Unworthy - YAY! I found a mechanic!

[Enoch]

Jeeze, I'm tired.  I finally got past the mechanic block that's been plaguing me for so long.  Once I did that it just started pouring out.

Please take a look at what I have so far and tell me what you think.  

My major concern is the readability, for some reason my writing comes out all confusing lately.  Of course this is just a first draft, I'll be updating, clarifying, adding, revising, etc.

http://www.msu.edu/~smith465/unworthy/

-Joshua

[clehrich]

In the section on Unopposed Actions, you write:

To resolve an unopposed action the GM simply gives the action a difficulty from 1-10, declaring the Governing Stat, and Skill.  The character draws cards equal to his stats and plays his skill in cards.  If the character has one card over the difficulty they [sic] gain a Minor Victory.  Two cards is a Major Victory.  Three cards a Total Victory.

I don't understand, I'm afraid.  Suppose the GM sets the difficulty at 5.  My stat is 4, which is high but not outrageous.  My skill is 3.  So I draw 4 cards, and then "play [my] skill in cards," which I guess means that I can play up to 3 cards.  Now "one card over the difficulty": does this mean that if I can beat 5 on the total of 2 out of my 3 playable cards, then I get a Minor Victory?  

So for example, I drew a 2, a 3, and two 4s.
I play the two 4s for 8.

Do I have 1 card over difficulty because it's out of 3 (skill), or do I have 2 cards over difficulty because it's out of 4 (stat)?  

If I have a 5 in my hand instead of one of the 4s, can I just play that and get either 2 or 3 cards over difficulty?  Or do I have to have a 6?

If I read you right, average skill is going to be 2, but PC skills are likely to be 3 on anything they opt to do.  Similarly, PC stats are likely to be in the 3-4 range.  

On average, just under 1/3 of all drawn cards will be Court cards, which have weird effects.  Average random number draws will be 5.5.  So my usual draw will be a total of 11 plus one Court card, and I will be able to play all of them if I want to.  Since difficulty won't go above 10, doesn't this mean that I can usually succeed at anything I want to?  Or is that the point?

So in the above example, which seems pretty normal for PCs:

I draw 4 cards: a 3, a 6, a 10, and a Queen.
I play either the 6 or the 10, and beat the difficulty with either 2 or 3 cards (skill or stat?).
Is there any reason I wouldn't play the highest card?  Do I need to hang onto my hand?

[Enoch]

First off, thankyou for taking a look at my messy little game.

I don't understand, I'm afraid.

Heh, that's to be expected.  Thankfully I have some time to rewrite it tonight.

Suppose the GM sets the difficulty at 5. My stat is 4, which is high but not outrageous. My skill is 3. So I draw 4 cards, and then "play [my] skill in cards," which I guess means that I can play up to 3 cards. Now "one card over the difficulty": does this mean that if I can beat 5 on the total of 2 out of my 3 playable cards, then I get a Minor Victory?

Man even I'm confused.  Ok this is a piece of the revised text (only the bits that matter for now):

The Basics
All conflicts are seperated into three partitions of 'time'.  The conflict as a whole is called the Contest.  A bar fight in the whole would be considered a Contest.  An Exchange is a brief (one to five) actions and responses.  Two people in a bar fight punching each other, flipping over tables, and the like would be considered an Exchange.  A Play is one action, and the response to that action.  A single punch would be considered a Play.  There can be multiple Exchanges in a Contest, and multiple Plays in an Exchange.

When a Contest begins, the GM declares the Governing Stat and what Skill is the most appropriate.  He also declares who is the initiator of the contest.  Other than that a Contest is nothing but a series of Exchanges.

When an Exchange begins each participant pulls a number of cards equal to the Governing Stat of the Contest.  Thus if the Governing Stat of a Contest was Physique, and a participant had a Physique of 3, than that participant would draw 5 cards.  After everyone draws the beginning Actor is declared.  An Exchange is really just a series of Plays.  A person can never play more cards in one Exchange than the value of the Skill that they are using.

When a Play begins, the Actor places down a card and declares the action he is trying to attempt.  Then the Resistor places down his own card and declares how he is going to try to stop/avoid/hinder the Actor's action.  No more than one card can be used in a Play.  The winner of the Play is the person who put down the higher number.

Unopposed Actions
An Unopposed Action works much like an Opposed Action.  The only differances are:
- There is only one Exchange.
- The GM declares a difficulty 1-10.
- To win a Play the character must place down a card equal to or higher than the difficulty.
- Each Play won is tallied to figure out the Victory Level of the action.
If the character won one Play they gain a Minor Victory.  Two Plays is a Major Victory.  Three Plays a Total Victory.

If I read you right, average skill is going to be 2, but PC skills are likely to be 3 on anything they opt to do. Similarly, PC stats are likely to be in the 3-4 range.

This is really only true for the Knight and the Survivor.

On average, just under 1/3 of all drawn cards will be Court cards, which have weird effects.

I am finding that the court cards are just too outrageous.  I'm trying to think of another use for them that is more in line with the base mechanic.

Is there any reason I wouldn't play the highest card? Do I need to hang onto my hand?

No you never keep cards so it doesn't matter if you always play the highest card.  The only time you need to be careful is in an Opposed Action where you will usually want to keep a high card in reserve for the final Play in case you want to end the Contest.

I hope I helped answer the question... It helps to hear what exactly confuses people so I can fix em up nice.  :)

-Joshua

Edit: Fixed some formatting errors.

[clehrich]

Okay, let me see if I've got this right (incidentally I'm working on a game system that uses Tarot cards myself, which is why I'm so focused on this).

Unopposed Action
1. GM sets governing stat = Physique; my Physique is 3, so I draw 3 cards (see below).
2. GM sets difficulty = 7.
3. Since there is only one exchange, I now lay down every card of 7 or higher of my 3 cards.  If I've got 1 such card, it's Minor, and so on up.

Opposed Action
1. Same
2. Difficulty isn't set.
3. I play a card; the Resistor now tries to beat it with a card of her own.

With Opposed Action, how do I win several Plays in the Exchange?  Once the Resistor has played, do I now get to play another card (up to a total of my relevant Skill), and the Resistor does the same?  Or does the former Resistor now start the Play, and now I'm the Resistor?

I think the latter, right?  Have I got it now?

One further question:

Thus if the Governing Stat of a Contest was Physique, and a participant had a Physique of 3, than that participant would draw 5 cards.

Why 5 instead of 3?

A suggestion on Court Cards: allow them to be used for face value (11-14), in addition to wackiness, which gives me more possibilities than simple card-card strategy.

I'm working on the strategy of playing the cards at the moment; it's a lot more complex than it looks.  Let's see....

[clehrich]

I've got another problem, which may be based on me not understanding.

Suppose we have equal Stats and Skills, and we draw relatively randomly: suppose 3-6 vs. 2-7.  Note that if we just added up all the cards, we'd get 9 vs. 9.

Now there are what, 4 ways it can go from here, right:

3-2, 7-6 or 3-7, 2-6 or 6-2, 7-3 or 6-7, 2-3 (I'm switching sides in the middle of each)

Okay so my total Edge tallies are:
1/1 or -4/-4 or 4/4 or -1/-1

So no matter what cards we play, in whatever order, the total Edge will be equivalent to the difference in card values added up.  If I draw a better hand than you, then I win.  There may be very slight variations in terms of percentage, but they'll be slight.

I think this could be solved by having the Edge tally for each Play affect later Plays in the same Exchange.  So if the first play goes 3-7, I'm at a disadvantage in real number terms, so that when you play your 2 in response my 6 isn't really 6 any more; perhaps if you used the same grading you use for desriptive advantages (1-3/4-6/7-9), you could have 1-3=0, 4-6=+1, 7-9=+2.  Thus if the first play is 3-7, the next play is 2-5, not 2-6.  That would have a total effect of a +1 shift in Edge at the end.

I dunno --- it seems like it's always going to come down to random card draws; it just looks like the actual plays matter.

[Enoch]

Unopposed Action
...snip...
3. Since there is only one exchange, I now lay down every card of 7 or higher of my 3 cards. If I've got 1 such card, it's Minor, and so on up.

You only play 3 cards if your Skill is 3, but other than that you got it.

Opposed Action
...snip...
With Opposed Action, how do I win several Plays in the Exchange? Once the Resistor has played, do I now get to play another card (up to a total of my relevant Skill), and the Resistor does the same? Or does the former Resistor now start the Play, and now I'm the Resistor?

The Actor continues to play cards until the Resistor wins a Play OR he runs out of cards to play (because of Skill limits).  [Something I stole from tRoS :-) ].  No matter what, if you have more Skill than your opponent, any unresisted actions are done as the Actor and not as the Resistor.  Now being the Actor is hardly an advantage, because the Resistor can guage what he needs to play depending on what the Actor plays.

Why 5 instead of 3?

*Bangs head on desk*  Ah!  I'm a living Monty Python joke!  Actually that was a typo.  It should be 3.

A suggestion on Court Cards: allow them to be used for face value (11-14), in addition to wackiness, which gives me more possibilities than simple card-card strategy.

Do you like how the wackiness?  The ones I really don't like are the Queen and King.  Page is nice to help limit use of Feats.  Knight is nice to help fight off multiple opponents.  Queen and King seem to hard to keep track of though.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do yet.  I have thought of using their face value and something else like you say.  But I know for sure I'm going to change the wacky of the court cards.

-Joshua

[Enoch]

It isn't the Actor's edge minus the Resistor's edge.  Its the winner's card minus the loser's card.

If I draw a better hand than you, then I win.

This is true for equal Skills only.

I dunno --- it seems like it's always going to come down to random card draws; it just looks like the actual plays matter.

Hrm... I see your point.  I'm going to play around with it to make sure I understand the problem fully.

-Joshua[/u]

[Enoch]

Alright, I went through the text and tried to clarify everything.  Just go to the same address.

Things added/changed:
-Court Cards changed.
-Example of play
-Some fiction (old fiction)

-Joshua

[Mike Holmes]

To get away from the mechanics for a moment, what do you do in this game? I suspect that it's supposed to play out like Gamma World or something. But a lot easier, yet more bleak for some reason.

Let's say we had a group of characters made up. What would be the common thread? Enclave? What might an adventure look like? Other than the Kewl Powerz why do I care about my character? Is there any chance of redemption?

Mike

[Enoch]

Thanks for taking a look!

A lot of this stuff (What do the characters do?) will be covered in the second document for the GM.

Let's say we had a group of characters made up.

What would be the common thread?

Usually the enclave is the common thread.  What usually happens when a game starts is all of the Sleepers are given an introductory scene where they come back to where they were during the global abduction.  This is usually inside their home.  After dealing with their home being completely changed they usually move on looking for other people.
  Its always a good idea to have a non-Sleeper in the party.  This character usually brings them into the enclave.  The enclave is the default focus of a campaign.  The Sleepers while not uber with their kewl powerz, are the only ones who can actively fight against the outsiders.  Thus they usually gain leadership in their community rather quickly.

What might an adventure look like?

Let's see.  One of the common things that happens in every game: the PCs go to see whats in the city.  Everywhere they go they hear the same thing:  "NEVER go into the city."  
  Being PCs they naturally go to the city (well they have other reasons, like getting supplies since the cities were never looted).  This usually leads to a desperate combat against the strange guardians of the city.
  Other common adventures include discovering what happened to your family (those who were not taken), trying to make contact with outsiders, dealing with other communities, etc.

Other than the Kewl Powerz why do I care about my character?

Not sure what you mean by this.  The thing that most players find interesting about their character's is the fact that they were once (and still are) just children.

Is there any chance of redemption?

Ok, I'm not sure what you mean by this either?  Are you talking about getting back those who were taken?

Thanks for the questions,
-Joshua

[Mike Holmes]

Usually the enclave is the common thread.  ...?

Cool. Sounds pretty structured. Perhaps in phases of "campaign" development, if not in session phases (or perhaps both)? That is, there is a common way that the game is designed to go in general terms that is laid out step by step with regards to some scale. Does that sound right?

Let's see.  One of the common things that happens in every game: the PCs go to see whats in the city.  Everywhere they go they hear the same thing:  "NEVER go into the city."  
  Being PCs they naturally go to the city (well they have other reasons, like getting supplies since the cities were never looted).  This usually leads to a desperate combat against the strange guardians of the city.
  Other common adventures include discovering what happened to your family (those who were not taken), trying to make contact with outsiders, dealing with other communities, etc.

Cool. That goes a long way in setting the stage. I look forward to reading the GM section.

Other than the Kewl Powerz why do I care about my character?

Not sure what you mean by this.  The thing that most players find interesting about their character's is the fact that they were once (and still are) just children.

That's a good statement. And the part about dealing with the loss of loved ones is quite compelling. That's really what I was looking for.

Is there any chance of redemption?

Ok, I'm not sure what you mean by this either?  Are you talking about getting back those who were taken?

Sure, that's one form. Basically, the setting sounds grim, and the system reinforces this with extensive rules about stress and depression. My question regards whether or not there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Can the PCs win out in the end. Or is it a battle against impossible odds? I think that most players want a sense that their character's actions are not futile, and that through play good things can happen (not all players, but..).

Is that light there? Is it really possible to get back a lost loved one? Is it possible to be free from the threat? If only in theory, if not as part of the game play.

Mike

[Enoch]

That is, there is a common way that the game is designed to go in general terms that is laid out step by step with regards to some scale. Does that sound right?

Yeah that sounds right.  I think... at least parts of it.  In the GM guide there will be many suggestions for differant types of campaigns.  For Example:
-A campaign about Survivors and Knights only.  It deals with what happens right after the global abduction.  It features the characters forming their own communities and just trying to survive.
-A campaign where it is a long time after the return of the Sleepers.  The character's are already established leaders in a community.

Is this the kind of thing your talking about?

Cool. That goes a long way in setting the stage. I look forward to reading the GM section.

That's always nice to hear.  :)

That's a good statement. And the part about dealing with the loss of loved ones is quite compelling. That's really what I was looking for.

Yes that's an important part.  I think it stemmed from me thinking about how I would react to the situation of the global abduction if it actually happened (alas, now I'm too old to stay behind).  One of the first things that hit my mind was how much it would effect if my entire family disappeared.

Basically, the setting sounds grim, and the system reinforces this with extensive rules about stress and depression. My question regards whether or not there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Can the PCs win out in the end. Or is it a battle against impossible odds? I think that most players want a sense that their character's actions are not futile, and that through play good things can happen (not all players, but..).
  Is that light there? Is it really possible to get back a lost loved one? Is it possible to be free from the threat? If only in theory, if not as part of the game play.

Ah, that's what I thought.  Making the world a better place is definitely a possibility.  At least with things like scaring off gangs and the like.
  When it comes to outsiders and getting back those who were taken, that's more up in the air.  Destroying the left behind outsiders who guard the cities is entirely possible.  Getting back those who were loss is a little differant.  In theory it is possible, and it could possibly even happen within the scope of a campaign.  
  Several ways for going about this will be addressed in the GM book.  Including a number of possible answers to the mysteries of the game.  Nothing concrete, I want to leave it up to the GM to decide what the reality is.

-Joshua

[Mike Holmes]

Is this the kind of thing your talking about?

Uh, sorta. I don't care so much about campaign arcs. I'm more worried about session to session play. And what you have is kinda frightening. Ever play Aftermath!? I did. A lot. It was exciting when there was conflict going on at the personal level. Survival is a conflict, but it becomes really drab when it becomes just the same ting over and over (roll to find water...whatever).

This becomes especially likely to become the center of play when players become the leaders. Instead of personal play you get planning sessions and meetings. It becomes very much like a job. At best you get a challenging game out of it. But nothing like a story, and little character development. You lose a lot of what makes an RPG compelling.

Anyhow, that's not to say that you couldn't work around that. Making these ideas the backdrop of the action. But I think you have to keep it personal. Why are the PCs going to be fighting the Outsiders when they are the treasured leaders of their community? Wouldn't that be irresponsible?

More what I was referring to is "Adventure" or even "Episode" structure. Are there any standard scenes that occur often, or at set times? Like the play structure of a game like Paranioa, InSpectres, or the Whispering, Vault. This sort of structure can really help move play along. Not that you have to go this rout, but it sounded a bit like you were going that rout.

Making the world a better place is definitely a possibility.  At least with things like scaring off gangs and the like.
  When it comes to outsiders and getting back those who were taken, that's more up in the air.  Destroying the left behind outsiders who guard the cities is entirely possible.  Getting back those who were loss is a little differant.  In theory it is possible, and it could possibly even happen within the scope of a campaign.  
  Several ways for going about this will be addressed in the GM book.  Including a number of possible answers to the mysteries of the game.  Nothing concrete, I want to leave it up to the GM to decide what the reality is.

Personally, I would advocate making this a more definite part of the game's description. The GM can always refrain from using it if he doesn't need to (simply doesn't drop the clues that lead to the lost loved ones). But I think that play will probably need this as a possible avenue to be compelling in a broad enough sense.

In fact, if you had the urge, I'd encourage you to go whole hog that way, and make the game more centered around that idea. Provides an incredibly stong long-term goal for the players to enjoy in their characters.

Just my opinion,

Mike

[Enoch]

I'm more worried about session to session play. And what you have is kinda frightening. Ever play Aftermath!? I did. A lot. It was exciting when there was conflict going on at the personal level.

Nope never played Aftermath.  It sounds slightly familiar though.

Survival is a conflict, but it becomes really drab when it becomes just the same ting over and over (roll to find water...whatever).

That kind of survival isn't really focussed on.  It isn't difficult to survive in Unworthy if you are left alone.  Tools are easy to find.  Food is probably the worse problem.  When survival is focused on its usually something interesting.  What happens when a member of your enclave gets sick?  Time to go the hospital...  etc.

Survival is a secondary thing to other conflict really.

This becomes especially likely to become the center of play when players become the leaders. Instead of personal play you get planning sessions and meetings. It becomes very much like a job. At best you get a challenging game out of it. But nothing like a story, and little character development. You lose a lot of what makes an RPG compelling.

Well the default community is 40 or so members.  So it doesn't really lead to that.  Communities are more like a group of problems and plot hooks than anything else.  Maybe its just my play group, but it never really led to planning sessions and meetings.  The community was just a large group of characters to interact with.

Why are the PCs going to be fighting the Outsiders when they are the treasured leaders of their community? Wouldn't that be irresponsible?

Actually its usually the community that needs them to go fight the Outsiders.  Every civilized area i.e. townships, cities, etc. has a guardian Outsider.  For this reason, nothing in the city has been looted.  So it usually has something important in there.  Otherwise its difficult to find Outsiders.  They usually find you.

Are there any standard scenes that occur often, or at set times? Like the play structure of a game like Paranioa, InSpectres, or the Whispering, Vault. This sort of structure can really help move play along. Not that you have to go this rout, but it sounded a bit like you were going that rout.

Unfortunately I don't have any of those games.  I think I know what you're talking about though.  The first session almost always has the same scenes.  A common scene is the fight against the Outsider guardians.  

There really isn't any structure to it though.  I'll have to look more into that kind of thing.

Personally, I would advocate making this a more definite part of the game's description. The GM can always refrain from using it if he doesn't need to (simply doesn't drop the clues that lead to the lost loved ones).

That's true.  The truth is I haven't really made a concrete decision about it.

But I think that play will probably need this as a possible avenue to be compelling in a broad enough sense.

In fact, if you had the urge, I'd encourage you to go whole hog that way, and make the game more centered around that idea. Provides an incredibly stong long-term goal for the players to enjoy in their characters.

Heh, I just had a vision of a nice scene where the characters finally reach their family.  I'll definitely consider doing this.

Thanks Mike, you've given me a lot to think about.

-Joshua

[Spooky Fanboy]

Something you might want to add in the GM book: what are the Outsiders guarding? Why are they there? Are there artifacts or "tunnels" to the higher planes that the characters might use? Are there still some enslaved humans being held there for some unknown purpose? Or do the Outsiders just assume that, if they wait, the survivors will come to them, and the ones that have redeemed themselves can be grabbed at that time?

Also, are there any benefits/drawbacks lists for the survivors, like: one arm, one leg, manic-depressive, etc. For this game, I'd actually recommend that a character take one close to his concept, and then get an equivalent benefit for each additional drawback after the first. It *does* fit the characters well, although there are reasons against it (min-max disease, etc.)