Kill Bill Inspired Mechanics

[Andrew Morris]

The reason my guess is sim is not because the mechanics model reality but instead they model the 'kill bill' type fight scenario.

Yes, this is exactly why I thought this would be a game that encourages Sim play. But, like I said, I'm still struggling with GNS, so I could be miles off target.

[Ben O'Neal]

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.

Yeah I know. Sorry, I'm relatively new to considerations of GNS, so I'm having difficulty articulating what I mean. But I knew that much, even though my words implied I didn't.

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.

and

The reason my guess is sim is not because the mechanics model reality but instead they model the 'kill bill' type fight scenario.

I see your point, but... don't all (or at least most) mechanics simulate something to some degree? In my eyes even the most abstract card-based bidding system simulates something. Furthermore, what if the premise of the game is to "seek out and kill a list of people against whom you hold a grudge, and who are probably protected by minions"? And what if that premise were expanded to include the concept of karma and fate, such that these Bad Guys get what they deserve, and fate has seemingly seen fit to endow you with everything you need to get your revenge before you even knew you were going to need it? Would that constitute a "premise"? If so, would not these mechanics address this premise explicitly?

I'm only half trying to make a point, I really would like answers to these questions cos maybe I have my definitions wrong (surprise surprise).

As I understand Sim mechanics, it isn't enough that they merely "simulate something", they must be designed such that the very concepts explicitly correlate to some in-game event, such as a "to-hit" roll, or a "damage" roll, or a "skill check"... things which have a very clear correlation with the in-game actions and/or outcomes. I personally think, with my limited understanding, that if a mechanic is simply "do something", then it can't be Sim, but it can be Gamist or Nar. Concersely, such mechanics that are explicitly defined by a correlated in-game action can be Sim or Gamist, but not Nar. But I could be completely wrong, and it wouldn't be a surprise, because I've only read the essay twice (which means I understand 2/10ths of it), and have never even browsed the GNS forum.

-Ben

[Notebook scrawl](just ignore this section, I had to write this somewhere so I wouldn't lose it or forget it) --use action pool to do everything in-game, give examples of how to purchase more cool weapons, how to beat an opponent in a race, how to choose which stats are involved in the AP depending on circumstances. --elaborate on reward mechanic for Luck, giving examples. --figure out reward mechanic for Style. --develop rules for generating death lists, including rules for how the reasons for their being on the list must emerge during play. --elaborate on setting, figure out a way to describe concepts without mentioning "kill bill", develop suggestions/rules for generation and maintenance of "group" play. --emphasise the fact that there is no in-game difference between narrating an easy bind or a hard one, so players might as well opt for the most interesting. --rule: each player must have a theme song for their character, which must be played whenever they fight minions... group must agree on a theme song which must be played when the group faces minions... GM chooses themes for boss fights. theme songs cannot be pussy (no fucking Britany Spears), but funky, dark, heavy, or somewhat analogous to character personality are all fine. --maybe try to figure out and implement a way to handle "down-time", and what happens when not in pursuit of Bad Guys. --layout and overall design should be black/red/white... maybe with some orange or brown, and should scream carnage and intensity. character sheet must look awesome. --ask friends about name. [/Notebook scrawl]

[dalek_of_god]

I'm not very qualified to discuss GNS issues, but I'm pretty sure this qualifies as Sim. The game doesn't seem to address any sort of premise (like how far would you go for revenge), so it probably isn't Narrativist. The characters cannot be killed or even suffer significant setbacks (damage is at the player's discretion and serves as a benefit), so it probably isn't Gamist. That leaves Sim. And very entertaining Sim from the looks of it.

As an aside, I don't think it will take too much effort to describe concepts without mentioning Kill Bill. While I haven't seen the movies, it is my understanding that they are basically an homage to every martial arts movie and ninja/samurai anime ever made. Basically using modern SFX to make a live action martial arts movie as much a gore-fest as a martial arts anime. If you want to describe Kill Bill without mentioning Kill Bill, just go to the sources that inspired it.

[Ben O'Neal]

Does a premise have to be in the form of a question?

Ok, so what would TRoS be? It's mechanics address a premise "what is worth killing for?", and are also very Sim, in attempting to model combat and other stuff very accurately. Is it both Nar and Sim? It looks like it plays more Sim than Nar, but uses the Nar aspects to direct play.

What is the premise of The Pool? The mechanics don't seem to address anything in particular, they merely seem to be a way to resolve things and focus play into the player goals. Is it just Nar by default (because it can't fit into Sim or Gamist)?

Is this game (which I'm calling "Scarlet Wake" for now) just Sim by default?

Help me, I'm confused!

-Ben

[M. J. Young]

Let me go out on a limb and recommend that if you have not, you read http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23/">Applied Theory. It attempts to discuss how to use creative agenda theory in designing games, and several people have said that it helped them immensely in understanding the three agenda.

I see your point, but... don't all (or at least most) mechanics simulate something to some degree?

Yes, and that's not what simulationism is about. It's about discovering, learning from that which is explored. In this case, by attempting to simulate genre, we would be learning from the inside what it would be like to be in such a world.

I'm not saying it's simulationist; I don't think there's enough information for that yet. It sounds like low-impact gamism, where the risk is extremely low, but I'll admit that my eyes glaze over when I start to read rules descriptions in forum threads, and I have no particular interest in seeing the movies.

As far as addressing the premise by killing the villains, that would require that the player could make choices in that particular aspect. That is, if we're making a moral statement by killing the villains, then we must be able to make a different moral statement by not killing them, and still be playing the game. From what I've seen so far, that's not an option.

As I understand Sim mechanics, it isn't enough that they merely "simulate something", they must be designed such that the very concepts explicitly correlate to some in-game event, such as a "to-hit" roll, or a "damage" roll, or a "skill check"... things which have a very clear correlation with the in-game actions and/or outcomes. I personally think, with my limited understanding, that if a mechanic is simply "do something", then it can't be Sim, but it can be Gamist or Nar. Concersely, such mechanics that are explicitly defined by a correlated in-game action can be Sim or Gamist, but not Nar. But I could be completely wrong, and it wouldn't be a surprise, because I've only read the essay twice (which means I understand 2/10ths of it), and have never even browsed the GNS forum.

Um, yeah, you could be completely wrong.

To address whether sim mechanics must do what you say, let me propose a "sim lite" game. In this game, whenever something needs to be resolved, the dice are rolled to pick which player will make the decision. That player then must describe what he believes is the most plausible outcome in this situation, given everything he knows about the character, setting, and situation. That's it--that's the entire game. It's perfectly simulationist, but there are no mechanics to tell us what happened. The mechanics only tell us whose judgment will be trusted to determine what happened. The system further requires that everyone accept an obligation to maintain the highest level of plausibility in what is decided, and that everyone accept the statement of the individual randomly chosen to make that decision in each particular case. What makes it simulationist is that we are exploring, through creation, the world in which the characters are acting, without reference to challenge (there can be very little challenge if outcomes are determined by player fiat) or premise (which could be slipped in if the players wished, but is not at all supported by the rules as writ).

As to your converse suggestion that mechanics which specifically define outcomes do not support narrativist play, again this is a misunderstanding. What matters in narrativist play is that players are given the opportunity to make moral choices that impact the shared imaginary space and create theme. You could develop a game that was combat-intensive, but in which "the enemy" was a very uncertain concept--something like the southeast Asian battle game I was contemplating some time back. Very detailed mechanics could exist for terrain effects, encounters, combat effectiveness, weather patterns, and more, to make the experience as detailed and "real" as possible. But if play was motivated by exploration of the problem of knowing who is the enemy, and how to handle people who might kill you but might merely be terrified that you're going to kill them, and if there were supporting mechanics to make those choices meaningful and interesting, you're sailing strongly into narrativist play.

But let me wrap up by saying it may be premature to worry too much about what agendum you want to support at this point. You do have a pretty clear idea of how you want the game to work, and you might be able to design the entire thing without ever having to ask that question. More to the point, if you figure out what players are doing in play, and why they would do that, the creative agendum will become much more evident through your efforts to reinforce the choices you expect players to make.

I'm inclined to think you'll find this is more of a gamist game. Plot immunity for characters is a red herring in this; the rewards are not in staying alive, but in accomplishing the goals.

--M. J. Young

[Ben O'Neal]

Thanks, M.J., that helped alot. I read the link and considered your post and this is what I've come up with:

Gamism is about exploring system and how it helps you succeed.
Simulationism is about exploring the world and the options available therein.
Narrativism is about exploring characters and the impact their choices have.

Does this seem about right? If so, then yeah, my first instinct was correct, and Scarlet Wake is most likely Gamist, and as you mentioned, probably "low-impact" too. Cool. Gamism and Sim were always my favourite 2 GNS agendum.

-Ben

[M. J. Young]

Well, I'd say that those particular definitions are insights into small pieces of the whole; each of the three agenda explores all of the five elements, in varying intensities and combinations.

But that's a good start, and I'm glad it helped.

--M. J. Young

[frictorious]

System:  Rolling lots of dice and matching them up is takes alot of time and involves numbers/tactics.  This can make it kinda slow and gameist.  I think that playtesting will be the real tell.  
A way of reducing the number of dice rolled could be using larger dice instead of more dice for character advancement.  An idea borrowed from Jade Claw is rating the different stats with different dice.  Just a few options off the top of my head.
GNS: I'm with the other guys that it seems mostly Sim and kinda Gameist to me.
Possible Titles: kinda borrowed from other places
Blood, Death and Vengence! (from The Gamers)
Wrath, Ruin and the Red Dawn (Two Towers)
Mercy is for the Weak
Pray for Mercy, Bastards!
I really like the game idea.  I may borrow it for one-shots, or to play when drinking.  I think that the same idea could be used for Supers type games, or anything where the PCs are larger than life.
-Craig

[Ben O'Neal]

Hey Craig.

Yeah, I was thinking that the number of die rolled might be too high, and may very well get out of hand. I'm considering a few options, all will probably have to be play-tested to see what works best:

Scale down the attributes.
Make the Action Pool divided by 2, 3, 4, whatever.
Allow the Action Pool to be halved to increase the die type.
Rate stats with die types (as you mentioned).

I might even try a few of these together. Who knows. But yeah, rolling 20d6 is kinda a bit much (as can happen quite easily with damage adding to your AP).

Thanks for the game title suggestions, but I'm sticking with Scarlet Wake as my working title for now. It's short and conveys the right meaning in a suitably gruesome and classy way.

Also, this may end up being a "one-shot" game, as you've mentioned, being designed for single-session runs for some fun and carnage. I kinda like that idea, and I think it suits the style more than trying to get a  campaign going. It might also be cool to bring back old characters as extras in sessions, or better, as adversaries. Yeah, I think I might play with that idea a bit. See if I can't give this game a real feel for the cycle of revenge, by having players play characters who kill bad guys for revenge, and then play other characters who hunt those first characters in revenge for their revenge... it's a complicated but cool cycle, and fits the whole "underground killers" thing. Let's see where it takes me.

But when I get some time I'll playtest this mofo and see if I can't get an Indie Design topic going soon. I am having a lot of fun coming up with the color and art for this game, which is super-cool. I'm going for that grungy anime style from that scene in the 1st movie. It suits it all perfectly IMHO.

-Ben

[Sledgeman]

Hi, there!

I've been lurking this forum for awhile, and had no intention of posting until today...I was browsing around, looking for inspiration for a mechanic for something I'm working on, when I stumbled across this thread.

Have you ever seen something so unique and inherently cool, and nearly punched your own head off for not thinking of it first?

This mechanic is so cool-sounding, that it's going to take no small effort not to develop it on my own and play it with my friends around here.  Please, please, please continue developing this mechanic, so that our little gaming group can enjoy the fruits of your labor.

I'm just about to punch in to work, so I'll post more detailed thoughts later on.  =-)

[Sledgeman]

M'k, back for a minute, anyway.  =-)

While I'm not particularly qualified (I have much more playing experience than designing experience), I'll throw in my $.02 on this.

I'm sort of on the edge of the Gamist/Narrativist positions...and from what I've seen of this mechanic so far, this game has the potential to appeal to both viewpoints.  A simple mechanic like this might allow Gamists to quickly master the rules so they can get right to exploiting them...at the same time, in order to play, it seems you have to "Justify" your stats a little bit--someone with a "Weapon Coolness" of 3 to start can't be wandering around with a "Light Pistol."  It's gotta be "The Pearl-Handled Revolver That Shot Down The Meanest Outlaw In The West."  Narrativists would dig this, as everyone is encouraged to dig into their character more.

If it's worth it to you, I would consider keeping the Risk-Like combat mechanic in some form.  It's a relatively unique mechanic, and if you don't hang onto it, I'm going to steal it from you.  ;-)

It's unlikely that I'll be back on the internet again for 3-5 days, so if I don't respond right away, don't take it personal.  =-)

Thanks,
-CHRIS M.

[Ben O'Neal]

Hey Chris,

Glad you decided to become an active member, welcome! Thanks also for your input, much appreciated.

I don't know what Risk-Like combat mechanics are, but the way I've described combat will probably be close to how it turns out in the finished form, but it does need some adjusting, if only to reduce the number of die needed.

But you are spot-on about the stats. It's entirely up to the players to justifiy their stats. Their Style could be Terminator-esque hardcore tank, or Bruce Lee-esque monkey acrobatics. But a Style of 1 will be more likely to be someone getting lucky in a bad situation.

But as it stands now, I'll be beginning solid work on Scarlet Wake in around two weeks, when my exams are over. I don't know how long it will take to write up, but I can't imagine it will weigh in at much more than 50 pages.

Also, I was just thinking that when a player narrates their way out of bind, it would be cool if they essentially became the GM of their mini story, and designated the other players as different characters in their little story, giving them a little bit of info about the sort of character they are. For example, Player A gets into a bind and decides that Player B will be Pei Mei and the GM will be Bill, while player A now becomes the GM of thier little story about how their character gets out of the bind. This would make binds more interactive, and IMHO, more interesting and fun for all involved. But I guess playtesting will tell.

I also just had an idea. I'm already content with the idea that once your character has killed the five names on their list, that is the end-game for them, but what if... when you killed one of the names on your list, you became the target for someone else to get revenge on? Say you kill Unrepentant Evil Bitch, and she just happens to have a younger brother, who witnesses the murder, and now adds your name to his list. Alone, this is merely "meh", but what if this guy was your next character? What if, once your character has reached end-game, they become Bad Guys for your new characters to add to their lists, and the GM runs them against you? I like this because it highlights the futile cycle of revenge, whilst making it interesting to play. I dunno, just a thought. Any comments?

-Ben

[Rob Carriere]

Ravien,
Gut reaction: if you want to do the cycle thing and the talk-yourself-out-of-bind=gm thing, you might want to reconsider whether you want a central GM at all.

How about:
Each character has a list. and characters are on each other's lists. (That is, there are no NPC enemies.) Every character has an admirer (who this is doesn't really have to be decided until the character is killed). Once the character is killed, that character's player switches to playing the admirer--who will have the killer on their list.

The player who has most recently narrated himself out of a bind is GM. This player's character cannot pursue killing the people on his list, but can be hunted by his enemies. GMing switches as soon as another player narrates their way out of a bind. (Play starts with the player silly enough to volunteer for duty as the GM :)

This gives you a completely circular setup to mirror your cycle of revenge and also reflects that one person's lucky escape is another person's aggravating failure.

Use, ignore, or blast at will.
SR
--

[Kirk Mitchell]

OOooooh! I WANT!

Sorry. I really like everything so far about the idea, but have only been skimming for the time being. When I have time I'll post a more detailed appraisal.

And how did you do that logo? I really like it. (I need a logo... hint hint <looks pathetic>) ;)

Kirk

[Ben O'Neal]

Hey Rob,

That's a pretty neat idea. At the very least it would be worth including as an alternate "mode" of play. But I'll mull it over, and it might end up being the mode of play. It might need a little tweaking to figure out who is GM when, but I like the adversarial nature of one player being pitted against the others. On the other hand, it does become problematic if the current GM's character dies, because now they lost their character... hmmm. Also, come to think of it, it also doesn't fit with the inability of PCs to die..... Hmmmm. Damn. I'll give it a think and see if I can come up with something. But as I said, it is a cool idea and it may very well become an alternate mode of play.

Hey Kirk,

I used photoshop and my arsenal of 1,868 fonts (ok, I only used 3, but they were in the 1,868 :) . Also, I used my mad photoshop skillz. I'm kinda tied up in exams right now, and I will be helping WyldKarde on some of his artwork for Outatowners when they are over, as well as working on this game, but if you email me your game's concept and logo ideas with as much flavour as you can give as to what you want the logo to "feel" like, I may be able to help you out (no promises, but I'll see what I can do ;).

-Ben