Active Karma - a LARP system

[Andrew Morris]

HereticalFaction: Even using chips is less clear than a verbal indcator. Say you don't notice that your opponent has put in 3 chips instead of 2. You'll bid 3 and he'll have to clarify that his bid was actually 3, not 2.  I think it's more clear than physical gestures and such, though.

By the way, would you mind putting  your real name in your signature, so we all know who we're talking to?

[HereticalFaction]

It was my understanding that all bids are for 1 point of Karma, with the running number associated with the bid representing only the number of actions (bids) which have taken place.... I did not see in the rules or examples any condition where a raise of  2 or 3 karma points could be placed on a single action.

P.S. OK, I'll include a first name because I understand the way community pollitics come down on dissenters on these sorts of things and don't want to be flamed simply for anonymity.... But please understand that this is a significant violation of a long held policy on my part.

[DevP]

Hey HF. Firstly, you're not going to be *flamed* for having a pseudonym here. There's a cultural preference here (that makes sense to me the longer you're around, I guess), but many folks still stick with they're nickname, so please don't make yourself uncomfortable! (Just a first name, or and certainly even a fake first name, would make it easy to address you, but I can roll with HF, too.)

I did consider poker chips and liked them better for their flavor, except that they don't fit in those envelopes so well. If I decide to do something different with the envelopes, poker chips would likely be better. (Although, I was planning on using them for "money", anyways.)

[HereticalFaction]

Continuing off topic: Thank you for your reassurance, I have run into several forums with the "Doesn't want to use real name = Troll" assumption, sorry...

On topic: It occurred to me that the envelopes (at least those where the player is not intended to know the contents) might need to be filled with a number of "dummy" cards so that you couldn't tell the # of karma they contain by touch...

[Andrew Morris]

Marcus, good point. I didn't see anything about not bidding more than 1, so I assumed it's possible. But if bids must be for 1 Karma, then there wouldn't be any confusion.

As to using the real name, certainly don't feel pressured. (Though if you were, I suppose it's a little too late for me to comment now, huh?) I know some folks don't feel comfortable with it, but that's why I asked instead of saying, "give your real name already, or I'll make fun of you and flame you!" For me, it's just easier to remember someone from a name than from a handle. That way, I can remember other conversations we've had and comments they've made, when conversing in the future. No big deal either way -- do what makes you feel comfortable.

[DevP]

I'm still trying to finalize things for the LARP (in fact, I'm buying props today!), and am trying to hurry into finalizing it in time for this weekend. (I'll have a play report up in any case!) Among other things, I wondered if the interactive bidding wasn't ultimately worth it all. Here's what I'm thinking right now:

(0) A lot of "Conflicts" can occur without reference to the mechanics: freeplay of intimidation / brawling / gunfights can occur, and players may even volunteer to win or lose in them without reference the mechanics. The Conflict mechanics here are about being able to impose Bad Things on ther players, even if they don't want them. (Within limits.)

(1) In the midst of action, the attacker will issue a threat and a bid, and then proceed to mime the action. ex: "Bid 5! I'm going to tan your hide!"

(2) In response, the defender can:
(a) Counter: Throw the bid number of chips down, indicating that she is resisting the attack; then mime whatever response or counter she would like. ex: (tosses chips down, mimes a block and an uppercut; opponent mimes falling down). The defender has won.
(b) Escalate: the old bid is thrown out, and the defender may issue a new one at some higher level. ex: "(draws gun) Bid 2! I think my sixgun says different!" As you can see, the old bid number is irrelevant. (Assume the three levels still are Intimidation -> Brawling -> Gunfighting.)
(c) Give in: The defender acts out defeat, and has lost. The attacker throws the bid of chips down at her feat.

(3) Damage resolution (if there was a winner): The winner may try negotiating promises / extorted goods from the loser, prior to issuing damage. Then, the winner may issue whatever damage she likes (regardless of what she may have promised).

In my mind, I feel like restraining the Bid to specific actions can keep freeplay mostly trouble free. One question I'm still workin on is: what kinds of Damage outcomes are acceptibly bad (to make players avoid combat), but not greatly deprotagonizing? So far, possible damage outcomes I have:

[*]Humbled: for a given kind of conflict, the loser may not iniate that kind. (I'm considering making this possibly mandatory, perhaps to avoid "tagbacks" after a conflict.) Humbling is healed by complaining to someone else about what just happened. [Purpose: your reputation as an aggressor/loser will spread around the community.]
[*]Intimidated: The winner issues a command about what the player may or may not talk about (ex: "You're not going to tell anyone about the gold / about marriage / about this fight."). This is only relieved if the player can encourage someone to guess who did the Intimidating in the first place. (Ideally, this is in the context of a conversation where a friend tries to re-instill confidence; optionally, I may simply require contact and "healing" from someone with Leadership skill, analagous to a First Aid Skill)
[*]Disarmed: Lose gun.
[*]Beat Down: The loser is basically limp with pain. The winner can throw the loser out of the room, or forcibly escort them to a new room, or possibly steal something from them.
[*]Gunned Down: Sorta the worst case - you're can't move from where you've been shot, although you're allowed to crawl to a slightly more public area (like the hallway). You can't move anywhere without someone helping you, you can't participate in any conflicts, and you require First Aid to be healed. Hopefully, gunning people down will have pretty bad social consequences.
[/list:u]

Sorry this is a bit in list form and no streamlined; I just wanted to share the progress of the ruleset. I'll post more as I get it done. Please let me know how this workable.

[Andrew Morris]

Overall, it sounds good to me. I have a better feel for how the rules work now. A couple of points/questions:

(a) Counter: Throw the bid number of chips down, indicating that she is resisting the attack; then mime whatever response or counter she would like. ex: (tosses chips down, mimes a block and an uppercut; opponent mimes falling down). The defender has won.

I'd rather see that the defender has to throw down a bid one higher than the attacker's bid.  Otherwise, it seems to be saying that  it's easier to defend than to attack. If you're trying to cut down on the number of conflicts, then it's fine, though.

(3) Damage resolution (if there was a winner): The winner may try negotiating promises / extorted goods from the loser, prior to issuing damage. Then, the winner may issue whatever damage she likes (regardless of what she may have promised).

I really don't like this at all, because (and correct me if I've read this wrong) it seems like the negotiation is out-of-game talk. This means that the rules say it's okay for a player to lie to another player. Also, what power does the loser of the conflict have in this negotiation process? If I lost a contest, under what conditions can I say "no" to the winner's suggested damage resolution?

Humbling is healed by complaining to someone else about what just happened.

That's fine as written, but how about "complaining to someone sympathetic? For example, the sympathizer has to confirm this with the GM? Or the GM can play a designated "sympathetic ear," like the friendly bartender at the local watering hole. Just a thought to avoid situations like -- "Man, that sure was an aweful ass-whuppin I just got." "I don't care about your problems, go away." "Sweet, now my 'Humbled' damage is healed. Later."

[*]Disarmed: Lose gun.

Does the winner get the gun? Because then if you go around Disarming a bunch of other players, you can heal your own Disarmed damage several times, with no problem. I don't know if that's something you want. If not, you can just say that the gun is destroyed when someone takes Disarmed damage.

That's all I can think of at the moment.

[DevP]

Otherwise, it seems to be saying that  it's easier to defend than to attack. If you're trying to cut down on the number of conflicts, then it's fine, though.

From my POV, it's true that all the cost-uncertainty is on the side of the attacker (and the defender can easily decide if it's worth it or not to resist), but it doesn't seem otherwise greatly unbalanced. I don't think this is merely a difference in taste; could you explain it, to make me see it this way?

...The winner may try negotiating promises...

I really don't like this at all, because (and correct me if I've read this wrong) it seems like the negotiation is out-of-game talk. This means that the rules say it's okay for a player to lie to another player.

Let me clarify, and see if this still seems problematic. Negotiation is purely in character, and this "lie" thing is basically saying that, ultimately, we're just giving the winner the opportunity to have mercy, and the loser the chance to make in-game concessions for that mercy. Ex: Paul has just beaten Peter in a fistfight; Peter is already Humbled, by virtue or having lost, and the Karma is basically done and transferred. But the winner has a choice of Damage to apply to the loser. Note that Paul is a played as a mean bastard.

Peter: "C'mon, man! Let go!"
Paul: "Give me ONE reason not to give you a reall nasty headache, dude!"
Peter: "It's... Joev. If I tell you, you'll let me go, right?"
Paul: "A deal's a deal. What did Joev say?"
Peter: (in-game secret explained)
Paul: "That's nice. Thanks! Oh, and *THUNK*." (Knock's out Peter.)

In terms of the rules, it might do better to notp/i] confuse things with notions of lying: more simply "the winner's character choose what kind of Damage to deliver, including None at all; the loser's character can try to negotiate, in-game, for clemency before the winner has decided; this is to be kept brief".

Humbling is healed by complaining to someone else about what just happened.

That's fine as written, but how about "complaining to someone sympathetic?

Very true. Done.

[*]Disarmed: Lose gun.

Does the winner get the gun? Because then if you go around Disarming a bunch of other players, you can heal your own Disarmed damage several times, with no problem.

I'm going to say, strictly speaking, the gun is "knocked to the ground" in the combat. The winner can take it, or leave it for the loser (or someone else). If I add the rule that you can't just stuff lots and lots of gun in your pockets i.e. you can't really stockpile many guns, then does this become less broken? (Plastic prop guns. Woo!)

[Andrew Morris]

From my POV, it's true that all the cost-uncertainty is on the side of the attacker (and the defender can easily decide if it's worth it or not to resist), but it doesn't seem otherwise greatly unbalanced. I don't think this is merely a difference in taste; could you explain it, to make me see it this way?

Okay, here's how I'm seeing it.  The defender has the advantage in a conflict. I think we agree on that point. I think this will lead to players not being as active, because it's better to let someone else take the initiative. Now, of course I'm not saying I think everyone will do this, but there might be a slight tendency to wait for something to happen, rather than making something happen. If that's what you want, cool.  I brought it up just because it popped out at me as strange that the defender doesn't actually have to beat the attacker's bid in order to win. I don't think this will have a huge impact on play, I just mentioned it because I noticed it.

Peter: "C'mon, man! Let go!"
Paul: "Give me ONE reason not to give you a reall nasty headache, dude!"
Peter: "It's... Joev. If I tell you, you'll let me go, right?"
Paul: "A deal's a deal. What did Joev say?"
Peter: (in-game secret explained)
Paul: "That's nice. Thanks! Oh, and *THUNK*." (Knock's out Peter.)

Okay, that's cool, I've got it now.

I'm going to say, strictly speaking, the gun is "knocked to the ground" in the combat. The winner can take it, or leave it for the loser (or someone else). If I add the rule that you can't just stuff lots and lots of gun in your pockets i.e. you can't really stockpile many guns, then does this become less broken? (Plastic prop guns. Woo!)

Well, yes, requiring a physical representation of the gun will make this more difficult. When I mentioned a stockpile, I was really thinking of putting the guns in a drawer, under a bush, etc. Then if the player is disarmed, they just go grab another gun. Having more than one gun on you is more problematic, of course. For example, if a character has six guns on him (and that's easy to pull off, even with full-size props), then someone would have to do Disarm damage six times in a row before they are really disarmed.