Diceless mechanic for space pulp

[MikeF]

[Ken]

Hi-

I think as long as you have a system where strategic play nets you a benefit from the system, you will run the risk of metagaming. In this case, the trick would be to instigate a bidding war (or get involved in a bidding war) early in the scenerio, and lose so you can stockpile tokens. I think this type of gaming is viral; a group is playing and having fun, until somebody (intentionally or otherwise) catches a windfall of tokens from an aspect of the system, and then the game could degrade into a race to fail as many times as possible for the big payoff.

While I don't think you should necessarily ditch this idea because there is a chance it could get misused, I think being aware of it is prudent. Sacrificing success to ensure victory in the future is a pretty cool idea on the surface and could bring some real value to a game. Playtest it, and see what happens.

Good Luck,

Ken

[tombowings]

I really like this idea. However, like Ken, I can see some player's abusing the system. To solve that issue, I purpose 2 changes: 1) a player must either have another player second his or her alternative outcome or give 2 Story Tokens to the GM when announcing his or her alternative action. 2) More than one alternative outcome may be brought to the table, however, a single player may not suggest more than one alternative outcome.

These would be worded better, of course, but it's later here and I don't want to think.

[LordKiwi]

Reminds me of some of the mechanics in Universalis (which can only be a good thing). The windfall of tokens problem can also happen there too.

If you loose enough so that you can win later it can be very heroic (as has been mentioned), but it would only work if you lost in a big enough way, possably a problem since the importance of conflicts to the story is not represented mechanically.

You could limit the windfall effect by breaking the game into scenes....
1. There is a 'pot' of ownerless tokens.
2. When you loose half the tokens go to the pot.
3. You can only use your 'winnings' on the next scene, not the current one.
4. Every scene the pot is shared equaly amoung players (leave odd tokens in there)
5. Scenes end when the 'in play' tokens run out.

This way you can't rake in too many tokens at once and everything gets leveled out a bit between scenes. If you want to stockpile tokens for later you really have to take a hammering now.

Another thought about the system, if you want a real feeling of ebb-and-flow. Every time a token is placed in support of an objective, have the player describe, in brief, what they are doing to help. This not only describes the outcome but it tells you how you got there.

Hope this helps.

[MikeF]

Thanks everyone. Lots of interesting feedback.

LordKiwi: oh yes, I completely agree about using the token-placing as an opportunity for narrating and roleplay. Funny what you take for granted. That narrative ebb-and-flow as the tokens get placed and one person's version of 'what happens next' edges ahead is the absolute focus of what I want to achieve with this system. But I've just looked back over my various notes and scribbles and realised I never once made that explicit. It's the reason I toyed with Wushu as well, but I'm hoping that this way round takes off some of the pressure that Wushu can create. With this you can narrate events turning your way when you place the tokens, but it's the tokens that count for the game mechanic - if you're having an off day and can't come up with the narration you won't get penalised.

I'm struck by the point that Ken makes about this still opening the door to gaming the system. Now I think about it, there's actually a sort of double-whammy effect, because the winner weaker at the same time as making the loser more powerful. If one side stakes 3 tokens and the other stakes 4 tokens the winner ends up being 7 tokens worse off than the loser, and the loser can pretty much guarantee winning the next round (if they want). Hmm.

Tom, I'm not sure having a price for even suggesting an alternative outcome would fix things. If you pay and then *win* you could be in real trouble. And it makes it difficult for someone with no tokens to engage. At the moment, if you have no tokens you could still win if your aspects are high enough.

But I like very much the solution proposed by LordKiwi, where the winner's tokens go into a pot. The winner suffers a game penalty that limits how often he can win, but the loser doesn't gain mechanical advantages if he keeps pressing other players into beating him - he just ends up worse off in the fiction. If one side stakes 3 tokens and the other stakes 4 tokens the winner ends up being 4 tokens worse off than the loser. I like that better. And if you're low on tokens you can still 'burn' aspects to win in the grand climactic denouement.