Almost fortuneless resolution mechanic (for BoB)

[simon_hibbs]

I've discussed the resolution mechanic for Born of the Blood with a few people and it's not universaly popular (what mechanic is?). I'd like to air those objections here and see if I can get a few more perspectives on it.

The game mechanics are described in the PDF, but here I'll go through the logic behind the game system in more detail.

I want the game to be fairly fast-flowing with a minimum of digressions into looking up rules and game speak. I like diceless gaming, but it's not to everyone's tastes. I also like fate point/plot point/hero point style mechanics as they're very empowering for the players. I'm aiming for a game that is diceless (fortuneless rather) most of the time, but gives the option of some light game play to give the players have some say in how things work out and some ability to veto narrator decisions.

Characters have skills (abilities, whatever I may change the gamespeak here) that represent training and experience. There are three ranks of ability (four if you cound 'none'):

Untrained
Typical (minimal professional level competence)
Remarkable (very experienced and competent)
Excellent (World class)

Characters also have attributes (characteristics) on a numeric scale (usualy from 0 to 20).

Most of the time, the narrator sets the difficulty of a task and if the character has that level of competence they succeed, but it might take a little effort, time, a high attribute, whatever but they can do it.

If they have a higher ability rank, it's a breeze and they succeed quickly, easily and very well.

If they have a lower ability rank, they will fail unless they can find some way to offset their disadvantage such as help from other characters, taking a long time, using specialist equipment, a very high attribute, or more likely a combination of these. Unless they can find some way(s) to bridge the skills gap, they will fail.

The players get a handfull of cards, as does the Narrator. Players can boost their effective temporarily by spending a card, a bit  Hero Point in HeroQuest. If that raises their ability high enough, they succeed. except that the narrator also gets cards, but much fewer than the players, and can oppose cards with cards of his own. If cards oppose each other, they are revealed and only the highest card takes effect. Thus from time to time during the game the narrator and players have some metagame influence over the dramatic flow of the game.

Attributes can also be used alone. You might need a Strength of 16 to smash through the door in one blow, for example. I also haven't covered contests between characters, etc.

So, generaly there are three levels of success or failiure. A marginal success or advantage in a competition, a basic success/failiure and complete success or complete defeat.

I think this system achieves my objectives very well, but there are a number of criticisms I need to address:

1. The relationship between attributes and abilities is confusing.

I hope this just means I need to explain it better, but perhaps it's more than that. The basic point is that a high attribute value is never quite as good as having the next highest skill/ability rank, bit it can come close. Perhaps I need to set deterministic rules for this how big an attribute advantage is enough to make a worthwhile difference? is it 10, or 20? To me, this is down to the narrator and is baseed on the situation at hand. As in any diceless game, you have to weigh up a variety of factors in every situation and come to what you feel is a ballanced judgement, but stronger guidelines are probably needed, perhaps with a more objective scale for attribute values.

2. There are too few ability ranks.

A five rank scale has been suggested, but I'm highly resistant to this. I think the current scale of three ranks is simple and obvious. Having more ranks would dilute the argument that a single rank difference is enough to guarantee victory if all other things are equal (and if you're the one with the disadvantage, you'd better make sure they aren't). Any thoughts on this?

Best regards,


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

I totally agree that the three levels are just fine.

The only thing that I would worry about is the card dynamic in play. I mean, since the GM sets targets, anyhow, isn't playing a card, after the fact, sorta pointless? I mean, the only reason that I can see to do it is to sucker a player out of their cards.

Now, if he card play had some direct in game effects outside of simple success/failure, perhaps related to the weariness idea, then I could see it more. In any case, I think it probably needs playtesting to see how it'll work.

I have some non-mechanical thoughts about the game, but that might be better in another thread.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

The only thing that I would worry about is the card dynamic in play. I mean, since the GM sets targets, anyhow, isn't playing a card, after the fact, sorta pointless? I mean, the only reason that I can see to do it is to sucker a player out of their cards.

One big reason is so that players can't simply snow-under a significant opponent with cards. The players get many more cards than the narrator, so suckering the players out of cards hurts the narrator's card pool more than that of the players, relatively speaking.

Simply giving opponents and tasks higher ranks doesn't work because those higher ranks persist, and the ability scale tops out anyway (higher ranks are possible, but only under excpetional circumstances). It's the same argument that NPCs shouldn't have Hero Points in HeroQuest, in practice it's very usefull if they occasionaly do because it means the players can't always metagame their way through problems.

Now, if he card play had some direct in game effects outside of simple success/failure, perhaps related to the weariness idea, then I could see it more. In any case, I think it probably needs playtesting to see how it'll work.

I thought it worked out pretty well in the playtest, pretty much like any other Hero Point like mechanic except that it's used more often because the players have more cards, and as a result as narrator I felt more comfortable setting more difficult challenges than I might normaly in HeroQuest. The players then have a choice - find in-world ways to overcome the challenge or metagame it and narrate a justification. They almost always tried to find an in-world solution because they knew their card pools were limited, and about half ( a little less) of card play was nothing to do with contests, but for narative purposes -

Player - "I pull out my camera."
Narrator - "Do you have one on your characetr sheet?"
Player - "here's a card."
Narrator - "OK, what kind of camera is it?"

That sort of thing.

Collateral in-game consequences of card play is a possibility, but I think I'd only go in that direction if I found problems with the card play mechanism in playtest. One session doen't realy prove the concept, especialy a session run by me.

I have some non-mechanical thoughts about the game, but that might be better in another thread.

I'd love to hear what they are. I'd also like to get more of my ideas about the setting, expanded thoughts on magic and some thematic issues out in the open and hope to do so soon.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Odd. You seem to want resolution to be uncertain, but you don't want to use fortune which is what provides the uncertainty. I mean, couldn't you just give the players a pool of d10 counting 0 as zero, and let them roll as many as they like in any conflict? Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing? In any case, the cards, being unknown to each participant, are effectively random anyhow. I guess I'm just wondering what the real goal is.

I have a feeling that the only time I'd play any cards would be for pacing reasons. That is, to extend a conflict over time somehow if it was dramatic. Though that may just represent my play style, who knows. If the players feel the need to win to the extent that they're willing to expend resources on something, I want them to win.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

Odd. You seem to want resolution to be uncertain, but you don't want to use fortune which is what provides the uncertainty.

I don't believe fortuneless systems are no more or less certain than any other. Before you go into a situation the narrator  can't always anticipate how the players will approach the problem, and the players can't anticipate what the problem will be or how it will manifest. In any case I am using fortune of sorts, or the option of using it.

I mean, couldn't you just give the players a pool of d10 counting 0 as zero, and let them roll as many as they like in any conflict? Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing? In any case, the cards, being unknown to each participant, are effectively random anyhow. I guess I'm just wondering what the real goal is.

I'm sure there are many ways to design a roleplaying game, but I fail to see the advanatge of dice in this case. The cards you get are random, but how you play them is not. If I have a Deuce, a 4, a 10 and a King, which do I play in this situation? The king almost guarantees success, but perhaps the 10 is high enough? That is not a random choice. You'd also have to have some scale of how many dice a metagame (hero point) effect is worth, since you'd have to get more dice than you currently get cards, which I think is clumsy.

The goal is to create a system that is simple, empowers the players and narrator, and providing for and enhances drama. I'm not expecting to create the best game in the world, just one that achieves it's design goals.

I have a feeling that the only time I'd play any cards would be for pacing reasons. That is, to extend a conflict over time somehow if it was dramatic. Though that may just represent my play style, who knows. If the players feel the need to win to the extent that they're willing to expend resources on something, I want them to win.

At the end of the playtest game I was playing the very few remaining cards I had to try and kill a character (a mortal). It was a one-off game, and the werewolves had the opportunity, so why not? Also the character's player wasn't so keen on the game system. Damn that GBSteve! Didn't manage it in the end, got pretty close though :)

One problem is if a player gets a realy crap set of cards. In the playtest I let players chuck in their cards and get a new set, but they could only do that once. Another possibility is every player handing their best card to their left, or some such. Suggestions welcome.


Simon Hibbs

[simon_hibbs]

I have a feeling that the only time I'd play any cards would be for pacing reasons. That is, to extend a conflict over time somehow if it was dramatic. Though that may just represent my play style, who knows. If the players feel the need to win to the extent that they're willing to expend resources on something, I want them to win.

A few more thought on these comments.

I don't think it's just about extending conflicts, but also taxing the players ingenuity so they can't beat a problem just with card play, but have to come up with somethign more. Perhaps expending in-world resources, or using a relationship, or teamwork depending on the nature of the problem. Perhaps as narrator I'd use card to try and save an imoprtant NPC for later, or so that the players win but not as completely as they would otherwise, but without it merely being Narrator fiat that does it. As a player there's often a bit of disapointment if you think you've earned a compete victory, but the narrator arbitrarily has the vilain escape, or whatnot. Achieving that through card play might seem more 'fair' to the players.

I'm not against players winning by any stretch, that's one reason the narrator gets many fewer cards than they do. Most of the time their play of the cards will get them what they want, but not always.


Simon Hibbs

[Jeph]

I agree that three is enough. I've quite taken to the number, and often use it in a fair/strong/exceptional trichotomy (that a word?).