Developing a Dice mechanic

[Sydney Freedberg]

P.S.: Going in this direction, you probably don't even want the key character attributes -- i.e. Tough vs. Sensitive-- to be fixed before play begins. Each player should get a pool of points to define his/her character, and when the first encounter hits, everyone has to choose how many points to spend on being Tough, how many to spend on being Sensitive, and how many to keep in reserve. Then, at each subsequent encounter, players can spend from their reserve to become more Tough or more Sensitive, or maybe (scrapping the idea of a reserve) transfer points from one to the other, or maybe earn points from how they survived the last encounter to increase one score or the other for the next one (e.g. I got a good Tough roll last time, so I get a +1 bonus to my Tough from now on, but my Sensitive stays the same). The idea here is to preserve flexibility (both in story terms and in game-tactics terms) to become Tougher or more Sensitive or both as the game proceeds, but preserve the idea that choices have lasting consequences so that what your character did at the beginning of the game defines who s/he is and constrains your options for the end of the game.

[Josh Roby]

Teamwork is essential in the long term, because the sensitive characters need the tough guys to protect them and the tough guys need the sensitive characters to figure stuff out, but teamwork is risky in the short term, because my odds of surviving this attack are much better if you don't ("I don't have to run faster than the bear - I have to run faster than you.")

To really make this work, I'd suggest that in every "encounter," there's a clue to what's really going on (i.e. the source/ghost), and there's a risk of death -- and it is guaranteed in each encounter that one character will figure out that encounter's clue, and one character will die or at least be injured.

I like this, but to make the top part of that quote work with the bottom part of that quote, you need to make it so that individual players can allot their resources to both protect themselves and to protect the others -- so the toughs can protect the sensitives.  Would it be in-line to reward self-sacrifice?  I'm not well-versed in the genre, but from what few I've seen the Big Tough Guy usually sacrifices himself to get the Sensitive Main Character past the last obstacle.  That may, however, be more appopriate to the movies than to face-to-face collaborative storytelling.

[joepub]

Would it be in-line to reward self-sacrifice?  I'm not well-versed in the genre, but from what few I've seen the Big Tough Guy usually sacrifices himself to get the Sensitive Main Character past the last obstacle. 

It kind of seems like there is no need to reward this type of self sacrifice, per say.
As your example proves, the self-sacrifice has its own natural benefits.


But then again - maybe there is need for reward in that if Big Tough Guy sacrifices himself (ie. buys time for Sensitive Main Character) by opting to automatically fail a survival test...

Maybe a sacrifice mechanic looks like this:
If one play opts to automatically fail a test (dying as a result), he/she is buying time for his/her friends.
As a result, opting for automatic failure gurantees the next test taken by a group member is an automatic success.

I don't know if that's what you want to capture, but I think it could work for this genre.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Or allow the Big Tough Guy to take a penalty of -x to his survival roll to help the Sensitive Perceptive Chick by giving her a bonus of +x to her survival roll. A little risk and randomness goes a lot further than absolute certainty of death or survival -- you can always get yourself into trouble by thinking, "well, if I just roll a 6, I'll be fine..."

[joepub]

True.

I know I`d feel a lot more comfortable having my character die if I knew that it would gurantee something, though.

[F. Scott Banks]

The players finding out how the story ends being a forgone conclusion is fine.  After all, the point is to tell a story...hopefully a good one.  The prospect of never knowing why the old graveyard is haunted isn't desireable in any scenario.  The GM wants his story told.  The players want to hear it.

An outcome where you end up with a pile of corpses and no closure has to be avoided.

The mechanic where players have to work together to get the clues/survive is perfect.  Being a narrativist (self-proclaimed...I'm always hearing how what I think narrativism is isn't narrativism) I was working out a "judgement call" system where the GM decides whether the players respose to an encounter is "good enough" and the dice only determined whether the player gets another shot at getting it right with or without getting hurt.

This more refined mechanic allows for players to work together, leads them down a character development track (not bad for a pick-up-and-go party game) and ensures that they get something out of every encounter.  The clue might not be great, but they get one every time.

[Sydney Freedberg]

The clue might not be great, but they get one every time.

That's the way to go, definitely. Leaving it to the poor GM to judge whether the players' response to the encounter was "good enough" is a road to misery.

Have you read Dogs in the Vineyard? The "Town Creation" rules -- and they are rules, not "GM advice" -- offer a great step-by-step model of how to go from "here's the original sin" to "things start to go wrong" to "everybody's dead or dancin' with demons."

Such a process would be especially useful for you because each step of the GM's "Haunting Creation" process could then generate one clue for the players. If the GM did a simple haunting, with three layers of "and then things got worse," the players need to make it through three encounters, learning about a new layer of "what went wrong" each time, before they get to the do-or-die "exorcise the haunting" phase. If the GM did a really nasty and complicated haunting, with a sequence of six things that got worse and worse to produce the current situation, the players have to survive six encounters, getting six clues, to reach the climax. (There probably shouldn't be more levels/encounters/clues than player-characters, or else no one might make it!). I'm thinking of something like:

1. Rich Mr. Banks was greedy and cruel and kept his employees desperately poor, always timing their hours with his big gold pocket-watch.
2. When Mr. Banks was going to fire Tom from the factory for being late, Tom panicked and killed him -- and took the watch.
3. Tom's wife, Mary, found the watch in Tom's bloodstained clothes and said, "we've got to take it and sell it!" But Tom said, "No! Everyone knows it's his! I'll go to jail for sure!" And she tried to run off with it, and he tried to stop her, and, well, she pushed him and he, y'know, fell...
4. Tom and Mary's 12-year-old daughter, Lizzie B., went mad with grief and killed her mother....
5. ... and ate her. Because, with both her parents dead, there was no one to make money to buy food, right?
6. And Lizzie was committed to an insane asylum, and lived there the rest of her days, and she kept complaining, "I hear it ticking -- ticking -- ticking!" But no one ever found the watch.

Now you've got a nice abandoned factory town with the old rusty mill, the workers' rotting shacks, the abandoned asylum, and the big decaying manor on the hill, plus at least four ghosts of varying degrees of sympathic-ness, plus a haunted pocketwatch -- which is probably the anchor for the whole haunting. Each of the six steps produces an encounter, and each encounter gives you the history of one of the steps. (They don't have to be in order, really). And I just made that up in the last 5-10 minutes while I typed this.

[Josh Roby]

I was working out a "judgement call" system where the GM decides whether the players respose to an encounter is "good enough" and the dice only determined whether the player gets another shot at getting it right with or without getting hurt.

"Good enough" for what?  This is an important question: what is actually determined by the GM when he judges the players' address of the situation?  Does he decide what information they get?  Does he decide how much damage they take?  Does he decide if their solution will banish the ghost and resolve the entire game?

The clue might not be great, but they get one every time.

So are you making the GM modulate the clue based on the players' address?  Here's a challenge -- what happens if the GM writes the clues down on 3x5 cards before the game even begins, and if a player gets the clue, the GM hands over the card?

[Justin Marx]

I was working out a "judgement call" system where the GM decides whether the players respose to an encounter is "good enough" and the dice only determined whether the player gets another shot at getting it right with or without getting hurt.

I'd love to hear how this will mechanically work, as I'm not sure how it would play out. If the situation is of the GMs creation, the PCs are relatively shallow story-wise (going with the horror movie genre, I can't recall many characters which had much depth - and as you said, this is a pick-up-and-go party game), and the players must conform to what the GM planned in order to get the goods - this doesn't leave a lot of room for the players to do stuff. I suppose I am seconding Joshua's questions on how the GMs judgements are to be played out.

[F. Scott Banks]

That's just it, the "judgement call" doesn't mechanically work.  If you've got Stephen King as a GM and he's plotted out multiple endings for this campaign, then you're fine.  Otherwise, the dice giving you good clues for good rolls, mediocre clues for mediocre rolls, and bad clues (and possibly a punctured lung) for bad rolls.

The players get enough to piece the story together, but the cost is either a good roll, or a pound of flesh.  The old system was clunky, giving players second chances if they made the roll, then making them guess what was in the GM's mind.

Now, clues can be rated depending on how much they give away.  A great roll and you figure something out...the ghost sees himself in a mirror and has to flee.  A good roll and you get the clue and the ghost misses you.  A bad roll and you get a vague clue, the ghost appears as a frightened child in the mirror.  A terrible roll and the mirror stays covered with a sheet, the clue might be that it's the only object in the room that is.

I like the idea where the total clues doesn't exceed the total HP of the characters.  That way, you can "buy" clues either by getting a very good roll and having the GM give it to you, "nickel and dime" your way to the answer with little clues (and little injuries), or have someone do something heroic (or stupid...depends on whether or not this is the result of a very bad roll, or a very dedicated player) and fall down the mine shaft on top of the bodies of the escaped convicts victims.  It cost you a player, but now you know what's down there.

And the empathy/bravery mechanic means that sometimes the situation determines who gets the clue.  The brave character can't be hurt by the ghost of the drowned milkmaid, but they can't talk to them either.  The empath has to talk to the ghost, and has to suffer the consequences of a bad roll by themselves.  Conversely, the blemish-free empath can't take one for the team and go head-to head with a shambling corpse because the brave character is all banged up (not without losing their empathy in the process and changing the clues they'll be getting in the future.

And as always, there are the middle of the road, "Scooby-doo" clues that don't involve communing with the dead (empath), or crawling into an open grave to get a love letter from a cadaver's pocket (brave).  You've got to have these to establish who is the empath and who is brave in the first place...so losing it later on isn't going to stop the story, just how it's told.  The mundane clues might be finding a reply to the aformentioned love letter in a desk...so no having to talk to it's decades old author, or pickpocketing it's mouldering recipient.

The downside...well, a reply to the letter you need isn't the same as reading it or talking to who wrote it.  The safe path means tougher clues...no big win without big risk.

[F. Scott Banks]

Ah numbers...always we need the numbers.

Well, you've got a six-sided die so clues can go like this.

Nancy walks into the abandoned boiler room.  She hears a child crying and can either leave or stay.  Staying means looking around (+1 brave), calling out to the child (+1 empathy) or at least waiting around until something happens (nothing...you're playing it safe). 

GM's can definately use their judgement on stalling tactics...there's a big difference between standing in the brightest part of the room and waiting and either going into the darkness or trying to get the attention of something in it.

Nancy decides to call out to the child (actually it doesn't matter what she does, if she's still in the room at the end of her turn, this is what happens in this scenario) and a mishapen creature dragging chains behind it attacks her.  Because the value of the empathy clue is four, she has to roll a four or better to get out of this uninjured. 

Nancy rolls a:

1 = She gets beaten within an inch of her life and chased out of the room (-3 to health).  Outside, she hears the crying escalate to screaming before a metal door slams.  Too bad for her she doesn't know which of the many metal doors in the boiler room just slammed.  If she didn't survive the beating, she sound is the last thing she hears.

2 or 3 (-2 or -1 to health) = She gives as good as she gets and chases the creature off.  She sees one of the metal boiler doors slowly open a few moments later.  if she didn't survive the fight, this is the last thing she sees.

4 or 5 = She beats the creature to a pulp and it runs into a boiler door snapping it's...well killing itself.  A childish giggle comes from the inside of the boiler.

6 = The creature is beaten so badly that it runs inside the boiler trying to escape.  Inside, it screams and the boiler shakes violently, being visibly misshapen by something beating the sides of it with tremendous force.  After a few more wet thuds, the door slowly creaks open and a childish giggle can be heard.

Now, in none of those situations does Nancy really want to open the door, but the payoff for being empathetic (she was looking for a hurt child remember and following through is a conversation with a ghost (the child's bones are in the boiler and so is it's ghost if you're an empath).  The brave character would sift through the bones to find a toy, the empath would just talk to the ghost. 

The "middle of the road-er" has to now search the room, perhaps opening up more chances to be a hero or a sweetie.  If they got a good roll, they know where to look but all they get are the obvious bones.  Not having been brave, they won't sift through them and not having been sensitive the ghost won't show.  They can perhaps at that point choose to call out for the child (empath reward, no bonus) or sift through the bones (brave reward, no bonus) and if they make it through a "scare", they get the clue.

The scare is the door suddenly slamming shut.  The difficulty is different depending on the path chosen.  If they're brave, they're in the boiler when it slams shut because they're sifting through bones.  If they're empathetic, they're calling into it from the outside.  The outcome is the same...a failure means no bonus...you were scared shitless...if not for good, at least for now.  Modest failure success means you're shaken and get a partial clue (you see the kid but he doesn't talk to you, you find the toy but it's broken).  Modest success means you get the clue and Sucess means you get the clue and a temporary bonus (brave or empathetic for the next encounter...it'll stick if they're brave or empathetic again).

So the basic mechanic is clues for good rolls and good roleplay, bad clues and perhaps a little extra trouble for bad rolls or bad roleplay.

And again, bad roleplay doesn't have to mean caution...it just did in that scenario.  If you clearly don't want to encounter what's in the room, then leave and find another encounter.  There may be scenes where excessive empathy or bravery is bad roleplay.  This is another GM judgement call.

Come on, all these dessicated parodies of life need is a hug!

[Green]

I hate to backtrack, but this is a fascinating game.  As I was thinking about the tough/brave and empathy idea and finding clues, something I've considered is that the type of roll determines the type of clue you find.  For instance, when you use tough to find a clue, it's not to help solve a mystery but to give you a clue on how to get out alive.  An empathy roll may give you clues about the motives of the ghost.  A brave roll helps you find something that gives you the drive to confront the ghost.  These ideas aren't particularly thought-out, but an idea to help fine-tune the sorts of things that go on.

Going with the player resource, one way you can perhaps increase tough, brave, and/or empathy is when you successfully use them to find clues.  I'm not sure exactly how the resources can be used, but that's just an example of something to help gain resources.

[Justin Marx]

If the clues are pre-determined by the GM, what is the difference between a good and a bad clue? GM judgement again. What would happen if the clue was just a clue, and the roll is to determine IF you get it, and more importantly, what the consequences are if you do? In this way, looking for clues, by itself, is risky business. I'm guessing you want the players getting more and more nervous as the game progresses and the stakes become higher. Just keep on handing out the clues, but the more that come out, the greater and greater the risk.

The mystery itself is, as you said, assumed to be solved eventually, mind games with the GM and perception rolls just slows it down and, purportedly, add tension. But tension comes from the risk of actually losing something or getting into deep trouble. So if you roll bad for the clue, you may get it, but as you ponder over the elaborate Victorian handwriting, the axe is coming down behind you. Rating clues is a tricky business, even for the GM that designed it - a weak clue when most of the story is known is more useful than a big clue at the beginning. I dunno, I guess I'm having trouble with trying to figure out how you can rate this stuff and make it mechanically work. It still comes down to guessing games with the GM.

And if you have a mediocre GM, the story will go bust pretty fast as he clues get constantly mis-rated, giving away too much or too little, or starting red herring chases as the players come to the wrong conclusion. Only railroading would bring them back on track, and that is the last thing you want.

Sorry, I love this idea, I just am not sure how much GM Judgement can work overall. If GM Judgement is the way it works, then defining what that means is absolutely critical. The examples work well, don't get me wrong, but they are just examples of play. The choice of options on the behalf of the GM regarding Nancy's potential rolls - is this determined BEFORE rolling (a la Conflict Resolution), or after the roll (TR). If the latter, you have problems in interpretation, if the former, you can give away some of the mystery just by setting the stakes. It's tricky.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Agreed that figuring out good vs. bad clues is darned hard for the GM -- but worse, it's ultimately self-defeating, because the GM spent time and energy coming out with those cool clues so s/he could show them off to the players.

I love the "Nancy in the boiler room example" -- but why would you ever want it to end without her seeing the child's ghost? That's the payoff! How many ghost stories have you ever watched where the heroes don't ever find out what caused the haunting? For that matter, how many action movies have you seen where the hero "runs out of hit points" and falls dead without ever getting to go face-to-face with the Big Bad? How many mysteries have the detective fail to notice the crucial clue and wander off without ever figuring out who done it?

The question should not be "do I find out the next awful, terrible, creepy, disturbing thing?" Of course you find out. The question is, "how beat up or freaked out do I have to get first?" And then, when you finally have all the clues and know The Awful Truth, the question then becomes, "now what do I do about it? Is it more important to set things right or to save myself?"

I'd really, really urge you to check out Vincent Baker's Dogs in the Vineyard, in which almost every session involves a crime and a mystery, and the GM advice is "tell the players everything that's wrong! Then let 'em tie themselves in knots figuring out how to make it right."

[F. Scott Banks]

I'm going to check out Dogs in the Vineyard now.  I've never been a Mystery writer so that will definately help.

I'll also look at the makeup of the horror story, and of the mystery.  I can grab the ear of an author in a heartbeat so I should get a lot of insight as to the mechanics of building a good mystery (ultimately my job) and of building a good horror story (ultimately the GM's job).

The mechanics of the mystery never change...there's always a body...the detective can never have done it...and there's other stuff...someone wrote this down and in the course of writing a murder/mystery play I had to burn these things into my skull.

Now...to find that formula and structure a game around it so that the mystery is solved every time...whether by guessing, or by turningpages/rolling dice to the end.

Horror is more subjectinv, but not as hard as it sounds.  An old theatre coach of mine pointed out the similarities between horror and comedy.  The example:

Imagine an old lady is walking down the street and she slips on the ice, her packages go everywhere, groceries bouncing down the street, her legs go up and out in a comical fashion and her mouth forms a perfect "O" of surprise.

Now...imagine her not moving after hitting the ground.

Comedy and horror in the same swallow...sweet at first, but it kinda hurts going down...like candy with glass in it.

That's just my horror though.  I can assemble a few more of my ilk and get other interpretations.