The Forge Archives

I'm writing up a superhero game called Capes.  Its premise is "Power is fun, but do you deserve it?"

Two issues were highlighted by last nights playtest.

First issue:  It is too easy for players to be blocked out of action, even unintentionally.  If somebody rolls ten dice, and six of them are threes and fours (which I saw happen more than once) then everyone who has five or less successes is excluded from participating in the turn, no matter what else happens.

Proposed Rules Change:  You no longer determine who has the right to declare Wonders by who has the most dice in their success pool, but by who has the most wonder dice (i.e. fives and sixes).

Do you think this will reduce the number of times that people are blocked out of the action unintentionally?  Are there other effects that I'm not seeing?


Second issue:  This is actually several issues that I feel I might address with a single fix:

[*]There is no mechanical encouragement to deliver stirring monologues and banter[*]There is no mechanical encouragement to chat about your history, your motivations and your plans for world conquest[*]There is a vague indication in the rules that "When you win a gamble for Debt, you should describe a new Fact about the world that supports your vision in that Drive", but it is wholly subjective and has no support in the rule mechanics[/list:u]Proposed Rules Change: Each turn now opens with a formalized "Monologue Phase", during which the heroes and villains talk and posture.  Several things that already happen would now occur in this phase:

[*]Attitudes activate[*]Powers activate[*]Debt is accrued to gain more dice[*]Debt is staked on Complications.[*]Complications that went the whole previous round in Resolution are now Resolved.[/list:u]And some new things would also happen:

[*]Previously established Facts are referenced to... uh... give the person some sort of opportunity to do something in the mechanics... something more interesting than just getting a few more dice[*]For each complication that is resolved that has Stakes, the winner of the Complication can narrate a new Fact (or the opportunity can be deferred until the end of the scene).[/list:u]In addition, the creation of Facts as part of the characters backstory would be part of the character creation process... so they start out with a stable of Facts that they have an incentive to reveal.

Do you think that this is the right direction for giving people a structure that encourages comic-book style monologues?  How should Facts feed back into the game system?

EDIT: In general -- changes seem logical, especially a "Monologue Phase" and more formalized sequence of play.

Quote from: TonyLBPreviously established Facts are referenced to... uh... give the person some sort of opportunity to do something .... For each complication that is resolved that has Stakes, the winner of the Complication can narrate a new Fact (or the opportunity can be deferred until the end of the scene).

Now, over in the very cool playtest thread, you wrote

Quote from: TonyLB....Danny took an early, substantial, debt in Duty, and used the dice to achieve things that activated some of his many Tropes (thereby earning him yet more dice).  He turned that into a cascade, one Trope feeding into the next from turn to turn, combined with effective play in his Attitudes.  In a very short time he went from no dice at all to a huge pile.  At the same time, his well-chosen Tropes forced him to narrate events in his characters own inimitable style.

This is a very cool bootstrapping effect, one I hadn't fully grasped from the example of play. So cool that perhaps it's part of the solution to stating Facts (be they about the world getting better/worse or about a hero's/villain's own backstory): Put them into this cascade as something that empowers the hero further and turn the bootstrapping into a complete positive feedback loop? I'm thinking something along the lines of

1. Hero does Wonders
2. Wonders establish/change situation, enabling hero to activate Tropes/Attitudes/Powers*
3. Tropes enable more Wonders
4. Wonders allow hero to win Complications & establish Facts
5. Facts establish/change situation -- enabling Hero to use yet more Tropes/Attitudes/Powers*

Rinse and repeat until power levels ramp up through the roof

This means that you get the escalations you wanted without having to keep people from throwing all their dice at once. Instead, the escalation occurs not from holding back, but from getting more -- which fits the whole "you gotta spend to earn" mentality of the game. Generating this kind of feedback loop might become the key to successful play (yes, I'm being a bit Gamist).

Mechanics supporting this may actually be less important in establishing such a loop than text encouraging clever narration. (I need to read the latest rules over one more time really, really closely to be sure). But it would definitely help to have a semi-formal gradation of Facts one can establish, on the model of the Wonder Levels chart. E.g. giving an Innocent Bystander a bit of identity (like the mother-and-child in the second version of the Silverstar vs. Smogzilla example) might cost just 1 Fact Point, as might establishing a conveniently located power plant (as in the first version of the Silverstar vs. Smogzilla example). Establishing an "I am your father" level of plot twist might cost 6-7 Fact Points.

My thinking on this is obviously muzzy but my enthusiasm at least is high.

* Yes, I'm aware the it was Trope activation only that was being enabled in the playtest. But presumably careful establishing of Facts could give heroes things to react to by demonstrating different Attitudes and even give them opportunities to activate new Powers. E.g. I state a few facts and all of a sudden, we're near a river; well, my aquatic Powers are now all relevant.

EDIT for quick realization: I guess what this suggestion is about is making it explicit that what characters are fighting over is not any simulationist wargame kind of conflict about terrain, hit points, etc. Instead they are fighting for control of the narrative, making things happen to change the story so they can make more things happen to change the story.

Yeah!  Making things happen so that they can make more things happen.  I really like that.

I'm not sure that the hose of the feedback loop gets plugged in where you're recommending, though.  I can see the argument for Facts enabling Attitudes and Tropes in some way.  You could, for instance, let people reference a Fact in order to unBlock an Attitude or Trope (allowing it to be used again).  But as I said, I'm not sure there isn't a better place to plug in the hose.

While I'm mulling that, I'll add two things:  First is that the phrase "fighting for control" has all sorts of connotations.  I'm pretty sure that we mean the same thing, but I'd prefer to say that players are striving for their chance to contribute.  That reminds people that the Facts being made by their enemies are something that they (at least as players) should embrace as driving the story forward as well.  

When the villains make "bad" things happen it's almost always an opportunity.  Get imprisoned?  You just got inside their secret lair.  Find out an arch-villain is your father?  You just gained a chance to save your father and undermine the opposition at the same time.  I hope this doesn't just come across as pollyanna "lemons to lemonade" nonsense.  I have seen this sort of embracing of adversity and change work for players time and time again.

Second, I'll point out a feature I like about tying the creation of Facts to only the resolution of Complications where Drives were Staked:  Every Fact is morally freighted.  A Fact doesn't happen because you struck a harder blow than the Undoctor... it happens because you struck your blow for Justice (or Truth, or whatever).

There's a subtle distinction there, and one that I have a hard time conveying in rules (so far).  Let's take your example of "I state a few facts and now we're near a river".

That's perfect collaborative narration, reinforced by strategic priorities.  Tying those together is a healthy synergy from the point of view of a game.  But... you knew there had to be a "but", right?...  it isn't really morally freighted.

Consider, by comparison:  Hydrolad, Royal Guard of the Atlantean family and emmisary to the surface world, rescues Princess Nereid from the evil eco-Villain Blight.  He'd staked Duty on this, so he gets to narrate a Fact about how the world supports his sense of Duty.  He declares that the kidnapping of the Princess was just a distraction, and that Blights plan is to detonate a bomb underwater and drown New York in a tsunami.  The villain is striking directly against Hydrolads most cherished Duty, to the ocean itself, and its peaceful relations with the surface dwellers.

Blight must now fight a battle on Hydrolad's preferred venue, both literally and metaphorically.  The next scene will, indeed, be underwater where Hydrolad's aquatic powers are relevant.  But the next scene will also be one where Hydrolad has tremendous reason to be sure of himself and of the rightness of his cause.


So I think I may be aiming at two feedback loops, one fast (Abilities to Wonders to more Abilities to more Wonders) and one slow (Facts to situations where the hero is morally invested, to Stakes, to more Facts).

(Basically a "me too" post).

Quote from: TonyLBYeah!  Making things happen so that they can make more things happen.

Glad my essential point made it through the fog (and my really lame "there's a river" example). Yes, you're absolutely right that Facts need to be morally/emotionally charged rather than tactical; yes, you're absolutely right that both "opposing" sides are actually collaborating with each other to build up a story.

Quote from: TonyLBI think I may be aiming at two feedback loops, one fast (Abilities to Wonders to more Abilities to more Wonders) and one slow (Facts to situations where the hero is morally invested, to Stakes, to more Facts).

Now that is very, very interesting. Wheels within wheels. I guess the gearing between them is (1) Wonders win Complications (2) Complications won return Staked Debt (3) Staked Debt creates Facts (4) Facts creates new situations which give rise to new Complications.

Actual substantive comment (!) : I still think you need a Facts Table to go with the Wonders Table, with bigger Facts costing more. Hydrolad should have to earn being able to state his hugely complicated villainous plot (which could be treated as one big Fact or, perhaps more easily, several linked Facts a la Universalis) -- that gives him an incentive to do Cool Stuff to get the narrative power he needs.

As a side-note, I'll mention that the question of Facts and how they impact Drives has made clear to me what the real danger of being heavily endebted in a Drive is.

Part of this system clearly has to be this:  If you are Overdrawn in a Drive (i.e. have more Debt than your Drive value) then other players, the Editor included, are permitted to more substantially change the moral landscape in which the hero is operating.

If you're not overdrawn in Love, for instance, then the Editor can declare that your super-battle lasted so long that you missed your romantic dinner date.  But if you're overdrawn then he can have your love interest start dating someone else.

EDIT:  I meant that they're allowed to declare such Facts when... well... declaring Facts.  The examples above assume that the hero has just lost some stakes in Love, and therefore the Editor is declaring Facts.

Sydney:  Yeah, a table or something would be good.  Anything that makes it clear how far you can narrate (the same way Wonder Levels and Complications do in the more immediate narration).

And... I've got no immediate ideas on how to do that.

Ok, a couple of things:

1. It would help me if you could itemize as many of the changes that you have made since since the beginning of the last thread when (as i see it) things really started to take off.  If you can i would also love to see what changes you considered but rejected, and why you decided they were not appropriate.

2. I still maintain that until you at least outline non-combat play that a lot of the work we are doing here will be hampered.  I would assume that there is a way other than Staking to get rid of debt tokens since, as i understand it, Debt is really an indicator of how much you doubt you are right in regards to a given drive.

3. I still lobby for more flexible Drives.  I want to be able to create Batdude who has a powerful drive for Vengence and Justice but very little Compassion.  It seems to me that by trying to make all possible meanings fit into 5 Drives we weaken the power of the Drive since it can become ambiguous in meaning.

4. Mechanics for changing Drives need to be worked out if we want to be able to show Heroes sliding into darkness or Villains being redeemed.  This may not be a priority, but if it is we'll want to do something about it.  Whatever we do needs to make this a difficult thing.  Perhaps you have to distribut all Debt from a Drive into your other Drives if you change it to indicate a more general sense of doubt about your philosophy...

5. Facts really need to be fleshed out.  What is the goal of Facts?  To indicate changes to the World, to give a player influence over the direction of the Story, both?  Here are some examples.

First, changing the World: Minute Man is defeated by the nefarious Nuclear Winter, the Editor is allowed to state a Fact for the Villain.  "It's about 2 a.m. and Jimmy just got off work, he's walking to the bus stop when he hears a muffle scream from a nearby alleyway.  'None of my business, just keep walking,' he mutters under his breath."

As for influencing the Story, i would say that your Aqualad example is a great illustration of that.

To me it is changing the World that is truly interesting.  It is a really cool indicator that there is life outside of your Hero, but that he can still effect that life.  You may not find that as compelling as i do though...

6. See number 2.  I am convinced that it would be a mistake to continue without fleshing this out.  We do not necessarily need mechanics, but at least an outline of what it should look like and how much time should be devoted to it would be really good...

Thomas

User assumes all risk associated with following any of my advice.

Oh yeah, after reading the Actual Play post i am reminded that:

I do not believe we can get away with leaving Debt undefined much longer.  We need to have a clear, consise defintion of what Debt represents if we want to make mechanics that fit.

Thomas

Thomas, thanks for weighing in.  

I put up a new set of rules at the end of the previous thread.  Many of the ideas from that thread have been incorporated in those rules somehow.  The major change was that I went with the Complications-first system that I outlined in that thread.  

If a change is not in the rules then I probably gave it a miss (with the exception of the open Facts question we're talking about right now).

Flexible drives are one of the things that I decided not to do.

Non-combat play will be outlined at some point, but that point is not now.  I agree that having non-combat would help in building Facts.  Having Facts will also help in building non-combat.  This is the order I'm choosing to tackle them.

The immediate goal of Facts is to address four areas where the system doesn't yet encourage behaviors I'd like to see:

[*]Monologues and banter[*]Revealing your history, motivations and plans for world conquest[*]Playing to and appreciating the "pathetic fallacy", as pointed out by Sydney in a previous thread[*]Progressively informing the past, present and future of the hero with their moral issues.[/list:u]

QuoteI do not believe we can get away with leaving Debt undefined much longer. We need to have a clear, consise defintion of what Debt represents if we want to make mechanics that fit.

You're mistaking my intention.  I am not trying to make mechanics that fit a definition of Debt.  I'm trying to make a system of mechanics that prompt and support certain patterns of behavior.  Debt is a variable in that system, the same way Hit Points are a variable in D&D, but it doesn't correspond one-to-one with anything in the imagined space.


So, given all that, do you have thoughts about the following questions?

[*]What manner of limits should be placed upon the player to help them know what they can and cannot narrate in a Fact?  How should that correspond to the size of the moral Stake that generated it?[*]How should Facts feed back into the Monologue section?  What specific behaviors count as "Referencing" a Fact?[*]What reward or opportunity should be given for such a reference?[/list:u]

I would say that all of the above questions are depnedent on what exactly you want to do with facts.  If you take the Change the World stance, which i personally like, then reference and reward does not come into play.

I assume that you prefer Facts to be more focused on the immediate situation.  In that case i do not really see a good way to correlate Debt type and magnitude with facts.

How Facts feed back into Monologue?  I would be tempted to do this in a similar way to Tropes.  Fact Level feeding back into your dice pool perhaps?

I think that at the moment there are only two major resources in play: Debt and Dice (there is a third if you count Facts).  That means that either Dice or Debt should be the result of any "bonus".  Since you are currently talking about Facts being generated through Debt invested Complications, Debt is out of the question so Dice is all that seems to be left.

Thomas

Okay, I have a thought for answering "What reward or opportunity should be given for a Fact reference?"

Referencing a Fact is required before you can either Stake debt on a complication or borrow dice on credit.  Or, to be more accurate, these things are the outcome of narrating the reference of a Fact in the Monologue phase.

I was going to build an explicit system where people combine two facts in order to create a new fact with a higher value, but I think that behavior will emerge from the combination of what's listed above and the fact that Drives increase over the course of a game:

[*]Hero with Drive 1 uses his backstory Facts to make a bet of 1.[*]Resolving that bet gives him a 1 point Fact and also elevates his Drive to 2.[*]In order to bet 2 in something he will need either a 2-point Fact (which he may not have in backstory, given his low Drive) or two 1-point Facts[*]If he references two 1 point Facts in turn to show why a complication is important to him, and then wins that complication, I think that the resulting 2-point Fact will often be a natural outgrowth of the 1 point facts that went into it.[/list:u]Do you think that will prove too much restriction on their ability to Stake?  I certainly don't want to formalize "my guy" bunkering tactics:  It would be silly to have a situation where (for instance) a player couldn't make their character care about rescuing innocents, because none of their backstory facts supported it.

But it would be nice if they were prompted to think of a reason for rescuing folks that's specific to their hero.  Maybe they should be able to make up 1-point Facts at will?

It sounds interesting, but i am having trouble visualizing just what this would look like in play...

Do you have a clear idea regarding what you want Facts to do?  I am getting the impression that you want to encourage players to develop their characters with them...  Is there anything else you want to use Facts for?

Thomas

Sudden thought about Facts (heavily inspired by Universalis, which is after all the uber-game about Facts and Complications; and encouraged by Tony to braindump...):

Let's say, as folks have suggested, that 1 point of redeemed Debt in a drive gives you 1 point to state Facts relevant to your world-view in that drive. (Most obviously, these would be Facts supporting your worldview, but hey, you may want to challenge yourself: "I staked Justice and defeated Dr. Bad Guy -- my Fact is that he's just a pawn of a big conspiracy against justiceness!").

Let's stipulate further, for argument's sake, a rough sliding scale of Facts. Say, 1 Fact Point would a detail that may be tactically or thematically useful (adding a minor character, or a bit of geography, or some backstory, or a quirk to an established villain). Say, 10 Fact Points (to pull a number out of thin air) would establish a major setting element, like a globe-spanning conspiracy or an Evil Galactic Empire or "there's a Hellmouth under Sunnydale" -- the kind of thing that takes an entire series of comics or TV show seasons or movies to change. Maybe double the cost of a Fact if it is blatantly to the stating hero's advantage ("I'm Hydrolad -- this important fact takes place underwater, where only I can go!")

Now, allow Facts to be linked together. E.g. in the Hydrolad example above, someone has presumably stated at some point the following Facts:
 (1) There exists Atlantis, an undersea city (as a setting element, this would be a significant Fact, worth 3-4 points in itself);
 (2) Atlantis has a Royal Family (maybe 2 points, since these people have political power);
 (3) Atlantis has a Royal Guard (maybe 2 points, since these people have military power).
 (4) Hydrolad is an officer of the Guard (a 1-point detail, but allowing Hydrolad to link into the Guard).
(Conceivably all of these could be double cost if Hydrolad's player was the one who stated them, since they all set up potential advantages for him.)
You could even draw a relationship-map-like thing about how fact 4 (Hydrolad's guard position) depends on fact 3 (a royal guard to be part of) which depends on fact 2 (a royal family to guard) which depends on fact 1 (a city to have a royal family of).

Let's call such a bunch of linked facts a "Tangle." (Because in the genres we're imitating, they are tangled, darn it). Now, here's the fun part: Whenever you establish a new Fact, you can link it to an existing Tangle, right? So if you have 1 point, you can either establish a piddly free-standing fact -- or, for the same price, you can establish a little wrinkle that brings in an entire existing tangle.

E.g. at some point in Tony's Hydrolad example, somebody (maybe the Editor, maybe the player who did that session's Big Page One) established, "the bad guy has a hostage" -- just a generic situation at this point. But then somebody spent a Fact point or two to establish "the hostage is Princess Nereid of Atlantis!" -- just a low-level detail, maybe 1 point, but it links into the Atlantis Tangle, above, which means everything about Atlantis is now potentially in play, for free.

This should be a big, big incentive to use facts to state big Tangles of backstory, since with one new Fact you can now bring in a whole bunch of pre-established Facts to help you.

But wait, there's more! As a game develops, it'll develop multiple Tangles. State one Fact, and you can link two previously separate Tangles into one big one.

E.g. Luke Skywalker (a hero character) is
 (1) a farmboy from a desert planet
 (2) who lives with his aunt and uncle and never knew his parents.
A barebones Tangle of backstory, just two low-level facts; kinda dull. Meanwhile, however, the Editor and players have established collectively some big-ass Facts:
 (1) There is an Evil Galactic Empire oppressing everyone (10 points, baby -- it'll take three movies to get rid of these guys)
 (2) Darth Vader -- "that cool villain in the black mask who attacked Princess Leia's ship in the Big Page One, remember?" -- is a top agent of the Empire. (Just a 1 point detail if we've already established Vader exists).
 (3) There's a Galactic Rebellion striving to restore the Old Republic (4 points, maybe?)
 (4) The Republic used to be protected by these cool mystical knights called Jedi, but they're all dead. (1 point detail; no biggie).
Now the guy playing Ben Kenobi, eager to get Luke's player in the game, establishes two more little 1-point detail Facts:
 (1) Luke, your father was a Jedi...
 (2) ....and he was murdered by Darth Vader
Suddenly Luke's 2-point background Tangle links into the whole Galactic Civil War Tangle, all 16+ points of it.
A few sessions later, of course, the Editor is a real bastard and spends 1 Fact to alter an existing Fact about just who Luke's father was....

The key to this concept is that it costs a lot of Fact Points to establish something complex and world-shaking -- but it costs almost nothing to establish a new relationship among existing Facts. Hence players are encouraged to spend their Facts on links and relationships, which are what drives story.

Very interesting.  I really like the idea, but i would also advise caution since this has the potential to overwhelm the rest of the game (which is already so cool).

That said, i like a lot of the basic ideas put forward about Facts.  Sounds like playtesting time!

Thomas

Well, I tried writing up an example of Facts in action.  What it mainly did is confirm my suspicion that I haven't figured out exactly how I want them to work yet.  

There are two ways that Facts can build on each other:  There's causal relationship:

[*]Spiderman gets cut in combat + Osborne sees that Peter is cut = Osborne learns Spiderman's secret identity[*]Osborne learns Spidermans identity + Osborne learns that Peter Parker loves Mary Jane = Mary Jane is a target[*]Mary Jane is a target + Mary Jane confesses her love = Peter pretends not to love her[/list:u]...and then there is moral/thematic building

[*]Peter ignores his uncles advice + Peter lets a criminal go = Uncle Ben is killed by that criminal[*]Spiderman fights crime because Uncle Ben was killed + Osborne makes an appeal to Peter as a father figure = Peter decides his identity, and whose influence is important in hs life[/list:u]I am not seeing, at the moment, how to support both progressions.  I hoped that it would emerge from the notions I'd already thrown on the table, but when I worked through an actual example I had to consciously aim, rather than just let myself be guided by the system.

EDIT:  The "progressions" discussion above was meant to be in response to Sydney's idea of Tangles and interconnection... which I like, but which strikes me as also vulnerable to the issue of the multiple ways that things can be connected.  I was just too tired to write it clearly.  Still am.