[Perfect] The Mechanics of Commiting Crimes.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

RE: saving up IPs, I feel like its a bad idea.

There's two things, here: IP-translated-into-chips, and IP-as-current-crime-rank.

My thinking as of the last points on this subject was:
o  A GM may bank chips, which are translated to Fear and Inspector points in the conflict, BUT...
o  Any single crime can only have Conditioning equal to that one crime's IP rank, no matter how many banked chips go into its resolution.

So you can get tension, increased odds of trouble, NAR chip elimination, all that... but each crime stands along, in terms of consequence. It's the old Al Capone (I think?) thing: they watch and watch and just KNOW he's crooked... but all they can get him on in the end--with all their resources and monitoring and time (i.e. stack of banked chips) is tax evasion.

One it is counter to the flow of a proper story. You want escalating conflict, yes, but with a player victory at the end.

Oh, really?

Joe, do the players HAVE to win, every game, every time? (I know the answer, but I am not the designer.)

Seems like the GM can escalate the conflict by bringing in more IPs on a scene by scene basis.

So, into a clearly ajudicated system that has a chart of crime:IP and banked chips, you would introduce fiat? Please justify that, keeping in mind how many other aspects of this game are clearly managed with counters and resource allotment.

and that if the GM has a ton of IPs saved up at the end of the story, it sets up the player for a failure, rather than a success. and it creates this sort of "limp" situation.

Suppose he just held them to waste them, seeing the NAR evolution ot theme comingto a climax all on its own?

Suppsoe the players just plain out-maneuvered the Inspectors, and the GM is left "surprised" to find that one piddly little crime sews up the Conspiracy's Grand Solution (a player GAM victory)?

Suppose the players were just plain too clever AS players, and managed to continually persuade the GM that banking was appropriate to the scene (i.e. my "clever and sneaky plans" idea above)? Their SIM play left the GMs with little Fear to throw... and the players passed Discovery, so there's no Interrogation.

My point is that you seem to have a preconceived notion about HOW this game plays and resolves that is not supported (so far) in text. Further, were that notion supported in text and rule systems, it would close down a lot of agenda flexibliity. At the Forge, that is A Good Thing... I disagree--so long as the techniques for player-GM communication stay open (i.e. Motivations and other hooks; see below) so that the GM can detect agenda in players and serve the common agenda (or alternate to serve all players as much as possible).

I mean, if the GM has a boatload of IPs and doesn;t use them, then they really didn't pllay the game well, and if they have a boatload of IPs and use them, then the story will take a sort of anti-climactic ending, no?

Yes to the former; no to the latter. See above.

RE: Hooks, I think that's over-doing it. you already have Freedoms, Images and Evasions. If that is not enough of story hooks, what is? I mean, these are so flexible that if they don't say something about what you and your character is interested in, then you've done something seriously wrong, lol

I am of the opinion that Images and Evasions don't speak at all to hooks. They are mechanical "buffs" that MIGHT give you a clue as o the player's agenda and play interests... but not nearly so effectively as a straigh-forward "pick some Motivations, byatch" rule would.

Freedoms don't even map into this at all. They seem to me to be somewhere between "powers" and "disadvantages" for the character. Now, in as much a SOME powers could lead a GM to guess at play interests (ex: a guy who can't speak won't have much fun in a highly conversational, social game), it still doesn't have the Big Huge Waving FLAG quality of a pure Motivation.

In closing, on secret societies, I am comfortablewith leaving them to develop in play. I still encourage you, Joe, to allow them to be "purchased" or chosen before play (at character creation) if the players want. It's just too big of a Flag to ignore.

Just my 2¢, YMMV, HTH, no warranty expressed or implied;
David

[dindenver]

Hi David,
  Yeah, I am not trying to say that the players should win every time. And I am not trying to say every GM is going to hoard points for the final showdown and then blow the game by making the players lose every time. But, I am trying to say that the utility of saving IPs from one encounter to the next does not seem to have as much of an "in game" feel to it as much as the other mechanics do and that the risk that it will lead to dysfunctional game play might warrant a second look.
  And I feel like we are overlooking the potential for the GM to set the IPs according to their whims based on the number of infractions they decide to bring in on this particular action. Baring that in mind, that means the "need" to save IPs from scene to scene is not necesary. To understand what I am saying, think of a crooked rural Sheriff pulling over some kind of rock star for speeding and piling on whatever other laws that they FEEL is being broken.
  As to the players "outsmarting" the GM, the issue comes down to, if the players don't have the points to overcome the IPs the GM has stored up, then it doesn't matter how clever they are. That's why I feel the disposition of these points becomes central to balanced/fun play.
  Yeah, I never said Fiat. What I mean is that: the IPs should fit the crime(s), the escalation shold follow what the players do, instead of what the GM has saved up for and that good play should be about the current scene, not about saving up points for a better scene.
  But I see what you are going for and I can dig it...

[dindenver]

Hey Joe,
  RE: Secret Societies, here's how I feel:
Only an option: Works for me

Having the Govt ban them: If I were running this Govt, I would ban secret societies. These can become two things that this Govt wants to thwart: Centralizing power and influence/Source of transmition of unacceptable ideas/messages

Source of radicals: Seems like a natural fit. In the past, there have been secret societies that have been the source of insurgency. I think you have to take a step back and think about what you want the theme/message to be and have Secret societies fit within the overall picture of your game.

  The only advice I have in regards to Perfect is, don;t ignore Secret Societies or pretend they don;t exist, lol

[joepub]

Wow, a lot to respond to here.
I'll start with the easiest question first:

Joe, do the players HAVE to win, every game, every time?

Definitely not. In fact, if I were playing this game, part of the fun for me as a player would be falling on my ass and losing it all.

Ugly stories are often suited to ugly endings.
When Preston wins in Equilibrium at the end... I felt sort of disappointed.
I sort of wanted him to fail miserably. Take a stray bullet and die halfway through a monologue.

I don't think that's what DinDenver was suggesting, though... just for clarity:
I think he was saying "if players don't make progress, then the game can become frustrating".

I think that's what he was saying. And I see what he's saying, but suggest that the story is the only stable advancement... mechanical advancement can be easily lost in this game.

Suppose he just held them to waste them, seeing the NAR evolution ot theme comingto a climax all on its own?

Again...
stockpiling then dropping the atomic bomb would be a really cool scenario...
SO LONG AS THE PLAYERS WANTED THAT.

I think stockpiling is a yes... but I need to put something in the text about social contract, and agreeing about how you want the game to go... etc, etc.

My thinking as of the last points on this subject was:
o  A GM may bank chips, which are translated to Fear and Inspector points in the conflict, BUT...
o  Any single crime can only have Conditioning equal to that one crime's IP rank, no matter how many banked chips go into its resolution.

Yes, thank you for stating that... rather than leaving that concept to assumptions.
That's correct.

I am of the opinion that Images and Evasions don't speak at all to hooks. They are mechanical "buffs" that MIGHT give you a clue as o the player's agenda and play interests

Actually, David... I would really like Evasions and Images to be a lot more than buffs.
First of all... the Descriptions should be evocative and show where the character comes from...

If a player has the evasion "Pin the blame on others"...
the image "stealing from a priest"...
the "vandal" archetype...
and has a trust: Opium Dealer/saved his life/+2 to Calm tests/-2 to subsequent Interrogation test

It gives you a pretty good idea who this character is. A seedy, destructive man addicted to opium.

If a player has the evasion "silence"...
and the evasion "run away from problems"...
and the "Romantic" archetype...
and the image "ran away from home/GM loses 2 Fear points/lose 1 image point"

You start to see a bit of a character type... someone who is afraid to commit, and craves the love he/she left behind.

If a player has an image "watched my father die"...
an evasion "go silent"...
and an evasion "emotionless expression"...
and an evasion "intimidate others"...

You see a character who is so shooken up, he is becoming distant and aggressive.


You're right.. it lacks the flag waving upfrontness of Motivations... but is that a bad thing?

[joepub]

if they have a boatload of IPs and use them, then the story will take a sort of anti-climactic ending, no?

Whoops... missed this before.
I definitely think that jaw-dropping failure IS a climax. and a damn impacting one.

Some games should end in success; some in failure; some in a bittersweet middleground.

Only an option: Works for me

Having the Govt ban them: If I were running this Govt, I would ban secret societies. These can become two things that this Govt wants to thwart: Centralizing power and influence/Source of transmition of unacceptable ideas/messages

Source of radicals: Seems like a natural fit. In the past, there have been secret societies that have been the source of insurgency. I think you have to take a step back and think about what you want the theme/message to be and have Secret societies fit within the overall picture of your game.

  The only advice I have in regards to Perfect is, don;t ignore Secret Societies or pretend they don;t exist, lol

I think that DinDenver has hit the nail on the head with societies.

They should be wellsprings of criminal activity in their own right...
but that activity can't be PROVEN to have a connection to the society.

much like when David said:

It's the old Al Capone (I think?) thing: they watch and watch and just KNOW he's crooked... but all they can get him on in the end--with all their resources and monitoring and time (i.e. stack of banked chips) is tax evasion.

Everyone knows what's going on, but no one can stop it... until the secret society misfiles their taxes. :P





David, when you said:

I still encourage you, Joe, to allow them to be "purchased" or chosen before play (at character creation) if the players want. It's just too big of a Flag to ignore.

I think now that we've established what these societies are... we can work them into character creation, for sure.

If you go back to my original posts on character creation, you notice:

Certifications - Tickets that allow you access into certain areas. Simple as that.

Creating a character
Players...
...
...
...Then players get to pick 2 certifications to start the game with.

Then they spend a lot of time and paper describing their outfit.

Social Clubs, Secret Societies, Guilds, etc... can all be "bought access" by investing one of your 2 certification cards into them.

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

You're right.. it lacks the flag waving upfrontness of Motivations... but is that a bad thing?

"Bad," no. I do, however, believe it is unfortunate, given that you already will index and rank Crimes and Conditioning, and given that "which crimes do I want to play breaking" is Question One for a player (along the lines of the "what do players do" Power 19 question). Sure, evocative descriptions of the other mechanics of a character will help; but why exclude such an obvious means of player-GM communication, when it would be so easy to add: basically, remove the phrase "Thous Shalt Not..." from each society law and you have the activities for each class of Motivation; come up with a term for those who do such things; bang! Done. Heck, I already gave you five! ;-)

...Then players get to pick 2 certifications to start the game with.

Fair enough. You can probably get away with just some descriptive info about secret societies, then, and let players choose them for themselves as Certification. Just be sure to say SOMETHING about secret societies; don't leave it for players to think up for themselves. Again, it's as clear as a Motivation, as a signal of how the player wants to play.
What other issues are you currently facing? Where can we go further with this thread? I think the above two issues are officially beat to death, and you just gotta decide based on existing arguments.

Looking back, we need something about Group Cooperation mechanics, right? What else? You getting pretty close to playtest/actual play posts?

David

[joepub]

Before answering your post, David... There are some mechanics changes that have occured in my mind.

Infractions, Tension, and IP Points
Okay... so in the old system, infractions determined how many points the GM got to spend.
The thing was... that didn't have a very NAR feel... and it was a bit of a cold and unresponsive system.

So, enter Tension.
The way it works is this:
My character, Pell, is in love with a girl... one who doesn't yet know he exists.
He decides to sneak out after curfew, creep up to her window, and watch her sleeping.

The player decides, on a scale of 1-10, how important this crime has on him. I decide it's a 7.
The GM decides how important this crime is. He decides 5.
This means that the GM gets 12 points to put into Fear and Inspector.
Any unused Fear or Inspector points, at the end of hte scene, are turned bank into "generic" points and banked.

Infractions are counted, so you have an IP total...
The tests still occur as normal, but:

the results of Interrogation: if GM is successful, an image is discovered and "conditioned against". A fallout with level equal to the IP is attached to one image.
Example: Pell commits this crime, which has an IP of 3.
He fails his calm test, and fails his interrogation test. Thus, the GM picks a Fallout (level 3) and attaches it to one of Pell's images.

the result of conditioning: if the GM is successful, then a conditioning is added to the character sheet, with conditioning level equal to the IP of the crime.
Example: Pell commits this crime, which has an IP of 3.
He fails his discovery test, and fails his conditioning test. Thus, the group negotates a Conditioning, with a Scope equal to 3 (a chart is there to give examples and context for what Scope levels can do.)


That's the revised system.

You getting pretty close to playtest/actual play posts?

Yes.
I am writing out the draft lists right now.
This game has so many fucking lists (especially considering how little I like lists...)

To finish writing out:
Freedoms, Laws, Image/Evasion Gains, Image/Evasion Fallouts, Trust Gains, Trust Fallouts, Conditioning Scope, Certifications.

As soon as I write all those out, playtest rules get thrown up.
Expect them by Wednesday probably.

[joepub]

I missed explaining one thing before:

The player decides, on a scale of 1-10, how important this crime has on him. I decide it's a 7.
The GM decides how important this crime is. He decides 5.
This means that the GM gets 12 points to put into Fear and Inspector.

This also means that the Payout the player sets for committing the crime is a Level 12 Payout.

Any unused Fear or Inspector points, at the end of hte scene, are turned bank into "generic" points and banked.

Just be sure to say SOMETHING about secret societies; don't leave it for players to think up for themselves.

roger that.

"Bad," no. I do, however, believe it is unfortunate, given that you already will index and rank Crimes and Conditioning, and given that "which crimes do I want to play breaking" is Question One for a player

Okay.
Here's the game:
Players pick an archetype. This is the Anarchist, Archivist, Equalist, Idealist, etc.
Then there's a space on the character sheet that says: "I commit crimes because ________________."
It'll leave enough space so that if you want to write 50 words, you can...
or if you want succinctness you can write something as short as "i hate the government."

Looking back, we need something about Group Cooperation mechanics, right? What else?

Yeah, Group Cooperation mechanics are big. I've got two things so far.

First: Trusts. This is group cooperation in character building and character "advancement".
Trusts are more versatile than images or evasions...
A group where characters give out Trusts instead of hoarding their "build points" for themselves is one that's more effective.

Second: Group Crimes.
Here's the scoop for crimes with more than one person:
Player one sets Tension at 5, GM sets at 7. Payout is one that is rated level 12, for this character.
Player two sets Tension at 6. (GM already set it at 7, remember?). Payout is one that is rated 13, for this character.

All tensions are added together: 5+6+7=18.
The GM gets 18 points to spend.

Each character tests Calm, Discovery, Interrogation and Conditioning seperately... (Although they are working together, whether they are seen or keep their cool is still tested individually...)
Tested individually, but the GM only has 18 points to spend between the two of their tests.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  One thing that might enhance the group dynamic might be reallyencorporating the trust mechanic in a tight way.
  Like make it so that the plyers cangrant each other points, but with a per scene limit equal to Trust...

  Although, you might wanna do a little prisoner's dilemna?

  Will be interesting how you want to work the group dunamics. Let us know what you think of either idea...