Kill Bill Inspired Mechanics

[Ben O'Neal]

Forge Notebook Entry #2: Kill Bill Inspired Mechanics.

Yeah, saw Kill Bill the other day, kicked myself for not seeing it at the cinemas, then immediately went and saw Kill Bill 2 at the cinema. Ben's quick-capsule review: Fucking Wicked.

So it got me thinking about how I could make a game where mass carnage can be had, and is indeed aimed for, while still keeping that truly human hero aspect. Here's a few points I noted:

--Nearly every fight she gets into, she gets hurt.
--She always overcomes the hurt when fighting the "bosses".
--She chews through pions like cannon fodder.
--She must go through weaker baddies before fighting the "Big Ones".
--She has the coolest goddamn sword ever.
--There is occasionally collateral damage.

So here is my attempt at recreating this coolness:

PC Stats:
Start Game with 8 points to distribute among 4 stats. Must put at least 1 on each stat.

Style: 1-3 (max 6, raised via in-game training (btw, Pei Mei is the best))
Weapon Coolness: 1-3 (max 6, raised in-game by finding a cool weapon)
Luck: 1-3 (max 6, raised in-game via advancement somehow)
Grudge: 1-3 (no max, raised in-game by killing "bosses")

You also have two derived stats:
Action Pool: equal to all your stats added together (starting character will have 8). This is how many d6 you roll to do stuff.
Damage: Built up in-game. You can't die by taking damage, but if you take an amount of damage equal to your combat pool, you become incapacitated, and if you are alone with the enemy, you gain a Grudge point and must generate an in-game description of how you survived (like, I dunno, maybe falling into a coma?).

Ok, so you use your action pool to do stuff against other people. If someone ties you up, you lose your Style and Weapon Coolness stats, so your rolls against their tying you up will be made with only your Luck and Grudge contributing to your Action Pool (unless, say, you had a knife on your person, in which case you would keep the weapon coolness of the knife). If some person is not opposing you directly or indirectly, you automatically succeed (within the bounds of plausibility, like, you can't jump from america to china).

Damage is the cool part. If you take a point of damage, you record it on your character sheet. At any time throughout the game, you can "use up" your damage to add directly to your Action Pool for that encounter. So say you just fought through a hundred pions to get to BossX, and took 6 points of damage on the way. You could add that 6 to your Action Pool against BossX, thus drastically increasing your chances of success. Once used in such a way, the damage pool becomes empty again (you're still damaged, but you can't use it to fuel your fighting anymore).


Example You've got an Action Pool of 10. You walk into a restaurant to kill Some Guy. But this guy sends like ten guys at you. They are pions, so they all have like Action Pools of 2 and for pions this means 2d4 (pions use d4, you use d6, uber-bosses use d8). So the first 3 come at you (they always come in little waves), and you roll 10d6 while the GM rolls 6d4. You get 6433221111, and they get 42 42 11. You can "kill off" any one of their rolls with a higher one of yours. You deal damage to them equal to the difference. These are weak pions, so they are probably going to only have 2 HP (enemies have hit points, only the PCs can't die). A tie between individual die means that you didn't damage them. So in this case, you managed to kill two of the attackers and damage one. If a pion takes damage, they can't participate in the next wave.

So the next wave comes, again, 3 guys. You roll 6654443332, and GM rolls 31 41 11 for the pions. This time all of them fall.

Next wave includes the damaged guy from the first wave, and the last two guys, who look like they know what they are doing a bit more (they have 3d4 and 3 HP). So you roll 6544332221 and they roll 321 322 31. So you could kill all of them, but you decide to let them damage you a bit first, cos you are near Some Guy. So you can re-arrange the order of your die to let them hit you a bit, but you still wanna kill off that earlier guy why not. So to meet 321, you use 221, to meet 322 you use 332, and to meet 31 you use 44. So earlier guy falls and you deal 1 HP to one of the remaining guys, whilst the other dude deals 1 damage to you.

Now one of the pions is out for this wave cos he took damage (they always fall to one side clutching thier wound, watch some of their friends die, then get beck in the fray). So you roll 6542222111, and pion rolls 442. You meet his 442 with 111, letting him deal 7 damage to you (your damage total is now 8). (this might have been a bad idea, in case Some Guy deals damage, seeing as he is a boss and all... but then again, it might make for some plot thickening).

Next wave includes damaged guy from before again. You roll 5555444421, and they roll 432 411. You kill them both.

Now when you fight Some Guy, you have a potential Action pool of 18 (8 from damage).


Of course, all of this would play out with a helluva lot more description from the players (who have total narration rights over the interpretation of the rolls, in how they are damaged and how they deal damage), while the GM describes the pions running/jumping/crashing in and screaming/falling/writhing/crawling away in trails of blood. Also, there has to be lots of blood.

Also, if, during the above fight, you managed to grab a second weapon, that would be considered much coolness, so your Weapon Coolness would increase, increasing your combat pool. There'd be some sort of table giving numbers for the coolness of weapons and using multiple weapons.

There'd probably also be a rule saying that the players must each generate a list of people they want to kill and why, and also generate a reason why they are all together. It could be as simple as they are all friends, so when one has a grudge, they all help out.

Oh yeah, and I just remembered, if you are fighting some guy(s) and your rolls are too crap and they damage you when you don't want it, but your Action Pool was big enough to have "spare" rolls, you can use these to "absorb" the damage dealt to you in the form of converting it to collateral damage. You must describe the collateral damage and how it plays out. Bosses can do this too. So, for example, say I had an Action Pool of 10, and this guy I was fighting had an Action Pool of 6, but I rolled all 1's and he rolled all 2's. Normally, that would mean 6 damage to me, but instead, because I have 4 1's left over, I use them to "convert" 4 damage to me into collateral damage and I take 2.


I dunno. just a thought that came to me. I liked the idea of wanting to be damaged to boost your boss-killin skillz, because it let's players narrate all sorts of dramatic blood-spraying shit and incentivises the whole "kill hundreds of dudes to get to the bad guy" thing.

What do you guys think? Is it total rubbish? Does it make no sense whatsoever? Is it too complicated? Or too basic? Does it destroy the awesomeness of Kill Bill-esque combat?

Thanks,
-Ben

[Valamir]

Not bad at all.  Would need some playtesting to make sure all the numbers work, but conceptually I'd say its definitely worth developing further to see where you can take it.

In fact, I strongly encourage you to not simply leave it as a neat brainstorm you had one day and leave it at that, but actually make something playable with it.  There is potential there for a really cool game.


I'm going to now go out on a limb, and rely on you to take this in the spirit it is given.  This little exercise of yours is exactly the sort of thing I think you really could benefit from doing for Eclipse.

Not the specific mechanics, I mean the process.

You sat down to write this with a clear vision of what you wanted.  In this particular case, modeling a Kill Bill slaughter fest.  You did not create mechanics to handle everything.  You created mechanics to handle specifically those elements of Kill Bill that were worth modeling.  You studied your mental image and made a list of the key features that your game needed to have.  You then wrote mechanics to accomplish those key features and spent zero time on mechanics that weren't related to those features.

As a result you have the makings of what could well be a powerful game engine, focused on accomplishing exactly your clearly concieved vision of what you wanted play to look like.

Even if playtesting shows that the mechanics don't work as well as you'd hoped, I think this post is a wonderful example of the thought process of approaching a design.  Its one I hope will be linked to in the future.

I personally would love to see you take this same approach with Eclipse.  Again, not the specific mechanics, but rather the process.  Find that element of Eclipse that makes the game exciting to you.  List out those 6 or 8 or 12 key elements that make the game interesting just like you did above.  And then make your mechanics focus on those elements like a laser, just like you did above.  

I'm quite impressed by it.  I hope you'll develop it further.


BTW:  I think the word you're looking for is "peon".  If I'm not mistaken, a pion is a subatomic particle.  If the character were to be slicing through pions with a sword, I suspect there'd be a really big boom ;-)

[Ben O'Neal]

Thanks Ralph! Yeah, I've only ever heard the word "peon", so I was spelling it phonetically.

I'm going to now go out on a limb, and rely on you to take this in the spirit it is given. This little exercise of yours is exactly the sort of thing I think you really could benefit from doing for Eclipse.

That wasn't really going out on a limb. I was "broken in" here by Mike, so I can respect blunt honesty and good advice when I see it. Thanks though.

Find that element of Eclipse that makes the game exciting to you. List out those 6 or 8 or 12 key elements that make the game interesting just like you did above. And then make your mechanics focus on those elements like a laser, just like you did above.

Already did. However, I'm getting a sense for what might be an important distinction. See, I think I can relate to two types of RPGs. BIG RPGs, and Focused RPGs. Something like this Kill Bill mechanic would do well in the later, whilst Eclipse is what I see as the former. My goals for eclipse weren't to focus on a specific type of cool play, they were to focus on many types of cool play. What you see as superfluous, I see as extra detail and flavour that makes the game that much more fun. I don't want Eclipse to have one type of thing that people do. I want it to have heaps. I look at it like the difference between Ultima Online and Diablo 2. Diablo 2 focuses on the killing, and Ultima Online focuses on a lot more. Hell, you can be a blacksmith for your whole career, or a tailor, or whatever. Both are great games (apparently, I've only seen them). Does that make sense? I understand that a singular focus can make a great game, but I couldn't possibly list everything I want in Eclipse in 6-12 elements. Hell, I can't list everything in Eclipse on one page.

So maybe Eclipse will be my big flop. First ever game designed, first to be published. But no big deal because not only will I have learnt alot from it (indeed, I already have), but I will also have played around with most things I find cool, so I'll be in a better position to make future games. And maybe these mechanics will be in one of those future games (hell, if they work, I'm pretty sure they will be).

So I think I do understand your points, but I have different opinions as to the singular significance of them. But thanks for your comments anyways, very much appreciated.

-Ben

[Valamir]

I don't want Eclipse to have one type of thing that people do. I want it to have heaps. I look at it like the difference between Ultima Online and Diablo 2. Diablo 2 focuses on the killing, and Ultima Online focuses on a lot more. Hell, you can be a blacksmith for your whole career, or a tailor, or whatever. Both are great games (apparently, I've only seen them). Does that make sense?

Yup, it makes perfect sense.  Its quite natural really.  We all have a ton of really cool ideas pounding in our head wanting to get out...so what could be cooler than putting all of those cool ideas in one game.

But take UO, or even more EverQuest.  There are literally dozens of massively multiplayer Online RPGs that have been rolled out.  Few last longer than a year or two.  Why?  Because most of them offer only a modest change from UO or EQ.  UO or EQ are already out there...why would people change over to a new MMORPG when they could just play EQ.  Similarly there are a ton of games that try to out Diablo Diablo.  Most dry up and blow away as busts.

I understand the impulse for wanting to put every cool thing in your head into Eclipse and wanting a game that can do everything.  And there are some pretty cool ideas in the game, don't get me wrong.  But I've got a ton of games on my shelf already that have fantasy races in a fantasy setting loosely based on medieval Europe where characters can be anything.  I'm not really all that inspired to add any more of those.

But I'll tell you what I did find cool in Eclipse.

You are members of an ancient and secret
guild, whose goal is to ensure the fulfilment of ancient prophecies,
and you are being sent to a recently discovered country to
establish a new base of operations. You play members of the
dark and feared guild of assassins known as the Wraiths, whilst
also maintaining the public façade of local merchants

Tell me more about these guys.  Make a game about these guys.  I've played tons of games with humans and nature loving elfs.  Haven't played any about assassin guilds posing as merchants seeking to bring about an ancient prophecy (yes, I know they were two seperate ideas...they work well together though).  You could do all sorts of cool mechanics with this...an empathy stat that when its high it makes them better merchants and solidifies their cover, but makes it difficult to kill indiscriminately.  When its low, they are cold killers, but have trouble with their cover.  A "fake it" skill that lets them pretend to have empathy so they get the best of both worlds, but which threatens to drive them mad.  Mechanics for bringing the prophecy closer, for divining who the next person needing to be killed (in a sort of reverse butterfly effect) to bring it closer, and how to get back on track if you kill the wrong one.  Lots of cools stuff there.

The other thing that grabbed me was your two warring lizard guy people.  One useing magic, the other weapons.  The same species who occupy the same ecological niche, but who hate each other.  How about a game about guerrilla warfare in the swamps (or desert or whereever these guys live).  Each side has its own attributes representing what each finds cultureally important.  That could be cool.


I completely understand you wanting to finish Eclipse as is.  But I look forward to seeing individual pieces and aspects of your game developed as individual games that actually about those individual pieces and aspects.

[Ben O'Neal]

Tell me more about these guys. Make a game about these guys. I've played tons of games with humans and nature loving elfs. Haven't played any about assassin guilds posing as merchants seeking to bring about an ancient prophecy (yes, I know they were two seperate ideas...they work well together though). You could do all sorts of cool mechanics with this...an empathy stat that when its high it makes them better merchants and solidifies their cover, but makes it difficult to kill indiscriminately. When its low, they are cold killers, but have trouble with their cover. A "fake it" skill that lets them pretend to have empathy so they get the best of both worlds, but which threatens to drive them mad. Mechanics for bringing the prophecy closer, for divining who the next person needing to be killed (in a sort of reverse butterfly effect) to bring it closer, and how to get back on track if you kill the wrong one. Lots of cools stuff there.

Hmmm. Cool ideas. But breaking Eclipse up into a bunch of smaller games? I dunno. It might very well work, but I sorta liked the idea of One Game to Rule Them All. hehehe. Just Kidding.

The other thing that grabbed me was your two warring lizard guy people. One useing magic, the other weapons. The same species who occupy the same ecological niche, but who hate each other. How about a game about guerrilla warfare in the swamps (or desert or whereever these guys live). Each side has its own attributes representing what each finds cultureally important. That could be cool.

Actually, mountain lakes are the territory. Lizard swamps are passe. Lizards blend into mountains really well too. If you think they are cool, perhaps you might like my dra'archons. These guys are hella cool in my view. They are like a mix of the Valheru (ala Feist's Magician), doppelgangers, vampires, highlanders, and dragons. Basically they are dragons who grow/become more powerful by killng each other and other creatures. But they can sense each other so long as they are in their dragon form. Thus in order to avoid being hunted by others of their kind, they live out lives as other species, trying to hunt each other like spies might. It's a complex idea, and hard to describe succinctly, but I think it's cool.

Ok, so basically you're suggesting taking all of the cool foci from Eclipse, and making each one of them a seperate game?

Pros:
Solves a problem I was having with Publishing.
Means I can release something sooner.
Allows me to see which foci are the uber-cool ones that people like.
Forces gender to become meaningless.

Cons:
Forces gender to become meaningless.
Requires more art.
Means splitting up my website.
Nullifies the potential for interaction of the foci in Eclipse.

This last one's the biggie, in my eyes.

But I dunno. I will have a think on it. Maybe if I made a few of small games, I might be able to integrate them into a coherent whole later. See, my main goal with making Eclipse a BIG RPG wasn't to sell it, or to replace what other people use as BIG RPGs, but to give me something that I could use for anything I wanted to run. From the beginning, it has always been about giving me the perfect tool for all the jobs I want to do. Some people might think it's impossible, but I like to think it isn't.

So thanks for your input Ralph, you've given me something to think about. If you have anything else concerning this matter that you'd like to point out, feel free to PM me, or start a new topic, but for now, I'd like to bring this thread back to the original topic: my Kill Bill Inspired Mechanics.



So Ralph reckons these mechanics are alright, which is cool and flattering, but what about anyone else? Is there anything that should be included? Changed? Dropped? Better explained?

Thanks,
-Ben

[anonymouse]

Splitting them up into seperate games, while still all part of the same setting and thus with the potential to interact, would effectively give you the White Wolf/World of Darkness model.

Take that for what you will. Might be something you want to emulate, might not be.

[Ben Morgan]

Okay, two things:

One: The Kill Bill thing is sooooo awesome I wanna wrap it up in a fajita and eat with three or four packets of Taco Bell Fire sauce. Goddamn I want to play this. Just have to find a group now. Seriously, keep developing this one.

Two: I'm also digging the idea of splitting up the setting for Eclipse across several games, but NOT via the White Wolf model (ie: same game system morphed to accommodate several different types of characters). No no no. Instead, make up COMPLETELY different mechanics for each game to further focus on the important aspects of each "snapshot", as it were. Emhpasize that these are all part of a greater whole, and that story elements can be carried across from one game to another, but they are not specifically designed for "crossovers" (so much so that such a thing might even be physically impossible), and that this fact is a feature, not a bug.

-- The Other Ben

[Andrew Martin]

But I'll tell you what I did find cool in Eclipse.

You are members of an ancient and secret
guild, whose goal is to ensure the fulfilment of ancient prophecies,
and you are being sent to a recently discovered country to
establish a new base of operations. You play members of the
dark and feared guild of assassins known as the Wraiths, whilst
also maintaining the public façade of local merchants

Tell me more about these guys.  Make a game about these guys.  I've played tons of games with humans and nature loving elfs.  Haven't played any about assassin guilds posing as merchants seeking to bring about an ancient prophecy (yes, I know they were two seperate ideas...they work well together though).  You could do all sorts of cool mechanics with this...an empathy stat that when its high it makes them better merchants and solidifies their cover, but makes it difficult to kill indiscriminately.  When its low, they are cold killers, but have trouble with their cover.  A "fake it" skill that lets them pretend to have empathy so they get the best of both worlds, but which threatens to drive them mad.  Mechanics for bringing the prophecy closer, for divining who the next person needing to be killed (in a sort of reverse butterfly effect) to bring it closer, and how to get back on track if you kill the wrong one.  Lots of cools stuff there.

I'd like to play this game as well.

[Rob Carriere]

Three things:

- What you describe sounds like it emulates well what I've heard of the Kill Bills.
- I'm not likely to play this, but then I'm the guy who studiously avoided those movies. If you were inspiring me, you'd be doing something wrong.
- I explained the idea to a friend who did see and like both Kill Bills and he was slavering over his email so badly I had to wipe my screen.

I think you're onto something and it's something good.

SR
--

[Ben O'Neal]

I explained the idea to a friend who did see and like both Kill Bills and he was slavering over his email so badly I had to wipe my screen.

I laughed so hard when I read that :)

Seriously though, this is quite an unexpected response! I mean, when I came up with the idea, it seemed pretty cool, but I never thought anyone else would think it was cool, and certainly not this cool.

So I guess that means I'll be developing it a bit more. Now I'm kinda stuck for what else I can add... I guess I'll come up with something. Maybe if I watch the movies again...

Also, if anyone has any ideas (any at all) that they think might mesh well with such a concept, I'd love to hear them.

Oooh, wait! I just had a thought. What if, via some crazy mechanical voodoo, I made a rule that said that in order to advance (perhaps the only way??), players had to generate an important event in their past which helps them get of of a current bind? I am, of course, thinking of that scene in part 2 where she is being buried alive and the scene changes to her training with Pei Mei (I love that dude) to do a 3inch punch through thick wood... and then that's how she escapes from the coffin. I think this sort of thing might be really handy in-game. GM pits PlayerX against Bad GuyA and PlayerX decides that now would be a good time to get some advancement doin, so they take a shit-load of damage (enough to trigger player-driven plot change) and describe how they are now in BindA,: cue PlayerX describing relevant past, which then segues nicely into them overcoming BindA. Hmmm.

Maybe I might allow other players to contribute to the development of BindA, giving PlayerX total authority over what stays. So maybe this could be rewarded with an increase to Luck? I dunno, it sorta makes a crazy kind of sense to me. So now players not only strive to get damaged for short-term boosts to kill bosses, and strive to kill bosses to increase Grudge, but also strive to get hard-core stuffed up so that they can reap long-term rewards in the form of greater Luck. [/end inspiration]

So what do you guys think? Am I heading in the right direction? Sound plausible? Interesting? Most importantly, Fun?

Thanks,
-Ben

-- The Other Ben

Hahahaha... could be worse, we could both be "Chris"!

P.S. Do you think that if I made this game, and it was actually pretty cool, that good 'ol Quintin might give it a big tick of approval? Does that sort of thing ever happen? Also, it needs a cool name. I used up all my creativity with the above idea. Any thoughts? Needs to imply craziness, bloodiness, fun, seriously psychotic wrath, awesome cool shit... any combination of these. Thanks.

[Valamir]

So I guess that means I'll be developing it a bit more. Now I'm kinda stuck for what else I can add... I guess I'll come up with something. Maybe if I watch the movies again...

Well, what you need to do now is give some thought to the structure of actual play.  

For instance:  is the game going to be designed for 1 player ("the bride") and a GM?  If there are more than 1 player are they going to be team based (like rewinding to the Viper Assassination Squad days)?  Or are they each going to be playing iconic "bride-like" killing machines?  If so, will their stories cross or be seperate?

Answering that will give you some direction on what you need to design next.

After that...a random Big Bad and Mook generator would be quite usefull.

[John Harper]

P.S. Do you think that if I made this game, and it was actually pretty cool, that good 'ol Quintin might give it a big tick of approval? Does that sort of thing ever happen?

Well, I hate to be the downer here, but... No. No, it will never happen. Not in a million years.  But that's okay. I wouldn't count an official license as one of your goals at this point. Make a kick-ass game first.

Now, the cool name. Hmmm. How about Bloody Satisfaction?

[Ben O'Neal]

Well, I hate to be the downer here, but... No. No, it will never happen. Not in a million years. But that's okay. I wouldn't count an official license as one of your goals at this point. Make a kick-ass game first.

Haha, yeah, I was being facetious. I just don't like the idea of my game being "That Kill Bill-like game, the one that isn't Kill Bill". So the name needs to be really awesome to counter that.

Well, what you need to do now is give some thought to the structure of actual play.

Well I want players to be able to interact with each other on the character level, so definately a team of players in a sort of Viper Assassination Squad Deal. And bingo: there's another flavour rule: your name can't be a real name, and has to be cool. But I'll probably have to work pretty hard to make sure that this thing doesn't turn out like Charlie's Angels or anything gay like that. I'm thinking that it would be cool if most play involved all the players at once, but there was the occasional time when they each deal with their own things seperately.....maybe the "Big Boss" guy can only be faced by the individuals themselves, whereas the smaller bosses can be taken down by the group?

Random Big Bad and Mook generator: check.

Cool Names:
Bloody Satisfaction
Hurt
Killing Pain
Blood Moon
Hail Tyranny
Gently
Limb Nursery
Embrace of Malice
Death Comes Ripping
Bleeding Ruin
Severed
Army of Me
Implements of Destruction
Bloodletter
Bloodthirst
Macarbe Serenade
Charnel Wake
Eraser
The Wretched

Ok, that's all I can be bothered thinking of. If I had to pick my 3 favourites, they would be: Eraser, Charnel Wake, and Limb Nursery. What do you guys reckon? Any thoughts about an appropriate and cool name?

-Ben

[Ben O'Neal]

Ok, not takers. Fair enough.

I don't usually post twice in a row (I prefer replying to someone else), but I thought this question didn't deserve it's own topic, but I would appreciate input about it.

My questions is, as was brought up in this thread: of the GNS modes, what the hell do these mechanics support?

Andrew Morris seems to think they support Sim play, but I'm not convinced. When I think about it, at first look they feel gamist to me, but then again, when I think more about them, they feel narrativist. Here's why I think so:

Narrativist?
They rely on player narration. Not just "I hit him", but more that the actual mechanics don't say anything about what is going on (hence why I think they can't be simulationist). All they say is "decide what specific outcome you want and narrate it".
They encourage exploration of the character's life. The reward system functions solely on players narrating their history and how it relates to the present.
The rules are rather light. Whilst this really doesn't mean Nar, it does seem to be a correlate.
There's probably other reasons, but I'm not big on my Nar definition.

Not Gamist or Simulationist?
The rules do little to represent reality in any tangible way. In reality, the Coolness of a weapon does not correlate with increased effectiveness. They also do little to conceptualise what is happening in the shared imaginative space (instead, they act as guides to how the player should narrate what is happening in the SIS).
They do not reward what I typically view as gamist activities, like choosing the most risk for the greatest reward or seeking out in-game loot. Instead, they reward things that contribute to your character's story. It makes no difference if you choose to get yourself into a really dangerous bind, or a relatively safe one: there is no gamist advantage to either decision; and thus, IMHO, players are free to be as creative and interesting as they like, without fear of any penalties or bonuses for choosing a particular direction.

This is all just my view though, and I could be talking out of my ass. So I'd love to hear what GNS mode(s) any of you think this system might support. Perhaps if I know the right mode, I might be able to better cater for that when I type this thing up eventually (sometime soon I hope... and it will have a totally wicked layout :)

Thanks,
-Ben

[Trevis Martin]

Hi Ben,

It is hard to tell because the material presented so far is only half the story for the game.  The other half of the story as far as guessing the CA is the reward system and the behaviors it encourages.  

My guess is Sim.  I don't think its Narrativist at the moment because I can't see that the mechanics speicifically encourage the players to address a premise, which is the definition of Narrativist.  It could possibly be a 'Stay out of your way' narrativist system like the pool but again there isn't enough evidence.  Just as a note, Whether something is narrativist or not has nothing to do with who gets to narrate outcomes.  Narrativist play, Narrative and narration rights are all seperate ideas.  You can have distributed narration rights in sim and gamist leaning mechanics as well.  

The reason my guess is sim is not because the mechanics model reality but instead they model the 'kill bill' type fight scenario.  Specifically they are concerned with reproducing with high fidelity the type of fight that comes about in that film.

But as I said, so far its incomplete (but definately cool.)  It could be narrativist with, perhaps, a reward system that is bent in that direction.

Trevis