Accomodating GNS drift: Good or bad?

[Palaskar]

My post on GNS roles got me thinking about modifying my own game. The sections would look something like this, broken down by role:

(I have deliberately excluded Guide, as it can be replaced by Arbiter and Simulator.)

General

Traits
Action Resolution
Using/Gaining/Changing/Losing Traits

Author's Section

Tone Bonus
Drama Points*
Inspiration

Player's Section

Tactical Bonus*
Running Mass Actions

Arbiter's Section

Challenges and Difficulty
Returning NPCs

Simulators's Section

Simulators
Wild Points and Realism
Carry-Over Traits
Creating New Mechanics

* indicates a section to be introduced
** The maximum amount of total bonus from Tone, Drama, Tactical, Wild, etc. is +3.

Traits are descriptors. Practically anything can be a Trait.

Action Resolution refers to the mechanics used to resolve a declared action. The same mechanics are used for actions, recovery, and experience.

Tone Bonus gives a bonus of +1 to +3 if the character does something supporting the game's tone (funny, grim, etc.)

Drama Points and Wild Points may be spent to give bonuses, or gain, change, lose, or trade Traits. Drama Points only recover if the character does something "dramatic" (think Star Wars' Force Points); while Wild Point recover at the end of each adventure, unless they are only used to give bonuses to a single action. If Wild Points are only used to give a bonus to a single action, those recover at the end of the Scene.

Inspiration refers to gaining bonuses from non-physical Traits, like Spiritual Traits (Virtue, Vice, etc.), Relationship Traits (Loves Buttercup, etc.), etc.

Tactical Bonus gives a bonus of +1 to +3 if the character uses tactics to gain an advanage in an action.

Running Mass Actions: The players control all friendly allies, while the Arbiter controls all opposeing troops.

Challenges and Difficulty: The Arbiter sets challenges relative to the appropriate opposing PC Trait, e.g., Trait -2, Trait -1, Trait +0, Trait +1, and so on. Challenges can be anything opposing the character -- enemies, traps, diplomacy...anythng.

Returning NPCs: Since NPC have Traits relative to the Traits of the PC they were supposed to oppose, pitting a returning NPC against a different character can be problematic. In this case, the Arbiter has the option of assigning a "Negative" Trait, or letting the PC tough it out. "Negative" Traits are NPC Traits that give the new PC a relative advantage. For example, a NPC with the initial Trait Strong: Trait +0 against a Strong PC, might get a Trait Dumb +1 versus a clever PC.

Simulators are players (as opposed to Players) that ensure a consistent and "realistic" aspect of the game, by using their own knowledge to advice players and describe the background. For example, a player that knows a lot about sailing might be a Simulator in charge of all sailing encounters, as well as the local seaport.

Wild Points are covered above. Realism restricts the number of Wild Points that can be spent at one time, as well as the amount players start with. The more Wild Points that can be spent and players start with, the more "cinematic" the game.

Carry-Over Traits are traits that are carried-over from game session to game session, like returning NPCs, details of the background, etc. The fewer Carry-Over Traits, the more episodic the game; the more, the more "soap opera" the game.

Creating New Mechanics is just that: creating new mechanics by describing how they work, and how many successes they give (usually 1 to 3) and under what conditions.


So, what do you think? Good idea? Bad idea? Needs work? (If so, where?)

[Mike Holmes]

To which "idea" do you refer? What are you looking for in terms of feedback? From the topic of the post, you seem to be talking about having mechanics that facilitate "drift". This is somewhat a contradictions in terms. That is, if the game facilitates something, then using it can't be Drift in the Forge sense of the term. The term you might be looking for is Transition. That is, according to Fang Langford who coined the term, Transition is the game facilitating a shift in play from one GNS mode to another.

Is that what you're getting at? I'm really not sure at all.

Anyhow, if that's what you are talking about, then I don't see it in the mechanics that you're presenting, really. Certainly there's an ability for a GM using lots of certain of these mechanics to make a game more "cinematic", but that has nothing to do with GNS mode.

Something else that you might be trying to get at is the idea of a GNS hybrid. That is play that is all three, more or less at the same time, in a functional way. That certainly seems like it could be the thrust of the design. If that's it, it's hard to say, really. I think that a lot of what you have exists side by side with the other mechanics without context relative to each other. As such, I think that you may have some heavy GNS conflicts potentially.

A couple more questions:
Are Simulators also Players? That is, IIRC, they have both characters, and an area that they preside over, right? How is their authority expressed? How is "final say" determined?

When you say Creating New Mechanics, just what is that? Who does it? When? Why? What's the process? What's it supposed to satisfy?

Mike