[Guilt and Frustration]

[Peter Nordstrand]

Welcome to the first thread about Guilt and Frustration. This first post will be a general introduction to the game. Following posts will include specific questions. You can download the game here.

Here we go ...

Guilt and Frustration is a game about the conflict between other people's expectations and a character's own desires. Characters are more or less trapped betwen his own wishes and the demands of his significant others. If characters follow their desires, they are overcome by Guilt; if they do what others want them to do Frustration sets in.

When a character accumulates more Guilt or Frustration than he can handle, he becomes resentful and hateful, to the point where his bottled up emotions incapacitates him. In game terms, he gains a Hatred trait. He becomes like a pressure cooker ready to explode. Sooner or later he is going to let off steam. In Guilt and Frustration, this is done by hurting someone. Not necessarily in a violent way, though. And, yes, a character is permitted to hurt himself.

The only way out of this mess is through sublimation; the act of diverting or modifying desires into activity that doesn't clash with other people's expectations. This is done during play by giving your character a new trait (called a Passion) that is in line with his Desire without being incompatible with the opposed Expectation. The character may then act in accordance with a Passion without increasing his Guilt. He may even be able to reduce his Desire.

Character Creation

Character creation has the player distribute points 1) among the Expectations and Desires affecting his character, and 2) among three Characteristics (broad skill categories like Police Officer, Martial Artist, or Film Buff).

Setting, Gameprep and Actual Play

The game as written does not include any setting information to speak of. In itself this is hardly a problem, but the lack of advice and ideas regarding prep and play is unsatisfactory.

My quick answer is that the GM prepares Bangs that relate directly to each character's expectations and desires.

During chargen, relationship maps will emerge, and it might be a good idea for players to connect their relationships in some instances, such that one character's father might be an other character's boss, for example.

Resolution System

The resolution system is simple. The player rolls a d20 + [modifiers] against an opposing resistance of d20 + [modifiers]. The opposing resistance is usually another character, but it can be something insentient. Highest roll wins.

Important modifiers include Desires, Expectations, Characteristics, and Hatred. A Desire of 5 may grant a +5 modifier, for example. Hatred gives a penalty to everything. Future versions of the game will have to include guidelines for other modifiers; I imagine that most modifiers should be in the ±5 to ±10 range.

The system also includes a fair amount of drama resolution, although unfortunately this is not stated in the game text. Any undertaking that fits one or more characteristics can be assumed to succeed, unless someone wants to contest the outcome. A rule of thumb: The fortune system handles conflict resolution, while task resolution is handled with drama.

Currency

Another thing unfortunately left out of the game text as written:

1 bonus = 1 penalty

 

[Peter Nordstrand]

First question ...

The resolution system as written resolves all conflicts in a single die-roll. Naturally, the length and scope of each conflict is up to the play group; a fistfight may be handled as one conflict or as a series of, say, twenty tiny conflicts. Nevertheless, one conflict = one roll.

In your opinion,

does the game need rules for extended conflicts? Why?

Can you think of any other options(apart from leaving things as they are)?
[/list]

This is my first ever serious attempt at rpg game design. Thank you in advance for your help.

All the best,

[Jasper]

Hi Peter,

Cool premise (and subtitle). I love all these psychologically-oriented games we're seeing recently. I like the flow diagram of Hate, Frustration, etc. as well.

Here's another "option" or consideration: shouldn't the nature of a passion, specifically its convergance with an existing desire, matter in terms of how easy is it to replace the desire with it? In your example, you have a character torn between lawyering and musicianship. He chooses a passion of "copyright lawyer" to reconcile the two -- as some sort of middle path. But he's still basically becoming a lawyer, and not playing music professionally -- so it seems like a win for his expectations, with only a small bone tossed to his desire. I know this is just one example, but it could be a common situation: a passion that really leans pretty heavily towards either desires or expectations. So my question is, should there be a mechanic to lessen the effectts of having a passion in these cases? In your example, it would make sene to me that since the desire of musicianship is still being marginalized, it should be harder to replace it with the new passion. Does that make sense?

As for your other question, "does the game need rules for extended conflicts?" What exactly do you mean by extended conflict? Conflicts with many parts? Or conflicts that are spread out over time? Or...? I don't see any obvious gaps in the system now, so offhand I would say you don't need anything else. But if you suspect you might...maybe you do, in order to accomplish something I'm unaware you want.

[Jasper]

Reading over it more, I have another question. Why does frustration turn into hatred when it exceeds expectations? I wonder about the dynamic this will create...with low expectations on him, a character will accrue small amounts of hate very easily, with corresponding reductions in his effectiveness (from hatred penalties). Whereas a character with a lot of expecations on him will go a long time with no hatred at all, and then suddenly get a huge load when he finally crosses the threshold. Now, this latter effect I understand: sudden, violent reaction. Sure. But the former character, with low expectations, will experience hate very easily/often. Is that intended? Or am I missing something?

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi Jasper,

Thank you for taking the time to talk about my game.

By "extended conflicts" I mean instances where you resolve a single conflict through a series of sub-conflicts, or tasks; conceivability by splitting the conflict into a series of 'rounds' or 'turns' or whatever. See "Extended Contest" in HeroQuest or "Combat" in Sorcerer for example. In the current version of G&F, 1) a conflict is introduced, 2) the dice are rolled, and 3) the outcome is narrated and the effect is recorded. One conflict=one resolution. never a series of rounds where we can follow the ups and downs of whatever is going on. Feel free to ask again if I am not making myself clear.

Regarding your other comments, I think they are very valuable, but I need to digest them a little more, before replying. Please be patient.


All the best,

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi Jasper,

To make it easier on myself I will deal with one issue at a time.

Why does frustration turn into hatred when it exceeds expectations? I wonder about the dynamic this will create...with low expectations on him, a character will accrue small amounts of hate very easily, with corresponding reductions in his effectiveness (from hatred penalties). Whereas a character with a lot of expecations on him will go a long time with no hatred at all, and then suddenly get a huge load when he finally crosses the threshold. Now, this latter effect I understand: sudden, violent reaction. Sure. But the former character, with low expectations, will experience hate very easily/often. Is that intended? Or am I missing something?

No matter what the Expectation rating is, it always conflicts with a character's Desire. I am not convinced that it tells us whether the character has high expectations on him or not. He may be able to go a longer time before going postal, but that is probably not always the case.

A character with a high Expectation rating

• is good at living up to that expectation (he gets a big bonus)


• can accumulate more frustration points before gaining hatred

However, he will also

• gain more Frustration when acting in line with that expectation (larger bonus --> higher effect)


• gain a lot of hatred once he goes nuts

Yes this is all intended, although I am not sure yet if it is desirable. This is probably one of those things that needs playtesting to get right. This game is clearly unfinished, and in many ways flawed. I am already making changes, but playtesting is necessary for me to get a basic grip on what is working and what is not. I know that the idea in my head is both immensely cool and kind of disturbing, but I do not yet now how to turn that into the great game I think it deserves to be.


Cheers,

[tygertyger]

By "extended conflicts" I mean instances where you resolve a single conflict through a series of sub-conflicts, or tasks; conceivability by splitting the conflict into a series of 'rounds' or 'turns' or whatever.

This approach definitely works with combat, but I don't see G & F as a combat-heavy game.

Another application is to apply this approach to in-character gameplay.  For example, you could play out a game of cards by having each round of conflict represent one hand.  Actually playing cards is better if all of the players know the game, but using rounds and the game mechanics to mediate a card game that most of the players aren't familiar with is a reasonable substitute.

I would definitely break up tasks that have major effects on the plot.  If the task at hand is to break into an office and steal something, no way should that be resolved with one roll.  The character(s) should make a separate roll for each security system circumvented and each guard post that they pass (separate rolls for each guard is too much unless they are widely spaced and appear singly).

I would suggest consolidating extended tasks (i.e. writing a song or making a cabinet) into one roll each.  It doesn't slow down the game with too much unnecessary die rolling.

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi Michael (tygertyger),

Thank you for chatting with me about my game. It is most appreciated.

Regarding G&F as not a very combat heavy game, re-read the game-text with the movie Fight Club in mind. Or even better: watch the movie with my game in mind. I see G&F as a very violent game, although I agree that the game examples does not support this view. The notion that combat should usually be handled as an extended conflict, while non-combat activities are usually better handled as single dierolls is ... well ... I don't see it that way. To understand where I come from regarding this you should take a look at HeroQuest, and its differentiation between Simple Contests and Extended Contests. Esp. note the advice given on when to use which contest.

All the best,

[tygertyger]

I see G&F as a very violent game, although I agree that the game examples does not support this view.

Fair enough.

The notion that combat should usually be handled as an extended conflict, while non-combat activities are usually better handled as single dierolls is ... well ... I don't see it that way.

Allow me to clarify.  My contention is not so simplistic as "combat in rounds, everything else in one roll."  It's more along the lines of using rounds to resolve anything in which the conditions and chances of success/failure change quickly.  Combat usually falls within that category, what with all of the variables of field position, the changing (due to damage and fatigue) capabilities of the combatants and the expenditure of consumable resources like ammunition.  Making a cabinet in an isolated workshop setting has fewer variables and thus can be conveniently simulated with a single roll. Some activities that might be considered combat or combat-like -- say, torturing a securely bound subject in a place where rescure and interruption are unlikely -- are more like making a cabinet in terms of how rapidly the situation and variables change and so can also be simulated with single rolls.