Live-Action "Powers" Mechanic

[Mark Stahl]

Hello everyone. I must be honest I wasn't too sure how to post to this particular forum, but I also would like some feedback on a game I have been working on inconsistently.

The system has many orthogonal properties to it, so this allows me to post it in pieces to keep the discussion focused.

General Game Concept
Type of Play: Live Action
Playable "Races": Angels, Demons, Humans
General Play Style: Social / Political
System Focus:  Less resolution, more RP. 
Solution: Integrate the resolution mechanics into the RP.

"Powers" Resolution
For simplicity I will not include how an opposing character could oppose the use of a power.  There are rules for this sort of contention, but for the simplicity of discussion, let us assume that the power just works. =)

Activation of "Powers"
Each power has 2 things associated with its title that inform the player how its character will enact the given power.

The name of each power is the text that actually must be spoken by character to enact the power.
The name of each power is also distinguished by "how" it is used during play.

There is an exclaimation ( ! ), a question ( ? ), a statement ( . ), and a whisper( ... ).

NOTE: I have thrown around the idea of making some powers fragments (where beginning or end of the sentence would be indicated), and others used as complete sentences.

So, to the punch line.  A character in order to enact a power (let us assume to another player), the character must use the name of the power in its appropriate syntactic form (yelling, question, stating, or whispering).

No examples of play come to mind at this period of time, as I am at work, and can't concentrate completely on writing this post.

Thank you for your time in advance.

Regards,

Mark Stahl

[James_Nostack]

Mark, I like that idea.  Do the phrases or syntax "add up" to something more?  Like, does each instance of play end up with similar elements used in a different combination, which could determine certain End Game conditions? 

I would suggest that powers which have a wide range, or have lasting effects on characters who may not be nearby, should be shouted--that way, everyone knows, "Hey, whoops, it's supposed to be magically raining now," or whatever.

How many participants would be in the game?

[Mark Stahl]

Do the phrases or syntax "add up" to something more?  Like, does each instance of play end up with similar elements used in a different combination, which could determine certain End Game conditions? 

I don't completely understand the question, but I will do my best to provide an answer for what I 'think' you are saying. So please feel free to correct me and provide maybe a rephrased question in a slower language, with smaller words. =)

I haven't actually sat down and started writing up the powers of yet. I have spent a little bit of time looking through the bible for relevant phrases associated with the appropriate Sins and Virtues.

I imagine (currently) the powers themselves to be "one-offs", meaning that one power is not necessarily tied to another.  Though I imagine something where people are able to string a paragraph of understandable statements that includes a host of different powers would be quite interesting, not to mention, a feat of exceptional creativity on the part of the speaker.

How many participants would be in the game?

My personal preference is larger games, with 15+ people. But then again, my LARP'ing experience is mainly tied to the World of Darkness.

[Ian Mclean]

Interesting idea, the problems that I see with it though would occur when multiple people try to speak at the same time or somebody tries to speak over, or faster than others.

Also calling out what capability you are using means that the majority of abilities would not be very stealthy. Any ideas on how one would address this potential issues?

[Mark Stahl]

Interesting idea, the problems that I see with it though would occur when multiple people try to speak at the same time or somebody tries to speak over, or faster than others.

Yes, you are correct.  I imagine that if such a thing would occur, that some sort of 'round' resolution mechanic would have to be instantiated.  Given what I had stated earlier concerning no chance for the contention of an enacted power, the round resolution mechanic would merely be there to determine the order in which the powers occur.

Also calling out what capability you are using means that the majority of abilities would not be very stealthy. Any ideas on how one would address this potential issues?

Being a political game, I don't imagine many players would want to air their dirty laundry and underhanded dealings, so therefore most powers I could see being "performed" being closed doors.  Although, historically speaking Angels and Demons have never really been ones to hide their actions (ie, possession, the destruction of Sodom and Gomora, etc.) so therefore characters would use "whispers" or enact their powers out of the public eye.

[Mark Stahl]

I would like to begin by thanking James and Ian for posting a response to the idea I have set forth in this forum.  Your feedback is very much appreciated.

I am writing this post to amend the mechanic that I used to start this thread.  Well, to be honest, it is not as much of an amendment, as much as it is a clarification.

The 'powers' that I have been talking about fall into two categories: Sins, and Virtues.  There are seven sins, and seven virtues.  And the powers themselves are very much like a spell list.  I buy up to a certain level in a Sin (lets say Wrath), therefore I can purchase any powers that are equal to, or less than the level I have in Wrath.

Now we need to add to the character mechanics, one we will call (because I currently lack a better name) "Expendables", the other we will refer to as "Rank".  An indicated number of Expendables must be spent to use a power, and if the character does not have a Rank that is equal to or greater than his opponent's Rank, the enacting character must Expend the difference.

Let me provide a quick example:

I have a Rank of 5, and you (the enacter) have a Rank of 3.  The power you are to use on me costs 2 Expendables.  My Rank exceeds yours by 2 levels therefore in order to affect me you must spend an extra 2 Expendables for a total of 4.  If you spend the extras required, the power works, if you do not, or do not have enough Expendables to spend, the power does not affect me.

So there is still no contention between the enacter and the victim, I merely built in balancing mechanics.  I am thinking that my rationale for powers "just working" may require some future explaination, but, then again, maybe not. So I will wait for the questions to be posed before I waste my wrists, and your eyes on an explaination. =)

Regards,

Mark

 

[Ian Mclean]

In your previous example, what if I were the rank 5 and I used a power on the rank 3? If the power cost 2 expendables to use, would that mean I could use the power on a rank 3 or lower for free? (3-5 = -2)

Also, I note that the power maximum of the character would then be dictated, by what you've shown, by each individual Sin (Vice, perhaps?) or Virtue. In the World of Darkness character power maximum is dictated by a single central score, often the ranking of the character along their path of enlightenment.

I would ask why split the character's overall maximum effectiveness amongst 14 statistics?

Furthermore, would you use gradiation of success, and if so how would you decide on and communicate the grades of success?

[Mark Stahl]

In your previous example, what if I were the rank 5 and I used a power on the rank 3? If the power cost 2 expendables to use, would that mean I could use the power on a rank 3 or lower for free? (3-5 = -2)

This is good question.  My first response would be no, but I guess I should way out some possibilities.

So there are two possible solutions (or maybe more) to resolve this issue:

1.  Affecting a lower Ranked character offers no incentives.  Therefore, in your counter example, the cost of use would still be 3.
2.  You take the difference. So maybe some equations are in order.


Cost_of_Use = Enactor_Rank - Victim_Rank where Enactor_Rank > Victim_Rank.
Cost_of_Use = Power_Level where Enactor_Rank = Victim_Rank.
Cost_of_Use = | Enactor_Rank - Victim_Rank | + Power_Level where Enactor_Rank < Victim_Rank.



I'm not sure how I feel about this as of yet. I am merely postulating.

Also, I note that the power maximum of the character would then be dictated, by what you've shown, by each individual Sin (Vice, perhaps?) or Virtue. In the World of Darkness character power maximum is dictated by a single central score, often the ranking of the character along their path of enlightenment.

I would ask why split the character's overall maximum effectiveness amongst 14 statistics?

True, maybe it would be best to remove the Sin/Virtue levels and base (power) levels available for purchase off of "Expendables" or "Rank".  This further streamlines character creation, and advancement, which I like.

Furthermore, would you use gradiation of success, and if so how would you decide on and communicate the grades of success?

No, there is no degree of success. Its an all-or-nothing thing. It happens or it doesn't.

[Ian Mclean]

So this would be an example of a Karma-based (as opposed to Drama, or Fortune. See GNS and Other Matters of Roleplaying) resolution system in which the players need only compare their relative effectiveness to come to a conclusion about the final outcome of an event?

Why do you choose to eliminate the element of chance in favor of faster resolution? Also, what keeps a high ranking character from domineering the play environment? What is their incentive and/or penalty for exercising these powers? That is, what limits a character from monopolizing the game?

As it stands your game would appear to be Zero Sum, with unequal opportunity. How does this assessment sit with you?

[Mark Stahl]

At first I was a little thrown back by the poinant questions, but after thinking about them I appreciate how direct they are.  Thank you Ian.

So this would be an example of a Karma-based (as opposed to Drama, or Fortune. See GNS and Other Matters of Roleplaying) resolution system in which the players need only compare their relative effectiveness to come to a conclusion about the final outcome of an event?

Hmm. Yes I would agree. After reading over the descriptions of each, I would say the this given mechanic lies within the Karma definition; given only the characters sheets as a basis of comparison. 

Why do you choose to eliminate the element of chance in favor of faster resolution? Also, what keeps a high ranking character from domineering the play environment? What is their incentive and/or penalty for exercising these powers? That is, what limits a character from monopolizing the game?

I felt the elimination of chance for faster resolutions would be better suited towards a highly social game, espicially that of a LARP.  And, once again, given only character sheets there is nothing that keeps a high ranking character from domineering the play environment.  And really the only thing that could keep a player from monopolizing a game would be the unification of other players, an even higher-ranking character, or the ineffectiveness of the player when playing the high-ranking character.

As it stands your game would appear to be Zero Sum, with unequal opportunity. How does this assessment sit with you?

I would agree with this as well.  I personally can't see socio-political games be represented by anything else.  There are only so many pieces of the pie to be hand by players, and if the all of the pie is currently claimed, the task now becomes claiming those pieces from other players, and the strife hightens.  Given that Chess, and Go were both noted as Zero Sum games, and the knowledge of what those games represented, I feel that this is an adequate assessment.

Looking over your assesment, I can't disagree with it.  Black Masses was designed to be difficult, and challenging.  A step up from the current LARP'ing games in existence with a focus on the player's social abilities.  The use of powers requires the player to conceive of how and when the powers will be use, given that they represent sentences actually spoken by the player and in turn the character.  This idea supercedes just using character sheets as a basis of comparison for skill, or power.  How well that character is played is just as important.

Also I can't imagine a game that focuses on the socio-political aspects of a culture to be without a group mechanic.  Yes individualistically, a character can dominate a given number of less powerful characters, but as a collective is that still possible?  I don't know, that would be a question for play-testing with a good mix of good and average players.