Randomizer Gimmicks: Key to Tone or More To Learn/Buy?

[Mike Holmes]

Especially with a low number of stats, I'd go with MJ's suggested "skills only" advancement if you need to have any at all. With only one "stat" I see it as more of a randomizer, and definitely not something that should be "advanced".

Mike, Memorizing the symbols is an advantage because the function of the symbols was supposed to make it more difficult to remember the values on the opponent's cards.

I know. I came out against this notion despite having promulgated it earlier, because I don't really know how profound the effect is. For multiplayer games, it would certainly have an effect, but I think that this could be a source of Competition that players could learn. For a one-shot, I think that players wouldn't learn this info. In any case, I think that the player should have an idea of potence. But this is accomplished by having the symbols on the card for what they defeat. So it'll be pretty obvious, IMO.

If not, then we can put a little number by the symbol to indicate power.

If they're not different from letters, there's no reason to use them.

Yes, there is, color. Remember that's one of the primary qualities that he's looking for. So, I'm not for using symbols for obfuscation, which I think won't work. I'm for using them because they're cool.

I understand the objection to including "cards that beat mine" on the card; but then, I'd think as a dislexic you'd be particularly desirous to have that list--after all, if you don't happen to find the letter on your card, you're assuming you lost, when it could be merely that you didn't find the letter (and the more so with symbols). I don't think the entire matrix can be included on the card, but I think having a list of cards that beat yours is worthwhile.

Actually, I'd just wait for my opponent to tell me that he'd won as a personal solution. But you win on this one. We both win, actually. My point was that you only have to search the two categories (win and tie), it doesn't matter if the third is there. But for those who want to "double-check" having the loss ones helps. Just a bit more clutter on the card.

I agree that it is redundant to list that a card ties itself; but some cards tie cards that are not self, and so the row should be there, and should have some content, just so people know what they're looking at. Minor point, but I think valid.

I agree that the row should exist, and actually why not put the redundant one on, I suppose. Again, it doesn't really extend search time.

Thirty-six characters means bigger cards, maybe, but this is not impossible.

True, 'nuff. The real quesiton is all this extra data needed. I think the 12 worked just fine.

Mike

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Wow... you guys are great. Sorry I've taken so long to reply; busy weekend.

Okay, so here's how I see it going, after the discussion about increasing to 36 values and their letter sets. I am thinking an A-L range (12 letter) range is going to work, for reasons above and below. Sorry to get you to do that whole matrix; but the arguments against increasing range are sound, in light of the below. Rest assured that anyone providing the sort of detailed help you have will be getting whatever credit they want.

I am going to summarize where we are now, in my mind, with modifications to suit the current thinking in the discussions. As always, this is presented to discuss the randomizer method, though I will happily discuss other elements if everyone thinks the RM is resolved.

----------------------------------------

A) Character Stats

A-1) Each Character has three primary Stats: Health (physical force and stamina), Alacrity (speed and nimbleness), and Psyche (willpower and intelligence).
A-2) Each Stat has a Rank on a scale of 1 to 12, represented by the letters A through L.
A-3) For each Stat, each Player has a Card with a letter on each edge (the four letters are called the "Rank Set") and a symbol in each corner (designating the Stat). This is used in a challenge against another Player or a Narrator to determine who is successful (see the 12-way matrix above). In summary, the Rank is the highest value letter on one edge, with indentical or lower Rank letters on the other three edges.

B) Challenges

B-1) Attacker ("Actor") chooses Defender ("Target"). Note that multiple Actors may choose one Target; one test resolves all challenges simultaneously.
B-2) Any "pre-test" Abilities being used are declared by each Player. Actor goes first; each may respond to any use of Ability by the other, until no more Abilities are being used.
B-3) Each Player selects the Rank Set (Stat Card) they want to use in the challenge, allowing for Ability declarations.
B-4) Covering the unused edges of the Rank Set, the Players simultaneously reveal the edge of the Rank Set that they are using (the "test").
B-5) Players reference the Win/Tie/Loss rows on the revealed edges to determine whether the Actor or Target wins the challenge.
B-6) Players may declare the use of "post-test" Abilities again, to retest or modify the resolution. This time, the loser goes first; each may respond to any use of Ability by the other, until no more Abilities are being used.
B-7) The winner of the challenge narrates the Results, within the confines of the Stats and Abilities used by each Player and the allowable Results (see next).

C) Challenge Results

C-1) Do a Wound {rules pending, though I am inclined to allow a Wound to prevent the use of the Stat employed by the Wounded character until healed. Thus, three Wounds will make a Character lose all subsequent challenges until healed}
C-2) Restrain opponent. Neither can act until the Actor releases the Target or the Target wins a challenge to break the restraint.
C-3) Break a restraint.
C-4) Escape the conflict. The conflict ends and may not be resumed until the Characters meet again.
{Need more Results on par with these.}

D) Character Abilities
Character Abilities generally provide one of the following advantages in a challenge in which they are applicable. Each ability below is generalized; in the system, each must specify the Stat affected or situation in which the Ability is used. Each stat is usable one per day per purchase.

D-1) Nullify a Particular Stat: User may tell opponent not to use a particular Stat (i.e. its Rank Set Card). There are three Nullify Abilities.
D-2) Force a Particular Stat: User may force opponent to use a specific Stat. There are three Force Abilities.
D-3) Retest a Loss: User may invalidate the resolution of the previous challenge, forcing another challenge. The number of Retest Abilities is limited only by the game setting and reflects the use of technology, magic, or specialized training.
D-4) Counter an Ability: User my counter the use of an Ability by his or her opponent. Counters may be General (usable in any situation) or Specific (usable in a certain class of situations) and are costed accordingly; General Counter Abilities represent penultimate power, while each Specific Counter Ability applies only to its associated Retest Ability.
D-5) Dictate a Winner: User may declare the challenge's results, even if the loser of the test. Dictation Abilities represent the pinnacle of power or influence in a game.
D-6) Change Wound to Unconsciousness: User may declare that a Wound done is, instead, a knock-out blow which renders the opponent Unconscious. {rules pending}
D-7) Prevent the Challenge: User may declare that he or she escapes before the test is conducted.
D-8) Escape the Challenge: User may dictate that he or she escapes a losing challenge.
D-9) Break a Restraint: User immediately escapes a restraining Result, without having to test.
{More to come... but you can see that Abilities are sort of a "third axis" to the Stat/Rank axes or represent "meta-effects" that change the sequence of challenge resolution.}

E) Character Improvement

E-1-a) Each edge of a Stat card can be individually upgraded to a new letter value, creating a more effective Rank Set ("incremental improvement"). If the highest value of the Rank Set is increased, the Character's Stat Rank is said to be increased ("gross improvement").
-OR-
E-1-b) Rank Sets can be listed in order of least-to-most effective for a given Rank, and each step up that listing represents an incremental improvement. Gross improvement of a Stat to a whole new Rank has an added cost in Experience, in addition to the cost of the incremental improvement within the new Rank.
{Which do you guys prefer?}
E-2) Each Ability has a fixed cost, as each is single-use-per-session.

----------------------------------------

There's still TONS to include, to make a full system, but I think this gives us enough to tune the randomizer method. For example, there need to be Abilities which represent means of moving unaccosted in the game world (i.e. Stealth, Desolid), defenses (ignore a Wound), and game world influences (Contacts, Favors, organizational ties). The Ability list is sure to be the largest section of the rules, once an Ability is created that impacts most every other rule or Stat.

[M. J. Young]

This may seem a bit disjointed, but I'm trying to respond to points as I see them.

I think "Rank" is a bad term to use. In part I think this because it suggests that A is better than B, and that's not clearly true. If you look back at the 12-value scale, in terms purely of number of values for win, loss, and tie, A and B are exactly equal, and B always beats A. That suggests that B may be a higher "rank" than A in terms of its power, although A beats C, which beats B. Further, although L loses to K, on the twelve step it beats B and ties A, and so might be considered a more powerful value than any of the eight other values that beat it. I would probably replace "rank" with something a bit less implicative of relative strength; "value" is the word that comes to mind, which I can see does have some implication of better or worse, but I think less so than "rank"

I would eliminate the word "scale" for the same reason. Further, it is incorrect to say that each has "a rank on a scale of one to twelve, represented by the letters A through L", because in point of fact each stat has four such "ranks" or values. Each stat has a value set--that is a much better way to put it.

The rank set should always have four different values on the card, so that the character's full set is not easy to discover. I believe on reflection that HIJK is the weakest value set, as any three of those with L would have distinct tactical advantages.

I think that settling a contest between multiple actors and one target by a single test is inherently unfair to someone. If the defender can only use one value against all comers, he loses the ability to choose the defense he deems best suited to each attacker; if the attackers must agree on a single value to present on behalf of all, they are deprived of their individual attacks and to some degree forced to reveal their hidden values to each other to choose that one attack card. I'm inclined to think that multiple elimination should be the rule. Granted a defender might have to reveal all of his values before he had resolved all conflicts, this would still have a sense of realism--first, unless it was clear that the defender could not defeat a specific value, he still has multiple defenses which can stand against different attacks; second, if fifty people are attacking one superhero, eventually they are likely to see all his tricks, and possibly discover his weakness. If ten ordinary people are attacking one ordinary person, he's almost certain to lose anyway, so making it one contest isn't going to help him.

Since you can have many combinations of rank sets, I think it's useless to talk about the rank. For one thing that assumes that an ABCL card is an A rank card, when in fact no one value on that card can beat all the others (A only beats C, B only beats A, C beats B and L, L only beats B--this may actually be the most powerful card in the game; although D is more potent against lower values, L is more potent against higher ones).

You failed to define what your pre-test abilities do in this post. I'm assuming that a pre-test ability does only one thing: prevent the use of a specific type card in the contest. That works well with the system as outlined, and gives justification to the three-stat system. You also did not mention whether you were following Mike's suggestion that the choice of one stat to attack limited the options for defense (or my reverse suggestion), which would validate the use of three stats as well. These skills and comparable counterskills which would allow the use of the excluded card are expected in the resolution system, as the twelve-value matrix on three cards only works if players can't freely choose which card to use in every case.

If you've got some other type of pre-test ability in mind, that should be on the table, because it might seriously impact the matrix and has to be considered.

Also, if you are using pre-test abilities to prevent the use of a specific card type, you must abandon the one test to resolve all contests model. Three attackers could prevent a defender from using any cards, and that would create a situation not covered by the resolution system.

I have a lot of difficulty with any post-test skill that would force a retest, particularly with the twelve point system. I would limit post-test skills to preventing specific negative consequences from failure, or possibly countering such preventatives. To allow retests extends the resolution indefinitely, and advantages the more powerful character unduly--if I hold your A at bay with my L, and you can force me to go again, my luck probably just ran out. That is, the matrix allows the ostensibly weaker character to win, but only if the stronger character can't make him play again.

Although I like the idea of eliminating a stat from play until healed, I don't see how you can implement it in your circumstance. If you destroy the stat card, you've got to recreate it; if you give it to the other player, you've got to get it back (and somehow prevent him from using it while he's got it).

I'm also curious how you manage a restraint. If this only exists while the players are in the same space, it's a minor thing, amounting to little more than giving the winner the opportunity to gloat; if the winner can restrain the loser while the winner leaves, that requires some kind of system enforcement. About the only way you can incapacitate a character is to take his cards, which means that he can't win a challenge anyway and can't effectuate his own escape.

Escaping a conflict should be the mutual result of all ties; since there's no winner in a tie, probably in the event of a tie both parties must leave the area in the direction from which they entered it.

I think your idea of cards with tear-off wound markers may be the best. It's simple to implement, healing amounts to providing a new card, and it's hard to cheat--even harder if when issued the character (or player) name is written on the card, so they can't be transferred unless they are healer spell replacement cards (in which case the name is written at the time the healing is cast).

I have problems with some of your abilities in addition to what I've already mentioned, but I think you'd have to playtest some to see how they work and whether they are enforceable.

I am disinclined to have change in the value set for the attribute during play. For one thing, as I've already noted, an advance of one letter often is not an improvement in ability--it is only a change in which cards you can defeat. I note a mistake in the original twelve-step post suddenly (B says it ties E, E says it loses to B--E is correct). That means that B wins more often than A. I, J, and K are effectively equal in that each beats exactly two other cards and ties one; to say that you are improving by moving through them is like saying that you can advance by going from rock to scissors to paper (and what then, back to rock?). Changing your value set "upward" is not character improvement but character change which is sometimes improvement. If I had an ABCL card, I would certainly not wish to "improve" it to an ABCK card, because the L is far more valuable in that context.

If you really want to have stat changes as character improvement, you probably need to list out all the combinations, work out the number of wins/losses/ties for each value, sum them, and then use that to put the cards in value order--and even then you'll be making at least a few subjective judgements on card effectiveness.

Of course, we haven't even begun to consider how these characters are created initially. Somewhere along the way we've just assumed that some players will have superheroes and some will have ordinaries (or are all the ordinaries NPCs?) and that there's some equitable way to determine this. But let's get through this part first.

The abilities would be the way to improve, by letting players spend whatever points they get (and I'm not clear how they get points) on more abilities.

Just a thought on points and wounds. If the wound cards were done such that the tear-offs were each imprinted with a serial code (I was going to say number, but alphanumerics allow a greater range of values in fewer characters) then the winner could turn in those tear-offs which could be matched to the opponent and so make wound points scalable--you could get more points for defeating Superman than for defeating Aunt May, because the system would match Superman's points against his value. Healers would have to record to whom they gave their healing cards, and report that to be entered in the system, but that's a small administrative matter.

You might also decide that to facilitate this, rather than a tie meaning no one wins, a tie means both win, and each must give a chit to the other. However, if in the case of a tie someone plays a skill that prevents him from losing a chit, his opponent cannot lose a chit either.

I don't see any problems with your stealth and desolid ideas. In essence, stealth would be a skill card that says "You cannot engage me"; desolid would be a skill card that says "You cannot use health or alacrity against me.

Hope this helps. I'm going to have to go back and look at that matrix again (having found that one typo), but not tonight as I've miles to go before I sleep, and somehow the forum was particularly busy today.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

I think "Rank" is a bad term to use.

Agreed, buit see below.

If you really want to have stat changes as character improvement, you probably need to list out all the combinations, work out the number of wins/losses/ties for each value, sum them, and then use that to put the cards in value order--and even then you'll be making at least a few subjective judgements on card effectiveness.

This is exactly what I proposed previously. I could implement it fairly easily. "Ranks" would be the same for similar cards for starting values, and handed out randomly. Again, this favors no advancement. OTOH, it's not too unbalancing to use even with advancement.

The rank set should always have four different values on the card, so that the character's full set is not easy to discover.

Depends heavily on how much the system will be used, IMO. With three stats, I can see play where having some redundancies would be fine.

BTW, if you do the thing where my choice limits yours, you should have, as the defender, the right to declare the next contest and what stats are used, etc. So a player can't hammer you repeatedly with the same stat, and so that conflict gets varied.

Also, if you are using pre-test abilities to prevent the use of a specific card type, you must abandon the one test to resolve all contests model. Three attackers could prevent a defender from using any cards, and that would create a situation not covered by the resolution system.

C'mon, MJ, easily remedied by only allowing one limit. I agree that the multiple opponent thing is problematic, but I think it could be worked out.

I have a lot of difficulty with any post-test skill that would force a retest, particularly with the twelve point system. I would limit post-test skills to preventing specific negative consequences from failure, or possibly countering such preventatives. To allow retests extends the resolution indefinitely, and advantages the more powerful character unduly--if I hold your A at bay with my L, and you can force me to go again, my luck probably just ran out. That is, the matrix allows the ostensibly weaker character to win, but only if the stronger character can't make him play again.

Depends. You have more sides that the opponent hasn't seen. So you might still defeat him. I wouldn't want to have tons of retests, but I think it works.

Although I like the idea of eliminating a stat from play until healed, I don't see how you can implement it in your circumstance. If you destroy the stat card, you've got to recreate it; if you give it to the other player, you've got to get it back (and somehow prevent him from using it while he's got it).

Destroy it, if he gets healed he gets a new one. We've already assumed that capability in play. Yes it makes it so that you have to go to the "desk" to get healed. I don't see that as particularly problematic, depending on the scenario.

Alternately, you could just not allow healing in play. I like that best. If you're hurt, you're hurt until the next game. That would greatly reduce the amount of conflict, and make the system last longer.

In any case, if you go this way, Chris, can characters with no cards active be killed by a subsequent declaration?

I'm also curious how you manage a restraint.

In this vein, one thing that I saw that was missing is expulsion. That is, instead of wounding, you can have that player leave the area for some amount of time (or until you leave it). Easy enforcement, and makes things less lethal, potentially, again. Another option.

Escaping a conflict should be the mutual result of all ties; since there's no winner in a tie, probably in the event of a tie both parties must leave the area in the direction from which they entered it.

Can they then come back again? How long do they have to stay away? How about neither can enter as long as the other is trying to enter? That is, if you come in, and see the other player trying to come in, you both have to leave again. Continue this until one player decides to go away?

In fact, if someone chooses to wound the other player, I think that the wounded player should have the option of voluntary retreat. He can either stay, and face another conflict potentially (which he'd get to declare under my rules), or he cedes the field. In fact, for some games, I'd have it so that the player could "retreat before battle". Though that might end up in chases. Hmmm. Perhaps another "win" condition can be to move yourself to another area where the player defeated isn't allowed to enter until you leave?

I am disinclined to have change in the value set for the attribute during play. For one thing, as I've already noted, an advance of one letter often is not an improvement in ability--it is only a change in which cards you can defeat.

Well, wading through a set of "equal" letters could be seen as what it takes to get to the one you want. Still I agree that it's probably not neccessary. Again, Chris, have you considered no advancement? I think it's an important idea.

Of course, we haven't even begun to consider how these characters are created initially.

Good point. We're getting to the point where tailoring this system to the game in question requires knowing the rest of the details. (I was under the impression that we were, in fact, replacing MET)

Psyche, Health and Alacrity
Why this triumvirate. It's pretty old school (TFT). Most games these days go with two non-physical abilties like Intelligence and Social or Spiritual. Why not just Physique, or something, and have the player describe winning due to speed or strength as befits the character concept? What about your genre makes two thirds of all conflict physical?

Further, I'd think that this would incorporate well with a political system if that were available. Again, we need the game details.

Mike

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Sorry so long to reply, guys. Just got a new job and it's taking up a lot of my time.

I will answer the general issues, as I come to them, but I feel that this has pretty much offered me a system that I can use.  Everyone's been extrememly helpful and generous with their time and thought; I want you to know that you have credit coming, for sure.
------------------------------

Clarifications - Each player selects a Stat to use on their own, before the reveal; the used Stat(s) indicates the "flavor" of the challenge. Only the "Force a Particular Stat" Pre-Test Ability forces an opponent to use a particular Stat.
To Restrain is to prevent the victim from taking any other actions. It also prevents the Restrainer from acting, BUT the Restrainer CAN defend, while the Restrained can not. This might not work out in the long run, though, but that's the notion I was working with. There has to be some way to take someone "prisoner" in the rules.

Terminology - I will think on what terms to use for game elements, rest assured. Certainly more than I did to try to get through my last post. There will eventually be clear terms for:
1) A card (any card, a Stat-specific card, the player's card or cards)
2) A card edge (an edge as displayed in a challenge, the edge of the card itself)
3) A letter on a card edge (as a game value, as a printed thing on the card)
I agree that the set of all letters on a card's edges (as the description of a character's Stat; was called Rank) is moot in the context of purchasing individual letter edges.

Stat Advancement - I think I have to keep this as a game element. Ability-only advancement turns into a bunch of tags to maintain for players, whereas new Stat cards are easy to reprint.
I also will go with allowing each edge to be individually upgraded, within the confines of a list of Letter Set scales. In other words, folks can buy up a letter at a time, so long as their set will still match one of the "allowed sets" on said list. It thus become irrelevant if they have bought up their highest edge, except in the context that the new set is one of the allowed sets.
Related to this issue, I think the list of allowed sets WILL include some redundancy of values (for "cheap" sets, or to allow someone to work up to a new allowed set sequentially).

Pre-Test Abilities that Force or Nullify a Stat - Note first that each use of "Nullify" or "Force" is single-use. It's not an Ability that one can use over and over. Now, if someone buys that Ability more than once, he or she COULD keep Nullifying or Forcing an opponent Stat--and why not? The player spent the Experience to have that option. And the opponent could always use a "Counter An Ability" Ability to counter the Nullify or Force. I think it balances, in normal play.
Perhaps the Expereince cost for Abilities should ramp up if the player already has the Ability. Thus, multiple purchases of such would be discouraged.

Note: for clarity, I will be sorting Pre-Test and Post-Test Abilities into their own sections, in the rule book.

Groups using Counter on all three of an opponent's Stats - I would add a rule that says the victim must be left with one Stat to use; the group could only collude to eliminate two of the Stat cards available to the victim, no matter how many Counters they have among them.

Also, I feel obliged to resolve "gang bangs" with a single test for one simple reason: they are common as rain, in LARPs. Every ambush is a gang bang of some kind. If a single round of challenges between the victim and the group can involve multiple tests (with Ability uses and Wounds and all) we run into a HUGE speed problem, as well as issues of which order the tests should occur (Wounds eliminate Stats, remember, which would impact the next test). There's no simultinaity to it, either: if a gang bang is going on in one corner of a melee, with one-on-one going on in other parts of the general melee, then the group fight burns through Abilities (and Stats, usually) at a MUCH faster rate than the one-on-ones. What's more, what happens if Group Member 1 puts a Restraint on the victim? Does each subsequent Group Member get unresisted challenges? ICK! Much better to have the victim do a single reveal, and address each test comparison with Abilities one at a time, in the order the VICTIM prefers. I mean, most often, the victim wants an Escape result; they might throw trying to Escape all others (beat all letters revealed) or they might try to beat MOST of them, and escape with other overrides post-test.
White Wolf had to address this, and this is what they came up with. I resisted the notion, too, until I was in a mass melee and saw the issues particular to them.

Post-Test Abilities - Yes, using them gives a double advantage to the user, since he or she can both get a retest and learn one of the card edge values. BUT, there's nothing that requires the opponent to use the same Stat in the retest. Further, the opponent can always "Counter" that retest Ability. AND, the Retest is (as all Abilities are) single-use. It is burned just to try to use it, even if the opponent Counters it (burning their own Counter Ability), uses a different Stat, or uses a Prevent in response.

Wounding - This is the least-developed element of the rules, so far (as we are in a thread about a randomizer) but I like the notion of eliminating the used stat of the Wounded character for several reasons:
1) The players have to balance risk of using their "uber" letter sets (Stats) because, if Wounded using that Stat, they lose the uber letter set.
2) It handles "fatigue" and "hit points" behind the scenes, rather than introducing a resource management element to the rules (and its requisite tracking tools, like tags).
3) It centralizes Healing (as Mike points out). A player character MIGHT be a source of Healing (via an Ability), but the GMs have to re-issue the card, and thus are kept aware of all instances of Wounding and Healing. Such tracking is important in many LARPs, for keeping metagame issues in mind (for example, to help GMs notice when one player's character is getting Wounded a lot or another player's character is dealing out a lot of Wounds).
4) A character out of Stats (i.e. with three Wounds) is going to be knocked Unconscious in the next challenge (since they must reveal "no letter", which is beaten by any letter their opponent reveals). In effect, this grants their opponent the Change Wound to Unconscioussness Ability, with an automatic success on the challenge (assuming no Abilities are used to circumvent the test in the first place, like an Escape or Prevent).

Expulsion idea - I could add that as one of the challenge results a winner can declare. It's a good idea, easily enforced in gameplay.
This result (and the Escape result) both require some kind of timing, true. I am inclined to say that the Expelling player can keep the other one away as long as they are in the same area; if they leave and come back, their Expulsion is nullified, and the loser may try to enter again (probably getting into a new challenge in the process).

Ties - Ties are ties. No one loses a card (no Wound), and no one can declare a result. The contestant are grappling, maneuvering around each other, whatever. That stuff happens in conflicts of all kinds.
The "progress" of a challenge is served by ties, also. Each player learns one of their opponent's letters (for one of their opponent's Stats). I think such revelations without resolution work well to improve the tension (and strategy) of challenges.

Escaping a doomed series of challenges - This could be a problem:
Player A loses a challenge and is Wounded. Player B wants to press the challenge; Player A is now less able to defend themselves. In another couple of challenges, Player A will be Unconscious. And, meanwhile, Player A has almost no chance of winning a challenge and being able to declare an Escape.
(Note: Escaping assumes that a chase is not legal, like a Fair Escape in White Wolf's sytem. It is enforced in rules.)
How to stop the slipperly slope phenominon without just letting a Wounded player freely declare Escape after being Wounded? Hmmmm... . That will take some though. Perhaps being Wounded confers to the wounded player a single-use Prevent Ability? That way, he or she could Prevent the subsequent challenge, but if Player B has a Counter Ability, the wounded player is doomed to keep fighting... until their NEXT Wound grants them another Prevent. So, only if Player B has a Counter for every Wound they are going to do, Player A will eventually get away. Might work.

Health, Alacrity, Psyche - Two explanations of that:
1) It makes the anagram "HAP". I like that.
2) Alacrity is the bridge between physical and mental. It takes Alacrity to be dexterous; it takes Alacrity to quickly comprehend a complex document; it takes Alacrity to notice a hidden door. Alacrity is, in my system, the "processor speed" of the character, whether the challenge is one of physical performance or mental accumen.
Thus, Health is more the "meat" in the character: what their body can endure even if they were a vegitable, intellectually. Psyche is what their mind can endure (and how strong their morality is), regardless of their intellect or the neural composition of their brain.
Imagine Health and Psyche as the positive and negative X-axis of a Cartesian Plane; Alacrity would be the Y-axis of the gird (or, to get REALLY technical, the integral of the function defined by graphing a character's Health and Alacrity as an assymetric parabolic curve).
------------------
I think that addresses everything raised since my last post. Hopefully, the things that I am "dictating" will not ruin the discussion for you all. And there is certainly some more nuances to address in the Randomizer (like, how to define the allowable sets). Not to mention a good bit of room to discuss Abilities and their enforcement/interractions. Thanks again!

[Mike Holmes]

Very nice so far. And I personally don't mind you deciding things - it's your system after all, and nothing gets done without a central authority making final decisions in this sort of project.

4) A character out of Stats (i.e. with three Wounds) is going to be knocked Unconscious in the next challenge (since they must reveal "no letter", which is beaten by any letter their opponent reveals).

Hmmm. Does a player taking another on know how many cards they have? That is, can they tell how wounded the opponent is? For example, if I get wounded in one room, and flee to another, and am attacked there, do they know that I'm wounded?

What I'd do is to allow a player to do a conflict to assess the opponent. If he wins, he learns the opponent's state; if he loses, the opponent has successfully hidden his state. This can only be attempted once before doing any other conflict.

BTW, so far these things all seem to relate to physical conflicts. Are other sorts allowed? I mean, you could model certain things like expulsions and captures as social things (intimidation and seduction for instance), but what about trying to get someone to give you something, for example? Are there any other sorts of interactions that the model can be used to accomplish?

Mike

[M. J. Young]

The idea that only certain combinations of letters are permitted adds an interesting dimension to the card. I would suggest one limition: no card should be permitted to have A, B, and L (on the twelve-step set). That would mean that no card could have both A and a value that beats A on the same card.

--M. J. Young

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Very nice so far. And I personally don't mind you deciding things - it's your system after all, and nothing gets done without a central authority making final decisions in this sort of project.

Thank you for the compliment. It's gotten this good with your help, so "very nice," yourself!

4) A character out of Stats (i.e. with three Wounds) is going to be knocked Unconscious in the next challenge (since they must reveal "no letter", which is beaten by any letter their opponent reveals).

Hmmm. Does a player taking another on know how many cards they have? That is, can they tell how wounded the opponent is? For example, if I get wounded in one room, and flee to another, and am attacked there, do they know that I'm wounded?

Hadn't considered that, but it's a good issue to raise. I am inclined to make "Assess" an Ability that is rather cheap, so folks can buy it several times (representing a person who is very observant).
Assess Ability - Assess occurs in "zero time", so it does not take the place of a round of challenges, but often preceeds one.
Assess allows a player to find out one of the following with each use:
a) Target Wound Level - (1, 2, 3) How many cards the target is missing, but NOT which cards.
b) A Single Missing Card - (Health, Alacrity, Psyche) Target must tell one of the cards they have lost (if any).
c) An Object's Letter - (A - L) One of the letters in an Object's envelope.
Note - This Ability leads me to partially explain the Object System, below.
d) Force Target to Tell Desired Result - (any on list) Target must tell what challenge result they will declare (if successful) and must adhere to that decision.
Note - This Ability represents being able to ascertain the motives of one's opposition before engaging in conflict.
(more to come--and these may be broken into individual Abilities, to distinguish characters who know about injury (A, e.g. medics) from those who know about things (C, e.g. engineers) from those who are adept with combat (B & D, e.g. commanders).)

Object System - Objects can be placed in the game world that represent challenges the players must overcome to proceed or to gain a Tool (Tool: (n) Any Object which grants an Ability or extra Letter to its possessor.). An Object could be a locked door, a magically-warded area, an intimidating place, a stifling bureaucracy, or anything the GMs can define.
Objects are represented by envelopes with decriptions on the outside and one or more cards with single letters on them, on the inside. The description indicates the following:
a) Any perceptable aspects of the Object (what it looks like, any sounds it makes, its smell, etc).
b) The Stat that a player must use to test against it.
c) Whether or not a single character can test against it more than once ("Do or Do Not", "Try, Try Again").
d) Whether the Object is permanently bypassed or singly circumvented by a succcess.  Also whether or not a successful test grants the player the ability to re-apply the Object once done with it. In other words, some Objects must be opposed every time someone wants to bypass it, while others can be effectively disabled for all others, if bypasses once. An example of the former is a "scary room" that challenges Psyche to enter it; an example of the latter would be a "padlock" that can be openend and left open (or relocked, player's choice) with a successful Alacrity test.

The cards inside the envelope each have one letter on them. There is no limit on the number of cards nor repetition of letters, though the list of allowable letter sets is a good guide to GMs for selecting letters to put into envelopes.

To test against an Object, the player reveals one edge of the Stat they must use (or the letter on a Tool, if applicable), then reaches into the envelope and blindly removes one letter. If they beat the letter, they bypass the Object and put the letter back into the envelope. If they tie the letter, they put the letter back into the envelope, and then may try again immediately. If they lose to the letter, they must Count 30 to try again (note: Counting is already in the system as an enforced delay). All of the above retries assume the Object is not a "Try, Try Again" Object.

What I'd do is to allow a player to do a conflict to assess the opponent. If he wins, he learns the opponent's state; if he loses, the opponent has successfully hidden his state. This can only be attempted once before doing any other conflict.

I considered your idea above, but had to come up with my own Assess mechanics because I felt that such an "assessment round" would end up occurring EVERY conflict, which impacts speed of play. If you give LARPers a free ability, they WILL use it all the time.
Further, I felt that the ability to Assess is a skill that should be desireable, but NOT one that every character picks up multiples of (because they would spend on Abilities that relate to their specialty). That is an incentive to group-formation, as players want to run with others who can help them in challenges using Assess.

BTW, so far these things all seem to relate to physical conflicts. Are other sorts allowed? I mean, you could model certain things like expulsions and captures as social things (intimidation and seduction for instance), but what about trying to get someone to give you something, for example? Are there any other sorts of interactions that the model can be used to accomplish?

Absolutely, as I hope I have hinted with an example or two above.

Basically, there would be physical and social aspects of each of the Challenge Results (that's why I said more were to come). There might even be results that apply to one type of challenge but not the other, though the most abstract results (ex: Wound, Expel) can come up in both types. Yes, this means a social challenge can cost a card... and require its own type of Healing. Perhaps a Social Wound can only be Healed through role-playing (i.e. when the audience of the Wounding agrees that the player can have back the card. THIS needs work, of course). Or maybe Social Healing is done with a special Ability (representing, say, access to journalism outlets and public opinion shapers).

Thanks again for the guiding hand, Mike.
David (figured you ought to know me by other than my nom de ordinateur by now).
aka Czar Fnord

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

The idea that only certain combinations of letters are permitted adds an interesting dimension to the card. I would suggest one limition: no card should be permitted to have A, B, and L (on the twelve-step set). That would mean that no card could have both A and a value that beats A on the same card.

--M. J. Young

I'll take your word on that, as I have yet to grok the list of acceptable letter sets.
Also, you point out one of the "metarules" of letter set acceptability which I will have to encode for GMs (both to give them insight into the List of Acceptable Sets and so that they can wisely determine what letters to put into an Object envelope). I will REALLY need help with the mathmatical underpinings of such metarules.

My plan was to use your grid of Win Tie Loss in Excel to do some analysis of letter interractions, and then use those numbers to come up with useful rules for Object letters (and to make the List of Acceptable Sets). Basically, GMs will need to know how to assess the difficulty of Objects (and capability of NPC Stats) when creating them. The meta rules would give them a sort of forumla to calculate a final "difficulty index" for a given letter set, versus both baseline and median letter sets. ALSO, these meta rules will enable a GM to gauge the power level of their game in terms of Starting Experience, as they will be able to quickly calculate the breakpoints or min-maxing that might be taken advantage of by the  players. (Yes, these meta rules will ALSO help players min-max, but I can't invent a knife that only cuts in certain hands).

Thanks for getting me started on the meta rules, MJ;
David (aka Czar Fnord)