Cartomancy

[electricpaladin]

For a while now, I've had an idea for a game that uses tarot cards instead of dice for a combination resource mechanic and randomization mechanic.

The current version can be found at my blog, at http://electricpaladin.livejournal.com/43567.html#cutid1.

Here are my current questions:

1. In listening to a recent Sons of Kryos podcast, it occurred to me that I want the game's theme: struggling with and against fate, to be expressed more strongly in the system. How can I do this? The only idea that's occurred to me so far is to replace the Dignified/Undignified personality mechanic with a Prophesy/Omen good fate/bad fate mechanic that rewards the player for ushering his character closer to either of his fates. This could work nicely with the four Fates mechanic I already have, especially if I make it clearer that the four Fates are supposed to reflect the character's destiny in those four arenas.

2. Any other comments in general? What do you think of it so far?

I have a setting for the thing, too, which I will post to my livejournal later, and would be happy to describe more of here, if anyone is interested.

Thanks.

[electricpaladin]

Forget everything I wrote in the LJ post about the system's Conflict Resolution mechanic. I had a much better idea while I was biking home from work today.

Remeber Italo Calvino's Castle of Crossed Destinies? It's kind of like that.

More soon.

[electricpaladin]

I still haven't gotten the new rules posted to my LJ. Here's a summary from an entry on another forum:

Every player has a hand (the size of which is based on a trait). In conflict, everyone plays one card in ways reminiscent of the way you play cards in a tarot spread. You can follow a card with a new card (which moves the scene along, deactivating the card you follow), you can cross a card (which opposes it, and could possibly thwart the efforts it represents), you can support a card (which improves its value, and might protect it from being crossed), or crown it (which transforms it from one suit - or arena of life - to another). There are certain limitations to what you can do based on the suit of the card you play.

You can also play cards Inverted, which means you as the player are abandoning the character's intent because you think your character's failure (or embarrassment, or whatever) will be more interesting - kind of like winning a roll and deciding to fail in Houses of the Blooded.

There is also a simpler conflict resolution system for simpler conflicts, where you just play a card, add your Aspects (various inherent assets) and Gear (non-inherent assets) and try to get a number higher than your victim's appropriate Fate.

Your character also has four Fates, one for each suit of the tarot. At any time, you can declare that a thing in the environment (PC, NPC, object, location, etc.) is relevant to your Fate... which lets you draw a card and brings your Fate closer to fruition, for good or ill. When a Fate comes true, you pick a new one, and also increase the value of that Fate by one. The higher your Fates, the harder it is for other players to influence your character.

Anyway, I'll link to the LJ post with the full system when it exists, but I wanted to start raising awareness and gathering attention now. What do you all think about this and where I'm headed?

[imago]

Hey. I've got a few questions for you. Keep in mind I've been a tarot reader for 7 years, so I'm more than curious about your idea. And very willing to help.

In conflict, everyone plays one card in ways reminiscent of the way you play cards in a tarot spread.

Does this mean that cards will have different effects depending on how they are played? In a Celtic Cross spread, it wouldn't be the same to play a card on Result, Hopes and Fears, Querent or Immediate Past.

You can also play cards Inverted, which means you as the player are abandoning the character's intent because you think your character's failure (or embarrassment, or whatever) will be more interesting - kind of like winning a roll and deciding to fail in Houses of the Blooded.

Is there any kind of incentive or reward (other than making for a better story) for doing this?

Let me say, right now, that I think it's a brilliant feature.

Your character also has four Fates, one for each suit of the tarot. At any time, you can declare that a thing in the environment (PC, NPC, object, location, etc.) is relevant to your Fate... which lets you draw a card and brings your Fate closer to fruition, for good or ill.

Does the GM have a word on this?

Also, will certain combinations of cards have special effects (which is how a Tarot reading works, by giving context to the actual combination of cards drawn out)?

And will cards (minor arcana and court cards, I assume) have a symbolic value or they must be considered only as a Number + Suit combination? (i.e., will 4 of Swords have anything to do with Truce?)


I really hope this is the Tarot-based RPG that leaves me satisfied, both as a gamer and as a Tarot lover.

[electricpaladin]

Well, for you and everyone, here is the link to my LJ where I've posted the most up-to-date version of th system: http://electricpaladin.livejournal.com/44094.html.

That being said, let me try to answer a few of your questions.

Hey. I've got a few questions for you. Keep in mind I've been a tarot reader for 7 years, so I'm more than curious about your idea. And very willing to help.[/qoute]

Excellent. You are exactly the kind of person I want to help me out with this! Rock on.

Does this mean that cards will have different effects depending on how they are played? In a Celtic Cross spread, it wouldn't be the same to play a card on Result, Hopes and Fears, Querent or Immediate Past.

What I'm doing is inspired by the Celtic cross, but not that part of the Celtic Cross. Much as I'd love to use it, that part of the cross is too deterministic. Instead, I use the cross-shaped part: Immediate Future, Immediate Past, Crowning, and Supporting.

Basically, the first person to play his card just puts it down and describes what he does. Other players can Follow his card by laying their card to the right of it, moving the scene along and rendering his card impossible to further effect; Crown it by laying their card above it, transforming the suit of the initial card into a new suit, subverting the initial player's actions or refocusing the scene; Support it by laying their card below it, adding the value of their card to the card it supports and describing how they help the initial card; or Cross it by laying their card across it at an angle and describing how their efforts attempt to directly thwart the initial card.

The thing is, you can do any of these things to any card in play. So Player One plays a card, Player Two Crosses it, Player Three Follows the Crossing card with a new card, Player Four Supports the initial card, Player Five Crowns the card that follows the Crossing card... and then you narrate a little more to wrap it all up based on what the web of cards looks like.

I suppose it's probably more accurate to say that the way you play cards is based on Italo Calvon's Castle of Crossed Destinies, which is a great book for any tarot fan.

Is there any kind of incentive or reward (other than making for a better story) for doing this?

Let me say, right now, that I think it's a brilliant feature.

I wish I could say it was entirely my idea, but thanks! At the moment, there's no incentive to do this, except that it might move your character into a place where he can further his goals (or your goals) or come into contact with something that you can declare a part of one of your Fates (for Fates, see the LJ post... to sum it up, one of the main ways you improve your character is by fulfilling the Fates).

Does the GM have a word on this?

Intentionally, no.

This is one of the ways the players can run roughshod over the GM in this game. I kind of like it, so I'm calling it a feature instead of a bug... but I might be talked around. The GM can make suggestions, asking a player to please not make that particular declaration, or offer a suggestion (and a card) when he sees a particularly interesting possibility, but the player has final say about his character's own fates.

This comes in part from the fact that a player in Cartomancy is in one sense his character and in the other sense his character's personal fate, pushing and prodding the character along. It also coms from a bad experience with a misinterpretation of the Polaris rules that led to our characters all being doomed to various bad ends in the first session (we thought negotiations could include future events). That gaffe kind of killed the game for me... but it got me thinking about how the opposite would work.

Also, will certain combinations of cards have special effects (which is how a Tarot reading works, by giving context to the actual combination of cards drawn out)?

I wish. Unfortunately, I don't want all my players to have to be tarot experts. The associations are too numerous and too detailed... it would be a disaster. If anyone has any great ideas for how to do this, I would be tremendously thankful.

And will cards (minor arcana and court cards, I assume) have a symbolic value or they must be considered only as a Number + Suit combination? (i.e., will 4 of Swords have anything to do with Truce?)

See above. I really wish I could do this, but it seems impossible. At this point, a minor arcana card is considered only a combination of Number + Suit. The major arcana (which are easier to remember and reference) have more specific meanings, though. Each is basically a get-out-of-jail-free card... with the caveat that the narration must follow the themes of the card.

I really hope this is the Tarot-based RPG that leaves me satisfied, both as a gamer and as a Tarot lover.

I hope so, too. And if it isn't, you can help me make sure it becomes so!

[imago]

[off topic] That part of Celtic Cross is deterministic? But, that's the part that tells the actual tools to manage the situation!

And Italo Calvino is one of my favourite writers... and yet I haven't read Castle of Crossed Destinies. Have to fix that. [/back on topic]

I'm glad I can be so helpful to you.


I like that players have final word on Fates. Very much.

More questions (after reading new version):

• Why can't Following cards be Supported?
• Are there any restrictions to Follow a card, Crossed or not?
• Do all Crownings render cards inapplicable?

I like the rest of it very much –specially Fortune-telling (Destinies are the best of them) and Major Arcana use– and might even playtest it (solo, though. my players are busy).

I still think that you might include, even as an optional rule, some kind of benefit for integrating a card's meaning – this is easier to do with decks like Aleister Crowley's (and Lady Frieda Harris') Thoth Tarot, since minor Arcana include keywords (i.e., 2 of Cups actually says Love while 10 of Disks says Wealth). Decks like the Waite-Smith one (a.k.a. Rider) aren't as good since they depict scenes, which might be too broad for this purpose. A deck like Marseille Tarot (Minor Arcana as pips) wouldn't work, though it fits Cartomancy very much.

[electricpaladin]

I think the outline format might have been a bad idea. It clarified things for me, but nobody else seems to get it.

Following cards can be supported. Basically, the function of playing a Following card is 'seal off' another card, making it impossible to effect but without changing it. For example, if you and I were working as a team and you laid your card down first, I might Follow it to seal it off, narrating the scene moving past your actions and into a new situation. Following is basically a defensive supporting move, because it prevents another card from being meddled with.

However, I could also use Following offensively. If you and I were working together against someone else, I might wait until you'd Crossed his card, then Follow his card, moving the scene past his card. Now none of his allies can Support or Crown his card.

You can Follow any card. There are no restrictions (except that the narrative must flow; if it doesn't, the GM can ask for clarification). Following is a powerful, but passive move. It's the equivalent of saying "moving right along..." and leaving that part of the story behind, in the past.

Another way to think about it is that there is no way to play a Preceding card. Instead, by playing a Following card, you transform the card befor it into a Preceding card.

Following cards can be supported because they represent a new narrative thread. You can Support Following Cards... because they can also be Crossed.

Crownings only sometims render a card inapplicable. Basically, being Crowned is a way to escape being Crossed. If I want to Support you but I can't because my card isn't the same suit as your card, I can transform the situation by Crowning your card and rendering the Crossing card inapplicable. Alternately, I can Crown the Crossing card, rendering it inapplicable by transforming it. Also, from a more narrative perspective, I can screw up your idea of the scene by changing the arena your action takes place in. If your stated goal was "embarass my opponent socially" and I use a Rods card to transform the situation into a fist fight... there's no way you can get what you want (and therefore, no way you can damage your target) unless someone else finds a way to transform the situation back (such as by Crossing my Crowning card.

Hm... this doesn't seem to be working. Maybe I should try to explain the abstract.

If you do something, I have several options:

I can do something else entirely and not engage with what you're doing . It doesn't matter what I do because the two things aren't related (except narratively); one just comes after the other. That's why it doesn't matter what suit or value aFollowing card is.

I can do something that opposes you. However, I have to oppose you with the same sort of thing you're doing. I can't oppose your efforts to seduce my wife by punching you in the face; in that case, I haven't stopped you from seducing my wife, I've just transformed our battle of wits and social standing into a battle of fists. To stop you from doing something, I have to beat you at your own game. That's why a Crossing card has to be the same suit. If it's a higher value when all is said and told, I've completely nullified your effort. Otherwise, if my Crossing card is still there, I've at least hindered you, which might be enough, depending on how high my wife's Cups Fate (or my Cups Fate, depending on the interpretation of the situation) is.

On the other hand, it's easier to help someone else, even if your efforts are in an entirely different arena. For example, if someone else punches you in the face, it distracts you from trying to seduce my wife, but I don't have to get involved. Your beef is with him now. Or, for example, I'm trying to puzzle out some difficult ancient texts (Swords) and someone comes along and gives me emotional support, lets me vent my frustrations for a while (Cups) - and it's still helpful. That's why a Supporting card can be of any suit.

As for Crowning cards, think about the example from Crossing cards above. I know you're trying to hurt me with your efforts to get my wife to sleep with you, and I know I can't beat you socially... but I've got a great Rods Fate. I know if I transform your effort to hurt me into a fist fight, you're doomed. So I punch you in the face. We're still in conflict, but by Crowning the conflict with Rods and making it a fist fight, I think I've got a better chance of winning.

I'm glad you like it so far! I'm really fond of fortune-telling magic best of all. And yes, the Destinies are by far the most fun.

I'd love to make the minor arcana meanings important, but I still can't work out how, even as an optional rule. If anything occurs to you, please let me know. And if you get a chance to playtest this, let me know about that, too. I'm not quite at the point of official playtesting, but I posted the thing for a reason!

And it sounds like you would really enjoy Castle of Crossed Destinies. The only difference between that book and a session of Cartomancy is the rules. You'll get it when you've read the book.

[imago]

It's my fault.

You'll see...

vi.Other Limitations
1.Each card can only be Crossed, Crowned, Followed, or Supported once, but the Crossing, Crowning, or Following card can in turn be Crossed, Crowned, or Followed.

You forgot to include that any card in turn can also be Supported, hence my doubt. However, I could have quoted last time, thuis saving you some writing.

On the bright side, we got to see an insightful explanation of the rationale behind your mechanics, which I find enlightening.

[electricpaladin]

It's my fault.

You'll see...

vi.Other Limitations
1.Each card can only be Crossed, Crowned, Followed, or Supported once, but the Crossing, Crowning, or Following card can in turn be Crossed, Crowned, or Followed.

You forgot to include that any card in turn can also be Supported, hence my doubt. However, I could have quoted last time, thuis saving you some writing.

On the bright side, we got to see an insightful explanation of the rationale behind your mechanics, which I find enlightening.

I found it enlightening, too. So alls well that ends well...

[imago]

What if...

...You could play a Minor Arcana card to get a Gear (making your hand one card smaller)? When you got rid (by giving, breaking, losing, using, whatever) of that Gear, you can draw another card...

... and Fair Folk Lures are associated to a Minor Arcana?

This way, a character might have a Gear that actually would serve to Lure a Fair Folk.

Example: I play 9 of Cups from my hand to get my character a Gear, which must be associated with Happiness - I write Wedding Ring +1 (Cups - Happiness) on my character sheet. I can use it on a Conflict related to my Cups Fate.

If my character meets a Gentry whose Lure is Happiness, she'll have something the Gentry really wants and can bargain with a clear upper hand.

How about that?

[electricpaladin]

What if...

...You could play a Minor Arcana card to get a Gear (making your hand one card smaller)? When you got rid (by giving, breaking, losing, using, whatever) of that Gear, you can draw another card...

... and Fair Folk Lures are associated to a Minor Arcana?

This way, a character might have a Gear that actually would serve to Lure a Fair Folk.

Example: I play 9 of Cups from my hand to get my character a Gear, which must be associated with Happiness - I write Wedding Ring +1 (Cups - Happiness) on my character sheet. I can use it on a Conflict related to my Cups Fate.

If my character meets a Gentry whose Lure is Happiness, she'll have something the Gentry really wants and can bargain with a clear upper hand.

How about that?

Hm...

I'm intrigued. On the one hand, I'm fond of Gear as a pure abstraction. The GM and the players work out what sorts of Gear they want to have. The trouble is, this is hard to make fair.

On the other hand... investing cards from your hand to get Gear is an interesting concept. You have the Hand you pay for (or the GM gives you and everyone), and you can choose to invest it in Gear if you want to, and you can always get it back by loosing or otherwise getting rid of it. It also makes Gear mean something more interested if it's always invested with an emotion (anything worth writing on your sheet should mean something), thus making it something interesting to the Fair Folk, interesting to your or someone else's Fates...

There's one problem with this idea as is: hand size means so much more than Gear that it would be a mechanically stupid trade. I think there's something to the idea. I agree that I should imbed Gear more fully in the system, but it needs to be a mechanically good idea. Gear and Aspects don't do that much. In Simple Conflict they make your card better and in Complex Conflict they help you act sooner, which gives you more tactical options. While they can make or break a conflict, sure, hand is much more important than Gear.

As far as associating Lures with the minor arcana... I'm reluctant to do that because I want to keep the Fair Folk as far outside the cards and the fate system as possible, to make sure they maintain an alien feel. I want to keep that sense of other-ness that comes from players talking about suits and playing cards, while the GM portraying the Fae is rolling dice and writing numbers of slips of paper. I want it to feel like the Gentry are playing a different game than everyone else.

. . .

In other news, I have decided that I am entirely unsatsified with the way I am using the major arcana. I like every character having a Trump - that works for me - and I'm reasonably pleased with the Trump as a somewhat constrained get-out-of-jail free card that gives broad control of narrative within a limited scope... but I don't like what a player's Trump does for him. It isn't interesting enough. And with the option to just declare things a part of their Fates at will and draw a card for it, drawing more cards isn't very useful anymore.

In the original LARP version of this system, a character's Trump gave his player a special power that he could use at the cost of one card. I think I like that idea better. The only problem is, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with defining the powers of the major arcana (I like the fact that exactly what a Trump means is up to the player)... so I'm not sure where to go with this.

Suggestions?