Need help thinking through my new game (long)

[toshiro]

Before I begin, I'd like to thank everyone at the Forge for teaching me that ordinary people can create extraordinary games.

Now, on to the main topic. I'm in the middle of developing my game (surprise surprise), initially dubbed "Family Ties". I wanted to pause and let you guys have a look at what I have so far, and help me with some issues. Sorry if parts of it are garbled or confusing; I'm just dumping all the stuff that's rattling around in my head.

Family Ties is a game focusing on the underworld of organized crime. The setting will be present day. Players are members of one of the major gangs (the Mafia, Yakuza, Colombian Cartel, etc...). They complete various jobs for their employers, gaining power and influence, as well as the interest of law enforcement.

When I first came up with the idea, I immediately assumed that the style of the game would be your usual John Woo-esque gunslinging combat. I sat down and thought about this some more. First of all, I realized that such a trigger-happy game would certainly be entertaining to your average role-player, but lacked the depth that gives the game long-lasting appeal. Secondly, I realized that gunslinging had been done many times over, and perfected by games such as Feng Shui. I would be bringing nothing new to the table.

I decided instead to shift the focus of the game to the unique emotional and moral issues of underworld crime - loyalty and how far it goes, betrayal, greed, honor among thieves, and maintaining one's moral compass in an inherently immoral society. Family Ties will certainly be very dark and gritty, with death or imprisonment being the unavoidable fate as the game progresses. Who you trust will be far more important than how big your gun is.

To properly facilitate this mood, I've envisioned several aspects of the game design, and would appreciate your comments:

- Sharp difficulty curve. As the players progress, they rise in rank and get more powerful. But they also have more enemies among rival gangs - and in their own gang. Police involvement will also increase as their rank increases. This basically means that late in the game they'll have to put a lot of thought behind every decision. However, their characters will be a lot more developed personality-wise at this point (hopefully), so they'll have a better set of tools to decide what the right course of action is.

- Combat is deadly. The average person can not take more than a couple of high velocity bullets before things start to get messy. The combat system is not centered around realism, however. It's very rules light, and designed primarily for fast resolution. Following up with the deadly combat theme, wounds will not miraculously heal overnight. Got shot in the arm? You probably won't be able to use fully for a long time. At any rate, I'm hoping the combat system will dissuade your usual "shoot all your problems" crowd.

- Contacts are super important. You won't last long in the crime world if you don't know a lot of people who can do you favors. But beware - rely too much on one person, and they might stab you in the back when you least expect it. I'm planning on giving contacts an active role in the game, rather than just resources for the characters to use when they get in trouble. After all, they might need you to do a favor for them too.

- Similar to Storyteller, each character will have a personal motivation that drives them to do what they do, as well as a vision for the future. Being a gangster is a dangerous, paranoid business. Everyone has some reason of why they're there, be it guilt for past sins, greed, or the urge for revenge. Everyone also has some sort of vision of where they want to take their life, a goal for them to work toward, whether it's becoming the head of the family or making enough money to leave the business entirely. Players will be rewarded for properly role-playing these drives and goals.

What follows is the action resolution system. I'm fairly satisfied with it, but it still needs work:

Each character will have six stats: Body, Strength, Agility, Intelligence, Wit, Charisma. They're fairly self explanatory. I'm not using a skill system. Instead, each character will have a list of things that they're good at ("Specialities") that will add successes in certain situations, and Weaknesses that take away successes.

Not mentioned in the examples are "Karma Points" which can be spent to increase successes. I haven't thought about this much yet, so didn't include it, but am planning to.

Anytime the character wants to perform an action, he rolls D6 equivalent to the stat most closely related to the task. All rolls of 5 or 6 are successes. The player counts the number of successes and adds or takes away successes based on modifiers as well as Specialities/Weaknesses. Opposed rolls are handled by each character rolling normally and the one with the most successes after modifiers winning with a margin of the difference between the number of successes.

Examples:

Joey is squaring off in an unarmed brawl with a Yakuza bodyguard. Joey has a STR of 4, so he rolls 4D6. The dice come up 2, 3, 1, 5 - one success. Joey has the speciality of "Dirty Fighter - +1 Success in  Close Combat". Joey is also pretty badly beaten up from an earlier encounter, so the GM decides to give a -1 Success modifier. 2 + 1 - 1 leaves him with a cumulative 1 success. More success = more narrative freedom, so here are some possibilities of what Joey's player could say:

1 Success - "Joey's punch slams into the Yak's kidneys, who staggers back a little."
2 Successes - "Joey lashes out with a foot at the Yak's shins, who falls to the ground."
3 Successes - "Joey violently kicks up into the Yak's groin, who crumples into the ground, writhing with pain."
etc...

Joey is haggling with his gun dealer friend Vinny over the price of  a Glock. Vinny wants to sell the gun for $400.   Joey has a WIT of 5, and the dice come up 3, 1, 2, 6, 6, two successes. Vinny has a WIT of 6, and his dice come up 1, 1, 3, 2, 4, 4. Vinny's having a bad day. However, he has the speciality of "Experienced Salesman - +1 Success When Making a Sale". So he gets a total of one success, not enough to beat Joey. The difference between Joey's 2 success and Vinny's 1 success is 1, so Joey wins with 1 Success. Here's some possibilities of what Joey's player could say:

1 Success - "Joey convinces Vinny to give him an old pal discount on the gun, and buys it for $350."
2 Successes - "Joey convinces Vinny to give him a $100 old pal discount."
3 Success - "Joey convinces Vinny to give him a $100 old pal discount as well as a free clip of ammo."

Now, here's where I'm stuck:

Should the modifiers and specialities/weaknesses be added to the dice pool or success level?

I'm pretty confused on this issue. I just thought adding success was more intuitive, but have no idea about the mathematical implications.

How to handle initiative?

I was thinking of giving the group a chance to discuss their actions, decide on what to do, and have the actions resolve in order of Agility. I didn't think putting in parries or interrupts would be needed. What do you think of this system?

Damage/Armor

I don't want to have a hit point system. I'm probably going to have some sort of wound level system, where each wound occurs at a specific body part. I don't know how to handle severity of individual wounds. I also don't know how to handle armor. Body armor isn't going to be too common - only the ultra-combat oriented people are going to wear Kevlar all the time. I was thinking of doing something simple like assigning each armor a rating, and each weapon a rating. If the rating of the armor is equal to or greater than the rating of the weapon, the effect of the wound gets negated. Again, the whole combat system is largely narrative so I haven't quite figured out the specifics of the "realistic" issues.

What do you guys think overall? Good concept? Good mechanics? Needs more development? Speak your mind.

Thanks a bunch.

-toshiro

[Bailywolf]

Since (I assume) PC's will be part of a larger organization...perhaps some kind of metacreation system is in order.  Nobolis does this, using player imput to build their common realm thing and their patron god.  During creation, allow each player to assign a certain number of pips to their Family's Values....

oh say...

** Loyalty- how loyal is the organization to its members?
** Openness- how much about the uper levels is known?
** Assets- how much stuff the organization controls...and can provide its members
** Pull- how much control over external forces the family has
** Freedom- how much members are allowed to act on their own initiative
**Slack- if you screw up, how much retribution can you expect?


You can run everything from a terrorist cell, to a street gang, to a mafia family, to an evil lawfirm this way... players make Values checks when warented... blow that Slack roll after you fail to deliver the heroin promised, and Mr Tokashi will require a finger...



Perhaps also you should consider altering your Attributes ot better reflect the central conflicts of such a system:


Wits: how quickly you reack, think on your feet, and deal with surprise (and ambush)

Face: your honor, reputation, contacts, and name.  Your bones.

Body:  amalgamated strength, agility, toughness.

Charm: your social ability.

Violence: your skill at dishing out punishment.  

Rank: your place within The Family.


Something like that.  Make your stats represent what is central to your game's theme and premise.

[Bailywolf]

If you want to keep your die totals tidy and easy to deal with, asume that a person's rating in an attribute represents their best abilities- what they can do in their Specialities.  When it comes time to roll dice, judge the actions they are atempting based on how well a character's specialty fits what the player wants to do:


Good Fit:  Full Value (using your "Smash Faces" speciality to beat the crap out of someone).

OK Fit: Attribute -1 (use "Smash Faces" to avoid being smashed yourself...a coralary use for the speciality can be assumed).

Poor Fit:  1/2 Attribute rounded down (use "Smash Face" to intimidate a guy by showing off your scared knuckles).

No Fit or No Speciality: 1 die max.  

No Speciality w/ Complex task: no dice.   (surgery, computer repair, political manipulation)

Common Task w/o Speciality: 1/2 round down.  (Drive in normal traffic.  Read a book.  Be charming around Don Franko's elderly mother etc)




So if I have a Body of 6 and a "Kick 12 Kinds of Shit Out of You" as a Speciality, when doing so, I roll all 6 dice.  When dodging or defending in h2h, I roll 5.  If I wanted to kick in a door, I'd roll 3.  If I wanted to break open a door, and lacked the proper skills for it, I could roll 3 dice (half body).  If I wnated to do some kind of strength and ballance based gymnastics, I'd have at best 1 die...or none at all.  

If you have advantages over your oponent in a conflict, then bonus dice are in order.  You have a pool cue, he has a broken bottle.  Agvantage- you.  You control the Chief of police, he controls the meter maids. Advantage- you.

If you have 3 net successes as the top threshold for success, then adding in full blown successes might take it over the top.

Also, I'd go with an even/odds resolver mechanic.  you have the 2/6 right now...it might make it tidier to just go 50/50 on each die and keep the number of dice low.  In no-stress situations, allow automatic successes equal to the die pool for a roll.  

With 1 die, you have a 50/50 chance of some kind of minimal success... with 6 you have a good chance at a solid complete success.  

And on the upside, you can use just about any kind of random number generator to give boolean either/or results.  Coins, dice, cards, phone-book page flipping etc.



What else have you been thinking about for this game?

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Toshiro, and welcome to the Forge!

Should the modifiers and specialities/weaknesses be added to the dice pool or success level?

Modifiers to the success level will have a very strong effect that will drive quickly toward guaranteed success or failure. Favorable modifiers that add dice to the dice pool will ease toward guaranteed success more gradually. Unfavorable modifiers that remove dice from the pool will usually reduce the chance of success less than adding one to the success level, unless there are already few dice in the pool.

Here are some numbers you can look at to get an idea of the behavior. Changing the success level is going up or down rows in the table; adding or removing dice from the pool is moving left or right columns in the table. The entries in the table are probabilities, numbers between zero and one where zero represents guaranteed failure and one represents guaranteed success. Pay particular attention to big changes resulting from a single step in any direction. For example, with a five-die pool, the chance of at least one success in your system (the "5+" row) is .87. If adverse factors add to the success level, then with one point of adverse modifier, the chance of success with five dice is still high (.60). Add a second point of adverse modifier, and the chance plummets to zero. And the chance of success with a skill of 1 (a one-die pool) and one point of advantage would be very close to the same as the chance of success with a skill of 4 and one point of disadvantage.

Modifiers that add or remove dice from the pool are generally better behaved than modifiers that chance the success level, especially when you already have a variable pool size. However, you'll have to decide whether or not that's a good thing. You might have reasons to want success chances to sometimes change dramatically as a result of relatively small changes in the circumstances.

Code Select Expand


Probability of at least one success in the roll  

            dice (d6) in pool
success  
roll              0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12
         
1+ or 6-        0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
2+ or 5-        0.0 .83 .97   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
3+ or 4-        0.0 .67 .89 .96 .99   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
4+ or 3- **     0.0 .50 .75 .88 .94 .97 .98 .99   *   *   *   *   *
5+ or 2- ***    0.0 .33 .56 .70 .80 .87 .91 .94 .96 .97 .98 .99 .99
6 or 1 ****     0.0 .17 .31 .42 .52 .60 .67 .72 .77 .81 .84 .87 .89
7 (impossible)  0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

*proabability exceeds 0.995 but is less than 1.0
**or roll odd, or roll even, or any three specific numbers
***or any two specific numbers
****or any specific number


- Walt

[Le Joueur]

With respect, I point to Mike's Rant #3 to explain why I think this game shouldn't have a combat system.  It just sounds so cool without one.

In it's place I'd suggest a 'conflict resolution' mechanic.  Something like:

Guys go into a room with their guns drawn.

Dice get rolled.

Only some of them come out.[/list:u]None of this roll-to-hit stuff, just pure unmitigated "there's a gunfight - who survives?"  I really think this game would be exceptionally great if the 'fight scenes' took place mostly off camera.  Surely detailing them wouldn't serve the interests expressed?  Making a combat system deadlier to dissuade players will have the opposite effect.  If you want them to not "shoot all [their] problems," don't give them guns, give them goons (or mooks or thugs or whatever); that way there just won't be much combat.

Do the same to physical stats and the like; the outcomes of physical activities will probably have only minor affect on the substance of the game, why keep them?

Just a radical thought from the ether....

Fang Langford

[Bailywolf]

Fang takes it a bit further than I would... I would like to maintain a bit of cinematic action potential.

I tried to cover the bases with the suggested alternate attributes... Wits for scheming, planning, grafting, and such.  Charm for moving and shaking.  Body for taking hits and working the docks.  Face for contacts, rep, and respect.  Violence for wacking mooks and breaking thumbs.  Rank for  knowing your place.

A detailed simu-combat system is certainly not in order here, but if you are playing a game more Sin City than Godfather, then some simple and solid combat mechanics are in order.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Toshiro,

Thanks for starting off with a good thread topic. A lot of people have postulated the "gang RPG," usually a Godfather or The Sopranos thing, and most of them have fallen into what I'd call the White Wolf Trap.

The Trap looks like this: start with a paragraph all about conflicting loyalties, surging passions, society vs. community vs. family, leadership vs. madness, one's actual family vs. The Family, etc, etc ...

... and then proceed into multiple pages of how an axe kick can be stopped by an upwards cross-block if you make your reactive-initiative roll, but not by a single-handed side parry; how a .45 Colt magnum compares to a .357 Desert Eagle in terms of stopping power as well as actual tissue loss; and all manner of methods for determining who goes when in a group conflict situation.

... and finish with a statement about ignoring any rules that don't seem to work.

Now, you haven't fallen into the Trap, but it's always there for the game designer, like a ... well, like a lurking vampire.

So what I'm interested in, and you can probably see how it's compatible with Fang's post, is what a social conflict might look like in play. Let's take a guy who cannot reconcile loyalty to his wife and kids (regular family) coming into conflict with loyalty to his mob boss (ie The Family). There's some situation in which one or the other side has to get shorted.

How do the GM and players do this? What game mechanics make this interesting and inspiring to play? What attributes are involved, and why? What leads to this sort of thing becoming "what play is about"?

I've kicked the White Wolf line in the kneecap a bit in this post, but I do think that their games' characteristic solution is not, ultimately, very functional, and multiple testimonies lead me to think that as written some of them are not reliably fun to play. So that's why I'm interested in what elements of the game mechanics are not about how Johnny punches Tetsuo, but rather about how Johnny might or might not decide that his boss is gone 'round the bend, and how he might convince Tetsuo's oyabun that he, Johnny, really does want to provide inside information on his own Family.

Best,
Ron

[Jake Norwood]

I just wanna see a "cold" stat. Like, "damn, man, that was friggin' cold..."

It'd be great for combat...I think I'm putting it into my new one.

Jake

[Valamir]

I've got to agree with Fang and Ron on the combat issue.  "Combat" as such doesn't really exist in the organized crime world.  I mean, outside of movies, how many running gun fights with cops do you actually see on the streets of New York.  

What does exist is death.  Usually the victim is in a helpless or unexpecting situation and "bang" he's dead.  Its murder not combat.  

Far more interesting would be the first time aspireing wise guy Johnny is told to put a bullet in someone.  What does he do, how does he handle it, how does his life change afterwards.  Exactly the kind of thing your comments about things getting deeper and deeper indicate.  There's no need for initiative or to-hit rolls or damage.  Its either Johnny pulls the trigger and kills the guy, or he doesn't

...or, for Jake's benefit, just how Cold does Johnny have to be before he can pull that trigger without thinking about afterwards...and as he becomes that Cold, what does that do to his loving family life...I mean how can he sympathize with his wife's petty problems when he's had to deal with blowing people's brains out...

[Mike Holmes]

...or, for Jake's benefit, just how Cold does Johnny have to be before he can pull that trigger without thinking about afterwards...and as he becomes that Cold, what does that do to his loving family life...I mean how can he sympathize with his wife's petty problems when he's had to deal with blowing people's brains out...

Yep, that's it. I remember the Sopranos episode where one of the kids decides to rob some of the other made guys. He ends up shooting the guy from Italy, and running. Perfect. That was an awesome episode. It shows just how "not combat" it all is. Instead it's all about the will to harm someone to get waht you want, and just how rare (thankfully) that really is.

Bull Gravano gets all the Cool points. Glad he's retired.

BTW, this has large potential as a "loser" game.

Mike

[Paul Czege]

Hey Toshiro,

Ron wrote: Let's take a guy who cannot reconcile loyalty to his wife and kids (regular family) coming into conflict with loyalty to his mob boss (ie The Family).

And I completely agree with this choice of starting point. Check out my posts to http://www.gamingoutpost.com/forums/index.cfm?fuseaction=showthread&messageID=27449">Mafia Insider(episode 1): What do you know? by Rob Stone and http://www.gamingoutpost.com/forums/index.cfm?fuseaction=showthread&messageID=27577">Mafia Insider (Episode 2) Moving Up in the Family by Rob Stone in January of last year on http://www.gamingoutpost.com">Gaming Outpost. Rob, like you, was in the process of designing a mafia game. Like Ron here today, I told him the thematic conflict I wanted to see in a mafia RPG was, "when Family is your business, how do you keep your Business from overwhelming your family?" I wrote a descriptive example, and suggested the use of Loyalty and Ruthlessness traits.

Sadly, Rob went on to develop fairly tedious and uninspired mechanics. But I thought the conversation we had might be interesting to you.

Good luck,

Paul

[damion]

Most of the good comments have been taken, but I'll throw in
what I can.

Not sure if this is what your looking for, but one idea might be to not roleplay the intra-organizational stuff unless it's really important. Jonny begging for his life in front of the don after screwing up is important. Jonny asking to do something that requires permission, but isn't hyper important to the story isnt. In this case Jonny's player tells you his approach, and factors that would work in his favor, the GM gives bonus dice as appropriate and you roll and continue.
    The idea here is focus more on the relationships and to make the actions of the organization more immutable. This focuses more on Jonnys reactions to higher decisions than his ability to affect them. Basicly, you are presented with situations, the story is about how you deal with them.
Hope that came out coherently.

[Demonspahn]

Hi toshiro,

I really like the idea of making a game where you can play members of different organized crime syndicates.  That's an element I don't think I have seen done well before.  

As to the rest, I think you can include a combat mechanic and still design a game with a lot of potential for social conflict, depending on how the group wanted to run it.  Now, I know mixing and matching to please everyone is supposedly a no-no, but in this genre I think it fits.  

Think about dividing the game into three different "levels" for lack of a better word---Thug, Captain and Boss.  

Thugs:  Think "Goodfellas" here.  Thugs do the grunt work---hijacking trucks, running numbers, busting up strikes, making sure businessmen pay for "protection".  Most thugs are single or have girlfriends, but not families.  This level would have the most potential for combat.  Some characters (even those that technically rise higher in the ranks) may choose never to progress beyond this level.

Captain:  Think "Sopranos" here.  Captains oversee a number of thugs (or a crew) and make sure things run smoothly.  They might get into some combat, but now the attention would start to shift toward social conflicts as they get older and more involved with families and it is their job to see to the welfare of their crew.  Murder would be emphasized over combat, in that his crew woulf kidnap someone and he would arrive to put a bullet in his head.  Other conflicts might arise with rival Captains within their own organization as they try to outdo/screw over each other.  Remember at this level, most of these guys are "Made men" so outright combat is suicidal without approval from the Boss.

Boss:  Think "The Godfather" here.  Bosses almost never get in combat situations.  They do most of their work "behind the scenes", making decisions, traveling to places (like Las Vegas) to enlarge the organization and make money/expand their influence, etc.  There would be a lot of opportunity for social conflict at this level, not just at home, but by manipulating, scheming and trying to outdo rival Bosses (inside and outside of their own organization), bribing/blackmailing politicians, etc.  

Think "Scarface" for a progression of all three.

You might try making social conflict and combat resolution mechanics nearly identical so neither is emphasized over the other.

I like Ron's comparison to the "White Wolf trap" (although I personally enjoy the hell out of White Wolf games).  The combat resolution mechanic should be extremely simple, perhaps similar to WEG Star Wars where combatants rolled attacks at the same time and whoever had the highest roll "got his shot off" first.  The other was generally screwed.  

I would also stick with a simple (and lethal) "Bruised - Injured - Out" of even "Injured - Out" health level system, perhaps with X number of the lower level increasing the wound status to a higher level if the character is in an action sequence.  I myself have never actually been shot, but I know people who have been, some several times, and they continued to function while the adrenaline is flowing.  

Again, I really like the idea of the multiple organizations as long as each one is given equal and unique detail.  It adds a lot of depth/playability to the game and I don't think it's been done before, but I could be wrong/naieve.  Video games were mentioned before and I want to add Grand Theft Auto 3 for a good Thug representation.

Please keep us posted because I would love to play a game like this.  Good luck.

Pete
-Who once tried to design a Mafia game based on those three levels but quit in frustration and now must be content running his players through Mafia like dreams.  :)


PS - Is there any reason you are designing you own system here?  Might a non-d20 open license system be better.  That way you could concentrate more on setting. Just a thought.

[toshiro]

Bailywolf:

The idea of ratings for each organization is intriuging, and will definately make things a lot easier when dealing with family - player interactions. I also love your suggestions for the attributes. Strength/Agility/etc... seemed rather generic, but unfortunately I'm a victim of the D&D school of gaming, so it was the first thing that came to my mind.

As for your specialty system, it's well thought out, but I think it'd be a bit unwieldy. I want to keep everything as close to "throw the dice, glance at them quickly, get an idea of how well you did", without having to think about how good a fit it is. As for the 50/50 probability, I'll have to roll some dice and see how things work out.

What else am I planning for the game? See the bottom of this post. ;)

Walt:

Thanks for the mathematical explanation. I didn't realize how much of an impact more successes made vs. more dice. I definately think more dice would be a better system, since as Bailywolf mentioned there's only going to be three levels of success. There are more theoretically, but realistically speaking there's only a certain amount of success you can have - getting 5 successes in close combat doesn't mean you rip the guy's heart out.

Fang:

Hmm. Interesting. Veerry interesting. I admit I'm more than a bit taken up by the idea. On the other hand, I agree with Bailywolf regarding cinematic action. There is somewhat of a rush when you're holding a pistol inches from a guy's face and he's inching his hand over to that broken bottle...but it's also pretty damn boring if you have to go through that with every guy who's late on his loan payments.

Ron:

Believe me, the Trap has been lurking out there, and I think it's just sheer luck I haven't fallen in. If you've asked me about this game a few days earlier, I would have ranted on about the spread of a shotgun and diving for cover and such. Thanks for pointing it out to me, I'm gonna try and steer clear.

Your observations on what exactly transitions the game focus to social interactions are also something I've been thinking about. I'd been putting it off - telling myself that the GM could handle it through role-playing - but there has to be some sort of mechanical way to handle that. Otherwise you're left with a system like Storyteller where in theory the game is all about drama and emotion - but the practical side of things only addresses combat. This is something that I'll definately be thinking about.

Jake:

Another good suggestion. One thing I hadn't thought of was the desensitizing effect that violence had on the players, and it's long term implications.

Valamir:

Very true on the murder vs. combat. Unless the game's about hitmen (another concept I like, but a different game), there's not going to be a lot of shoot-outs.

Mike:

"Loser" potential? I'm hoping this is referring to the fact that it's most likely the characters will "lose" in the long run, not something else. ;)

Paul:

I found your responses much more informative than the original article. Your pinpointing of the specific thematic elements involved is something I found very useful, and I will definately take your ideas to heart.

damion:

Another good point. The Organization is a very cold entity that presents the characters with situations and expects them to deal with them. It's not going to take a personal interest unless things go badly, or exceptionally well.

Pete:

I like your suggestion about the levels. It would certainly fufill the interests of those wanting to role-play the nitty gritty of being the man protecting the turf, as well as the higher dramatic conflicts of organizational interactions. It would certainly be a very ambitious project - but I'm also an ambitious guy. ;) I'll think about it.

I like your injury system. It's simple and efficient. Thanks for the suggestion.

I've intended for the multiple gangs to add an element of flavor to the setting. Grand Theft Auto 3 (and 2, and 1) has been an inspiration for this. There are a lot of stylistic differences between the Cosa Nostra and the Yakuza and the drug cartels and the Russian Mafia etc..., mainly due to culture. I'd like to highlight those differences to spice up the setting a little.

What next:

Thanks to all your comments, I'm rethinking the overall direction of this game. When I first thought up of the game, it was all cinematic action. When I wrote the initial post, I dealing with an action game with a bit of relationship thrown in there for good measure. Now I'm thinking of moving the focus over to a more serious game where the characters are part of a delicate balancing act involving hundreds of people, each with their own interests and drives. There's still going to be some combat - but only at appropriate moments. You're not going to pay someone a personal visit unless it's important

The mechanics are going to get an overhaul to better bit the new focus. I am definately going to include concrete values for such things as Loyalty and Ruthlessness/Cold, and how much Influence you have in the "community".

However, what I'm afraid of is that the game will deteriorate into micro-management. I don't want players to worry about how a certain action will increase their Loyalty by 2 points but also add to their Ruthlessness level which might come in conflict with their Standing with the local hustlers who contribute income to the organization etc... etc..

The only way to stop the above from happening is to keep the focus on the characters at all times. To think of what they would do in the situation, how their personal honor code and motivations comes into play - even if what the character would do is bad for their health or ambitions. Here is the ultimate problem (and what I think Mike was saying) - the players will have to sit back and watch as their characters sink deeper and deeper into the quicksand. Are people willing to make those choices? And is it fun?

Thanks once again for your feedback,

-toshiro

[Bailywolf]

Another quick one... I was thinking about Fang's suggestion to do away with 'combat' as a distinct miplementation of mechanics- resolving it as simply as you would a picked lock, and then narating the (oh so painful) results... what about mixing the difference?  You comment about how it would get tiresome to fool with it when shaking down some lowly buisness owner hit home... how about something like this...

Whack- if your target has a Rank lower than yours, you can resolve combat with a single Violence vs Violence check.  You win, you get what you want.  Against those of equal Rank (even in other organizations) you use the full dramatic combat system.  The exception to this is if you are working a contract hit for a higher rank family man... in this case, you compare HIS rank to the mark's.