[Badass City] stumped for effect mechanics

[Marshall Burns]

Badass City is a Step on Up game that I'm making primarily to figure out certain problems I'm having with a couple other games. But it's also shaping up to look fun. Quick synopsis of the premise (small-p): "You're a badass. You wanted to prove your badassitude, so you moved to Badass City. Badass City is populated with hundres of other badasses like you, and they all think they're more badass than you are. What are you gonna do about it?"

The central technical issue that I'm looking at is gaming the circumstances rather than just the numbers, but with numbers in support of that. One thing I've hit upon is a system of favored circumstances, somewhat stolen from Sons of Liberty, by which custom-written circumstances yield bonuses to Effectiveness. This idea, and it's implementation (flat additive bonuses to single-die rolls, of varying size based on the stat being used -- thus your d4 stat with its piddly 25% success rate can be beefed up by manipulating the SIS to fulfill your favored circumstances), I'm feeling quite strongly about.

A secondary issue stemming from that is making sure that the actual actions and positions narrated for the characters have a meaning to the mechanics. To that end, I've divided up the mechanically allowed maneuvers into 12 "Moves," each of which is associated with one of the four stats: Hard, Slick, Cool, Fucked Up:

"Hard" moves: Bring the Pain, Suck It Up, and Tear the Place Apart
"Slick" moves:  Look Sharp, Put on a Show, Get the Drop
"Cool" moves:  Save Face, Blow Smoke, Stand Your Ground
"Fucked Up" moves:  Take It Too Far, Don't Give a Fuck, Pull Some Crazy Shit

I've got good, concrete definitions for what behaviors = what Moves, and I've got clear ideas of what they all do. There's plenty of intentional overlap between them, but the idea is that while Taking It Too Far," "Pull Some Crazy Shit," and "Tear the Place Apart" can all inflict physical injury on someone, none of them are as good at it as "Bring the Pain." For the most part, I've worked out what each Move is best at in relation to other Moves.

What I'm having trouble with is figuring out how to implement the Effects (as in IIEE) of these various Moves. I really really really want the Effects to deal with concrete changes to the SIS, not just the adjustment of numbers on paper. For instance, I was toying around with the idea of "Advantages" being concrete advantaging factors that yield temporary bonuses, and having the effects of some actions be "Force your opponent to give up 1 Advantage," with the idea being that 1 concrete advantaging factor was lost, thus also reducing the Advantage points, but I realized that the concrete factor then didn't actually matter – it could be done away with and nothing would change in terms of being able to continue to interface with the mechanics.

So, here's a brief summary of what the Moves are for. The idea is that each has a set of Effects it can yield, and you get to pick a number of them based on how good you roll.

Bring the Pain: cause physical injury (primary), take something by force, physically dominate someone, force someone into a disadvantageous position
Suck It Up: withstand physical injury (primary), maintain a position of advantage, resist domination
Tear the Place Apart: break stuff (primary), modify the immediate physical environment, cause physical injury, cause distraction, force someone into a disadv. position
Look Sharp: resist/recover from distraction (primary), avoid physical injury, maintain a position of advantage, gain further advantage
Put on a Show: cause distraction, impress an audience (haven't decided whether this or the previous is primary), avoid physical injury, gain a position of advantage, make someone look like a fool
Get the Drop: take an advantageous position (primary), trick someone into a disadv. position, cause distraction, take something by subterfuge
Save Face: recover/defend against being made a fool (primary), work the audience, cause distraction, make someone look like a fool
Blow Smoke: cause distraction (primary), work on someone's nerves, work the audience, trick someone into a disadv. position
Stand Your Ground: resist/recover from intimidation (primary), maintain an advantageous position, resist/recover from distraction
Take It Too Far: work on somebody's nerves, cause physical injury, work (esp. shock) the audience, force someone into a disadv. position (not sure which is primary)
Don't Give a Fuck: withstand physical injury, resist domination, recover from being made a fool, work on somebody's nerves (again, not sure of the primary)
Pull Some Crazy Shit: establish advantage, cause physical injury, cause distraction, work on somebody's nerves (yet again, not sure of the primary. The Fucked Up moves are kinda hard to decide on).

So. Let's start from the bottom and think about ways to implement these effects in such a way that they have a mechanical effect tied to a concrete effect in such a way that neither makes sense without the other. As I said, I'm a bit stumped. Any ideas?

-Marshall

[Callan S.]

The thing about the SIS is that it's often refered to like it's an object or thing that you can do things to. But the SIS is rather like soylent green...it's made of people.

If you think of the objects in the imagined space not as what they are imagined as, but instead fleshy things, made of the flesh of your fellow players (more specifically, their mind) - well, you realise if you try and make or force things in the SIS, your not forcing things, your shoving around other real people. The SIS is not an object because it's made of people and people are not objects.

Unless you want to push people around intellectually/imaginatively, there can't be definate concrete effects. There can be suggestions. But no definate thing. And if I'm reading where you were going right, because of this you can't build up concrete effects in the SIS in such a way as it will lead to a final result. That's why mechanics are so important to resolution. Writing this small in case it just appears to be a wild tangent.

[Marshall Burns]

Callan,
You probably know by now that I don't think it's true that the SIS isn't something that can be treated like an object. Somebody says a thing, he has the credibility and authority to make it true, it is now part of the SIS. Demonstrably and concretely. Yes, it all comes down to credibility and assent, but when you're doing a game like this, the assent must be given when sitting down to play. We will be playing X game, using Y rules and codes of behavior. That's not a problem with non-roleplaying games, and I don't see why so many people find it a problem with RPGs.

[Callan S.]

I would say because doing it that way stops the shared part of an SIS. It's ceasing to share the imagined space and instead taking control (single person controlled imaginative space). If you don't work via genuine suggestions, it stops being shared.

You might argue it's still shared, but what I'd ask is if you could give a hypothetical example of where you yourself would actually say it ceases to be shared and someones just taken control - it could be a silly, over the top example, like someone drawing a gun and aiming it at everyone saying "No, MY character takes the peaches!" and you'd say at that point it's not a shared imagination anymore. I'm asking that because it's really hard to discuss where that boundry is if the other person hasn't thought of a boundry at all yet/hasn't decided for themeselves whether there needs to be a boundry at all. Speaking of that, perhaps you don't see any need for a boundry and it'll always be shared no matter what, even in the gun example? For myself I think there needs to be a boundry and alot of other people would too, I'm thinking (though our boundries might not match entirely, we do match in deciding there is a boundry). That's not to say you'd have to, but it'd be confusing folks who have decided a boundry is needed, to not note that here it's treated as if one isn't needed.

[lumpley]

Marshall:

I'd suggest a set of mechanical effects that don't match the in-fiction effects directly, but are fully compatible with them. Like this:

Bring the Pain: cause physical injury (primary), take something by force, physically dominate someone, force someone into a disadvantageous position

And for mechanical effects you might have:
- If you have a broken bone, you're in terrible pain plus you're physically impaired.
- If you're in terrible pain, taking any action requires a successful suck it up move.
- If you're physically impaired, any gross physical actions are at a -1.
- If you're bleeding badly, you have ten minutes until you pass out.
- Breaking out of a body-hold means tearing the place apart, but at a -1.
- If someone's behind you, they get +1 to whatever they do to you.
- If someone has you in a pain-hold, they can inflict terrible pain at will, before you can act.
- If there's a physical object in play, it's worth +1 and it's available to everyone.

Right? So if I ace my roll to bring the pain, and I choose to physically dominate you, I can't just say "I physically dominate you," because then we won't know which mechanical effects prevail. Instead I might say "I twist your arm behind you and pin you against the wall," which means that I have you in a body-hold and a pain-hold, I'm behind you, and there's a physical object in play (the wall). When you try to escape, I'll inflict terrible pain, so you'll have to first successfully suck it up, then tear the place apart at -1, but if you're able to use the wall to help you somehow you'll get the +1 for it. (I won't get any benefit from being behind you until I make another roll.)

-Vincent

[Vulpinoid]

That's a nice idea Vincent, because it instantly ties the fiction back into the game mechanisms.

Perhaps each degree of success allows an additional negative mechanical effect to be applied to a victim (or allows a single mechanical effect to be removed by a victim).

Hmm...almost links back into that other topic on injury trees.

[Locke]

one problem i see is that for a more casual player they will have to learn, remember, and interpret 12 different special attacks.  these can be arbitrary depending on definition.  so someone could argue that they want to do attack A and it should have this effect and another could argue that attack A has that effect.

you could control this on the character sheet with a circle or chart that indicates response actions verses an overt action.

I like the idea because it works with social situations too and even crafting.  i think it might be confusing or hard to control.

would a person with a high charisma have an advantage to "cool" actions?

[JoyWriter]

Locke, compare that list to the average D&D 4e character sheet, and he's doing pretty well in terms of complexity with only 12 choices! Cool is the stat, they don't have high charisma to get a bonus to cool actions, they have high cool (or perhaps are triple cool, if we turn stats back into adjectives) so they have a bonus to cool actions.

Marshal, it's a real shame you don't have fix up as an action under slick.

Ok, looks like you have these things in the fiction that the moves change, the nouns/adjectives to match the verbs, which means those are the things that need interpreting. In order of mention they are:

injury
property
domination
position
environment (and whether stuff is broken)
distraction
non-position based advantage
looking like a fool
audience attitude
intimidation
nerves

Now looking at this, only "non-position based advantage" is divorced from fictional elements, what fictional elements is "look sharp" supposed to affect to make an advantage? It could be intimidation, because currently you only have something to resist it, nothing to cause it, unless intimidation is the same as domination or nerves (no reason for that to be so).

Next, why do these things above matter, why are they things worth fighting over, and how do they effect conflicts themselves? This then creates a set of inputs of what the game mechanics care about, and what the setting cares about, which should encourage players to care about them too.

[Marshall Burns]

Callan,
It's not "Shared" in the sense of "It belongs to all of us because we're sharing, now let's pass flowers around and sing songs," at least not in this kind of game. It's "Shared" because it's the stuff that we're all imagining, as distinct from the stuff that we're imagining on our own and not communicating to anyone. Yes, it comes down to assent, but you can do the assenting beforehand when sitting down to play, as in "I assent to grant you authority and credibility wherever mandated by these rules." I know this because I've done it. I've played and designed this kind of game before. Badass City is an attempt to recreate that game with a fuck of a lot less math.

Vincent,
Yes, that is perfect. That's exactly the sort of thing I've been trying to think of.

Locke,
I don't worry about things like that. I'm kind of a sonofabitch when it comes to pandering to potential audiences; my attitude is, if they don't like it, fuck 'em. It's not for them.

Josh,
(I don't have the resources to watch videos on YouTube. Can you define/describe fixing up?)

You've lost me on non-position based advantage. Where is that one coming from? Is it the "gain further advantage" from the Look Sharp move? My intent for that is that, by Looking Sharp, you can locate and gain control of advantaging factors, or strengthen an advantage you've already got, by being clever and alert.

Next, why do these things above matter, why are they things worth fighting over, and how do they effect conflicts themselves?

Ok. So, everyone in Badass City has a Badass Score that indicates how badass they are considered in general. This Badass Score is a marker of social standing, and also serves as a currency. There are parts of town you can't even get into until you've got a high enough score, dig?

Naturally, the whole reason you're here is to get the highest score in the city. There are a few ways to increase your score:

Wagers, in which you bet someone that you can do something risky, difficult, and/or inadvisable. What you wager is Badass Points.
Contests, in which two or more people put up Badass Points to compete in some sort of contest with each other (such as fighting, racing, who can pick up the most chicks, etc.), and the winner takes the pot.
Deathmatches, in which two or more people fight to the death. The winner gains all of the loser's points. (By the way, the only way to kill someone intentionally is to take It Too Far)
Badges, which are things you earn for fulfilling specific requirements, sort of like Achievements on the latest gaming consoles. The requirements are of course badass things, like "Too many murders" or "Fall out of a tall building and live."

Also, any time that you make someone look like a fool, do something impressive, and/or beat someone into submission, and there are people who saw it, there is some gain in your score.

So, for all of the above, the 12 moves are your means for accomplishing those things. You can't accomplish anything without using one or more of those moves, at least not reliably. Those 12 things are how a badass interacts with the world.

[Callan S.]

Yes, it comes down to assent, but you can do the assenting beforehand when sitting down to play, as in "I assent to grant you authority and credibility wherever mandated by these rules." I know this because I've done it. I've played and designed this kind of game before. Badass City is an attempt to recreate that game with a fuck of a lot less math.

Assuming I understand the ramifications of this right, for myself I like imagining what I want to imagine, with some influence from others. I find that fun. While agreeing to be told what to imagine is...not fun at all for me. Even if it's imagining what I want mostly and only sometimes being told - that'll still be suckage sometimes. I would have thought most people are that way inclined. My initial post was assuming that was the case here too - really didn't expect it not to be. Well, there you go!

[Marshall Burns]

Callan,
Yeah, it's a certain kind of play, one that won't appeal to everyone. It requires an ability to shut up and take what's given to you sometimes. The really cool thing about it is that everything that's introduced, no matter who's immediate benefit it was introduced for, is now a solid thing that can be manipulated, subverted, and used as a weapon by anyone who's clever enough. Which is a hell of a lot of fun.

For an example, in my old old game Misadventures in Nowhere (which gradually mutated into The Rustbelt, with parts sloughed off of it currently becoming MADCorp), we could use "Luck-Out Rolls" to introduce useful objects into the surroundings. On one of these occasions, a violent confrontation taking place in an old abandoned house, I Lucked Out to get a heavy steel bathtub that I used for cover. That tub was there now, everyone had to imagine it. But another player, whose PC was freakishly strong, proceeded to lift the tub by main strength and crush me between it and the wall behind me. That kind of thing, and the kind of thinking that goes with it, is a lot of fun for me.

[Callan S.]

Well, to me either they don't have to be clever enough, because they just have the credibility and authority to tell you what to imagine.

That or people insist something is the case in something where no objective, impartial measure can be employed. What could be done or happen next in the imagined scene? It's imagined - there is no way of impartially measuring what would happen next or what could be done. No way I'm aware of, anyway, beyond raw assertion. Yet time and time again I'll see roleplayers who are so certain X could be done that the other guy must be cheating/skipping out on the assent and credibility they promised prior.

That's why I stay in suggestion territory, and where eventually people might choose numbers the rule set asks them to decide, based on their own imagination (as the rules I envision ask them as individuals). At this point where it leaves the subjective, imaginary world and becomes a hard number, the rule set can take it to a conclusion through a transparent ruleset everyone recognises. I call it an imagination coupler where the fluffy, vague and uncertain world is finally rendered into a hard, cold, perhaps even cynical number. Kind of like moving from the artistic right hemisphere of the brain to the logical, calculated left. And of course the results of that number end up giving suggestions to the group, so it goes from the left to the right again, and back, and so on.

[Callan S.]

Quick example that came to mind: How long is the piece of string your imagining?
"The rules totally say that if the string is 15cm then your character loses 10 hp!"
And indeed the text does say this.
"And it's well over that at 20cm!"
And how does anyone else know this or could check this for themselves? The string is in your head.
It's effectively just taking someones word for it.
And when taking someones word for it, they don't have to be clever. Your just taking their word for it. Sure they might say something that sounds clever to you, but again how would you check to see if it isn't clever? Or do you just succumb to the comforts of confirmation bias, where you only look for evidence that confirms your own theory?

I like imagining things so as to come up with what seem like clever ideas. Doesn't mean they are though. The bathtub thing - I wouldn't say it's a clever move with things that exist and would work that way. I would say that it seems like a clever idea, and I'd let down my defenses a little and not use any protest options I have when he used it (after all, he still may fail his roll as well - I can still break even!). And if someone tries to insist I had to follow it because that's 'how it works' and I'd be cheating if I don't, that person can't seem to realise they can't provide any objective physically measurable evidence for their position and are simply asserting over and over, but they are all the same willing to tell others what to do and lay sanctions on them for cheating if they don't. It makes them really borish, even though they genuinely think they are enforcing rules

[Marshall Burns]

Callan,
It's a lot easier than you're making it. You simply lay down rules for what sort of things you're allowed to assert and when. Everyone assents to play by these rules. Then, when things are asserted and become solid parts of the fiction, everyone tries their best to take advantage of them.

I make my roll to establish position. Woot! I'm like, "I get up on the scaffold, where I can reach the block and tackle that's holding up the huge I-beam." BAM, that's solid. So, when somebody else establishes that they're in the space underneath that I-beam, I'm like, "I cut the cable" (when authorized to make such an assertion). Nobody can say, "Nuh uh, you can't reach it," because we already established that I can. The poor victim of my maneuver can't be like, "So what, I'm out of the proper area," because we already established that he was in it. Maybe the rules allow him a last-ditch effort to get out of the way before being crushed that might or might not work, but the upshot is he made a misstep.

As for why anyone would get into that space, as I said, it's a misstep. He would have better attempted to negate my advantageous position somehow before getting into that situation.

With a situation such as your string example, when I'm asserting such a 15cm string into the fiction, I'm doing it with the aim of making your guy lose 10 hp. I'm going to assert its existence in such a way that, hopefully, you'll be forced to be hurt by it, or I can hurt you with it directly. And if I have to assert the existence of a thing that may or may not hurt me based on its properties, of course I'm going to make it something that won't hurt me (unless I've got plans for later advantage up my sleeve).

When playing like this, are people likely to try to obtain as much advantage as they can, and avoid opening themselves to as many as such attacks as they can, and try to strike from unassailable positions as much as they can, and so on? YES. That's what it's about. Everyone strategizes their hearts out, and the loser is the one that makes a mistake (which includes taking the wrong gamble).

[Locke]

Well maybe I missed something, but he has several options for each of the 12 listed.  So I saw this as having to remember 48-60 things.  I think its fine, I just suggested that the character sheet have some sort of cheat to help players remember.  In DnD and Star Wars Saga they suggest making cards to remember what has and hasn't been used which isn't a good option IMHO.  Do some have advantages over others like Mouseguard's system?

I would think "Pull Some Crazy Shit"  would be a penalty when in a disadvantageous situation.  Since the word "Crazy" describes as something that isn't logical or doesn't make sense, hence its a long shot.  Players could feel as if everything they were doing was completely arbitrary to what the GM wanted or decided w/o a certain heirarchy in place with expected results within the randomness of the system..  But maybe I'm thinking of it in a far too complicated light.

Locke, compare that list to the average D&D 4e character sheet, and he's doing pretty well in terms of complexity with only 12 choices! Cool is the stat, they don't have high charisma to get a bonus to cool actions, they have high cool (or perhaps are triple cool, if we turn stats back into adjectives) so they have a bonus to cool actions.

Marshal, it's a real shame you don't have fix up as an action under slick.

Ok, looks like you have these things in the fiction that the moves change, the nouns/adjectives to match the verbs, which means those are the things that need interpreting. In order of mention they are:

injury
property
domination
position
environment (and whether stuff is broken)
distraction
non-position based advantage
looking like a fool
audience attitude
intimidation
nerves

Now looking at this, only "non-position based advantage" is divorced from fictional elements, what fictional elements is "look sharp" supposed to affect to make an advantage? It could be intimidation, because currently you only have something to resist it, nothing to cause it, unless intimidation is the same as domination or nerves (no reason for that to be so).

Next, why do these things above matter, why are they things worth fighting over, and how do they effect conflicts themselves? This then creates a set of inputs of what the game mechanics care about, and what the setting cares about, which should encourage players to care about them too.