[Fame] First thoughts

[Dustin Bingham]

Hi there,

After having my gaming pretty much transformed by these wonderful games (DitV, Sorcerer, MLWM, and Polaris, specifically), I've decided to take a crack developing a game myself.  I think the premise of the game would actually make a really fun Sorcerer campaign, but then I wouldn't get to make a game, so there you go.

But anyway, the game poses the question: "What are you willing to do to become famous?"  Its about struggling musicians, cunning politicians, or young hopeful actors, trying to climb their way to the top of the fame ladder, and the stories that can come out of that.  I happen to have played in a band for the last 12 years or so, so it's something that is kind of near to my heart.

Here is what I have so far:
http://www.beautifulprotest.com/Fame.doc

This is just a sketch, of course.  Now, on to the parts I'm struggling with:

1) I seem to have a disconnect between the Self-Worth stat and the Passions pool.  I'd like for Passions to kind of do the same function that Traits do in DitV, but I'm not sure how that reflects on Self-Worth.  But I want Self-Worth to emerge that kind of story where someone becomes utterly debased in their pursuit of Fame.  It's my Humanity homage.

2) The dicing mechanic (or lack thereof).  What I'd like to see is something this: You bring in a relationship or passion into a scene, you get dice according its score (if its a score 3, maybe 3d6).  Through play, the relationships and passions that bear on the scene are established.  Dice get rolled in a FitM sort of way - they are rolled midway through the scene, and dictate how the scene resolves (like MLWM I guess, or like conflict in The Pool).  If you score a certain number (maybe a 6 on a d6), your fame will rise.  But if you fail critically (I don't know, maybe rolling a 1 on any of the dice) the associated Stat will go down by one.  I'm having trouble expressing how it should work - especially seeing as how I want The Man to be doing the same job that The Mistaken does in Polaris, or a DitV gm does - escalate, escalate, escalate, driving the Player to conflict, to risk more and more.

Thanks for any time you have! It is very much appreciated, and I hope to repay in kind. 
Dustin

[Dustin Bingham]

After speaking with a friend of mine about number 2, we came up with the idea of giving the opposing force, The Man, a large dice pool.  This pool can negate the successes of the player, which I think fits the antagonistic role well.  An idea also came up that, on failure, The Man gets to refresh his pool a little by adding one or two dice back to it. 

We also thought of narrowing the game design to something I know more about - musicians struggling to make it, specifically in a band setting.  Any thoughts on these ideas?

[whiteknife]

I read through the document and it looks pretty cool. I think that you could link passions more to self worth a bit, maybe by making it so you get a bonus if you follow them? Also, one thing I thought about when I looked at your dice mechanics is that the more dice there are the more likely you are to succeed, but also the more likely you are to suffer some "damage" which i thought was cool and kind of appropriate.
The role of the man is OK, although it seems more directly adversarial than most GM like roles (which isn't necessarily bad).
Also, it's probably a good idea to narrow the game some, and the music idea fits well, although definitely leave the option open to do other things, as some people might have a background in something else and want to switch it up (although having one kind of fame seeker as the default one is probably a good idea since otherwise it gets a bit to generic).
It'd be interesting to try out the game in different setting like a group of movie producers (or RPG designers...)

Anyways, the game looks cool. Keep working on it, I think it has a lot of potential.

[imago]

Hey, Dustin. I read the doc, it looks like a very good idea. I'm not sure that you need to narrow the game itself, though gameplay might benefit from doing it, which is easy when you have a band with a common goal. How would your game work for a TV series cast? Or a theatre company?

Anyway, I have some questions.

First, how do you know when to roll Relationships and when to roll Passions - player call or is that up to The Man?

What if I roll 2 Relationships? Do I risk that stat twice? Is it even possible?

What keeps me from having 1 Passion and/or 1 Relationship, to maximize Effectiveness (yet having greater chance to roll a 1 and pay personal cost - which, in turn, can be cancelled out by raising the same stat that just would lose a point) and countering The Man's dice?

Why is rolling neither a 6 nor a 1 not considered to be a Failure? And why not tie Failure to Passion/Self Worth and personal cost to Relationships/Hope?

Have you considered streamlining your game by giving The Man the ability to require a minimum of successes instead of rolling against players? It reinforces that The Man is a static threshold to beat (whatever the cost?), downgrades the adversarial nature of that role and can also be tied to Fame (opening the option to make your game GM-less!?)

Can you call your Vice die after The Man has rolled? If yes, Vice might not be called upon if The Man has rolled too many dice, since it would be clear that a player wouldn't get enough successes. On the other hand, a player who already rolled 2 or more dice and has no 6s while already having a 1 will always call on Vice without any mechanical drawback (PC already loses a point)...

Wow, these are a lot of questions. I'm sorry about that, but your ideas really interest me.

[Dustin Bingham]

Hi Whiteknife and Ian
(Whiteknife, what's your name, by the way? I'm sure the other guys know it but I'm new here

Thanks for the kind words and encouragement.  I know the doc is somewhat a mess, as it is just my ideas as they pop in - thanks for wading through it!
Now, on to the comments and questions.

Whiteknife, I think I agree that the game should be focused.  It should be very easy for other tables to change the focus to something else, but for me - write what you know - and I know about getting shafted in music!

Also, it is pretty intentional for The Man to be the source of Adversity in the game.  I don't want him to be at all like the traditional gm, torn between 'being a neutral arbitrator' and 'providing intense challenge'.  That's a hard line to walk, so I want to remove the 'neutral arbitrator' gm-role from The Man, so he can focus purely on Adversity.  In DitV, the gm has the same freedom - the gm follows the rules for town and npc creation, and is bound by them.  But once the game is going, she can (and should!) push as hard as she can with the characters and situation.

Ian, on to your questions.  So, Relationships and Passions are brought into play as dictated by the fiction.  A good player, I expect, will have to balance risking their tied stats with the desire to get as many R's and P's going as possible.  As long as they can justify it in the fiction, they can have access to the dice the R's and P's provide.  No matter how many 1's is rolled, you only lose 1 point from an associated stat (if both Stats can be potentially at risk, The Man gets to decide which one decrements).  So yeah, try and gain as many dice as you can, but note that the chance for loss and success go up by the same frequency...Also, Vice is like R's and P's, in that it is declared and grabbed before the final roll off.  I imagine it like this: The player and The Man both are roleplaying, hitting on things that justify grabbing dice from their R, P, or V pool (or for the Man, grabbing opposing dice).  The scene eventually gets to a point where neither side wish to put any more dice into play and then both sides roll it all.  6's are counted (and canceled), 1's are sought out and dealt with, and the scene resolves.

I'm a little afraid of the Man having power to set a target success,because they are intended to be purely Adversity, and not also a referee.

Having neither a 6 nor 1 allows for interrupted or hanging conflicts.  I hope it leads to raising tension, but that may be something that gets tossed in playtesting.

Finally, this question confused me a little:

And why not tie Failure to Passion/Self Worth and personal cost to Relationships/Hope?

Could you clarify it for me?

Again, thanks for the support and time!

[imago]

So, Relationships and Passions are brought into play as dictated by the fiction.  A good player, I expect, will have to balance risking their tied stats with the desire to get as many R's and P's going as possible.  As long as they can justify it in the fiction, they can have access to the dice the R's and P's provide.

Isn't it simpler, easier and more Effective to have just one Relationship and one Passion, so I can bring them into play with minimum effort? How will you encourage a player to have more than one R and one P?

(see, lazyness into action - I can refer the concept using only the initial instead of the full word; same principle)

Just realized that more R&P mean finer tuning, letting players to grab dice while keeping the number of them manageable enough to lessen the chances for getting a 1. Is this good for your game?

No matter how many 1's is rolled, you only lose 1 point from an associated stat (if both Stats can be potentially at risk, The Man gets to decide which one decrements).  So yeah, try and gain as many dice as you can, but note that the chance for loss and success go up by the same frequency...Also, Vice is like R's and P's, in that it is declared and grabbed before the final roll off.

Good. I like the fact that you have to get Vice into play before the roll. I still think that the effect for Vice is too limited for my taste.

I imagine it like this: The player and The Man both are roleplaying, hitting on things that justify grabbing dice from their R, P, or V pool (or for the Man, grabbing opposing dice).  The scene eventually gets to a point where neither side wish to put any more dice into play and then both sides roll it all.  6's are counted (and canceled), 1's are sought out and dealt with, and the scene resolves.

I'm a little afraid of the Man having power to set a target success, because they are intended to be purely Adversity, and not also a referee.

I realized today that The Man (even though it isn't that clear from the document) has to spend dice to oppose - The Man isn't only narrating, he's also playing, gambling. THAT is His power. Did I read that right?

Having neither a 6 nor 1 allows for interrupted or hanging conflicts.  I hope it leads to raising tension, but that may be something that gets tossed in playtesting.

The problem that I have with this is that it is either
a) pointless, since there is no effect at all -conflict is not resolved (for ill or good), points are neither won or lost.
b) bad for The Man, since the PCs don't get to lose any point, which means that He doesn't recover any dice.

Finally, this question confused me a little:

And why not tie Failure to Passion/Self Worth and personal cost to Relationships/Hope?

Could you clarify it for me?

Sure. Currently (and I already expressed above my concerns about this), failure lack of success has no impact on any character or player. Also, it seems to me that personal cost (1s) should be more closely related to Hope/Relationships (inwards) than Self-Worth/Passions, while the latter are more related to affecting the world (outwards). So I thought that a lack of success should affect Self-Worth (only) while personal cost would affect Hope (only). The pairings seem natural to me.

Clear as mud?

[Ron Edwards]

This may seem like an odd suggestion, and please don't take it as a recommendation - it's more like food for thought.

Perhaps ... drop the Self-Esteem as a quantified mechanic?

It strikes me that with all the other stuff you have going on, self-esteem is going to be one of those excellent role-playing outcomes of the other mechanics and doesn't need its own number.

And after all, someone who's had a ton of shitty stuff happen to them but still keeps up the Self-Esteem is a very different character from one who gets everything working out all wonderfully and still cries to sleep every night. Perhaps that kind of choice should be left to play and reactions during play.

As I say, food for thought. The answer may be that such a named value is necessary for this game. But please, don't have it in there just because Sorcerer has a Humanity score.

Best, Ron

[Dustin Bingham]

Hi Ian and Ron

Ian, Hmm.  I see what you are saying.  After digesting your questions a bit, what about dropping the forced pairings?  Instead of Self-Worth->Passions, and Hope->Relationships, what if for each individual R or P, you have to choose which stat it is tied to?  That is, your relationship with your 4 year old son may give you Self-Worth, but your relationship with your friend who is always encouraging you may tie into Hope?  I think that can help ease the problems with these pairings.

As far as getting the Players to bring more into play - golly - that is going to be an interesting one.  Each R or P you bring in increases both your chance of Success as well as your chance for 'damage' or 'fallout'.  So I'm not sure what kind of play that will lead to.  Will Players be more cautious and minimize risk, or will they constantly push their Rs and Ps out there?  I'm interested to see.  It may not lead at all to the play that I'm looking for - in that case, it will be time to rethink the conflict mechanic.

Yes, the Man has some kind of pool of dice to oppose a player.  I'm not sure exactly how thats going to go, but he is somehow also risking by opposing.  That's going to be a hard one to get just right I think.  I want the feeling of a player succeeding, but then realizing that they've instead failed because of The Man's dice.  But I don't want it to become frustrating and un-fun.  We shall see.

Finally, for hanging conflicts, I agree that nothing moves.  Hmm.  I will playtest and see if a scene becomes dead (or if players become frustrated) when this occurs, or if it is OK. If it is not OK, maybe there will need to be a mechanic to force the player to up the ante in the scene, if they do not want to suffer failure.  I'd rather give the player the choice - back out now or put more on the line - than to just to fail them, though.

Ron, You're right, Self-Worth could be pretty extraneous, especially if I collapse the pairings like I noted above.  I like the feeling of The Man crushing not only your Hope, but also your Self-Worth, just for the the pure cynical fun of it. I hope to playtest some of these ideas fairly soon - the need to drop Self-Worth as a value will be one the things I will lookout for. 

Thank you both for your thoughts!