[Boulevard] Ranting! and how it works.

[joepub]

http://competitiverpgs.pbwiki.com/f/Boulevard%20Board-1.pdf

The link above my head shows a sample Ranting board.

For a bit of context, check out this thread if you like: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21010.0.
I closed that one and opened a new one for a few reasons:
1.) That one was a "if I ran the zoo" brainstorming session.
2.) I had no idea what direction I was going yet with the board.
3.) When I figured out my direction, I wanted time to process it before soliciting any more feedback. make sense?

So, anyways.
This is what the game is about:
Boulevard details the lives of a bunch of barely-living-on-their-own, nihilistic, prentious, disenfranchised, fringe culture motherfuckers.
We're talking about grunge kids, mohawk-toting punks, drug addicts and small-time dealers, neo-nazis, emo scene kids, and arthouse poets.

They all have these punky, edgy, oh-so-important causes. Like freedom of speech, feminism, sexual equality, veganism, neo-communism, etc. And they think they understand these causes.

Here's some of how the game is played:

Characters have Energy Tokens. This represents how much juice and drive they have.
Are they going to fold, or stand up and stick it to the man? Can they keep the charade up?

Energy Tokens are invested in several ways. One way is on the Rant Board (I'll rename it better later).
This board holds all the character ideals.
And all of their hopes and dreams and fragile convictions.
you can spend energy tokens to introduce a new Cause (a social-issue crusade you take to heart) to the board.
The amount of Energy Tokens you spend dictates its starting value.

The board gets filled in as the game goes. Its up to the players to establish how these things interconnect. Why is Feminism bordering Communism? How are those two related?
How come Feminism is nowhere near Sexual Equality and Transvestite Rights? Aren't those things connected?
How are they at odds?

Players have Cards.

J.BR. suggested that they be Method cards. Like "arson" and "pamphleteering".
But... this board is a Rant Board - it is supposed to be about their monologues and thoughts, not their actions.
So Methods will get integrated into the game in other areas of play. Just not in the rants.

Players have, for Rants, cards called Mentality Cards.
They dictate the tone and flavour of the rant.
Examples: Pissed off. Down with the system. Lightning rod of abuse. Alone and abandoned. Touch of venom. Instigator.

Mentality Cards grant you movement across the Rant board. You can play "Alone and Abandoned" during a rant to get to move 1 step directly toward one of your own Causes, for example.

When you move across a Cause circle, its value gets depleted by one. It's called "Treading on your Dreams".
Which means that people who have Feminism will be pissed off at you each time you walk across Feminism circle, because Feminism becomes less powerful.

Every time a Cause you have becomes depleted, you get an Anger Token. Or maybe not every time, maybe only some times. I dunno.

But you get an Anger Token. Anger Tokens can be invested in many ways. One such way is to pull the trigger on your cap gun (which has a single cap in it, barrel spun - a Russian Roulette cap gun). If the cap goes off, then... the character was was about to Tread on your Dreams... you killed off his Cause.
He lost faith in whatever Cause he was ranting about (and thus moving on account of) that round.
His move is null and void, and he erases a Cause from his sheet. And your Cause, subsequently, isn't depleted that round. Yipee.

So, yeah.
Whenever you move across a blank circle, you can choose to immediately end your turn and Found and new Cause.
You invest some Energy, and put a brand new Cause on the board. and on your character sheet.

That's how ranting works in the game.
It's central, but a lot of the roleplaying ALSO exists outside the rant board.

QUESTIONS:

1.) Is this clear?
2.) Do you understand how Energy is spent and Anger is gained and spent through ranting?
3.) Do you understand how the board gets filled in and wiped away during play?
4.) Does using Mentality Cards to gain movement make sense?
5.) Any other input?

6.) How do Mentality Cards get drawn?
7.) How does Energy get gained? In ranting? Outside ranting?

[David Artman]

1.) Is this clear?
So far as it goes, yes. I don't see what makes for Victory, though, nor do I quite understand how speaking/acting drives movement--it is beginning to seem epiphenominal, rather than critical to play.

2.) Do you understand how Energy is spent and Anger is gained and spent through ranting?
Yes, but I don't know how Energy is gained/renewed. As for how Anger is spent, I think there's a bit of a timing issue: does it get spent immediately after an opponent mentions one's Cause (while treading on it)? Or before mention but after treading?

Oh, yeah. And does one Rant as one makes each movement "step," or does one build up one's whole rant and then, if complete and no one stops you, you make the whole move?

Maybe you need to ponder the raw, literal timing of each player activity and game state change.

3.) Do you understand how the board gets filled in and wiped away during play?
Simple enough, that one.

And it leads me to an idea: deliver the board blank, except for the empty circles and any "outlieing" border or background art; and laminate it so that dry erase markers can write in BOTH the Causes (as they are introduced) and the interconnections. You will need a rule for making interconnections: perhaps one can spend 1 Energy during one's own Rant to connect two circles or spend 1 Anger during another person's Rant to break one connection (which doesn't stop the opponent cold, like spending X Anger to shoot at them does)?

4.) Does using Mentality Cards to gain movement make sense?
Yep. What I'd consider now is how you can make card management into the rules, so that a player isn't forced to bend a particular Mentality to the breaking point to work it into a Rant.

As you already need a way to refresh them, that same mechanism could be employed to "dump" some and redraw. Basically, you could create a turn option (other than Ranting and moving) that lets 1 Energy or 3 Anger points be spent to discard as many of one's hand as one wants (from zero to all cards) and draw back as many as one wants (from zero to the hand size limit)? There is a Pyramids game that uses this method (Gnostica), and it seems to work fairly well.

5.) Any other input?
Oh, you just wait! You'll regret THAT one, bub! ;)

6.) How do Mentality Cards get drawn?
See 5 above.

7.) How does Energy get gained? In ranting? Outside ranting?
What about some cooperative elements? Perhaps an opponent has the option of "Giving Props" to a Cause -OR- "Treading On" it? So if your Rant gives Props to another cause (while moving across it with a Mentality), then that player gets 1 Energy rather than 1 Anger?

I'll step back, now, as I could--literally--run with this to the point of finishing it... but that wouldn't make the game you want.
HTH;
David

[joepub]

And it leads me to an idea: deliver the board blank, except for the empty circles and any "outlieing" border or background art; and laminate it so that dry erase markers can write in BOTH the Causes (as they are introduced) and the interconnections. You will need a rule for making interconnections: perhaps one can spend 1 Energy during one's own Rant to connect two circles or spend 1 Anger during another person's Rant to break one connection (which doesn't stop the opponent cold, like spending X Anger to shoot at them does)?

Cool. Maybe that works. Or, maybe certain cards build connections.
Or maybe both.

As for how Anger is spent, I think there's a bit of a timing issue: does it get spent immediately after an opponent mentions one's Cause (while treading on it)? Or before mention but after treading?

Oh, yeah. And does one Rant as one makes each movement "step," or does one build up one's whole rant and then, if complete and no one stops you, you make the whole move?

nor do I quite understand how speaking/acting drives movement--it is beginning to seem epiphenominal, rather than critical to play.

I'm going to try and answer both of those with an example. Normally dialogue would be considerably longer and more multi-faceted between cards being played, but I don't want to write a novel here.

Example:

Tony (speaking into a megaphone during an Anti-War Rally): We all need to band together in order to end this war! Too many people have died on both sides.

(Tony pulls out a card called "Unity" and lays it down, without mentioning it. He places it somewhere where everyone can see it, and continues to talk)

Tony: The time has come where we need to end the fighting. People on both sides of the divide need to lay down their weapons, and take a heavy dose of humility here. Killing more innocent children will not accomplish your goals!

(Tony has played the card Unity, and played out its narration. He is now free to follow its directions UNLESS someone goes to block him - by spending Anger to fire the gun, or spending Anger to break connections, or...)

(Tony now lays down the card Feeling a Little Disgusted, and continues his "rant".)

Tony: I, personally, am sick with our government's arrogance and bullheadedness. Aren't we all feeling a little disgusted with how our national leader is acting? Aren't we?

(Tony has now played the card, and played it out. Unless he is blocked, he is free to move. He then ends his rant.)

Yep. What I'd consider now is how you can make card management into the rules, so that a player isn't forced to bend a particular Mentality to the breaking point to work it into a Rant.

As you already need a way to refresh them, that same mechanism could be employed to "dump" some and redraw. Basically, you could create a turn option (other than Ranting and moving) that lets 1 Energy or 3 Anger points be spent to discard as many of one's hand as one wants (from zero to all cards) and draw back as many as one wants (from zero to the hand size limit)? There is a Pyramids game that uses this method (Gnostica), and it seems to work fairly well.

Yeah. So... I've played the board game Descent a few times, and they have a cool thing:
The GM has cards, and Threat Counters (or something like that.)
A card can be played for its Value in Threat Counters, or it can be discarded to gain its Discard Amount in Threat Counters.

Here's what I'm currently thinking:
Everyone has Energy Tokens.
Energy Tokens can be spent to Establish Causes, Maintain Causes, Build Connections on the Board... or play Mentality Cards.

Maybe a card reads like this:

Progress has gone wrong
Cost: 2 Energy, 1 Anger
Discard: 1 Energy
Move 2 circles.

You draw to 5 cards at the start of the "rant phase" or whatever.
Then you can discard some cards to gain more Energy if necessary. Then you can spend the Energy (and other resources) to play cards. Playing cards moves you around the board. Moving around the board depletes others' Causes and somehow charges your own.

What about some cooperative elements? Perhaps an opponent has the option of "Giving Props" to a Cause -OR- "Treading On" it? So if your Rant gives Props to another cause (while moving across it with a Mentality), then that player gets 1 Energy rather than 1 Anger?

There will be cooperative elements. The basic idea is that characters are cooperative, but players are competitive. For the most part, but that will flux.

Players will be able to "Invest in Causes" or "Tread on Causes" when they pass over them.

If you pass a circle which says "Nihilism 2" then you can either Tread on Dreams to lower it to "Nihilism 1"...
Or you can Invest in it: spend 2 Energy Tokens to keep Nihilism 2 at a "2", and add the Cause to your sheet as well...
Or... spend 4 Energy Tokens to raise the bar to a 4, and add it to your sheet (and everyone who already has it also benefits from it being raised.)

So, Treading on Dreams is good because it puts you ahead of the other players/characters.
It might also gain you a resource (treading a dream gets you 1 energy?)

But... Investing in a Cause puts more stuff on YOUR sheet, and allows for some mutual support.

[stefoid]

ahahahahah hah ahh ahah ahhaa hhaaaa haha aha!

classic!  I love it!  I cant wait to play this game!

[contracycle]

Theres something I'm not getting about this, and that is, why my rant affects your cause.  Are the characters all assumed to be like a social group, who share their arguments with one another?  Or is the venue just "the scene"?  And even if the characters are all exposed to other arguments, why is it that they are automatically affected by the argument merely because it is made, rather than on the quality or content of that argument?  In addition, the process of losing your own causes (the trigger pull) seems to be completely random and attritional and appears unexplained in terms of game action.  How does an attack on someone elses Cause A relate to my loss of confidence in my own Cause B?

As for the connections, I'm inclined to think the est way would be to have them randomly assigned to boxes, and to vary the number of connections between boxes, but leave these "hardcoded".  Then explaining/exploiting the connection or degree of separation becomes part of the player action, and entering the causes into boxes part of the play setup.  This allows play to vary from game to game, rather than implying some "view" of how they are related.

Lastly the Point of all this is not apparent to me.  There doesn't appear to be anything representative of ideological action, and no need of consideration of the arguments, so what is the interest in playing a band of ill-educated lifestylists?  Or is it a sort of projection of Conservative wish-fulfillment?

[David Artman]

Contra,
I have imagined this game to be something like an episode of The Young Ones, and "victory" (however it's finally attained) is only relevant in as much as the way you ranted was of some satisfaction to those "defeated." For a similar feel (if I am right about this) consider a game of Zendo:

A Master makes up a Rule and shows two examples of the Rule (using Pyramid pieces or Legos): one which conforms to the rule, and one which does not.
The other players, the Students, try to guess the Rule, via feedback from the Master on examples they take turns creating.
The Student who guesses the Rule wins--but in practice that victory can be awesome or lame, depending upon the Rule and the nature or number of examples. Further, the Master can--quite literally--lose the game, if all the Students give up on his or her Rule, usually because the Master's examples and later feedback is frustratingly obfuscatory.

I see a similar play to conclusion in Boulevard: Sure, you could go for the "number win" by basically paying lip service to the Rants, just enough to get to the various Causes and cards you need to seal your victory. But--if I am correct--a "proper" play of the game is to defeat your opponents, while they ENJOY you doing it to them! :)

How that could be reinforced systemically, I do not know (yet... I'm thinking). Initially, I suspect it will require a largely social contract element, carefully explained and elucidated and encouraged in the rule text. But perhaps one could use a sort of vote method to determine if a given Rant Point is sufficient to activate a card or cross a circle... but that could morph the gameplay more into gamist deal-making than character-evoking narrating.

It's a tough row to hoe. It will take external playtesting and probably more tuning than a "normal" RPG--the board and card elements must balance just as much as the narration and interaction elements. And it will take time.

Theres something I'm not getting about this, and that is, why my rant affects your cause.  Are the characters all assumed to be like a social group, who share their arguments with one another?  Or is the venue just "the scene"?  And even if the characters are all exposed to other arguments, why is it that they are automatically affected by the argument merely because it is made, rather than on the quality or content of that argument?  In addition, the process of losing your own causes (the trigger pull) seems to be completely random and attritional and appears unexplained in terms of game action.  How does an attack on someone elses Cause A relate to my loss of confidence in my own Cause B?

I think many of these are answered if you imagine a crowd of rabble awaiting rousing. I don't think the players are simulating persuading each other. Rather, I think the players are simulating being demagogues and pundits and competing fringe groups, vying for popular support. The board and Energy and Cause values represent the Mood of the Mob. A "victory" (I would presume) represents that mob on the move, with all other hawkers pushed aside by their mindless mass in motion.

Lastly the Point of all this is not apparent to me.  There doesn't appear to be anything representative of ideological action, and no need of consideration of the arguments, so what is the interest in playing a band of ill-educated lifestylists?  Or is it a sort of projection of Conservative wish-fulfillment?

I think The Point is something like I said above: "opponent-approved" victory. As for what this game might exercise, with its choice of techniques, I suspect it's things like public speaking, deal-making, fast thinking (making the unrelated relevant in you Rant). If you mean something other than that by "Point," could you clarify or use a different term? I ask because, to me, the point was glaring evident from a brief sample of actual play: Ranting! Raving! Mudslinging and dragging others down! And making them just TAKE IT... until they pop a cap in you, when you've gone "too far."

That's a game for the ages. It'll have its own work-study courses at Poly Sci universities.... ;)
David

[joepub]

I think The Point is something like I said above: "opponent-approved" victory. As for what this game might exercise, with its choice of techniques, I suspect it's things like public speaking, deal-making, fast thinking (making the unrelated relevant in you Rant). If you mean something other than that by "Point," could you clarify or use a different term? I ask because, to me, the point was glaring evident from a brief sample of actual play: Ranting! Raving! Mudslinging and dragging others down! And making them just TAKE IT... until they pop a cap in you, when you've gone "too far."

Oh, that is totally it. BEAUTIFUL!

David, your replies are more or less bang on.

Theres something I'm not getting about this, and that is, why my rant affects your cause.  Are the characters all assumed to be like a social group, who share their arguments with one another?  Or is the venue just "the scene"?  And even if the characters are all exposed to other arguments, why is it that they are automatically affected by the argument merely because it is made, rather than on the quality or content of that argument? 

These kids (and by kids I mean early twenties) are all part of the same overaching social group. The Rejected. The Unwanted. The Lowlifes. Even though they are from different cliques, fighting different causes, they are bound to each other by circumstances. (kinda like my childhood friends. hm.)

These are not social revolutionaries. They are fuckwits who think they know how to change the world.
And they are quick to point out where each other fails - They bring others' illogic to light, in order to keep theirs submerged.

By knocking your shit down a notch, I keep myself elevated. It's grade 9 mentality, but placed in the real world.

In addition, the process of losing your own causes (the trigger pull) seems to be completely random and attritional and appears unexplained in terms of game action.

Fair enough. I kinda see it like this:
All the time, these fragile, nihilistic, emo, pretentious, aggressive punks are ranting about these issues.
But really... they are ranting about why their issues are the right ones, as opposed to their friends' issues.

I don't think the players are simulating persuading each other. Rather, I think the players are simulating being demagogues and pundits and competing fringe groups, vying for popular support. The board and Energy and Cause values represent the Mood of the Mob.

For the most part, yes.
Also - Ranting isn't the only facet of the game. Think of all the players having a turn at this board...
as the closing of a chapter.

There are other scenes to be had, in which players will gain more resources -
Self destruction scenes allow you to vie Energy in an attempt to gain Anger.
Rally scenes sacrifice Energy and Anger in order to boost Causes.
Relationship scenes sacrifice Energy to lower someone else's Anger, or another resource, or something.

Basically... the game is largely about Resource Management.
In player terms, its about keeping your pools balanced enough to keep yourself ahead of your friends.
In character terms, its about emotional management of you and your friends.

And... this is a game that can be played as an intense roleplaying experience, or just a simple boardgame, if preferred.

[contracycle]

I see a similar play to conclusion in Boulevard: Sure, you could go for the "number win" by basically paying lip service to the Rants, just enough to get to the various Causes and cards you need to seal your victory. But--if I am correct--a "proper" play of the game is to defeat your opponents, while they ENJOY you doing it to them! :)

Well as described at the moment, it appears that you specificaly cannot do anything else but treat the Causes with anything more than superficial lip service, as the initial assumption is that they are only place-holders for your angst rather than serious concerns.  So it seems to me it can only be played slapstick, like the Young Ones, with the issues as essentially off-screen background; they exist for their symbolic value only.

I think many of these are answered if you imagine a crowd of rabble awaiting rousing. I don't think the players are simulating persuading each other. Rather, I think the players are simulating being demagogues and pundits and competing fringe groups, vying for popular support. The board and Energy and Cause values represent the Mood of the Mob. A "victory" (I would presume) represents that mob on the move, with all other hawkers pushed aside by their mindless mass in motion.

See, the "mob" is in fact very far from my mindless, and rabbles awaiting arousing do not exist.  So this is a huge conceit, but as yet one that is not explained.  The way "demagogues", pundits and fringe groups make headway among the "mob" is through persuassion and argument (this is implicit in the very term demagogue, which second component indicates guidance).   And these very choices of terms imply a highly elitist view - after all the negative associations of both arise precisely because they are movements of the commoners rather than the elites.

So fair enough its a game and we can set a game in any imaginary scenario or selective perspective but the conceit is also recursive; in that in the game mechanics the topics exist only as labels, and are used opportunistically by the players for interpersonal reasons without any required knowledge of their content.  The players of the game are the characters described.  Thats why I find it a bit... pointless.

I think The Point is something like I said above: "opponent-approved" victory.

Ok, but the question I'm asking is why that approval will be given, seeing as there is nothing which constrains your argument. If I am to construct a critique of Feminism, for example, and neither I nor my opponent know anything of Feminism and the game does not frame or limit or express anything, how are they or judge the validity of my critique?  The terms exist only as labels; functionally, my most persuasive strategy is to flatter my opponents prejudices, and the more ignorant and prejudiced they are the better.  Where's the glory in that?

That's a game for the ages. It'll have its own work-study courses at Poly Sci universities.... ;)

The people described have no impact on anything, they are merely temporary hangers-on to the real movements.  "Fewer, but better", as Lenin remarked.

[joepub]

Contracycle...
Let's set rule propositions aside for a second and look at our source material -

A Clockwork Orange.
-Although Alex and his droogs are seemingly unflinching killers, notice how easily they can hurt each others feelings.
-Alex has a Cause of "preservation of music".
-Alex's music love is fairly shallow, although fervant - he doesn't know any other classical artists, he doesn't understand composition, he doesn't know anything he couldn't read off of a tape label.
-He eventually loses his Cause of "ultraviolence" and his Cause of "preservation of music", in quite a sudden and dramatic way. similar to a cap gun defeat of it.

Fight Club
-It could be argued that our protagonist has "Social Disruption", "Vendetta against the working world" and "Violence as Therapy" as Causes. Alternately, it could be argued that his Cause is "Tyler Durden."
-"I'm just a thirty year old boy."
-The book is all about the protagonist's love of Marla, and how she is subtly reflected in his violence.
-The movie is all about the protagonist's leeching adoration of Tyler.
-Jack is telling himself that he cares about the Causes, but all he cares about is patching up his shit life.

SLC Punk
-Steve-O is the quintessential character of Boulevard.
-His Causes are "Punk" and "Anarchy"
-throughout the movie, he keeps defining and re-defining punk... and at the end realizes he has no idea what punk is.
-Steve-O's Cause of Anarchy totally dies when he decides that joining Harvard law will help him achieve his goal of impacting society.
-Steve-O goes on a lot of rants, monologues, conversations and discourses through the movie. His rants open up new focuses of the movie (they introduce new plot elements) as well as hammering on what we already see.
-The characters in this movie are just kids, with security issues, who think they understand the world.
-They are together, because they are all alone in the world. Steve-O the acid junkie is friends with Heroin Bob, who hates drugs. Why? Because they are the only hardcore ones.

I have to go, but the other sources I wanted to highlight were:
Reqiuem for a Dream (erratic behaviour destroying your life... feeding into temptation until it controls you.)
Invisible Monsters

So, Contracycle -
let's for a moment scrap the mechanics.
This is what I'm aiming to achieve, up above.
I'm set in stone on two things -
a.) There are cap guns, loaded for Russian Roulette. These are used to kill people's ideals.
b.) ranting has a huge mechanical implication on the game, and I want visual representation.

Scrap everything but the inspiration sources listed above, point A, and point B.
How do you propose I head into this?

[contracycle]

ok, well working on a clean page with only those elements, as it were, I came up with something but it has a rather different feel.

Our protagonists are the same kids but this time they are trying to work themselves up into a self-immolatory frenzy, something that will "show 'em".  Things like, sleeping around because your mother will disaprove, running away to join the French Foreign Legion, or giving all those bastards at school the bullet they so richly deserve.  So each player has a batch or rant cards as decribed in your first post, but makes a pile of them, laying each one down with an explanatory monologue.  At the point that the monologue is finished, as the card is being placed, the trigger of one of the guns can be pulled, indicating a collapse in the self-justificatory reasoning.

This way the accumulating pile is something purposeful, to be stopped, rather than just movement.  I'm not sure the lines of motivation suit your needs though.

[joepub]

Our protagonists are the same kids but this time they are trying to work themselves up into a self-immolatory frenzy, something that will "show 'em".  Things like, sleeping around because your mother will disaprove, running away to join the French Foreign Legion, or giving all those bastards at school the bullet they so richly deserve.

This part isn't perfect. But I like the general idea.
They aren't in school or living at home anymore, and they likely don't have contact with their parents. But that's moot point right now, I think.

So each player has a batch or rant cards as decribed in your first post, but makes a pile of them, laying each one down with an explanatory monologue.  At the point that the monologue is finished, as the card is being placed, the trigger of one of the guns can be pulled, indicating a collapse in the self-justificatory reasoning.

This is hot!
Contracycle, thank you.

I totally dig that.

Now - what are some examples of things printed on cards?
Are they antagonists of the rant? Are they emotions? Are they snippets of text to be integrated?
Lessons to be learned?
All of the above?

And... is there anything mechanical on the cards, or are they strictly for narrative purposes?

[contracycle]

Wel I liked the cards you proposed, "abused by the system, lightning rod for abuse" etc. because these are really generic, and fundamentally solipsistic.  They don't have any ideological content as such,  but are the kinds of things use to gain sympathy (or attempt to) amongst an audience or to prop up an argument.  But I think they reinforce the inward and self-regarding nature of the "personal crisis" you are looking at.