, allowing the player to define their Relationship detail after detail, up to gaining complete control as defined in the rules.

I'm interested by the contrast here between your statement "Enemies are now moved completely into the GM's sphere" and in the next paragraph "I want all NPCs of players' choosing - both Friends and Enemies, although Enemies are going to be a lot harder to control - to become important supporting cast in a story whose main protagonists are the PCs". I understand the necesity for enemies to be more unpredictable in the control aspect, but how would you propose to have the enemies "completely in the GMs sphere" whilst still retain a (limited, perhaps) level of control for the players?

One way I was thinking would be that no matter whether or not the relationship is with a friend or an enemy, it impacts in a similar way for the character. If you are building up the relationship between PCs and NPCs, why not allow the same level of 'control'? Perhaps the 'control in the case of enemies extends to those who are enemies of other PCs characters, but not your own? They build up and detailthe level of relationship, but the GM and other players have a stake in the active participation of the enemy.

For example:

Jim is playing Comrade Protagonistski, he has a relationship with his avowed enemy, the hated informer Enemysov. After a while the following relationship has built up:

Enemysov is an informer and is therefore untrustworthy
Enemysov betrayed one of my friends (another relationship there?) to the authorities
I suspect that Enemysov is responsible for the theft of my food

The character with the relationship would know all of this, but it is the GM/other players who would have control over Enemysov and his actions. I could see trouble developing when all of the characters have a relationship with the same enemy.

Cheers
Malcolm

[Przemyslaw F. Szkodzinski]

Sorry for the very, very late reply.

Great points here. A lot to think of:

I'm interested by the contrast here between your statement "Enemies are now moved completely into the GM's sphere" and in the next paragraph "I want all NPCs of players' choosing - both Friends and Enemies, although Enemies are going to be a lot harder to control - to become important supporting cast in a story whose main protagonists are the PCs". I understand the necessity for enemies to be more unpredictable in the control aspect, but how would you propose to have the enemies "completely in the GMs sphere" whilst still retain a (limited, perhaps) level of control for the players?

In short, when Enemies are introduced during a scene, they are controlled in-scene by the GameMaster. The control of the players is in such that they can decide whom they want to have as an Enemy (it doesn't mean that they can change/delete/kill any Enemy at their whim, but rather have the choice to concentrate the story on a conflict with an Enemy of their choice - by, for instance, making someone an aspect of someone's Goal - they can still gain other Enemies in the course of the game, though). Faulty phrasing on my side, I have to admit.

Relationship mechanics require rewriting, in order to make them neat and clear.

The example you've given has made me consider changing the in-scene Enemy control and giving a little more room for other players' invention. The problems that could arise, and to which you point, could be solved by making the main NPC Enemy (the one around whom the whole plot and all the Goals revolve) GM-only controlled.