[Badass City] stumped for effect mechanics

[Callan S.]

Marshall, if we ran a secret multiple choice question just after "I get up on the scaffold, where I can reach the block and tackle that's holding up the huge I-beam." and people tick option A if they think that that also means your character could cut it, but there are also options B, C and D which have other options entirely. What happens if after everyones chosen and shows their choice, someone or several people in the group have ticked something other than A? Do you call them cheats?

How do you get over that bump? Me, I take it everythings suggestion, nothings 'solid fiction' and this doesn't resolve any actions, it's just asking (ala the original lumpley principle) with a coat of dream like causality painted over it. It's just asking "Can your character take a strength 10 hit, please?" in a much more interesting way than just asking it directly.

[David Berg]

Hey Marshall,
I have totally lost track of what you currently want out of this thread.  Are you looking to add more strategic options for the players to master on top of the ones you already have?  Or is the strategic game done, and you're just looking to add color to the process of playing it?

I could make some suggestions for the latter.  For the former, I'd need a clearer idea of how the strategic element currently plays.

[Marshall Burns]

Locke,
Oh, yeah, of course there'll be a cheat sheet. But I want to point out that when you pull off a Move, you're authorized to do any combination of the effects listed for it. So, if I Bring the Pain, I can harm you and move you and physically dominate you, and so on.

The idea for Pull Some Crazy Shit is that it's how you do weird, unorthodox, desperate, and unpredictable stunts. There's no penalty for this; if you're really Fucked Up, then you're good at it. Maybe even better at pulling crazy shit than you are doing things in a more normal, controlled, or planned manner.

(To give you an idea of what "Fucked Up" is supposed to mean in the game, Tyler Durden from Fight Club and Rorschach from Watchmen have maxed-out Fucked Up scores.)

Callan,
What? Seriously, what are you talking about?

It's like this: a warehouse is established (by whatever system; in this game, one person is usually authorized to define the environment of a conflict, with the expectation that he'll try to advantage his guy as much as possible) in such a way that there's an I-beam hanging, a scaffold that you can reach the cable from, and a path underneath the I-beam that somebody is going to have to walk through in order to get to somebody who's on the scaffold. BAM, established, it's there, nobody's arguing about it. Examining this situation, and empowered (by whatever system; in this game, a Get the Drop roll) to get there first, I get up on the scaffold and prepare to drop the I-beam on my opponent, who is going to be forced to walk under it in order to get to me.

David,
I've got a handle now on the initial question (re: effect mechanics) I had; Vincent gave me what I needed, and now I'm ready to playtest. So, as far as that goes, the thread's done its job. But I'm still totally open to questions and requests for explanation about anything I've said (or that I've left out) regarding the game, 'cause answering those questions is helpful to me.

I'm not interested in adding any more layers of strategy to the game, at least not at present. In addition to the Moves, I've got a social system of boasts, bargains, threats, and rumors that I'm really excited about, and that is heavily derived from Bargains in Poison'd.

Also, anything that you've got to throw out there in terms of coloring the process, I'd be glad to listen.

-Marshall

[Marshall Burns]

By the way, I'd like to share these example PCs from the playtest document, because they're so damn fun:

	Logged

blogging at the Wizard Exploded Cookbook

[Callan S.]

Marshall, in your example, with the words you gave in it, you didn't ask/establish that you could cut the cable. You just left a heavy suggestion of being able to reach the cable. Now some people might think hey, yeah, along with reaching it Marshall could cut it - without you even having to ask for that. Maybe there's even a sense of solidness there in how people might very well think you could cut it. However some other people might not think you could cut it. That skism is what I'm illustrating. I'd like to examine that with you, but now you've gone off into pure "I get up on the scaffold" examples when no, your not doing that, nobodies doing that, you'd just be sitting around a kitchen dinner table. I want to discuss the real life interactions between people - what are they doing, what options would they actually pick, what are they saying, etc, but your talking exclusively about the fiction. Me, I'm going 'What?' as well, because this is like around seven years ago when people would talk exculsively in terms of what the characters wanted, and we'd have to correct them that the characters don't exist and to talk in terms of the real people at the table. Your cable, your i-beam - they don't exist. If you just want to talk about the cable and i-beam - well, perhaps this is a subject for seven years from now and I'll save it.

[JoyWriter]

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

Lol, I've been skewered by the internet's ability to mask tone. I deadpan passed you an amusing link, and you politely passed it back. If I explain any further what I was after, my brain will explode with absurdity.

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.

Yeah, I chucked it in separately based purely on the words you used. An interesting thing here is that it means that advantages can't be handled like streight tags; look sharp gives them a magnitude. Now presumably you want that magnitude to be expressed in new advantageous descriptions rather than "I'm standing silhouetted in really bright sunlight with my gun aimed at you x2", but I can't yet picture how to do that. One idea is to have certain +1 traits cue off stylistic stuff, which you set up with Look Sharp. So "+1 to make someone look like a fool when flipping a coin" or "+1 to work on someone's nerves when sharpening your blade on metal".

Now you already have those stylistic things, but how do they get into the scene? Well I'd put it in as a side effect to Look Sharp, if you can fit it in.

Have you considered having the non-primary effects be more conditional? In other words have things they normally do, without restriction, and then conditions on using them in other ways? So if you happen to have set things up to meet all the conditions, (perhaps that's one thing that gaining advantages does?) then you get the whole set!

So the primary action for Take It Too Far is work on someone's nerves, because actually killing someone with it requires they be immobilised/seriously injured or something, work the audience requires an audience etc.

Actually if working it this way, I'd make Pull Some Crazy Shit be the default way to get new advantages, and Get the Drop be the default way to introduce new disadvantages. Stuff like this would mean that certain skills can always add things to the world, but other skills can take better advantage of those things once created.

An equivalent change would be to make Put On A Show have it's default position as making the opponent look like a fool, with other things triggering where appropriate.

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.

The interesting thing here is that the skills at the moment don't seem to directly affect this stuff, which puts actual victory or not in the hands of interpretation, I wonder whether this suggests a place for guidelines for ad-hoc minigame creation...


At the risk of introducing some topos theory I barely understand, and adding quite a bit to an already dense post, I think what Callan is talking about relates to this:
You can think of laws of physics and rules of inference in logic in vary similar ways; given some starting statement, what happens next?

Now you can build a world with different laws of physics, or equivalently different rules of logic. These act on the states of the world, in order to produce new states. So the current system assigns authority for you to declare the starting statements, but not the logic by which those statements will turn into obvious consequences.

In logical form, the rules of inference in logic require you to say
j=f
f=c
:. j=c

but they only "require you" to do so if you already subscribe to that logic. And there are many sheltered people, children for example, who haven't had to test out their logic in the real world. So they might find it perfectly logical that you can't chop the cable because "Cables are supposed to make things safe, so you won't be able to break them when that could hurt someone". Real world experience might tell them otherwise, but they haven't got there yet.

But should you be playing this game with small children? No probably not! But this being fiction people may bring all kinds of funny action-movie logic to it, often from different films.

So it might be helpful to either assign authority in conflicts as to the logic of the setting (consensus, vote etc), or set up guidelines at the start so people can get on the same page. Usually people can handle the first part themselves, but it's generally good to build the skills of the good players into a game, so crap players can learn them. Not only that, this may allow players who have never yet been able to get a grip on this kind of game to do so, which would be quite a success.

By the way, those character sheets are really awesome. I like the way that everyone is described as badass streight off, and all experience suggests a story behind it. I imagine for the players of these characters, those things would start to act as cues to how their character behaves, beyond what they explicitly mention.

[Marshall Burns]

Callan,
That sort of a discussion is going to have to wait for a playtest or something. I can't tell you what the people around the table are doing when there aren't any people around a table yet.

As for whether or not it's possible to cut the cable: you're playing a badass. You can cut anything if you Tear the Place Apart.

There's another rule that I haven't mentioned, only implied. If I narrate something outside the scope of effects afforded by a successful Move, then it can be blocked, avoided, prevented, hand-waved, etc. by equally easy methods: simple narration. If you want to do something and have it stick, use a Move. If you pull it off, and the thing you want to do is in the allowed scope of the Move's effects, then it sticks and nobody can argue with it (although they can deal with it by using a Move). Even if it isn't "realistic" or any of that.

Because this game doesn't function on regular logic and physics. It functions on awesome logic, where the the scope of possibilities is directly determined by how awesome those possibilities are.

Josh,
I think I've got a handle on what "an advantageous position" means. Taking Vincent's cue, I wrote up a Table of Consequences:

Quote

Bring the Pain (Hard)
If you pull it off, you may do any combination of the following: harm someone through direct violence (repeatable), take something by force, physically force someone into a different position, physically dominate/overpower someone.
   If you blow i

The interesting thing here is that the skills at the moment don't seem to directly affect this stuff, which puts actual victory or not in the hands of interpretation,

Hang on, you've lost me.

[Ar Kayon]

I'm starting to like this system. 

Can you give us some scenarios of the resolution mechanics in action?

[Marshall Burns]

Like a step-by-step example? Hmm. That's tough because, while I know what Move you're about to attempt (because you have to announce it), I don't know what your stats and Tags are (they're kept secret from the other players) until I feel you out for long enough to do the math and deduce them. This lack of knowledge is a big factor in me deciding what Move I'm going to attempt in response to/despite of your Move, so it's tricky to come up with an example when I know all the data. Give me a bit and I'll try it though.

[David Berg]

I'm looking forward to the example.

Just curious: Marshall, do you have a preference as to whether these fights get played out in a richly detailed environment versus a vague and sketchy one?

In movies, set elements are key for these kinds of colorful combats.  If I can declare, "I hit you with a chair!" because it fits my Move, and the chair itself didn't have to be established previously, ond confers no mechanical advantage, then that works fine.  On the other hand, if you have a set that's filled with objects that are good for certain Moves and do give mechanical advantages, then you'd create the opportunity for some nice movement contests (trying to stop each otehr from getting to the gun, etc.).  I'd think that might be strategically richer... or it might just be more cumbersome.

[Marshall Burns]

David,
I'm shooting for the latter. The circumstances of every conflict are defined before the conflict, usually by one player. For instance, if I'm calling you out, then I get to set the stage. If I go looking for you, I've got to roll your location die to see where I find you, and then you get to set the stage. The exceptions to this are a.) when "neutral territory" is rolled on the location die, in whcih case we take turns adding things to the set until somebody makes a Move, and b.) when we stipulate certain conditions as part of a Wager, Contest, or Deathmatch.

I am strongly considering that Look Sharp lets you add something in that "wasn't noticed before," though. I'm gonna have to playtest it to see if I like it.

[Locke]

Okay I need to comment.  I just want to be sure this has been thought of.

Occam's Razor:  Variables should not unnecessarily be multiplied.

I just want to ask?

Whats the difference between "Pull some crazy shit" & "Bring the Pain"?

I might light a torch and burn you that does 3 damage or punch you in the kidney which does 3 damage.  In the end I am doing 3 damage.  It seems like they are both combat to me.  And how the damage is done is cinematics.  I could argue that Tyler Durden  has his "bring the pain" maxed out.  You just see the two combat styles and differentiate them.  So whats the difference?  When I RP I CAN SAY I am doing the attack how I want.  Shouldn't there be a situational or mechanical advantage. Thats why I asked about "pull some crazy shit" being a latch ditch effort.  Otherwise it seems like my 5 points of "bring the pain" faces off against you 5 points of "pull some crazy shit".  And really its 5 points vs 5 points.  Or just combat.

What I'm reading for those two actions they have the same penalties for success and failure.  I would suggest making the abilities more situational and differential.  That means that someone who can't bring the pain can make up for it and do the same function by pulling some crazy shit.

I think you'll see this in play testing.

An example:  "Pull Crazy" is done at a -2 penalty from your roll (combat skill, negotiation skill, or engineering skill), but if successful it blocks the opponent's usage of "bring pain" skill for 3 rounds.  Unless you have a special ability you can only do "pull crazy" once a encounter (or every 10 rounds).  Maybe another ability mitigates the stun effect for bring the pain.

See cause and effect.  If you are rolling good in combat you might not need to mezz the opponent but can if you are good at crazy shit or to save your ass.

[JoyWriter]

I might light a torch and burn you that does 3 damage or punch you in the kidney which does 3 damage.  In the end I am doing 3 damage.  It seems like they are both combat to me.

"In the end" is exactly the point, I'm sure marshal would be quite happy to never mention points of damage at all, because he's interested in a different simplification. A punch in the kidney makes you double up in pain, a burn from a torch makes you roll on the floor. Why should we try to create some variable that combines them into the same thing?

I'm sure you can answer that, as can I, but the point I'm ineptly making is that simplification can be done in many different ways, and using an old simplification as if it is the only one limits our possibilities. Combat skill/negotiation skill/engineering skill are arbitrary categories, useful for some situations and not others; "What does it matter if I defeated him by negotiation or engineering? I still kicked his ass!" Equally, in this case stylistic categories are more meaningful than more academic ones: It's not which type of conflict you specialise in that is important, but because this is not about teams where the members give each other space to do their thing, this is about people going one on one in their own style.


But you do make a good point about being situational; they should play out differently, offer different options and put different constraints on what actions people can do. If "Bring the pain" lets you be Batman and "Pull some crazy shit" lets you be Joker, then in a simplistic situation it's going to be harder to use the latter approach, because you as a player will have to keep adding strange elements to what you do, whereas the other player will just be able to go very straightforward, pounding you down. Of course, in a very complex environment, the difficulties might be reversed, with straightforward pounding being more difficult to justify in narration.

Of course, that is not much of a trade-off because the person who wanted to play the joker will likely be quite prepared for that kind of thing, it may be there needs to be some way of putting a scale on "what's better at doing what", so that instead of flexibility being the primary discriminating factor, efficiency at a specific task becomes relevant too. This may happen if the appropriate creative perimeters for each skill mean that one dominates the others or another becomes particularly weak. But if this doesn't happen, and people don't have to ignore skill deficiencies when putting their tactical hat on, then awesome, massive simplification!

The interesting thing here is that the skills at the moment don't seem to directly affect this stuff, which puts actual victory or not in the hands of interpretation,

Hang on, you've lost me.

Ok, at the moment, you're building up two nice sets of triggers; one from the experience list and the other from that list you just posted. These are affected by moves and refer to them, in a sort of semi-loop. Now the thing is that this doesn't yet attach explicitly to the question of who won a conflict, fulfilled a wager etc. I can imagine that badges will be the first to come right, (because they are explicitly designed as triggers that you set) then Deathmatches (because the skills are focused in that direction at the moment, even if death isn't explicitly among the triggers) then wagers (because triggers are explicitly defined at the start, even if applying skills to them feels like a stretch) then finally contests (because success might be some apples to orange comparison that the skills barely apply to).

Now the last category will pretty much only ever be do-able by interpretation and "yeah obviously he won", unless you create a squillion minigames, so you'll need to put some work in setting the ground-rules of this world (is someone seriously going to "pick up chicks" with "take it too far"?) probably by suggesting options/alternatives/boundaries. I can seriously imagine someone getting right into some hardcore improvisational violence, and then someone suggests a contest that takes it totally out of the region they are comfortable with, and then it's not just like "You did that awful thing, but it suits your character" it gets like "you did that awful thing, and the table numerically salutes you for it"! That's when "fits the world" and consensus hits smack up against actual morality and stuff about complicity and framing, which is dynamite.

Basically unbounded conflicts towards an external end in a macho paradigm need some watching, some guiding into not turning seriously dodge, even if it's just an arrow pointing a better way. Maybe your interested in finding where that line is, or maybe you want to hedge it out so nothing goes sour, or maybe you want to make people aware of that possibility so they can choose one or the other. It may even be that you allow everyone at the table to set no-gos for contests when suggested, maybe with some book help, so you kick this stuff out on an as/when basis.

There's also the much more mundane problem of applying moves to the wager "I can catch that seagull" and making wager difficulty meaningfully dependent on the described situation, so putting in varying points becomes interesting.

Now all this is an expansion on what I was saying before, which may or may not help you get the drift of what I was saying!

[Marshall Burns]

Locke,
Both Bring the Pain and Pull Some Crazy Shit allow you to inflict harm, but BtP doesn't let you pull a crazy-ass or inadvisable stunt (changing position if you want), and PSCS doesn't let you physically dominate someone, etc. While many of the Moves' effects overlap, none of them match up completely. I have no intent or desire to balance them, and it's up to the players to take advantage of that. You have to pick a Move that has the combination of allowed effects that you want -- which is going to change radically from situation to situation.

I ran a playtest yesterday, playing through three scenes. I'm preparing a post on it. Josh, I'd like to invite you to continue that line of discussion in the new thread once I've posted it. We had a scene centering around a badass plumber fixing a leak.

-Marshall

[JoyWriter]

Ha! That sounds like it kicks my ass! All that highbrow talk....

Look forward to reading it.