[Power of 19] High Stakes

[etheruk]

[GeeX Underground]

I once thought of doing a token-based game system, but optioned for dice-rolling instead. However, you seem to have made it work fairly well. I can't wait to get a copy of the PDF once it's available. Also, where did you find the Power of 19 questions as they seem to really help a creator get organized?

[etheruk]

The Power of 19 was written by Troy Costisick. I actually found the link on the first post on this forum (posting on first thoughts).  It was useful to make sure I hadn't missed anything when designing the game. When I could answer all the questions I knew the early stage was complete.

Glad that 'High Stakes' has interested you. There are so many superhero games out there but I've never felt they totally captured the genre. They mostly feel like D&D in tights. Lots of number crunching, a lot of restrictions. I think the two rules of a comic book are imagination and drama so High Stakes was created to focus on those two elements.

[Anders Larsen]

Hi etheruk

I think it is an interesting concept, but it is a bit hard for me to give any feedback, because I am not really sure what kind of feedback you are looking for, so it would be nice if you could specify that.

In the Site Discussion forum I have recently made a post about why Power 19 is not a good start point for getting feedback. So if you could take a look at that post and maybe answer some of the alternative questions I give there, it would probably be easier for me to say anything meaningful.

 - Anders

[etheruk]

Okay, I thought that the Power of 19 does identify some of the core aspects of a system such as resolution mechanics and how it reinforces the ideas of the game. I think the system is slightly unusual with its use of cards and chips which I feel better captures the mood of the comics.  I'm look for some feedback to see whether this system can work and whether there's anything I haven't thought of.

There are a lot of super hero games out on the market and my question is whether this system is distinct enough to stand out. I think it does a better job of simulating the genre and was interested in whether others agreed or could see some situations that couldn't be handled.

I see from your post that your questions all relate to the fiction of setting rather than the system. I'm not sure what that can really tell you about the system but I'll try to answer them.


* What is the feeling/setting style of your game?

The setting of the game is that of comic books from the golden age right up to the modern day. The feeling is that of heroes pushing themselves, making sacrifices and gambling against great odds to win the day.

* What kind of story do you want the game to produce, and how will this story develop throughout the game?

Heroes can do everything from stopping a mugger to fighting off alien armadas. They can travel to lost cities within dinosaur infested jungles to exploring arcane dimensions where undying evil struggles to escape into our world. The heroes face all these challenges with bravery and defeat them using imaginative use of their powers and abilities.

In addition players can make revelations that reveal surprising plot twists that affect both their character and others around them.

* What interests do the character have in what is going on and what role do they take in the story?

The heroes are the classic superheroes, using their powers to protect others. Whether they want to wait for trouble to rear it's ugly head or patrol the city to put a stop to evil before problems arise both are possible. The characters must gamble their strength when they set out to resolve a conflict but can become stronger when they triumph.

The players have a lot of control over the story, not just in what their character does but also in influencing the enviroment to benefit themselves.

* What kind of conflicts/challenges will the characters face in the game, and in what ways should they be able to influence what happens?

Heroes will face many challenges ranging from stopping a brick wall from falling on a small child to defeating a rampaging monster. A characer will know that he can probably overcome these tasks but at the risk of leaving him weak and exposed. It is their choice whether they will take that risk.

How they resolve these tasks is up to them and they are given great freedom to do so. They can use their amazing powers, have a twist of fate push things in their favour or use equipment, allies or vehicles to complete the task at hand. The key is imagination.

* What kind of resources can the characters use when they try to overcome these conflicts/challenges (personal resources, help they get from other people, stuff they own etc.).

A character, as a superhero, has access to incredible power. They could be a superiour martial artist or have the power to move planets. They could be aliens from long dead worlds or a brilliant inventor using his gadgets to bring justice to the world. The world around them bends in their favour in order that good will triumph.

Even with all this power they don't have to face the dangers alone. They can have trusty sidekick to throw a spanner in evil's plans or call upon their superhero allies to stop a super villain in their tracks. They can call upon reliable supporting cast members to gain information such as the plucky reporter or be transported by a wise cracking helicopter pilot.

* How do these things affect the characters, and how do the characters evolve throughout the story?

All these things weaken the effectiveness of a hero until they win a conflict and become stronger. As such a team must rely on each other to share the burden of saving innocent people. As they reap the rewards of these gambles they become stronger, more capable heroes while their supporting cast grow in depth and complexity.

The story of the heroes lives twist and turn as they develop leading from one exciting adventure to the next shocking revelation.

[danielsan]

Okay, I thought that the Power of 19 does identify some of the core aspects of a system such as resolution mechanics and how it reinforces the ideas of the game. I think the system is slightly unusual with its use of cards and chips which I feel better captures the mood of the comics.  I'm look for some feedback to see whether this system can work and whether there's anything I haven't thought of.

I do like your idea, and I love love love supers games. I can definitely see your game working. And while it may be unusual, as you've said, it does reminds me a bit about games like Nobilis and Universalis, which has token/coins that players ante up or bid for control of the story.

As far as "simulating the genre," there are a lot of aspects to the genre, of course. You've got the stress, the effort, and the sacrifice down, that's true. I suppose you'd have to ask people who aren't interested in gaming what the tropes of comic book heroes are, like on a comic book message board, just to make sure you see your game addressing those. Remember, there are non-combat tropes, too, and everything you've shown us so far revolves around combat or displays of power in some way. So might want to have just as much of your game dealing with advice on how to pace an entire story, not just a fight scene. In other words, your mechanics allow Spider-Man to "risk" his relationship with Mary Jane in order to refresh tokens, but what happens after the battle? How does that risked relationship show up after the battle but still within the middle of the GM's plot about Maggia leaders fighting over a mystical tablet? 

It might be that you have plans to address this, so, cool. Right now, I can get the idea of how things work for a particular battle-- especially those big, climatic showdowns-- but not the entire adventure. To be fair, most supers RPGs are like this, and that's why most good supers RPGs distinguish themselves with huge sections and/or supplements on the adventure-building and GM advice.

There's the other thing that most supers RPGs have that you don't seem interested in, and that's the Big List of Powers. This is just a personal thing, so take it is that, of course, but I kind of like the Big List of Powers. Maybe it's the inner munchkin, but it's neat to see things categorized and differentiated in a supers game. I expect the universe to make allowances for both Hulks and Hawkeyes, and Supermans and Batmans, as both should be unique not just in the way they impact the story, but the way I build the character and look at the character sheet. Whereas you have three stats that basically describe everything, it's up to the player to make the call. But that's so open that the specialness falls out. Why use that system for supers at all? It could just as easily be a sword and sorcery, a cop drama, or vampire game. Might as well make it a truly generic system, for any genre. If that's what you're headed for, then that's great. After all, we are all trying to make great stories with simple rules, and that's what you've allowed us to do.

[Anders Larsen]

You should try to take a look at "With Great Power..." which is a Superhero game which also try to emulate the fiction, and not just be D&D with superpowers.

I'm look for some feedback to see whether this system can work and whether there's anything I haven't thought of.

Actually, if you have a system which is somewhat workable, the best way to get this kind of feedback is to playtest it - that is probably the best advise I can give you.

But I do have a few thoughts about your game I hope can help you a bit.

The feeling is that of heroes pushing themselves, making sacrifices and gambling against great odds to win the day.

I can see that the mechanic of staking chip can reflect this, but what effect does this have in the fiction? Does there happen something to the character when the player is low on chips, or if he use a lot of chips at the same time?

You mention that a character have people important to them associated with the three pools, and you can replenish than you have a scene together with that person. But what other function does those people have in the story?

You could maybe connect those to thing and say that the important people will get threatened, if the pools gets too low.

The heroes are the classic superheroes, using their powers to protect others. Whether they want to wait for trouble to rear it's ugly head or patrol the city to put a stop to evil before problems arise both are possible. The characters must gamble their strength when they set out to resolve a conflict but can become stronger when they triumph.

I am wondering if you just assume that the character are "good" people who think that it is there obligation to protect other people, or if they have some more personal reason to do what the do?

The story of the heroes lives twist and turn as they develop leading from one exciting adventure to the next shocking revelation.

How is this story produced? Who or what is in charge of making such a story?


 - Anders

[etheruk]

Thanks for the response.

Danielsan:

The conflict system can be used for more than just combat. It is possible to run a purely social conflict (maybe an arguement with a NPC, persuading a police chief to give access to sealed criminal records or making a criminal reveal information about who hired him). In these cases the players are limited to using their plot pools, representing their ability to affect the situation with their words.

The relationships with supporting cast members are not directly threatened by losing chips. Rather they are affected by roleplaying. The fact that centering a scene around a supporting cast member provides additional chips encourages the players to visit them and cultivate their relationship.

When a character requests extra chips in return for adding drama to their lives their relationships can be threatened. A minor incident could be a date and a major incident could be visiting a dying relative. Failure to uphold these commitments will damage the relationship only in story terms but the gamesmaster could rule that it more difficult to centre a scene around that supporting cast member if they're mad at the character and trying to avoid them.

I've shied away from listing powers. I feel that they limit characters and they can be quite difficult to buy all the powers you want using any kind of point system. Instead I want the players to have the freedom to define their character however they wish, using their imagination to justify the use of chips.

It will be the allocationg of chips to the characters three pools that will define them. For example the Hulk would be built by put a lot of chips into power, a few plot chips (allowing the occasional flush of good luck) and very few in resources (being on the run Bruce Banner has few people he can count on).

On the other hand Hawkeye would have the majority of chips in his resources representing his trick arrows and a good amount in plot (he always seems to have good luck with the enviroment providing plenty of things for him to swing on and bounce shots off). He'd only have a few chips in power, representing his fighting skills.

There are a number of advantages and disadvantages that can be used to customise the character and relate to how the system works. For example a character with a fearsome reputation would draw two cards on the first round of a conflict and keep the highest. When facing this character most people will know that they've got an edge. Conversely a character with the singleminded disadvantage isn't able to share chips with other players as he is only focused on himself.

I think the system is flexible to handle a lot of different situations but I think it captures the feel of a superhero comic the best. The core concept of pushing themselves, sacrificing resources and taking great risks fits the genre for me. While you could run it for different settings I think that it works best for superheroes.

I think a major advantage is that it can support a lot of characters. If a character wants to play a ghost, able to turn invisible and intangible, the system supports it. This would normally be a game breaker but with High Stakes this can still work as losing chips reflects a weaking of effectiveness rather than damage. It doesn't matter if people can't strike the ghost, if he doesn't stop them he'll weaken to the point that he can't do anything (until he's had a chance to recover). 

[etheruk]

Anders Larsen:

The players must describe what what their allocation of chips means. For example a character allocating three power chips must also say what is they're doing with their power to affect the situation. So it has story effect as well as just a game mechanic.

The supporting cast members game function is to provide chips but this is just a method to encourage players to think about the NPCs in their characters life and encourage them to spend time with the NPCs. It's all to make them an important part of the characters life.

I am assuming that the players will be the good guys. It is a game about playing super heroes after all. The rewards of chips, given at the end of each scene, should encourage most players to contribute to overcoming the challenges placed against them.

[danielsan]

I get the system you propose, I really do. I'm just saying that it lends itself to ANY kind of storytelling, not just supers, and so in my mind I guess it doesn't match a strictly comic book feel in and of itself. For example, you might contradict yourself here:

The conflict system can be used for more than just combat. It is possible to run a purely social conflict (maybe an arguement with a NPC, persuading a police chief to give access to sealed criminal records or making a criminal reveal information about who hired him). In these cases the players are limited to using their plot pools, representing their ability to affect the situation with their words.

With this:

I've shied away from listing powers. I feel that they limit characters and they can be quite difficult to buy all the powers you want using any kind of point system. Instead I want the players to have the freedom to define their character however they wish, using their imagination to justify the use of chips.

because in other words, I don't *have* to use plot tokens in those situations if I can justify using my power (if it's mind control or pheromones) or my resources (if I bribe the guy, or use a handy mind control gadget I got laying around, or if I call my friend the hypnotist, etc.) Sure, this may have an effect later as pool Whatever has been diminished, but where are the limits? To paraphrase the Impossibles (appropriate source material, eh?) "If everyone is special, then no one is."

Let's take the same mechanics (which DO work, in their way, I like the bidding-for-story type of narrative games) but put it in a different setting. Let's do the Cutesy Pies, the Nursery Room RPG. You have 3 stats-- Cuteness (used to influence the other Cutesy Pies, the Nanny, parents, etc.), Plot (uncovering new discoveries, stumbling onto danger, etc.), and Resources (nursery toys, security blankets, healthy snacks). Do you push your Cuteness to the limits to get your way, or do you sacrifice your toys to share with the group? It's an RPG that teaches you to test your limits but to care and share with others for group harmony. It still lacks a few adventure scenarios that give the PCs their goal, something the supers genre has that built-in, but as I said before, this area will still take some focus on your part so as to distinguish your game from the others. Right now, it seems divorced from the system, because it's generic enough to be a universal system.

The relationships with supporting cast members are not directly threatened by losing chips. Rather they are affected by roleplaying. The fact that centering a scene around a supporting cast member provides additional chips encourages the players to visit them and cultivate their relationship.

When a character requests extra chips in return for adding drama to their lives their relationships can be threatened. A minor incident could be a date and a major incident could be visiting a dying relative. Failure to uphold these commitments will damage the relationship only in story terms but the gamesmaster could rule that it more difficult to centre a scene around that supporting cast member if they're mad at the character and trying to avoid them.

Yeah, I get that. But how does it play out, especially in context of a five-act adventure the GM has prepared ahead of time?

During scene 1's battle, I tapped a character tied to my Power pool. Does this character remain tapped, so I can't use it a second time in the same battle? Does the character remain tapped into scene 2, so I can't use it during *that* battle? If so, when do I "make" the GM allow me a bit of narration so I can take Mary Jane out on a date? And how will your system help guide the GMs to create that kind of break in between events? What happens when I got 5 players who've all tapped supporting characters? Does it bog down the story while we wait for player C to detail his date, or does he just throw a sentence about visiting his sick friend again? That's the kind of stuff you probably have in mind, but I haven't seen you explain it yet, because it would admittedly take a chapter or two in your book.   

It will be the allocationg of chips to the characters three pools that will define them. For example the Hulk would be built by put a lot of chips into power, a few plot chips (allowing the occasional flush of good luck) and very few in resources (being on the run Bruce Banner has few people he can count on).

On the other hand Hawkeye would have the majority of chips in his resources representing his trick arrows and a good amount in plot (he always seems to have good luck with the enviroment providing plenty of things for him to swing on and bounce shots off). He'd only have a few chips in power, representing his fighting skills.

Yeah, I get that too. But how will your system help me define that to players ahead of time? Can Hawkeye land a "punch" that's as effective as Hulk's? Uh, no, but he can use an explosive arrow. Can Hawkeye leap fantastic distances like the Hulk? Uh, well, no, but I guess he can use a Skycycle. Can Hawkeye hold up a mountain that's been dropped on everyone? Uh, no. But there's nothing in your mechanics that says "uh, no" to any of these examples. So what if Player X is not playing Hawkeye, but a character *like* Hawkeye, and since it's a gadget guy, oh look! He's got a anti-gravity arrow that can hold up the mountain! Why not? He's got the number in his Resources Pool to beat the target number. Again, what chargen does it define this ahead of time for the GM and players. It's not an insurmountable problem, and I'm not trying to "break" your system. All I'm saying is that if I'm saying all this, you might consider throwing a paragraph in your final draft that addresses all that. If, after considering it, you don't think it's that important, hey, that's fine too. 

I think a major advantage is that it can support a lot of characters. If a character wants to play a ghost, able to turn invisible and intangible, the system supports it. This would normally be a game breaker but with High Stakes this can still work as losing chips reflects a weaking of effectiveness rather than damage. It doesn't matter if people can't strike the ghost, if he doesn't stop them he'll weaken to the point that he can't do anything (until he's had a chance to recover). 

Uh, I guess that brings up a good point, too. How DO characters get hurt? Body armor, regeneration, and getting beat up are all part of the superhero tropes too. Does the GM describe the villains beating the heroes up? If so, how does the villain's success impact on the hero's numbers? What's to prevent a hero or villain from narrating "I cut off his head" as soon as he appears? (Like Wushu's coup d' grace rule.) I'm sure these are questions you have answers too, but the Power 19 doesn't really prompt them. 

And you're welcome for the response! I respond because I like it, so don't take my criticism too hard.

[Creatures of Destiny]

I think reduced effectiveness is fine for this genre - you know heroes get beat up till they can't do anything and are presumably dead (though that doesn't mean they're actually dead). Once a player has no chips they could, I'm guessing, either make a new character or use the chips to bring back an old fave ("As the plane plummeted into mountain range, I was able to prime the ejector seat just before the fireball you saw. But I lost my memory in the impact and blah blah blah") Heroes get beat up till they're out of power, then when they get the chips they're up again. Sounds like comic book fun to me.

[etheruk]

One thing that I don't think I've made clear is that supporting cast members can only be 'tapped' for their chips during a scene that centres around them. A character couldn't be in the middle of a fight, tap his power NPC and get more chips.
He would need to visit his NPC either before or after this scene to gain those chips.

It is meant to encourage the players to involve their NPCs and replicate the pacing of the comics. Spiderman might want to go right after the Green Goblin after stopping a bank robbery but knows he promised to take Mary Jane out to the movies. Batman might be close to cracking a big case but Bruce Wayne is required to be at the charity fundraiser.

The aim is that the players don't just concentrate on being superheroes, they also develop their normal lives as well. To give the rest of the action context.

When I was brainstorming this system I looked at comics and looked at how the heroes resolved the situation. I felt they fell into three categories. Either they used their powers, used a resource (such as equipment or an ally) or the plot helped them (either they swayed the opponent with their words or a coincidence proved to be beneficial). The way these events would escalate gave me the principle of the system. To me those things were core to a super hero game.

I guess you could change what each pool reflected but to me those are three important things about a superhero. The differences in where that character puts his emphasis of those pools changes a hero drastically.

In the example of the social conflict the gamesmaster can decree which pools are available. You're right a player could justify using psychic powers in those situations or a rich character might use his resources but the gamesmaster gets to say whether they can. For example the opponent might be resistant to mind control or be so rich that the characters can't bribe him. That is if the character even has a power that can sway someone like that. A character who only has super strength isn't about to persuade the mayor to help him just by flexing in front of him.

In the example of the Hawkeye vs Hulk fight you're right that each character has different strengths. The important thing is that they're no less compedant. If you used another system Hawkeye would stand little chance against the ultra strong and damage resistant Hulk. One punch from the Hulk and Hawkeye would be on the receiving end of a lot of dice damage.

On the other hand in High Stakes this can lead to an exciting battle where either side could win. That's because we're not looking at damage caused but effectiveness being reduced. If the cards are in Hawkeyes favour he could use his resource chips to dazzle the Hulk, use plot points to knock the Hulk into a nearby ravine and generally befuddle him. He might not hurt the Hulk but he can befuddle the Jade Marauder until the Hulk either decides to leap away with his remaining chips (as Hawkeye would be getting stronger on each round he won) or collapse, exhausted by the excertion and change back to Bruce Banner.

As for the falling mountain it would be up to the GM whether he allowed the anti-grav arrow but if a mountain is going to fall on Hawkeye and his friends either he stops it or you'll have several dead and very flat heroes. It'd be a great comic moment for the dust to clear and for it to be revealed that he used explosive arrows to create a hollow in the rock just as it fell. Given the number of chips he'd have expended he'll probably be close to passing out but his friends are alive and can help get to freedom from within the hollow.

If Hawkeye fought with the Avengers at his side his odds against the Hulk would have improved. What's more he isn't rendered useless while the heavy hitters like Thor battle the Hulk. He can contribute just as well as anyone else on the team and it might be his card that's the highest on this round.

Descriptions should be worked out in co-operation with everyone else. Each player describes what's happening when they contribute chips. The player with the highest number of plot chips gets to go last, describing the outcome of those first events. When the cards are called the gamesmaster describes what's happen to reflect who won.

So saying you kill a character instantly is out since you can't back that up until you call the cards and even then they'd have to have no more chips left to begin another round of conflict. If you want your character to have great strength and you're describing punching a weak opponent unless you plan on calling the card it's not going to take them down so you're better off describing the punch and letting the other character describe dodging or being thrown back to soak up some of the damage. Or maybe describe punching the ground near the character and the resulting shockwave to illustrate how strong your character is. It's not really a failure because the other character is being forced to respond to your description and has to expend chips to do so.

If a character is on similar levels of strength (as determined by the characters description) then you pound away at each other to your hearts content without worrying about not appearing strong.

One of the advantages is regeneration that allows a number of chips to be restored per level of the advantage purchased. So a character can regain his effectiveness during a scene.Things like armour would just come under the description of the power, allowing descriptions of how the character has survived an attack.

As Creatures of Destiny says it fits the genre not to concentrate on damage. Heroes rarely get broken bones, at most they only end up with torn costumes and maybe nose bleeds. A few panels later they're fine.

[danielsan]

One thing that I don't think I've made clear is that supporting cast members can only be 'tapped' for their chips during a scene that centres around them. A character couldn't be in the middle of a fight, tap his power NPC and get more chips.
He would need to visit his NPC either before or after this scene to gain those chips.

Okay, gotcha. Yeah, that wasn't clear. Of course, it could lead to a pretty steep death spiral depending on how characters play. For instance, will a group of 6 players refresh the same because any successes are divided among more people than, say, 3 players? Something to pay attention to in playtesting.

It is meant to encourage the players to involve their NPCs and replicate the pacing of the comics. Spiderman might want to go right after the Green Goblin after stopping a bank robbery but knows he promised to take Mary Jane out to the movies. Batman might be close to cracking a big case but Bruce Wayne is required to be at the charity fundraiser.

The aim is that the players don't just concentrate on being superheroes, they also develop their normal lives as well. To give the rest of the action context.

All I'm saying is, when it comes to writing your game, please make it clear how the GM and the players use this mechanic. Does the GM prepare 3 x Players number of possible scenarios for when things are tapped? Does the GM have a big empty spot in his adventure outline that say "play out tapped supporting characters here"? Does it become a springboard for a new chapter or does the player just share a sentence or two?  Is there a chart with generic suggestions for things on the fly? That kind of thing.

In the example of the Hawkeye vs Hulk fight you're right that each character has different strengths. The important thing is that they're no less compedant. If you used another system Hawkeye would stand little chance against the ultra strong and damage resistant Hulk. One punch from the Hulk and Hawkeye would be on the receiving end of a lot of dice damage.

I would expect that, even in your High Stakes game, that if I were narrating the Hulk as a PC and I hit Hawkeye, I would narrate Hawkeye receiving a lot of damage. That's no different than any other game. The difference is, in High Stakes game, the PC Hulk could hit the NPC Hawkeye, narrate how he receives a lot of damage, but mechanically Hawkeye would be no different than if the Hulk stuck his tongue at him and "succeeded" in a verbal taunt. That's not a BAD difference, of course, but it is a difference.

You go on to explain the next obvious question, which is how come you can't narrate someone's head falling off after you punch it. That's helpful, and gives a much clearer explanation of how you see the game played-- the Power 19 and stuff doesn't include a question that says "Describe a typical "round" in step-by-step process." It seems you are separating out the effects of the narration (after the card is revealed) from the actions the players narrate (during the ante process).

[etheruk]

Thanks to the feedback I've had I've made some amendments to the system.

The first change is that in combat chips can be used either in an offensive manner (punching, energy blasting, etc) or for defense (armor, dodging, webbing etc). When used offensively the chips are added to the players stake. When used for defense it reduces the number of chips in an opponents stake (both the players chip and opponents chips are lost).

Secondly, after each player has staked, before the sequence starts again anyone can declare they are playing the cards (rather than on their turn).

Thirdly players no longer need to match the current stake when the cards are called the winner can only gain a number of chips equal to his stake. For example a player that stakes 5 chips and wins would only be able to claim 5 chips from his opponents stake even if that stake consists of 10 chips. If there are not enough chips in the opponents stake the winner can claim them from any single pool belonging to his opponent (representing additional setbacks). If there are any chips left in the opponents stake they are lost.

In an attempt to address the question of ranking abilities now have a numerical rank representing how many chips can be staked in single turn. For example a player with a rank of 5 in super strength would only be able to stake 5 chips in a single turn. This is an issue as a powerful fighter would be able to create a higher value stake faster than an opponent with low ranks.

I think these changes open up the game tactically. Even if you don't have a winning card you can play defensively, ensuring that the opponent loses those chips from his stake. In the old system a fight could be very daunting if one of the participants won a huge stake. These changes will ensure that fewer chips are gained, preventing a fight from becoming too one sided.

Any thoughts regarding these changes?