Theme and mechanics

[pete_darby]

Hmmm... without access to the rulebook itself here, but ISTR there being an optional rule for the SAGA Marvel superheroes game that used pretty much this mechanic for teamwork by superheroes...

Again, going from swiss-cheese memory here, I think it allowed communication between players about what they had in their hand, which this mechanic would deny.

In a competetive game (a la rune) it could work very well: in a co-operative game like MSHAG, the communication could lead to a lack of dramatic tension, as each round of conflict becomes an open trading session between players, and the individual hands melt into a "card pool" held in common between the players.

I'm trying to get my head around enforcing a HW/HQ style "justify your enhancement" to get a better feel to it: While the idea of using this mechanic to support, say, the X-Men speedball (brick throws martial artist into combat) appeals to me, probably aesthetically more than anything else, I want it to support, say, Mr Fantastic telling the Thing where to punch the Skrull SuperDroid for maximum effect.

But I confess, when I saw the card mechanic, I thought of Superhero teamwork, and only before posting did I realise that Steve Kenson has already done it...

[Thierry Michel]

But maybe I'm tweaking rules too much for the purposes of the discussion.

Not at all, I'm interested in the tweaks.


Indeed, each player makes a separate secret bid, but that doesn't  rule out helping a partner by bidding high when he can't (in a collective contest against the GM, say).

[damion]

Another example, then, for a generic resolution mechanism:

Contests are auctioned, every participant (that includes GM) makes a secret bid, highest bidder wins the outcome but pays the price to loser(s).

Your mission (should you accept it): find an appropriate setting.
Is it RPG-y enough ?

This is kinda odd. I actually came up with something similar to Donjon.  Since each contest is between participants, most would be between a player and the GM.

Characthers have traits, or descriptors or whatever you want to call them.

Each contest involves a trait on each side, maybe with some rules for supporting traits also.

At any time anyone may spend the resource to narrate facts into the world. More important facts cost more.

The winner gets the losers bid in resource, the losers get the value of the trait they used in resource.

Thus conflict drives the story, as without it, no-one can narrate. Also, if you lose something your good at, you get more (higher trait).

Narration conflicts are resolved by using the mechanic without traits. I.e. loser just loses.

[Lxndr]

Here's one I've been kicking around in my head for a while:

Whenever a character needs to perform an action, everyone at the table votes secretly, "Succeed" or "Fail."  If more votes are for "Succeed", or there's an equality, the action goes off successfully, and anyone who voted "Fail" gets a bonus.  If more votes are for "Fail," nobody gets anything at all.

The better a person is at a particular action/trait/skill, the more votes they can cast when "activating it."  If opposing another character, that character can activate a trait for extra votes too.  If opposing the GM, then the GM decides the "difficulty."

Yes, this means you can vote a Failure for yourself.  Heck, you can vote a Failure for yourself and still succeed.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

But now that I've posted that, I wonder if we're maneuvering off the topic somewhat.  We've gone from "is it possible to create mechanics in a vacuum, and then come up with a setting that those mechanics encourage or support?" to "hey, here's an example!"

[Thierry Michel]

We've gone from "is it possible to create mechanics in a vacuum, and then come up with a setting that those mechanics encourage or support?" to "hey, here's an example!"

Does that mean the answer to the question is 'yes' ?

[Mike Holmes]

I think that's safe.

OTOH, I still think that we're getting a little weird in terms of results. That is, if you want the premise to be grabby, I think you can't do this method alone. I'm reminded of the GAG Maharaja, in which you don't ever feel at all like the game is at all about India, or anything interesting in India.

OTOH, used in combination with working from the other end I think would be highly useful and effective.

Mike

[contracycle]

Yeah, well, they are very abstract and context free, so the odd results are not too much of a worry.  Now what to do with it.

My holy grail of game design, not being a very creative person myself, is a library of mechanical devices that could be compared against a selected topic.  Although pie on the sly at the moment, I could see a point at which we have both vocabulary and a model sufficient to go from concept to implementation; that is, if you had a hankering to do a game on topic X, you could identify a set of crunch points in your topic that need mechanical representaiton, and then run through a cllection of abstract mechanical models looking for one that synchronises with your topical concept.

To do this we would need to develop a theory and language for both game structures and thematic crises.  But I think it could be done.

[pete_darby]

Thwacking an idea from programming, we could look at a library of design patterns, but I'm sure that's been suggested before...

Just a quick description for each component, and it's design consequences...

Frex, from my own floating ideas...

HAND OF DICE:

In a game which relies on rolling dice for results, the player rolls a set of results at the outset of the session (the "hand"), say enough to generate an average of five results (this is less easy to determine in games that use dice pools).

When a result needs to be determined in game, the player selects one of his results to apply to the situation, removes it form the "hand" of results available and generates a new result for the hand.

Consequences: allows players a greater degree of control over random situational results, allowing greater tactical range. Slows down start of game. Abuses possible include frivoulous actions to use up bad results.

Possible developments: number of results in hand can represent damage, fatigue, general situational advantage, and can vary according to tactical or strategic success.

Notes: Inspired by the additional player control demonstrated in WotC SAGA system games.

CORRUPTING MAGIC (mind, body and soul)

In a fantasy game, use of magic runs the risk of changing the character in either Mind, Body or Soul. The damage can be in the form of Atrophy, Hypertrophy or Corruption. The nine possible combinations of these can be further marked down by degree (three degrees?), with freeform description by player or GM.

Consequences: magic becomes personally risky and "dark." Experienced magic users tend to the grotesque and inhuman. Parts of consequences easily modelled in most game systems (especially Tri-Stat!). Implies that "normal" humanity is the peak of perfection. Abuses possible if changes provide apparent game advantages without sufficiently balancing limitations.

Necessary developments: Are the changes purely the result of "botches", or can a character trade magical power for personal corruption? The first choice leads to a "slide into inhumanity" feel to me, while the second leads to more faustian stories.

---------------

The trouble is that, for example, these two design elements are quite different forms of design (one purely mechanical, the other a partly mechanical expression of a dramatic theme), so the taxonomy would have to be fairly wide...