What is Shattered Vistas?

[Josh Roby]

Word.  In fact, I'd be more likely to pick up a game that said it was all about hard core resource-shifting and strategy rather than "life is tough" Oliver Twist platitudes.

[Willow]

Here's a post from my blog about the game in a more designy sort of way, that might provide a broader picture of the game and what I'm trying to do.  (And it was also crossposted to indiegamingunderground, so this is the one that Mike Holmes has seen before)

http://willowrants.wordpress.com/2006/04/30/reserve-system-the-power-19/
Probably the most straightforward 'what is this game,' write-up I have; there are some ideas about self-sacrifice and choices that I think in retrospect conflict with the gamey parts of the design that I care more about.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hey Willow,

I used my Search-fu. Hi-ya! I think this is the thread that Mike Holmes was referencing. Also Willow you should be able to recapture anything you need for your game that was previously on indiegamingunderground.com here by using the cached links. Hope this helps your discussion.

[Callan S.]

Which makes your present ad copy pretty much bullshit. Shattered Vistas is not about life, it is not about sacrifice.  What you've got above in the OP is a high-gloss snowjob.  You need to ditch this ad copy, and quickly.  Because if I bought your book expecting to get game about life, broken reality, and sacrifice and instead I got some resource-shifting game rewarding cleverness and tactical finesse, I'd be pissed.  Your ad copy cannot be a broken promise.  That's the quick route to the trashcan.

If the game is about clever use of tactics and resources, say that.

Not really fair. The means of examination is gamist - that doesn't mean you merely shift around values on a spread sheet. It's a gamist examination of life and sacrifice...these things aren't the sacred ground of narrrativist and once devoid of nar, merely become number crunching (heart breaking moral issues also break down to resource management issues, despite how distasteful that may sound). Many gamists really do want to have a stab at resolving issues like this to some degree. But yes, the copy needs to really stipulate the approach to life and sacrifice, so right from the outset everyone give the book the sort of use it deserves.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Callan, that's not true. You're muddying the waters for a new designer here. Gamism is about confronting challenges as a player. That is incompatible with confronting theme.

The crunchiness here is not a factor. It's the desire of the players. If they're confronting themes of self-sacrifice, the system has to support that. If it's a tactical resource management game in a cool setting (that implies, but doesn't demand self-sacrifice) then it's a different thing.

I wrote an article about this over on my blog. I'm pretty sure I'm right.

[baron samedi]

I'll essentially agree with Joshua on his last comment. Words aren't just words. Sacrifice is about losing something important to oneself for the benefit of someone else without any quantifiable benefit to yourself, e.g. spending your own permanent XP reserve to give someone else a few Hit Points in critical times. Which is why, earlier, I wondered if Willow's game had that sense of sacrifice into the game mechanics themselves. Many games have a knee-jerk reflex of putting advertising that doesn't really correspond to what the game does when applied. Unfortunately, this seldom-realized contradiction creates both unsatisfied customers and designers, because of a simple misunderstanding about a game's true goals. It's a tragic flaws common in Fantasy Heartbreakers - not suggesting Willow's game is one, for I don't know enough of it to have an opinion on the matter.

The example of sacrifice mechanisms above comes from the actual 2nd edition of my RPG, the Chronicles of Erdor (i.e. the power provided by the "Secret of Messianics" is to sacrifice oneself selflessly for the sake of others, without personal gain). My 3rd edition, with another system, offers the possibility to lose Trait dice temporarily (for a scenario) or permanently (forever) to lessen the consequences of an action for the world at large (e.g. reducing a Catastrophy scale by 1D for 1D sacrificed temporarily, or by 2D for every 1 die of sacrifice). Surprisingly, in actual playtest all players deliberately sacrificed their stat dice to save innocents during the last challenge, one even lost permanent Trait dice for this stake *at their first game session*. All this to save a single person who was a sympathetic criminal who had repented his sins... So it is possible for a game to be about sacrifice from both the character and the player's perspective, by "losing" actual game values for strictly "subjective/moral" outcomes. I'm not sure this is exactly what Willow wants to do with her game, which seems "Gamist" (according to GNS classification). despite the original pitch which seemed a bit oxymoronic as to include both a Gamist (carefree looting) and Narrativist (self-sacrifice) premise.

Is self-sacrifice possible or desirable in Gamist games? That's another debate. I'm not sure that question is relevant to Willow's design concerns anyhow. Willow, I suggest you check out the POWER 19 questionnaire: it was very helpful in allowing me to check for inconsistencies in my 3rd edition's design, and there were inconsistencies despite this being 3rd edition. This shouldn't be understood as a wanton critic, but help in assisting you with refining what exactly you want your game to be about and what you want to incite your players to do within it. :)

Cheers,

Erick

[Callan S.]

Callan, that's not true. You're muddying the waters for a new designer here. Gamism is about confronting challenges as a player. That is incompatible with confronting theme.

The crunchiness here is not a factor. It's the desire of the players. If they're confronting themes of self-sacrifice, the system has to support that. If it's a tactical resource management game in a cool setting (that implies, but doesn't demand self-sacrifice) then it's a different thing.

Dude, self sacrifice does not intrinsically hold theme. Sit a narrativist player down and let him say the game is all about self sacrifice - that doesn't force the gamist and simulationist over to his agenda. Self sacrifice is agenda neutral - it's even just colour, even as that might seem apalling 'Self sacrifice is always about theme! It has to be!'. No, it doesn't. And yes, your right that the desire of the players is the factor here. But I think your implying that self sacrifice in a game means they inherantly desire to confront narrativist theme. No, that's their choice of exploration, not an inherant quality of sacrifice. Perhaps your uncomfortable with this exact same territory being just as suited for gamist exploration.

That said....


Hi Willow,

I've read your power 19 and...are you sure your gamist inclined? Narrativists can like collecting points too - it is okay. Here's tricky question for you - my character just saved a significant part of reality and it's people from collapsing into a void hell while my PC is disfigured to do it (looses his face), because damn I suddenly had an inspiration with the system and improved my use of it significantly (my PC would be dead otherwise). Which one do you imagine yourself cheering with the rest of the group - saving some of the world at the price of disfigurement, or my RL improvement in gaming skills and not actually dying? It's okay if you'd be cheering them almost to the same degree. I just want to know which one get primary attention, even if it only beats the other by a bit.


Samedi, He's beaten you to it on the power 19.

[Willow]

Here's tricky question for you - my character just saved a significant part of reality and it's people from collapsing into a void hell while my PC is disfigured to do it (looses his face), because damn I suddenly had an inspiration with the system and improved my use of it significantly (my PC would be dead otherwise).

Ok, having your face melt off to save the world is pretty darn cool.

I'm not particularly keen on having PCs go down in effectiveness, so if the choice was "lose my Good Lucks trait to save the world," and "get better at the game to save the world," I'd think I'd go with number #.

This brings up a mechanic that I discussed over on Indiegamingunderground with Mike Holmes (and it's my fault for not remembering this sooner; I got discouraged and then got caught up on other projects, so it's been a while): the Sacrifice Reserve.  This is a set of points that can be spent for super-awesome effectiveness, have a color effect of some sort of personal sacrifice (which doesn't impair the character, stat-wise), and never come back, ever, even if your character dies and you start a new one.

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello Willow,

This topic has picqued my curiosity. Plus, its at the top of the list now. Sacrifice has served two purposes: satisfy the demands of a higher power; lose something of value to forward an objective.

Dictionary.com has an entry for Sacrifice:
1. the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage. 
2. the person, animal, or thing so offered. 
3. the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim. 
4. the thing so surrendered or devoted. 
5. a loss incurred in selling something below its value. 
6. Also called sacrifice bunt, sacrifice hit. Baseball. a bunt made when there are fewer than two players out, not resulting in a double play, that advances the base runner nearest home without an error being committed if there is an attempt to put the runner out, and that results in either the batter's being put out at first base, reaching first on an error made in the attempt for the put-out, or being safe because of an attempt to put out another runner. 
–verb (used with object)
7. to make a sacrifice or offering of. 
8. to surrender or give up, or permit injury or disadvantage to, for the sake of something else. 
9. to dispose of (goods, property, etc.) regardless of profit. 
10. Baseball. to cause the advance of (a base runner) by a sacrifice. 
–verb (used without object)
11. Baseball. to make a sacrifice: He sacrificed with two on and none out. 
12. to offer or make a sacrifice.

I've read the posts several times and I've failed to understand how self-sacrifice works in your game. I followed the Reserve sytem link and read the power19. I can imagine the feel of the world you are trying to create and to me it has a Warhammer FRP tone mixed with TORG and RIFTS. Creating a setting is relatively easy compared to defining a gaming style.

So, maybe self-sacrifice is one ot those things that gamers would really like to see, but it must be defined to satisfy the language and the concepts of the game. That you use the word self-sacrifice makes me think that parts of the character are given up to save the world. So, what you are giving up has a current value in terms of game play and now that value has been reduced. It follows that its something very important and there are no work-arounds or alternatives. Its gone and you will now feel the consequences of the sacrifice. Sacrifice and suffering can be a badge for many people "Look what I have given up to save the world." That can be part of the game in that you get bragging rights, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Callan's example of the missing face is a good example of how to look at self-sacrifice. Is it merely a way to add color, thereby intesifying the experience or does it affect a game mechanic? I can see the consequences of both, but neither is more honorable. Its just something that happens. Many gamers mentally reduce a wonderful setting down to game mechanics and other gamers embrace the setting as a story. You may attract both types, but there still has to be something in the game that satisfies both.

You have an opportunity to include self-sacrifice, sacrifice, mechanics and color to your game. Do know that the gamer community is vast and your game will be picked apart. I would even go so far as to say it could be sacrificed in lieu of the greater good of gaming.

Troy

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Willow, reducing player effectiveness for saving the world is no good. Transferring character effectiveness to player effectiveness is. I actually think it's what Callan's saying:

My character's face melts off; no one will ever believe her that she's the great hero. She's a beggar on the street with a mysterious past.

But!

What I've traded for are identically (or more) powerful resources for effecting the game world. I now have, say, narrative control over the part of the world that I've saved. When someone interacts with that part, I use it like a character; I control NPCs in that saved part of the world, for instance, or I control the weather there, or whatever. It obeys my will as a player, not a character.

the Sacrifice Reserve.  This is a set of points that can be spent for super-awesome effectiveness, have a color effect of some sort of personal sacrifice (which doesn't impair the character, stat-wise), and never come back, ever, even if your character dies and you start a new one.

(Troy posted while I was typing this, but I don't think it effects what I've written here)

I think you should seriously decouple player and character effectiveness. Why do I want to play a game where all I do is lose resources? You just said that you're not keen on having the PCs go down in effectiveness; I think it's more important that the players not go down in effectiveness despite the possible destruction of the characters.

So try this idea for size: the amount of effect your character can have on the world is directly linked to the character's Self. Self is used to get jobs, mates, assistants, weapons, and quests from mysterious wizards. So you want it. When the chips are down, though, you can burn all of it, transmuting it to Sacrificee to change the world by exactly how much Self you've got. Let's say each point of Sacrifice gives you one die when dealing with that aspect of the world; let's say you Sacrificed yourself to stop up a hole in the ground that was sucking all the clouds away. Let's say you had 12 Self that have now turned into 12 Sacrifice. Instead of applying to character actions, they now apply to clouds, weather, and draughts. Once done, that character is done. They're a shell of what they once were; no one remembers their name and kids throw horseshit at them on the street. But the player now has a new tool to use and a new character who wants to make her way in the world.

And Callan's right in another way, too: the number of points of contact with the system has nothing to do with creative agenda. The number and scale of the rules doesn't, either. It's entirely what you want out of it. 

(from Gamism: Step On Up from the Articles at the top of the page)

Gamism is expressed by competition among participants (the real people); it includes victory and loss conditions for characters, both short-term and long-term, that reflect on the people's actual play strategies. The listed elements [Character, Setting, Situation, System, Color] provide an arena for the competition.

... which I don't think is what you want. I'm perfectly willing to help you if it is, but it doesn't sound like it right now.

What it sounds to me like what you want is (taken from Narrativism: Story Now):

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

• Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.
• Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.
• Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.

Callan, I suppose self-sacrifice can be an input into Gamist design, yeah. Whoever has the greatest effect on the world is the awesomest, stuff like that. Nonetheless, it's a potent and traditional dramatic theme and I think that's why Willow chose it.

[Mike Holmes]

I think we're worrying too much about the agenda the game will promote. We're looking at something that may be hybrid here, or have similar qualities. That is, it may be that what's really going on is that it's narrativism with a lot of mechanics that do challenge the player somewhat to move the numbers around creatively, but in the end are about theme. Or we might have a gamism game where the color is all about the values that are being supported. It's quite possible to produce theme as a byproduct of gamism play (even in D&D, much less a game where that's part of the design). The theory doesn't say that this is impossible, merely that in gamism that players aren't intending to produce theme with their decisions - in this case it would be, again, an accidental byproduct.

There aren't many examples of this, but it's always been acknowledged that it's possible. Take, for instance, Pantheon.

So, whether it's crunchy gamism with color about life and reality, or crunchy narrativism producing mechanics, either way she isn't doing wrong by mentioning that the game does have these themes - whether or not they're player produced or not. Call of Cthulhu has a theme of "Dispair in the face of the unknown." The game creates this theme, it's not something that the players do as part of play. So it doesn't promote narrativism. That doesn't mean that theme isn't there. Just not Edwardsian "Premise."

I think that we'll probably have to wait a considerable while until Willow shows us some mechanics before we can really see if it'll be narrativism, gamism, hybrid, or incoherent.

Mike

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Mike, you're right: we need to see mechanics and a paragraph (lists of questions, whatever) that says what the game's about in an honest way.

I look forward to seeing that.

[TroyLovesRPG]

Willow,

You've got a good idea for a game and it requires attention, exploration and development. Look at it from all angles and never let go of the original thought and feeling that made you want to create this game. Look at what you and your game needs. I think it needs a hands on approach from people you can talk to face-to-face or at least have some comfort with them. Get with your friends or pick some people and communicate with them in private mail.

Ignore what the forum needs or wants of you. If you think the forum is helping you then continue, otherwise close this topic. Your style of creating the game doesn't appear to jive with some of the forum members and you will be dissected and treated impersonally until you can satisfy them.

Do you notice a few people who just get under your skin? Take a look at their other posts and you'll be amazed.

And I apologize for not checking my mail. I hope your rummy-fight game is successful.

Troy

[Willow]

Troy-

First of all, RummyFight! is relatively successful (in that I played it a couple of times, killed some time, and told some wierd stories.)  I can't find a link to the file, maybe I never put it on the internet, but it's a fun little game, and I should make it available.

Troy, that's good advice.  Some people are asking me the questions that I'm not asking myself, whereas some people (even me, a little bit) are getting caught up on matters of GNS.  I haven't run out of uses for this thread, but there's one thing I want to address:

Let's put the issue of creative agendae and GNS on hold here. There's more relevant questions to be asked.

Ok, now that we're not using the G-word or the N-word or the S-word, I've figured out what my personal agendae are for this game:

1)  Create a game with really cool game mechanics that can be as tactically enjoyable as the typical German Boardgame.

2)  Create a game that effectively conveys the feel of the setting: a world that is actively hostile to those that live in it.

(I went into huge detail about what I think makes a game tactically enjoyable.  I wrote a bunch of random stuff about it in my 'On Game Theory' essays on my blog.  I link to those is on my 'best of' page: http://willowrants.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/best-of-willowrants/ If you want to really get into #1 with me, reading those is a good way to get inside my head.)

So what I'm specifically looking for right now is:

Are there any game mechanics that don't help either of these goals?
Are there any game mechanics that help one goal but not the other (or worse, at the expense of the other?)
Can you think of a way to make any of these mechanics even cooler?

[Willow]

Quick update before the basics of the SV rules:

I've found the short rules for Rummy Fight!  They're the last post of this thread:http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19028.0