Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment

[Paganini]

Yes, every Source does count as strong as any other Source.

Sounds a bit strange. Suppose my character is 'pretty strong', which I use as an Animus-source. Suppose another character is 'extremely strong', which he uses as an Animus-source... yet both cost just as much, and help just as much. In effect, there is no real difference between the two.

You are correct, there is no difference. Tags like "extremely" or "superb / mediocre / etc." only serve as color. These sorts of descriptors are really pretty subjective. The Sources simply "aide" you. There's no indication of how much or how little they do... it depends on the situation and is left up to the narrator. So yeah, 'extremely strong' is just as likely to get the spotlight as 'pretty strong.'

Now, that last bit really caught my eye because it's not something I've thought about. I'm thinking I should borrow from Synthesis here and say that the GM is free to narrate the loss of un-Mammonized items after an appropriate time.

Has anyone playtested Synthesis enough to tell you whether this works?

I've been playtesting, but I don't think Mike's had the opportunity to remove temp descriptors yet.

Also, another problem came to my mind. For instance, my Mammon-source "very loyal daughter". Suppose that, in one adventure or another, my daughter dies. What happens? Suppose that, through roleplaying, her loyalty crumples. What happens?

That Source goes away. It could simply be lost, but I kind of like the idea that it's converted back into Karma... it fits with the idea of bad things in your character's existence generating Karma. The character fails, the player gets Karma. The character loses a Source, the player gets Karma.

[Paganini]

Thanks to working with concrete examples, its all slowly becoming clear.

Has the system been put to the rigorous of an actual playtest yet?

Nope, but maybe I can get someone to run it on the #indieRPGs IRC channel tonight. I'd love to play in such a game and see how it goes. Sort of be on the recieving end, as it were.

And, BTW, I thought I'd mention this:

There's no reason that Ana had to beat up the thugs with her Kung Fu Source... she could have just as easily gone into the Kata of Ultimate Ecstacy and used one of her 3 directoral statements to have the two gangers kill each other in a fit of lust. That would actually be much cooler than the gas can idea. :)

[Paganini]

Thanks to working with concrete examples, its all slowly becoming clear.

Has the system been put to the rigorous of an actual playtest yet?

Nope, but maybe I can get someone to run it on the #indieRPGs IRC channel tonight. I'd love to play in such a game and see how it goes. Sort of be on the recieving end, as it were.

And, BTW, I thought I'd mention this:

There's no reason that Ana had to beat up the thugs with her Kung Fu Source... she could have just as easily gone into the Kata of Ultimate Ecstacy and used one of her 3 directoral statements to have the two gangers kill each other in a fit of lust. That would actually be much cooler than the gas can idea. :)

Disclaimer: These examples are all set in the Mutant Bikers of the Atomic Wasteland setting that I posted a link to in the Blowing Things Up thread over on Actual Play.

[damion]

The strangest thing I see is:
How does the GM decide weather  to call for a Animus or Mammon roll?

Frex:
Dr. Evil Master Dude is a powerful mentalist in his own right and leader of the Legion of Anarchists & More Evils.  Several scientists both under control and straight up being payed have outfitted his henchmen and him with an array of powerful weapondry. He commonly works with other villians to achieve his all consuming goal of gaining control of enough of  the world that he can retire and stop worring about it all, but in the meantime, he likes to create plans within plans withint plans....ect.

(Ok, the idea stinks, but it illustrates the point)

Mammon:
LAME Henchmen
Mad Science villian weapondry
Good Rep with other Villians
Villian wealth

Animus:
Mentalist
Ruthless
Genius

Karma:4 (I just didn't want to write a longer story :)  )

My point is: Suppose Dr EMD finds himself opposed by a hero.  He could either use to mental powers on the hero, or his hechmen/weapondry. In this case it's pretty much a GM call.
Now the GM could always arrange things before hand (You don't have any of your stuff).
My point is it would pretty hard for a GM to make something so that is clearly one source or the other. The only way I can see would be to systematiclly strip all the other sources, which would be tough.
   In all the examples, the player basicly choose what source to use, not the DM. For instace Ana could have run the gangers over with her bike & chain. She could also have run away.
In that sense it encourages director stance, as this prevents the GM for calling a roll the characthers isn't ready for.
It's also hard to decide what is what. Is cyberwear animus or mammon? Having the GM decide which is which seems, well
arbitrary, esp since if the two are unbalanced the GM basicly can make a pretty good prediction of success or failure by selecting one or the other and this will be obvious to the players. My point is the GM's ability to choose one side over the other is fairly deprotagonizing.

I hope I made my point, despite my incoherent rambling.

[Paganini]

How does the GM decide weather  to call for a Animus or Mammon roll?

He examines the player's statement of intent and picks whichever one seems the most appropriate based on that description. I leave the choice up to the GM in order to avoid a player using his higher score when it's not appropriate. That is, a player could put all 10 points into Mammon at chargen. The GM needs to be able to call for Animus rolls at appropriate times to balance this out. If the choice was left up to the player, the player could always choose to use Mammon, even when he shouldn't, which kind of defeats the purpose of having two scores. :)

My point is: Suppose Dr EMD finds himself opposed by a hero.  He could either use to mental powers on the hero, or his hechmen/weapondry. In this case it's pretty much a GM call.

Not quite. If he says "I want to use my nifty mental powers on the hero" the GM would call for an Animus roll. In this example, it's pretty clear cut which it is. The player has pretty much decided. OTOH, in my example the player said "Ana wants to distract the gangers with her feminine charms, and then bust them apart when they aren't looking." The GM could have called either way on that one. If he had called for a Mammon roll instead of an Animus roll, then Ana would have had to drain her Hot Babe and Kung Fu sources instead of her Biker Outfit Source.

It's also hard to decide what is what. Is cyberwear animus or mammon?

The rule is, if it's internal it's Animus, if it's external it's Mammon. You're example is probably the hardest to deal with, because from certain perspectives cyberwear is both. However, I don't see this as being *that* important. It would be decided on an instant by instant basis, and could even differen from character to character. It would all depend on the player's vision of the character.

[Bob McNamee]

Good post Nathan...

I was thinking about the rolling and its effects on scene narration... I believe the way you wrote it will become almost a default as far as assigning the dice goes... with two successes.
That is... the higher of the two dice rolls will be used for narration... so that less sources are rquired to be introduced to the narration, and the lower of the two dice rolls will be assigned to outcome so that as many scene additions as possible may be added by the player narrated.

This may not be a problem, but it would seem to add the greatest freedom for the player.

Bob McNamee

[Paganini]

I think you're right Bob. In fact, that was one of my main goals for making this to be a Narrativist game:

Players are required by the system to take an active narrative role. They can't just offer bland cut & paste statements... they actually have to think about what ties their character to the scene.

At the same time, if the players are going to be made to narrate they're going to want to be able to do cool things. That means that acquiring directoral power will be a central player goal.

[Bob McNamee]

The case of Dark Swordsman pulling  out his Nightblade and slicing into the Human Punching Bag's henchmen to free his sidekick Danger Magnet...

still a fairly uncertain call for the GM... hmmm  Animus for his swordsmanship...or Mammon for Nightblade (magic blade...mentally motivated)?

GM could choose either... maybe just skewing either way to represent challenge...  player can burn source to add of course.

Is there a recharge mechanism for sources? I forget...

Bob McNamee

[Paganini]

GM could choose either... maybe just skewing either way to represent challenge...  player can burn source to add of course.

Yup... if the situation is such that it could be either, then the GM gets to decide which it is. :)

Is there a recharge mechanism for sources? I forget...

Drained Sources come back at the end of the session.

[Bob McNamee]

By the way, I love the recharge method of two successes and narrate a failure.

That way you can take early successes and turn them into complications early in a session... nothing better than players choosing to turn their characters into underdogs down on their luck... only to rise to the occassion and succeed in a Blaze of Karma spending when it really counts.

Bob McNamee

[Bob McNamee]

One thing I've been thinking about, in whatever game I actually decide to use, is using a mechanism where rewards travel with the Players.

Karma points would be good for this.... Lets say you've decided that your exisitng character doesn't quite work, or better yet, your existing character has the chance to fullfill a Great Need, but at Great Cost.  So the character dies, or is otherwise removed from Play.

So I would have Player create a new character, but carry over the additional sum of Karma of the previous character... for your game I might rule you need a double success... narrated as a Finale for the character, no Karma gain, but a Karma transfer to a new character...or perhaps a Karma transfer with a 1 point Karma cost.

Anyway, it probably wouldn't come into play,but I like the idea of game rewarding the Player, instead of character... freeing them to "go out with a Bang" without penalizing them greatly with a complete newby.

Bob McNamee

course it wouldn't be meant to become "lets churn through a few chars, to build up a big Karma pool" mechanic...

[Paganini]

Anyway, it probably wouldn't come into play,but I like the idea of game rewarding the Player, instead of character... freeing them to "go out with a Bang" without penalizing them greatly with a complete newby.

The Pool has this effect built in. The Pool belongs to the *player* rather than the character. Even if you have multiple characters *at a time* you still only have a single pool.

[Mike Holmes]

Has anyone playtested Synthesis enough to tell you whether this works?

Yep. And it does work.

Not surprising since I stole it entirely from Hero Wars. Where it works extremely well from all accounts. In fact, if you really want to know the root of this rule, it goes back to Champions where a character could not keep equipment that was not paid for in CP, as that went against the genre. Superheroes don't collect submachineguns from comic to comic. It's also a marvellous balance mechanic.

I'm starting to think that there's no other way to do things. Lots of games ty to balance money and equipment, but this is usually where things break down. And it means that the GM is always messing around with characters' money so that things don't get out of hand. Rules like this eliminate this sort of problem.

Mike

[Victor Gijsbers]

I'm starting to think that there's no other way to do things.

I have to disagree. In either a very Realistic or a very Narrativistic game, this mechanic would be useless. In the first, it would destroy realism. In the second.. well, who cares avout equipment anyway, in an extremely Narrativist game?

[Paganini]

I'm starting to think that there's no other way to do things.

I have to disagree. In either a very Realistic or a very Narrativistic game, this mechanic would be useless. In the first, it would destroy realism. In the second.. well, who cares avout equipment anyway, in an extremely Narrativist game?

Going to have to disagree here. I think you're wrong on both accounts. According to Mike, the idea was pioneered in a realistic game! Champions is a "realistic" game, in the sense that much effort is given to accurate depiction.

In the second place, Hero Wars, Synthesis, and this game (I'm calling it the Origo system now) are all extremely and overtly Narrativist.