Bullpen: Not Just Another Supers RPG

[Phillip]

Pretty good.  Some suggestions:

- To represent the wildness of comics, use Queens or Jacks instead of Jokers for immediate plot twists (so there will be more of them).
- It is possible to make the suits important, not just the colors, like maybe a bonus or something if the suit relates to an action type (of course, you would need to define four action types or whatever).
- Maybe who goes first should be determined by a card, or by Caliber, or maybe you could make an Appeal to get the drop on the thugs in a desparate situation.
- Come up with a way that the editor can draw and use the same cards for a whole group of  'mooks'; Weaknesses can be assigned to the mooks as a whole if you wish.  Marvel SAGA did something like this (a single card for all opposition), you could use the same set of cards, or two sets, one for mooks and one for the main bad guys, or whatever.  This makes it easier on the Editor.
- You know, you could really steal a page from TORG and Marvel Saga and make your own custom set of superheroic Drama cards (I forgot what TORG calls them), or you could just write stuff on a standard deck, like specific bonuses to certain actions (immediate in-game Caliber stuff) as well as specific plot twists/Weaknesses/etc. and Appeal-related information.  You know, like the SAGA cards- 'The Press Arrives', 'Property Damage', and so forth.
- Of course, if Caliber determines the number of cards you draw for in-game actions, then you can do the exact same thing for Appeal (with a parallel set of rules).

[Jay Turner]

Good suggestions, Phillip. :)

I picked Jokers to represent immediate complications because of the connotation of Jokers. Obviously though, there aren't many of them in the deck. I'll give that some thought. I'd like Kings to continue to represent character changes, though, if I go with the card system.

I don't want the cards themselves to dictate too much of the outcome of things. Sure, they dictate who wins and who loses narration, but I don't want them to have too much power over the actual events in the narration itself. I've never been a big fan of assigning action types to the different suits for that reason, and I don't think I'd want to write specific outcomes on different cards for that same reason.

Your thoughts on representing mooks with a single draw of cards is an interesting one. In this case, the way I see it, it's worthwhile to have each Mook act separately, within reason. I mean, if you have more than say, four mooks operating at once, you might want to Jackie-Chan (that is, let the extras hangout on the sidelines until one is eliminated) the extras. Using a single group of cards confuses things for me when it comes to each Thug making his attack. There are probably situations when that's appropriate, though. I'll give that some thought.

Also, Appeal was going to work in a similar fashion to how Caliber works, just as it is in the latest PDF with the dice system. Any difference to how Appeal works mechanically would be in whether or not the Appeal score is "spendable."

Do you prefer the cards over the dice? Can you see any reason to pick one over the other?

[Phillip]

I don't want the cards themselves to dictate too much of the outcome of things. Sure, they dictate who wins and who loses narration, but I don't want them to have too much power over the actual events in the narration itself. I've never been a big fan of assigning action types to the different suits for that reason, and I don't think I'd want to write specific outcomes on different cards for that same reason.

I should have been clearer.  The listed outcomes and bonuses to suits are strictly optional.  The specific outcomes for plot twists are just for the Narrator when he runs out of ideas- if he is stuck on what direction to take the story, or what monkey wrench to throw in to complicate things, he can just flip over a card and get an idea.  The bonuses from suits don't have to be for action types, maybe they can be for different styles or however you want to look at it.  I may be mistaken- this may run counter to your intent, and I may just be mistaking substance for chrome.

[Jay Turner]

Hey Phillip,

Sorry if I came off wrong; I have considered ideas like those (well, actually, the plot ideas on the cards themselves is new to me), and I've argued against them in my head for a while. I may have misread your suggestions.

In this case, I want the cards to dictate the randomness in conflict resolution, and that's it, besides the random chances of exceptional things happening in the form of Kings and Jokers. I've helped people develop a few card-based systems in the past, and they all went with the "Hearts are for Social, Spades are for Physical" idea. I wanted to be a little more vague.

I'll give some thought to what to do in case of the Editor being left wanting for plot. Maybe a random "Bang" generator or something.

Still, undecided on the cards. Do you see merit in the cards over the dice? If so, what merit? I want to be happier with my resolution mechanic. :)

[Phillip]

I would think most people would like the dice better, but it is a matter of taste (I kinda like the cards better).  The best way to handle it would probably be to keep it as is, and put the card resolution in an optional rules section.   I mean, just looking at the game, the metagame part of Appeal is really what makes the game shine, and it shouldn't be too hard to set up the rules to where you could substitute the conflict resolution while keeping the basics intact (like how Caliber/Powers work, the + to actions from Powers and such).

[Jay Turner]

I suppose what I'm getting at as far as system goes is, does the system take away from the premise of the game? I think I'm starting to like the cards better, too, so maybe I'll streamline that for the next version of the PDF.

The next big place to point attention is still Appeal and the Appeal system. some questions for that:

1) Is it important for a simple system that the Appeal and Caliber systems operate in a similar manner? Does the ease of learning the game suffer if there are two different mechanics for those?

2) Does a point/card hybrid system work for Appeal? Is it too confusing?

3) Would spending Appeal points adequately model the reaction of the readers to a player making big dramatic changes to the book's universe/plot without taking the readers' feelings into account?

4) Would using cards/dice and rolling Appeal adequately model the process of considering the readers' opinions before making a big change to the plot?

5) If going with a point-based system, are Appeal points so valuable that you should only get a few (equal to Appeal rating) or a lot (say, ten Appeal points per Appeal rating point)?

That's what I need to figure out for Appeal. Any suggestions?

[Mike Holmes]

1) Is it important for a simple system that the Appeal and Caliber systems operate in a similar manner? Does the ease of learning the game suffer if there are two different mechanics for those?

Does the system suffer if the mechanics use the same rules? If it suffers, then use two separate better defined systems. If it doesn't, then stick to one system.

I find that often, when looking to see if one system can be used to do two things that I find that there are ways to combine mechanics, which cause a synergistic effect. What I'm saying is look to see if there's a way to create one mechanic that does everything that both of the other mechanics did. The implications to the alternate sides of the affair are often quite interesting.

Mike

[Jay Turner]

Hrm. Taking that into mind, it could be that the "holding cards" mechanic (you can hold a card you like and keep it available, rather than discarding it with the others at the end of a page, then redraw back up to your total including the card you held) might do for both spending and "rolling." If you hold successful cards, you'll be able to "spend" them for automatic successes, even on Appeal checks.

The question is, how many cards can you hold (currently one at a time) and how long you can hold it (currently to the end of the conflict being resolved). Perhaps making it so you can hold cards up to your total, and hold them until you care to use them (keeping in mind that doing so lowers the number of cards you may draw for a conflict/page) would be a good way to reconcile those system differences.

Which makes it a great argument for keeping and developing the card system.

Thanks, Mike. :)

[LordSmerf]

I like cards.  There are some changes i would make, but i'd rather see what you're doing with them first.  I would make the following suggestions:

1. Use seperate mechanics (at least for now) for Caliber and Appeal resolution.

2. Allow a player to hold Caliber number of cards.  Any time a check is called for you may play any number of cards from you hand and/or the top card of the deck (before you see what it is, which could result in something bad happening if you treat some cards as negative).  You can allow the hand to refresh every page or something...

3. Use some sort of point system for Appeal where any change, whether the Fans approve or not costs Appeal, but if the result is something the Fans like then you gain Appeal back.  I think this would show the way that a writer can take a gamble, hoping the fans will approve, and fail...

That's what i've got for now.  If anything else comes up i'll let you know.

Thomas

[Jay Turner]

Hey Thomas :)

!) Why use separate mechanics, for sure? Thoughts triggered by Mike's post make me think the whole game might work better if I consolidated the mechanics and worked out a way for them both to work together somewhat. I'll try and post what I have in mind soon.

2) I like cards, too. The big problem (not so much a problem, but something I tend to avoid personally) is that card systems can get a little "game-y"; that is, the resolution of the conflict becomes more of a game within a game. While I'd want to take advantage of some of the properties of cards (specifically holding successes for later in the scene), I don't want the focus to be too much on making sure you know the rules of the card game portion of the game. I think I'd like to avoid players having a "hand" of cards when there's nothing going on.

I'm not sure that's what you're saying. In fact, I think we're kinda talking about the same thing here, except your suggestion for drawing the top card. I'll give that some thought.

3) I think the perfect Appeal system would involve some sort of gamble like that. Doing that or not has a huge effect on the value of Appeal points--if Appeal points are too few, it makes them so valuable that players will hesistate to use them, but if they're too numerous, players will take the gamble too often. I liked the idea of giving players the choice. They can roll Appeal, and if they fail, they can choose to either let the failure stand or take the successes anyway at the cost of some Appeal points. In-game, it means that you've taken a survey, you know the audience is against what you're doing, but you do it anyway. Makes sense to me.

That's a bit like gambling, but it puts the choice in the hands of the players, which I like. After all, we're trusting them with the plot, anyway. :)

[LordSmerf]

The reason i would suggest a split mechanic for Caliber and Appeal is this:  First, i'm suggesting this as a temporary measure.  The reason is that Appeal is such an interesting metagame mechanic that i would suggest that you develop it on its own for a while.  Work with it until you know exactly how you want Appeal to function without worrying about it's relation to Caliber.  Once you know how to do Appeal you could work Caliber into that.  The big draw for me in this game is Appeal so that's what i would focus on.

Anyway, that's where i'm coming from...

Thomas

[Jay Turner]

Okay, that makes sense.

Let's lay out some things that Appeal needs to do.

1) Represent how well received a character is by the audience.

2) Give the player a way to measure #1 and refer to it to decide how much narrative control he has over the story.

3) Give the player a mechanic for ignoring the will of the fans, at the detriment of the character's popularity.

4) Give a mechanic for ruling on publicity stunts and other huge shifts in the status quo of a hero/book/plot.

and perhaps:

5) Act as a method of giving "Hero Points" to players.

If anyone has any to add to this list, I'd be interested to hear them. Personally, I think the first 4 are the most important, and if done well, could eliminate the need for #5.

Any ideas?

[LordSmerf]

Sounds like the basics...  I would like to present the following ideas for inclusion somewhere in Appeal:

1. Make an Appeal score equal to the total number of Fans a character has.  This means that the more fans you have the more control you have over Narration when you can satisfy those fans (and even when you can't).

2. Anytime you directly oppose a Fan's desire you lose a point with that fan (lowering your overall Appeal).  A lowered Appeal means that you are less likely to make an Appeal check for Narration and means that you are more likely to lose more fans if you continue to impose your will on the story.

3. Tie Goals to Fans, anytime you achieve a Goal you gain some number of Fans of a type appropriate to your Goal.

4. Consider defining a set of Fans in the material.  Use a pretty narrow definition so that it is clear what type of Fan appreciates what type of action.

Hmm... This seems to be rather Gamistically focused.  I still like it, but you may not.

Thomas

[Daniel Solis]

I may have missed it, but has there been mention of the effect of the price of a comic book on its appeal? For example, a sudden price jump in the comic could risk losing fans, but the higher budget could also provide more opportunities for 48 page mega-issues, shiny hologram covers, and hiring hot shot artists and writers.

[Jay Turner]

Thomas,

Good suggestions. Let's think about them.

Your #1 would likely make for larger Appeal scores that I'd hoped for. I would like checks to fit in what would be a comfortable hand of cards. I think I also like the idea of Appeal representing a more abstract measure of fans, as well as how well the character is received in general.

For #2, that solution would require a lot more maintenance of the Appeal score than I'd like, I think. It would seem that that sort of mechanic would work just as well by just dropping Appeal itself by a point, rather than dropping a Fan by a point and then dropping Appeal the same amount as a result.

#3. I'm mulling that one over. I think I'd like to separate the in-character Goals from out-of-character stunts for Appeal. not sure why, other than "I think so." Mostly, I think that heroes in comics are supposed to be accomplishing stuff, and that it's the big things, like changing a costume, meeting a new villain, taking in a youthful ward as a major character in the series, etc., that would affect the feelings of the fans. Of course, particularly cool lines/moves/etc. probably would, too.

#4. The more I think about it, the more I seem to be moving away from Fans as a stat altogether. Maybe you can define a group that likes your character in particular, and appealing to that group specifically adds a card to your Appeal hand. Something like that. Fans and Haters are proving to be more trouble than they're worth.

A little Gamistness is fine; in fact, I think it can lengthen the replay value of the system. I don't want to require a whole hell of a lot of maintenance for the stats, though. Gain a point here, lose a point there; but too much time spent adding and dropping points could turn one's attention further to the numbers on the sheet than I'd like.

Thanks for the ideas, though, Thomas. I'd love to hear more. :)

Gobi,

I'm considering putting in an overall Appeal score for the series itself. Things like the publicity stunts you mentioned would have effects on that overall Appeal score, but not so much on the players' individual ones. The state of the overall book score could do things like act as a default Appeal hand to oppose Appeal rolls by the players, grant the Editor extra powers to maintain control of the plot in certain situations, etc. I'll have to think on that.