[Stake] rough partial first draft

[hieronymous]

Here:

http://www.malcontentgames.com/stake.pdf

Thanks for looking!

[Jasper]

Hi there,

I see a decent bunch of rules but, uh, what's the game about? There's nothing in the introduction about "what makes this game different or cool." Or is it supposed to be generic? Even if there's no firm setting, is there some kind of play the rules are good at promoting? I'm not seeing it at first glance, but maybe if you pointed it out I would. Right now, I don't know what your goals are, so it's hard to evaluate it. Did you have any specific questions about it?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Hieronymous, we cannot have a discussion unless you provide some questions or points. This forum cannot be simply "look at it, tell me what you think."

Folks, until we get this context, please don't post.

Best,
Ron

[hieronymous]

Right, that was a sloppy post; sorry about that.

I'm interested in developing a mechanic that bases success or failure not so much on intrinsic abilities of the character (the classic Strength, Level, Int, whatever) but on her psychology. I owe a lot to Wuthering Heights for that.

As the name implies, I'm particularly interested in having success determined by what the character has at stake in the game. As a simulation, increasing your chance of success based on whether you care about something is "unrealistic" (or is it? or do I care?), but I think as a roleplaying opportunity it's perhaps quite interesting. That "at stake" is represented by the Stake list, but also by Passions, Kith & Kin, and Umbra.

I'm not entirely sure I yet see how to do that to the extent that I'd like (I've reposted a slightly newer version at the same link as above which I think is closer), so any ideas or comments there would be helpful. I'm also interested in anything anyone has to say one the cumulative dice pool mechanics itself. I'm not (at this time) so keen on developing this for a particular genre, though I'd welcome any ideas anyone has.

Hope that helps.

[TonyLB]

Well, it strikes me (forcibly) that for a game called "Stake" there is no actual gambling involved.

What if, when you use one of your Kith and Kin (for instance) and lose a roll nonetheless, the damage goes not only to your Pluck but also to the Kith and Kin themselves?  So you put them at Stake in the conflict in a literal, game-mechanic sense.

[hieronymous]

What if, when you use one of your Kith and Kin (for instance) and lose a roll nonetheless, the damage goes not only to your Pluck but also to the Kith and Kin themselves?  So you put them at Stake in the conflict in a literal, game-mechanic sense.

That's an interesting proposal. I wouldn't see failures as taking away a listed attribute altogether, but perhaps diminishing its value as in dice. So, for example, a failed action involving your second Kith and Kin (worth +2d6) would diminish that particular KNK to 1d6 or 0d6 (without necessarily harming the person in question). All attributes might regenerate at the end of the session, or at a fixed rate. Successes might also regenerate diminished dice.

On another note, the mechanics as written don't really have a target difficulty. One way to introduce targets would be to change the ratio of 1s cancelling 6s; for a "hard" action might take three 1s to cancel a 6; "very hard" might have two 1s cancel a 6, and "extraordinary" might allow every 1 to cancel a 6. Any action easier than "hard" would just be accomplished by fiat. Does anyone see a more elegant way to add target difficulties, while keeping within the general mechanic as presented?

[AmbroseCollector]

I'm really intrigued by the game so far.  I think it breaks nicely out of the mold, and I look forward to running it when it's a bit more complete.

I like the different skill difficulties and how they work, and I like the driving concept of storytelling.

Also, I enjoy that the vast majority of actions do not need to be rolled, and that it's specifically stated in the rules.  I've played with GM's who want me to roll Wits + Investigation to find a newspaper in a grocery store.

§ By a show of hands, a majority of all the other players say the action should be rolled

With this rule, I forsee a group where one player wants to call innumerable votes as to whether or not something should be rolled.  Alterring it or perhaps deleting it altogether would help.

I honestly think that it would benefit from at least the beginnings of a setting, or perhaps a couple sample settings.

It would also be possible to tie in exactly what Pluck IS in each setting, other than a general drive to succeed, which is how I interpreted it.

Also, failure is amazingly easy, if I'm getting the rules right.  Heroic actions boil down to a little less than 50/50 chance.  Will I get more ones or sixes?  And the chances don't increase as more dice are added, only when something is at Stake.

This may be a good thing, as you're seeing it.  The idea that it's not what you can do, but what you care about.

[hieronymous]

I'm really intrigued by the game so far.  I think it breaks nicely out of the mold, and I look forward to running it when it's a bit more complete.

Thanks. I have to admit that I'm really trying for a VERY short game here; I've already got my hunnert-page project Seven Leagues, and I'm aiming for something in the 5 page range. I'm trying to offer an interesting framework for roleplaying, rather than a tightly-meshed setting and rules (again, I've got that jones scratched with 7L). That said, it's evolving nightly; the latest version is at the same old link (now with spiffy character sheet): http://www.malcontentgames.com/stake.pdf)

I like the different skill difficulties and how they work, and I like the driving concept of storytelling.

Also, I enjoy that the vast majority of actions do not need to be rolled, and that it's specifically stated in the rules.  I've played with GM's who want me to roll Wits + Investigation to find a newspaper in a grocery store.

Yeah, and if you fumble your roll, you suddenly find yourself in the clink for robbing the store. Heh.

§ By a show of hands, a majority of all the other players say the action should be rolled

With this rule, I forsee a group where one player wants to call innumerable votes as to whether or not something should be rolled.  Alterring it or perhaps deleting it altogether would help.

I meant it to be a majority vote, so the lone standout (one way or the other) will get overruled. And remember, the narrator (and the player making the action) can always force a roll (though not avoid one).

I honestly think that it would benefit from at least the beginnings of a setting, or perhaps a couple sample settings.

I might churn out three or four characters for different settings, I dunno. I don't see doing a full-blown setting, tho'. If someone really wanted to run with that ball, we could talk (not that I think that'll happen, there are PLENTY of other creative systems out there). This is really meant more as an experiment I guess.

It would also be possible to tie in exactly what Pluck IS in each setting, other than a general drive to succeed, which is how I interpreted it.

Hmmm. I had toyed with adding other attributes (for a fantasy game, f'rinstance, you might have Mana and Props for your magic realms and magic items, but that gets away from the core idea of having your attributes NOT represent your abilities or skills, rather your motivators). You can, I suppose, add as many more attributes as you want, and the game still works. The more attributes you have, the better your odds of success, so I wouldn't go overboard (see below).

Also, failure is amazingly easy, if I'm getting the rules right.  Heroic actions boil down to a little less than 50/50 chance.  Will I get more ones or sixes?  And the chances don't increase as more dice are added, only when something is at Stake.

You are right about heroic odds: for heroic actions, your statistical odds of succeeding are indeed 50/50, whether you roll 10 dice or 1 or 20. For all other actions though, piling on dice is in your favor. For rolls, if you put one of your Stakes on the line (thanks very much TonyLB for pointing that out!), your odds DOUBLE. I think those are pretty generous odds, actually, when you consider that many actions (yes EVEN getting the paper) will be by fiat.

This may be a good thing, as you're seeing it.  The idea that it's not what you can do, but what you care about.

EXACTLY! Yes. Perfect.

[AmbroseCollector]

§ By a show of hands, a majority of all the other players say the action should be rolled

With this rule, I forsee a group where one player wants to call innumerable votes as to whether or not something should be rolled.  Alterring it or perhaps deleting it altogether would help.

I meant it to be a majority vote, so the lone standout (one way or the other) will get overruled. And remember, the narrator (and the player making the action) can always force a roll (though not avoid one).

Still, if one character keeps calling for votes, play can really slow down.  Or can only the narrator call for votes?  That's unclear in the rules.