[Shadows & Light] Tear this system apart (especially Adam Cierling)

[Andrew Morris]

Overview
My friend Nick and I are plugging away on our game Shadows & Light (actually, that working title is changing, but I'll stick with it in this discussion for the sake of continuity). We've hammered out what we think is an awesome system that accomplishes our design goals, at least to some degree. Basically, we wanted to create the LARP that we always wanted to play. We know that it won't be for everyone, and we're cool with that. Here's what we wanted to accomplish:

• Fast conflict resolution (especially combat)
• Plays equally well as a table-top or LARP game
• Character death is difficult but not impossible
• Room for constant character development (increased in-game effectiveness)
• The weakest character has a chance to suceed against the most powerful
• Players create most or all of the Situation
• PC conflict and competition is the main source of fun
• The game coordinators do nothing more than logistics, record-keeping, and rules adjudication when necessary

I might be leaving some things out, since I don't have notes from our initial conversations, but those are the important ones. With that all in mind, here is the basic conflict resolution system (which is almost the entirety of rules for the game):

1) Players try to agree on the outcome of effects and actions. If they cannot come to agreement, any person can call for a conflict.
2) Stakes are agreed upon by all participants. If agreement cannot be reached, the stakes default to "damage," which can be physical, mental, social, or magical.
3) Conflict is resolved through bidding. Each player has a pool of Tokens they can use for bidding.
4) Bids are made secretly, then revealed at the same time.
5) High bid wins their stakes. If there are more than two players involved, the second-highest wins their stakes, unless the number-one bidder's stakes invalidate theirs, and so on down the line.
6) Winning bidder gives their Tokens to the loser(s).
7) Losing bidder gives their Tokens to the winner.
8) Losing bidder takes damage to the relevant Attribute the winner used (physical, mental, social, magical).

Early on, I had some reservations about immediate follow-up conflicts, but that's been eased by the introduction of the damage rules. All conflicts cause damage, which limits the ability of the losing player to take the Tokens they've gained and create a new conflict to try and win back the stakes they have just lost.

Damage
In this game, "damage" can be done to any of the character's Attributes -- Heart (social), Body (physical), Mind (mental), or Soul (magical). The damage is purely abstract, and affects the player's ability to exert control in game (by winning conflicts). So, "Body damage" might be represented by an injury to the character, but it doesn't have to be. Each point of damage in an Attribute just means that the player has to give up an extra Token when bidding from that Attribute. If you have a Mind penalty of -5, you have to give up 5 Mind Tokens just to be able to bid Mind in a conflict.

The Odd Rules
While we didn't manage to keep combat under the same exact rules as other conflicts, we did reduce the amount of special rules for combat. Essentially, when any NPC has a penalty equal to their Attribute, that Attribute is out of play until they remove the damage. If two attributes are out of play (and one of them is Body), the character is dead. This means that the bulk of NPCs (normal humans, who have no Soul Attribute), can be killed simply by taking their Body out of play. The PCs, on the other hand cannot have a penalty in Body greater than -1, unless magic is used. Thus, for the magic-using PCs, they simply cannot be killed by physical attacks, unless those attacks are enhanced by magic (or caused by magic entirely).

Conclusion
That's about it. What I'm most interested in at this point is whether anyone sees any obvious weak points in the system. I'm really happy to get negative feedback and constructive criticism. Don't anyone hold back or feel like you have to be tactful. I've got thick skin. A comment like "Your system sucks for X reason" is much more useful to me than "I like it." Of course, "Your system sucks," while it's not going to hurt my feelings, isn't particularly unless you say why you think that. I'm also open to more general comments, as well as positive feedback.

Of course, this is a simplification, but I didn't want to post the entire rules chapter. If you have any questions about how something works, let me know, and I'll clarify it right away.

[greyorm]

• Room for constant character development (increased in-game effectiveness)

What are the rules for character development?

• Players create most or all of the Situation

Ok. How is this accomplished mechanically? They are free at their own whim to just make things up as they see fit? Perhaps an example of play, how you see this working out, would be a good idea here.

6) Winning bidder gives their Tokens to the loser(s).
7) Losing bidder gives their Tokens to the winner.

Hrm...this would seem, to me, to make an individual less likely to want to be the bidder, since they'll always be losing ability to affect the world if they want to do something, and the only way they will gain greater ability to affect the world is to wait until someone else wants to cause a conflict with them and hope they lose.

Or, perhaps, simply declaring conflicts and then bidding 1 Token, knowing they are going to lose, in order to get a much larger return investment. BTW, are the numbers of Tokens you can bid in any conflict limited to a certain amount? Or are the attributes just there for purposes of damage-tracking and creating bidding-minimums.

How is damage resolved, BTW? One attribute point per failed bid? Or some other method?

In this game, "damage" can be done to any of the character's Attributes -- Heart (social), Body (physical), Mind (mental), or Soul (magical). The damage is purely abstract, and affects the player's ability to exert control in game (by winning conflicts). So, "Body damage" might be represented by an injury to the character, but it doesn't have to be.

Cool. This is exactly what I did in Orx -- making damage to an attribute an abstraction that only needs be explained as a reduction in player effectiveness, not character ability -- and I've been hoping someone else would do something similar.

The PCs, on the other hand cannot have a penalty in Body greater than -1, unless magic is used. Thus, for the magic-using PCs, they simply cannot be killed by physical attacks, unless those attacks are enhanced by magic (or caused by magic entirely).

No greater than -1? I would think it would be better to have it that they could never have penalties equal to or greater than their body (ie: Body could never go below 1).

Also, this means you can, say, drop a mountain on a rival using magic, and they can come out of it unscathed? Now, see, I'm thinking super-powered magicians blasting the world away around them to achieve their own goals...that's cool, but I'm not sure if that is the idea. Are all characters magic-users?

[Graham W]

Andrew, I'm worried about the practicalities of keeping track of four different attributes in a LARP situation. Even though the combat resolution itself is fast, it strikes me that I'd need to:

a. Get my character sheet out of my pocket to check the current status of my attribute
b. Bid tokens and swap them over, as in the rules
c. Mark the damage on my sheet

It reminds me of my days playing White Wolf Vampire, where you were meant to keep track of how many Physical/Social/Mental traits you had. In practice, we never bothered. But in this game, it's genuinely important.

Are those attributes purely negative? Does my character (for example) start off with a Body of 4 or does he start off with a Body of 0, which just decreases?

What happens if, say, I provoke a conflict with you and, as a result, tie you up? How do you get out of the bonds, given  that it won't involve a conflict with another player?

Other than that I, er, like it. The system of swapping tokens seems very practical in LARP: each player can just keep a stash in his back pocket and the swapping over is very fast. Nice. I'm interested to see the game you're using it in.

[Andrew Morris]

Rev-

Character development is nothing out of the ordinary -- experience allows you to increase Attributes and Skills.

Ok. How is this accomplished mechanically? They are free at their own whim to just make things up as they see fit? Perhaps an example of play, how you see this working out, would be a good idea here.

The only mechanical support for players to influence the setting directly is by assuming director stance during the narration of a successful conflict. There are limits to this -- for example, the other player's character is inviolate, unless they're willing to allow it. But you can easily define things like, "there's a secret passage in this wall, which I escape through," or things like that. Other than that, the text shows the GM how to enable character suggestions and feedback, which is the main way players alter the setting. I probably should have left out that particular design goal, since it's primarily implemented outside of the rules.

Hrm...this would seem, to me, to make an individual less likely to want to be the bidder, since they'll always be losing ability to affect the world if they want to do something, and the only way they will gain greater ability to affect the world is to wait until someone else wants to cause a conflict with them and hope they lose.

How so? The loser takes damage, and the Tokens just soften the blow. The winner still achieves his stakes. The fact that the winner effectively "pays" the loser means that no one gets to a power level where they're untouchable. If you go around dominating every conflict that comes your way, you'll end up powerless very quickly. On the other hand, if you lose everything in order to get the Tokens, you'll end the night without accomplishing anything. The expectation is that this system will force players to pick and choose what matters to them. Effectively, it's just a way for players to come to agreement via the mechanics, when there are differing opinions on how things should play out.

Or, perhaps, simply declaring conflicts and then bidding 1 Token, knowing they are going to lose, in order to get a much larger return investment.

Yeah, I'd expect to see this tactic pretty quickly, and I'm totally cool with it. On the other hand, if you create a conflict no one cares about, you won't get opposition, so the only way to game this is by introducing conflicts the other players actuall care about, which is neat (kinda like in Capes).

BTW, are the numbers of Tokens you can bid in any conflict limited to a certain amount? Or are the attributes just there for purposes of damage-tracking and creating bidding-minimums. How is damage resolved, BTW? One attribute point per failed bid? Or some other method?

You can bid a maximum number of Tokens equal to your relevant Attribute. You do damage equal to the relevant Skill.

No greater than -1? I would think it would be better to have it that they could never have penalties equal to or greater than their body (ie: Body could never go below 1).

This was deliberate, to show how fate protects the PCs from physical harm. They are on a whole different power level from the normal humans.

Also, this means you can, say, drop a mountain on a rival using magic, and they can come out of it unscathed? Now, see, I'm thinking super-powered magicians blasting the world away around them to achieve their own goals...that's cool, but I'm not sure if that is the idea. Are all characters magic-users?

Theoretically, you could. But it would do full damage to another PC, because it is a physical attack powered by magic.

Grahm-

Yes, recordkeeping could be problematical. There are a few logistical strategies that we're looking at right now to see how far we can whittle the time down.

Attributes are not negative. You start off with your Attributes as high as you want to pay for.

Ties are resolved by first looking at what Tokens were bid. Body beats Mind, Mind beats Heart, Heart beats Body, and Soul beats the other three. If you have the same type of Tokens, then you break the tie with a second bid. You do point out something that I think is a bit weak, however, and I'm not fully committed to this method.

The example of tying the character up is a good point, and it hammers home the absolute necessity of clearly defining stakes before the conflict. If the stakes were simply "I tie you up," then they could immediately start a new conflict to escape. Things like the duration of the effects should be decided before bidding.

[Adam Cerling]

Hey there, Andrew! Please forgive me if I end up taking a few days between posts: I'm having a very busy September.

Firstly, I'll echo Graham's concerns about bookkeeping, although it's hardly insurmountable. Consider something like a square notecard, with a track of numbers per side per Attribute, plus colored paperclips that you can slide along the tracks. If there's space, you could squeeze other relevant character info into the middle of the card.

Do I understand correctly that you have four separate types of Tokens, one type for each Attribute? Four kinds of tokens is of greater bookkeeping concern to me. I'd either have to keep those in four separate pockets, or I'd end up doing a lot of digging and shuffling through a bag to count them out.

I'll echo Ravenscrye's question about how players will create most of the Situation, and encourage you to give that more thought. While it may have nothing to do with exchanging tokens, it is most definitely part of the System by which events are agreed upon. Who gets what kind of authority or credibility, and what limits them? In your gritty cop drama, what limits me from blowing up the moon with my eye-lasers?

As for my own questions, I've got a number of questions about all the different variables:

• How do the Attributes and the corresponding pools of Tokens interact? Is my Mind Attribute anything other than a rating of how much Mind Damage I can withstand? Can I have more Mind Tokens than my Mind Attribute? Can I bid more Mind Tokens than my Mind Attribute? How big do Attributes get?
• How many tokens do new players start with? I'm trying to get an idea for the size of these bids. Does a bid of one tokens have any chance of winning? Two? Five?
• Are there any means other than conflict to gain or lose tokens? Beware of inflation.
• How is damage healed?

In conflicts involving multiple winners and losers, to whom does each participant give their tokens? Do they choose which of several opponents gets them all? Do they split the tokens according to some formula? This could impact the handling time somewhat -- e.g., when five people greet one another, ten handshakes are exchanged.

Do coordinators ever participate in conflicts (as NPCs or on behalf of the Situation)? Where do their tokens and Attribute values come from? Are they an unchecked influx/outflux of tokens?

Does the system include alternate systems for special rules-altering abilities? You mention Magic as a special ability that can kill characters. Will there be others? Can I acquire a mystic familiar that can take Mind Damage on my behalf, or can I know a special fighting technique that treats my Body bids as one token higher? (Down this path, I fear, lies only sorrow, in the form of 345-page LARP rulebooks...)

How are PCs killed? I'm not clear on how many/which Attributes have to be out of play for that to happen.

In regard to mechanical character development, how much can my character improve over a year of bi-weekly play?

I hope these questions give you plenty to chew on! I might have time to post again tomorrow, but if not you won't hear from me until next week.

[Andrew Morris]

Adam, thanks for the feedback. To address your points:

• Yes, there are four different types of Tokens. Yes, that's more bookkeeping. "Tokens" can be anything from poker chips to glass beads to playing cards.

• Yes, the goal of players having influence over the SIS is not fully supported. Again, I really should have left that out, since it's more of our suggested way of GMing, not anything hard and fast in the rules.

• Your Attributes determine your maximum "refresh" total for a particular type of Token. Say you have a Body of 23, and during the course of a game, you spend ten of those Tokens, leaving you with only 13 Body Tokens. You still have a Body of 23, though. Now, say the refresh rate for your campaign is 1 Token/day. For a game that happens 5 days later, you will have 18 Body Tokens. For one that's 28 days later, you'll have 23 Body Tokens (your limit, based on your Body score). You can have more Tokens than your Attribute, but only as the result of a lost challenge, not from the standard refresh rate. The normal limit for bidding is your Attribute score, but if you need/want to spend more than that, you can, but at a stiff penalty (it costs you an extra Token for each point bid over your Attribute). Attributes get as high as you are willing to pay for.

• New players start with Tokens equal to their Attributes, which could be anywhere from 1 to 97 at character creation (either extreme is unlikely, though, and most Attributes will be around 10-30). A bid of one Token has almost no chance of winning, unless the other player doesn't care about the conflict at all, and bids zero. So far, in our playtests, the highest single bid was 30, and they are usually around 10.

• The only real way to gain Tokens outside of challenges is by the standard, between-games automatic refresh. GMs can reward in-game actions with Tokens, though. So really, if you want to build up your pool of Tokens, you must get involved in conflicts that other players care about winning (and then you have to lose them). You can spend Tokens for other effects.

• Damage is healed in two main ways: Body, Mind, and Heart Tokens can be spent to reduce Soul damage (or Soul can be spent to heal Body, Mind, and Heart damage), or "healed" naturally over time.

• We haven't done any testing of large group challenges yet, so I can't really answer your questions with anything other than the way I think we're going at the moment. Let's give an example: A, B, C, and D are all involved in a group conflict. The declared stakes are:

A - Do Body damage to C
B - Pick A's pocket and get away safely with his wallet
C - Subdue A, B, and D with a magic effect
D - Get away from the conflict safely

They all bid, and get this:

A - Bids 12 Soul Tokens
B - Bids 8 Mind Tokens
C - Bids 6 Soul Tokens
D - Bids 7 Body Tokens

The narration:

A - Wins his stakes, and does damage (equal to the Skill he used) to C
B - His stakes are not negated by A's success, so he successfully picks A's pocket in the confusion
C - Lowest bidder, his stakes will not happen
D - His stakes are not negated by A's or B's success, so he gets away

Token exchange:

A - His stakes only affected C, so he gives his 12 Soul Tokens to C
B - His stakes only affected A, so he gives his 8 Mind Tokens to A
C - He only received tokens from A and D, so he gives 3 Soul Tokens each to A and D
D - His stakes affected A, B, and C, so he gives them each 2 Body Tokens, and keeps the seventh

• GMs can participate in challenges. They have a non-allocated pool of Tokens that they have to use for any character they play. GMs are effectively a "Token bank," as they do not refresh between games. So, if the players have been beating the GMs in challenges regularly, it's going to become increasingly difficult to do so, or vice versa.

Does the system include alternate systems for special rules-altering abilities? You mention Magic as a special ability that can kill characters. Will there be others? Can I acquire a mystic familiar that can take Mind Damage on my behalf, or can I know a special fighting technique that treats my Body bids as one token higher?

Magic is the only way to kill PCs. Nope, there's no other way. Summoned spirits will introduce some quirky rules-changing abilities. As to killing characters, they are dead when their Body and any other Attribute are both out of play (have taken damage equal to or greater than the Attribute score). Regular old humans have no Soul Attribute, so all you have to do is deal enough Body damage, and they will die. PCs, on the other hand don't take more than one point of Body damage unless magic is used to deal the damage, so knocking their Body out of play has to be done through magical means. Also, PCs do have Soul Attributes, which means that even doing enough Body damage to take that Attribute out of play is not enough to kill the character. Before the'd die, you'd need to take their Heart, Mind, or Soul out of play through appropriate damage.

In regard to mechanical character development, how much can my character improve over a year of bi-weekly play?

That is determined by each GM, but the default would be (at that frequency) an average of a 65 percent improvement (the minimum would be no improvement up to 130 percent improvement) from the starting level.

[Graham W]

So. If I was being really picky about the group challenge, this is what I'd say:

A - Do Body damage to C
B - Pick A's pocket and get away safely with his wallet
C - Subdue A, B, and D with a magic effect
D - Get away from the conflict safely

First quick question: wouldn't it have been easier for D to simply not enter the conflict?

They all bid, and get this:

A - Bids 12 Soul Tokens
B - Bids 8 Mind Tokens
C - Bids 6 Soul Tokens
D - Bids 7 Body Tokens

The narration:

A - Wins his stakes, and does damage (equal to the Skill he used) to C
B - His stakes are not negated by A's success, so he successfully picks A's pocket in the confusion
C - Lowest bidder, his stakes will not happen
D - His stakes are not negated by A's or B's success, so he gets away

So...firstly, can I just clarify that the lowest bid will always lose, even if his stakes don't contradict any other stakes? You might have said this explicitly, but I can't find it. I'm pretty sure it's true.

Secondly, what if the bidding had been:

A - Bids 12 Soul Tokens
B - Bids 8 Mind Tokens
C - Bids 7 Soul Tokens
D - Bids 6 Body Tokens

Then D would have lost, clearly. But would it then be the case that A does damage to C, B picks A's pocket, but then C subdues everyone else by magic? Technically, C's stakes don't contradict anyone else's. It's a slightly strange situation.

Token exchange:

A - His stakes only affected C, so he gives his 12 Soul Tokens to C
B - His stakes only affected A, so he gives his 8 Mind Tokens to A
C - He only received tokens from A and D, so he gives 3 Soul Tokens each to A and D
D - His stakes affected A, B, and C, so he gives them each 2 Body Tokens, and keeps the seventh

And again, I have a slight practicality worry with this. The reason I really liked the idea of swapping tokens is because it's so quick. This looks much slower and I'm wondering if there's a quicker method. Is there a way that, say, only the highest and lowest bidders swap tokens? Or the highest gives his tokens to the lowest, then the lowest gives his to the second lowest, and so on up the line?

As I've mentioned before, I like the system a lot, and can see myself stealing large chunks of it in the future. Especially the token swapping.

If I do, I can imagine that I'll:

a. reduce the number of attributes to two, so there's only two types of token, one for each back pocket and
b. reduce attributes to a usual range of about 7 - 10, so I'm not dealing with huge handfuls of tokens.

And, as I said, I'm being extremely picky here - these aren't major criticisms at all.

Good luck with it all.

Graham

[greyorm]

So really, if you want to build up your pool of Tokens, you must get involved in conflicts that other players care about winning (and then you have to lose them).

Er, but above you said that the winner of the conflict gave the tokens bid to the loser, and the loser gave the tokens bid to the winner (see points 6 and 7 in your first post)? Is this a mistake on your part, or am I missing the meaning of #7?

Notice that if I'm not misunderstanding point #7, it will be possible for the winning bidder to end up with MORE tokens than before the conflict if there are multiple individuals he is in conflict with. Say A bids 12 tokens, and B and C bid 7 tokens and 8 tokens respectively. A wins the bid and distributes his bid tokens to B and C. B and C then give their bid tokens to A, who gets a return of 15 tokens.

[Adam Cerling]

I'll sneak in a couple of thoughts before I disappear for the weekend.

With Attributes that range from 10 to 30, let's say a starting PC averages 20 in each Attribute.

If I understand correctly, that player is carrying around 80 Tokens. And this is before I improve my character by 65% over one year, leaping to 132 Tokens. Whoa. That's a lot to carry and organize.

Did your playtest use actual physical tokens in these numbers? What did you use? How did you carry and organize them for the duration of the game?

Also, I don't see how anyone could ever take someone's Attribute out of play when Attributes are so big, and challenges inflict only one damage. You'd have to win 20 challenges in a row to take out the Body of one starting-PC-equivalent NPC. Won't this result in protracted combat scenes?

How would it change your game system if you radically decreased the potential range of attribute sizes? Say, 1 to 20, with a starting character averaging 5.

On the topic of group challenges, I encountered some pretty complex stakes during the second playtest of my system. Beware Player A in this scenario:

Player A: For my stakes, I do one Body Damage to C.
Player B: For my stakes, I pickpocket A and get away with his wallet.
Player A: Well then, I want to change my stakes. I do one Body Damage to C and avoid getting pickpocketed by B.
Player C: I cast sleep on you all! Mwahaha! Er, that's my stake.
Player D: I just want to escape.
Player A: In that case, my stake is to Damage C, Avoid B and Stop D from escaping.

I'm addressing that issue by saying in the rules that a Stake is a "simple sentence." There's wiggle room in that phrase, but not so much that Stakes can escalate in oneupmanship too absurdly.

Perhaps also to simplify the trading of tokens in group challenges, the highest bid could trade with the lowest, the second-highest could trade with the second-lowest, and so on through the group: an odd man out trades with nobody.

Also, I was unclear in this question:

Does the system include alternate systems for special rules-altering abilities? You mention Magic as a special ability that can kill characters. Will there be others? Can I acquire a mystic familiar that can take Mind Damage on my behalf, or can I know a special fighting technique that treats my Body bids as one token higher?

What I meant to ask was not about character death, but about special abilities. Magic is an ability with special rules. Summoned creatures, you say, introduce special rules. Can I have special rules because I know kung fu, or because I can read minds, or because I have wealth beyond mortal measure? Where is the line drawn between "the standard bidding system handles this, just add Color" and "this situation needs to be reflected mechanically?"

[Andrew Morris]

I apologise for the line-by-line nature of my response, but there's just so much here, I think it's necessary.

First quick question: wouldn't it have been easier for D to simply not enter the conflict?

Yes, D could have done so, but then he'd be open to another conflict immediately after the first. He's just covering his bets by including his free-and-clear escape in the stakes. If nobody wants to pursue him or something like that, then it doesn't make a difference. On the other hand, if someone had planned on something like that, D putting in these stakes is effectively buying the fact that he got away. However, it does highlight the many weaknesses in the way group conflicts are handled in the current rules. It also made me realize that someone might throw in stakes like this in order to cash in on a conflict where the other participants do care about the results enough to bid high, but they might not care about, say, D's stake in particular. I'll have to put some thought into that.

So...firstly, can I just clarify that the lowest bid will always lose, even if his stakes don't contradict any other stakes?

Yes, that is correct. But as I'm finding out through this discussion, my group conflict rules have some weakness I didn't see at first, so I'll have to change them somewhat.

Secondly, what if the bidding had been:

A - Bids 12 Soul Tokens
B - Bids 8 Mind Tokens
C - Bids 7 Soul Tokens
D - Bids 6 Body Tokens

Then D would have lost, clearly. But would it then be the case that A does damage to C, B picks A's pocket, but then C subdues everyone else by magic? Technically, C's stakes don't contradict anyone else's. It's a slightly strange situation.

Strange? Perhaps, but I'm comfortable with unusual results like this occurring. I'm not saying that I absolutely need them to be mechanically protected, but I don't see them as posing a significant problem.

And again, I have a slight practicality worry with this. The reason I really liked the idea of swapping tokens is because it's so quick. This looks much slower and I'm wondering if there's a quicker method. Is there a way that, say, only the highest and lowest bidders swap tokens? Or the highest gives his tokens to the lowest, then the lowest gives his to the second lowest, and so on up the line?

Perhaps also to simplify the trading of tokens in group challenges, the highest bid could trade with the lowest, the second-highest could trade with the second-lowest, and so on through the group: an odd man out trades with nobody.

These are all excellent points that show that the current group conflict rules are definitely not elegant, and I'll be reworking them. This is the kind of stuff I was hoping for. Thanks, guys.

Er, but above you said that the winner of the conflict gave the tokens bid to the loser, and the loser gave the tokens bid to the winner (see points 6 and 7 in your first post)? Is this a mistake on your part, or am I missing the meaning of #7?

I don't think you're missing anything, and I don't think I mis-stated the mechanics. Effectively, the winner and loser swap bids. Since the winner will almost always have bid more than the loser, this is a net gain for the loser.

Notice that if I'm not misunderstanding point #7, it will be possible for the winning bidder to end up with MORE tokens than before the conflict if there are multiple individuals he is in conflict with. Say A bids 12 tokens, and B and C bid 7 tokens and 8 tokens respectively. A wins the bid and distributes his bid tokens to B and C. B and C then give their bid tokens to A, who gets a return of 15 tokens.

Oh wow. Yes, this could happen, and it is completely the opposite of what I wanted.

With Attributes that range from 10 to 30, let's say a starting PC averages 20 in each Attribute.

If I understand correctly, that player is carrying around 80 Tokens. And this is before I improve my character by 65% over one year, leaping to 132 Tokens. Whoa. That's a lot to carry and organize.

Two points here. First, Attributes are not the only thing that can increase with character development, so that 65 percent increase won't all mean more Tokens. Second, "Tokens" could be anything from notes on a piece of paper to poker chips to a string of beads. The physical representation doesn't matter, and it's one of the logistical concerns I'm still figuring out.

Did your playtest use actual physical tokens in these numbers? What did you use? How did you carry and organize them for the duration of the game?

Yes, we used some small plastic chips. Unfortunately, we didn't carry them around, since we were testing this at a table. If we ended up using them for games, I'd also include a set of pouches to hold the separate chips, making organization and transport easier. But, as I mentioned above, the Tokens don't need to be a specific physical object. I've actually got a new idea that I think will solve a lot of these problems, so you'll be hearing about that once I've had a chance to flesh it out and test it.

Also, I don't see how anyone could ever take someone's Attribute out of play when Attributes are so big, and challenges inflict only one damage. You'd have to win 20 challenges in a row to take out the Body of one starting-PC-equivalent NPC. Won't this result in protracted combat scenes?

Whew, an easy one. Challenges do not inflict only one point of damage, they inflict damage equal to the Skill being used in the Challenge. In the case of PCs, they cannot take more than one point of Body damage from non-magical sources. They can still take full Body damage from magical means, and they always take full damage to the other Attributes. So, to take out the Body of a magic-user (PC or NPC), you could do it in one shot, assuming you were doing it with magic. A player who wins the Challenge and tosses a fireball at another PC could take their Body out in one shot, assuming their Skill was high enough. They'd still have to take out another Attribute, which means, for practical purposes, that if you want to kill another PC (or PC-equivalent NPC), you have to:

A) Do it in two separate Challenges;
B) Do it in one Challenge, if both of you agree to death as the stakes;
C) Do it in one Challenge, if you wait till they are already weakened, and one of their other Attributes is out of play; or
D) Attack in superior numbers.

What this means is that it's tough to kill PCs, which is what we wanted. To pull it off you need planning, teamwork, luck, or a combination of these.

How would it change your game system if you radically decreased the potential range of attribute sizes? Say, 1 to 20, with a starting character averaging 5.

I can't say that it would change it in any significant way, and reducing the bids might solve some of the logistical problems. As I said, though, I've got an idea that needs to be worked out, which might solve all the headaches.

On the topic of group challenges, I encountered some pretty complex stakes during the second playtest of my system. Beware Player A in this scenario:

Player A: For my stakes, I do one Body Damage to C.
Player B: For my stakes, I pickpocket A and get away with his wallet.
Player A: Well then, I want to change my stakes. I do one Body Damage to C and avoid getting pickpocketed by B.
Player C: I cast sleep on you all! Mwahaha! Er, that's my stake.
Player D: I just want to escape.
Player A: In that case, my stake is to Damage C, Avoid B and Stop D from escaping.

I'm addressing that issue by saying in the rules that a Stake is a "simple sentence." There's wiggle room in that phrase, but not so much that Stakes can escalate in oneupmanship too absurdly.

Right. The way I handled it is by saying that everyone in the Challenge must agree to all the stakes, or they all default to straight damage.

What I meant to ask was not about character death, but about special abilities. Magic is an ability with special rules. Summoned creatures, you say, introduce special rules. Can I have special rules because I know kung fu, or because I can read minds, or because I have wealth beyond mortal measure? Where is the line drawn between "the standard bidding system handles this, just add Color" and "this situation needs to be reflected mechanically?"

It's a pretty clear-cut line, actually. Normal rules handle everything. The only exceptions are when magic is involved. Magic is the special thing in the game, most notably summoned spirits, because they have a different type of magic than the PCs.

[Adam Cerling]

I think the physical representation of Tokens does matter: it has a direct impact on the handling time of the system. The easier Tokens are to store, retrieve, count and manipulate, the more elegant the system becomes.

But that's my only quibble at this point. I don't think I can ask any more intelligent questions before I see how things change. I look forward to reading your next revision!