Bullpen: Not Just Another Supers RPG

[LordSmerf]

This will (hopefully) be brief.  I can see what you're saying on my earlier points and would like to suggest the following then.

Your Appeal score is the number of cards you can hold in your hand (or perhaps play from your hand?) for Appeal checks.  If you are trying to do something your fans will appreciate add 1 to the value.  If you are trying to do something in the realm of your haters subtract 1.

I'd like to see a more refined version of your card rules if you have the chance, i feel a little uncomfortable suggesting things when i don't know the resolution system you are considering...

Oh, and i like Gobi's points, there should be some way to tie that in, perhaps in the ways you suggested...

Thomas

[Phillip]

Jay,
How's it going with Bullpen?  Any updates?  I have an idea for a supers game similar to yours.  The die mechanic is inspired by BattleBall (of all things!) where you roll high for movement and low for tackling- faster players are worse at tackling and vice-versa.
Heroes have one stat- Power/Karma
You roll high for use of superpowers and abilities, and low for clues, lucky breaks, coincidence, etc. (script immunity).  This means higher-die heroes (high Power) will rely more on their abilities (like Superman), whereas the lower-die heroes (high Karma) will rely more on wits (Batman) or lucky breaks (Spiderman).
The Writers and Editor also have one stat- not sure what to call it.
You roll high for major plot changes/the story arcs of the comics themselves, and low for minor plot changes/story arcs involving your character.  The Editor will most likely have a larger die type; this reflects the fact that the higher-ups (like the Editor) are more concerned with the direction of the comic book itself, and leave the everyday details up to the Writers.  The only time this would come into play is when there is a disagreement between the Editor and the Writers on a scripting issue or change; you would roll low for changes involving your character and high for changes to the title as a whole.  If there is disagreement as to what category the change is in, the default is to roll high, or you can have a roll-off to determine what it is, rolling high (since the process of determining whether a change is minor or major is itself major).  
Split stats are of course possible, and stats can also have Advantages and Flaws, which let you either raise/lower the die type or roll twice and take the better or worse result for specific instances/abilities.  There should also be a currency associated with each which lets you buy re-rolls and die type changes for any circumstance.
Of course, this does not include your Appeal mechanics, and everything is more generalized, but maybe this is a good thing (since I don't want to rip you off TOO much).  
Hell, you could even add a meta-meta game, and give the PLAYERS and the GM stats.  This would work like the Writer/Editor stat, except it would apply to disagreements in the game itself (who buys the pizza, who gives who a ride, where and when the game is played).  
I would like it if you could give me some suggestions on how to factor in Appeal to all this, or even if you think it should be factored in.

[Jay Turner]

Hi Phil,

There haven't been any updates to Bullpen lately; I've taken up the mantle of GM on a D&D game, and that's taken up a lot of my time (the work early in the campaign seems the most demanding). I'm also trying to clear my mind and look at what Bullpen needs, and whether or not the current system meets those needs.

I couldn't figure out if your post was meant as suggestions as to how I could handle Bullpen, or examples of how you plan to handle your own game. If you'd like to discuss your game, feel free to PM me or open a separate thread, and I'll be glad to bat ideas around with you there. :)

I'm not against split attributes (I used them in Better Days) or die types (I might use them for Freefall), but I'm not sure they're appropriate for Bullpen. Also, changing die types on a roll over/under split stat system wouldn't seem to do much other than make the DM more likely to roll over a set number; the roll-under number would actually suffer for it, I would think.

I'm liking the simplicity and tactile experience of using cards. I'm in the process of rethinking Appeal and the way Powers work at the moment.

One question, for anyone who'd like to give an opinion, is this: How important is power balance in a mostly narrative game?

[LordSmerf]

That's a huge Social Contract issue Jay.  Look to Riddle of Steels magic system (vs. mundanes) for a good example of unbalanced play.  It's explicit that magic users are much more powerful than mundanes are, deal with it.  My feeling is that this works well in a narrative or simulative focused game.  However, Appeal seems to pull the focus more towards Gamism (but that could just be my inner Gamist talking).

Anyway, i guess i would like to hear what you're considering, but my initial impression is "go for it, balance is not that important."

Thomas

[Phillip]

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to hijack your thread.
As far as power balance in a narrative game, have a roll-off or voting session or whatever using the Appeal stat, winner gets his way.  Or give the Writers and Editors a metagame stat for voting, as I suggested.  You'd only have to do this if there was a disagreement or if someone was not relinquishing narrative power enough.

[Jay Turner]

What I was thinking was to have Powers be simply a Boolean value--You either have a Power and can do certain things, or not. Conflicts would be figured by a Caliber draw, and Appeal would figure in somehow, as well (maybe you add a number of cards up to your Appeal, and if you still lose the draw, you lose Appeal equal to the number of cards you added).

So if you're Superman (Caliber 10), and you use Super Strength, then you automatically beat out anyone who doesn't have Super Strength. If you come up against The Thing (Caliber 7, maybe), you're likely to beat him, but you'll have to draw. If The Flash (Caliber 8, Super Speed) went up against The Hulk (Caliber 8, Super Strength), the narration would decide how it goes, up until the point where the situation is called into question.

The Flash spots The Hulk running at full bore toward him. He uses Super Speed and automatically wins Initiative (since Hulk's speed doesn't even come close), runs over, and attempts to land a hundred hits on The Hulk before the green machine can even react. Hulk's player announces Hulk's Invulnerability power, which makes it so he can't be hurt by anything short of a high-power explosion, but Flash's player notes that he has the Armor-Piercing Fist attack, because he can move his fists as quickly as a tattoo needle. They both check Caliber, and Hulk wins. Flash's attack makes a loud, fleshly rat-a-tat-tat noise in addition to the whip-crack of a sonic boom, but Hulk manages to shrug it off, and now he gets to go. Flash's player announces a Super Speed Dodge, but Hulk's player decides that Hulk's Rage will come into play. They draw again, and Hulk lands a hit, sending Flash flying. Flash lost by 5 points (crappy draw), and so Hulk's player assigns him the "Got Slammed Into A Wall" Setback at -5.

So, as long as you have a Power you can use in a situation, you can get into a draw. If you don't, and the other character does, you lose.

Keep in ind that weapons, contacts, relationships, and other resources count as Powers in this situation. If you're fighting The Hulk, and you happen to pick up a grenade during the fight, then you temporarily have a Power to use that might hurt The Hulk.

Another possibility is to have separate Caliber ratings for different powers. So Superman might have Flight 8, Strength 10, Speed 9; while Flash would have Speed 10.

[Phillip]

That sounds like a good way to resolve things, except exactly what heroes can and cannot do will be argued over (unless, of course, you assign Powers due to Caliber as usual, except a Power is just a listing on the charsheet).  

Breaking the Powers out should be limited by Caliber itself (no power can be more than 1 point above or below Caliber, or something similar).  I like the Boolean idea better myself (keeps things simpler).   Also keep in mind that heroes exhibit new powers and new applications of existing ones all the time; adding a listing to Power should be linked to Appeal somehow.

[Jay Turner]

Something occurred to me yesterday, as a possible great way to handle Appeal:

The sack-o-stones!

Basically, you have a sack of stones of two different colors. When you do something that would affect your Appeal, you draw from the sack. White stones mean the audience liked it, black stones mean they hated it.

Later, when you want to rely on their kindness, you spend a white stone. The Editor (on behalf of your opponents) may "spend" one of your black stones (or his own white stones) to counteract it. When you spend a stone, it goes back in the sack.

Examples:

Joey is playing as The Gnat. Usually, he's pretty annoying (and belovedly so), but on this occassion he's managed to trap his nemesis, The Swatter. His triumph is something his fans would likely appreciate, so Joey draws his Appeal in stones from the sack. Two white, one black. Overall, a good reaction from the fans.

Later, The Gnat is fighting for his life against The Swatter, who managed to get free. Our hero reaches for a weapon, spending a white stone to have one appear within his reach. Joey describes grabbing a wooden club and attacking The Swatter with it. He wins the attack, giving The Swatter a Setback of "Smacked in the head -2", and spends a card to steady himself. Noting that Joey has a black stone, however, the Editor spends that stone and declares that the club was made of balsa and thus shattered from the blow to The Swatter's head. The Gnat will have to find some other way to press the fight.

For some situations, the Editor might call a vote, which will involve asking the other players to place stones in the sack, either white or black, depending on how they felt about the situation (much like the current Publicity Stunt rules). The player then draws stones from the sack as normal, with the other players' votes swinging the probability of a successful outcome.

In this case, the sack represents Public Opinion, and drawing represents feedback from the fans. Spending stones represents relying on that positive feedback for your character's benefit.

Not sure what impact the Appeal score will have, if any. I might be able to kill off the Appeal score altogether and rely simply on the stones. I could let players pick something like Fans, that might describe what the characters are particularly liked for (like, The Gnat might have, "Self-deprecating sense of humor", and so he can draw stones whenever he displays such.

[Doc Blue]

Jay,

First time poster, but have been lurking and watching the development of Bullpen with interest. I think you have some interesting and innovative ideas.

Personally, I think that the stone ideas is one of the better options you've put forward so far.

[Jay Turner]

Thanks, Doc. :)

I agree. I got the idea a while back reading Ian Young's game about the Ice Age, the name of which I'm too lame to remember at the moment. Cold Mountain, maybe?

I think I like the idea of Powers being Boolean in nature--either you can do something, or you can't. It'll inspire smart playing, I think, since if someone attacks you with a Power, you'll have to have something to put up against it.

The balance issue is an important one, though. Should there be limits to how many powers a character can have? One per Caliber? What about more powerful Powers (Superstrength vs., say, X-ray vision)? Does that really matter? Should there be a way to impact Appeal stone draws based on the power level of a character?

When it comes down to a conflict, a person with any Power can beat any other person with any other Power, as long as they're of similar Caliber, and as long as their Powers are both directly applicable. That's a balancing factor right there, I suppose.

[Daniel Solis]

What about more powerful Powers (Superstrength vs., say, X-ray vision)? Does that really matter? Should there be a way to impact Appeal stone draws based on the power level of a character?

In my experience, strategically minded players will take even the most inconsequential superpower and make it surprisingly useful through creative application. Coincidentally, we had an X-Ray vision guy going up against a super-strong guy. The X-Ray vision guy had been using his abilities to find good hiding places and so forth. You could tell the player was getting frustrated only playing defensively though, so the GM through in a subtle cue: A construction yard.

There was a giant crane lifting an I-beam up towards a skyscraper. The X-Ray guy used his powers to bombard the crane operator with deadly doses of radiation, causing the crane to swing about wildly and landing the giant metal beam end-first on top of the strong guy.

In comics, and in a lot of games, all powers can be made "powerful" through creative application.

[Jay Turner]

That's exactly what I'd like to happen. The player uses Appeal stones or whatever to set up a situation in which his power works to his advantage. Say your X-Ray guy above knew that his fans were impressed whenever he managed to outsmart someone or defeat someone more powerful than he. He'd then draw Appeal and possibly have metagame resources to help him out in the future.

I'm liking this, I think.

[LordSmerf]

I like this sack o' stones idea.  I just wanted to clarify a few issues:

1. Is there an equal mix of white vs. black stones (starting 50% chance of each?)
2. Is there a shared sack that everyone draws from (if you draw a bunch of white then it lowers my chances?)
3. What kind of resolution mechanic (if any) are you using for Caliber?  I think that at this point it would almost be more interesting just to build this game entirely on the Appeal system for resolution.
4. Does the Editor draw Appeal whenever an action occurs that falls within the Serie's appeal?

But i do really like your elegant new Appeal solution.

Thomas

[Jay Turner]

Haven't worked that stuff out yet. I'd like to think that there's a single pool, rather than having to stuff the sack each time with a certain proportion of stones. Maybe the ratio is based on the Appeal of the series itself--if the series is well-liked, then you might be more likely to get a white stone. Maybe you can spend your own whihte stones in order to force the Editor to remove a black stone from the sack--letting your character's popularity drive that of the book.

I also think the sack would be shared. Mostly for ease and quickness, but also to encourage people to spend their stones. After all, getting a white stone lowers your own chances of getting another one, in this situation, so you want to spend it sooner rather than hoarding them for later. It also guarantees an ebb and flow of plot and fan opinion.

Right now, I'm still looking at a card mechanic for Calibur and a Boolean (True/False) mechanic for Powers. The reason I think I want to stick with the cards is that it gives a certain structure (like an itinerary for a meeting) to things for which individual timing and objective resolution is warranted.

The sack might work for everything, actually, but it might remove that bit of gamism and structure that, for some reason, I'm clinging to. I'm not sure if I want players pitting their Appeal stones against each other, which could happen if the sack is the only mechanic.

Then again, giving players the ability to spend each other's black stones might be interesting.

[LordSmerf]

Then again, giving players the ability to spend each other's black stones might be interesting.

I think this is a great idea.  You can spend your opponents black stones to contribute a Complication (to use the Universalis term) to the story.  If you have a great villain or opposing circumstance this is a great way to utilize it.

Thomas