Randomizer Gimmicks: Key to Tone or More To Learn/Buy?

[Tim Alexander]

Hey Guys,

What makes a new method of randomizing results worthwhile?
Speed, versimilitude, strategic play, capturing the tone of the game world?

I'd say that it's elements of all of these. Certainly without one or more of these factors a new method has little value. However, when it's effective, it's really effective. My example would be Dust Devil's, whose card/poker mechanics go a long way towards setting tone. It's also relatively quick and, at least for me, feels a lot less jarring to the narrative than dice would be.

If a unique randomizing method requires players to purchase a product, how much "value add" should the additional product have?

If it's required? It better be pretty crucial, and have a heavy amount of utility to the game. Otherwise it's important to have alternatives using the 'standard' trappings. I mean, I'm sort of a consumer whore when it comes to gimmicks, but even I want to see some value.

Next, since I hope for a "generic" system, I need a fairly open-ended scale (i.e. Aunt May to Superman). We could faff about for days talking about how to create stats and abilities that are on an open scale. What really matters with regards to this thread is what sort of Fortune Tool will work with an open-ended scale while serving the above needs and avoiding the above problems. Initially, I would suggest that Color is the least important factor, as the system is generic; it might be nice, though, to have an exciting-to-use Fortune Tool (in essence, injecting aspects of Color into the System).

Part of me says that color is probably the most compelling reason to use a custom 'gimmick.' I don't think color alone is enough to make it work, but I'm not sure it works at all unless it adds color. I don't really see an angle for color in a 'generic' system though, as you mention.

Lastly, on the issue of cheating, Mike's point is pretty resounding. If this is really a concern there are far greater Social Contract issues to work out.

-Tim

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

You're serious? You have that much mistrust of your players? If I thought that the people across from me at the table might cheat, I wouldn't play with them.
I take it you don't play cards at all, then? Or is trust different in an RPG, somehow?

Unfortunately, in the five major (150+ player) LARPS in which I have played, cheating happened. It might be a "stutter-throw" in Rock-Paper-Scissors (it takes less than a second to see your opponent's throw and adjust your own to win). It might be not deducting Willpower or Blood for an effect. It might be using a spell without tearing the "one-use-per-day" tag. It happens.

We aren't talking about 5 - 8 players around a table, or playing a constructed deck game like Magic, etc.; we're talkin' over a hundred frenetically active players, spread out across a college campus or a campground. Players with REAL money invested in their characters and items; long term characters with highly vested interests in the game world. These folks--and many of them are fine drinking buddies and would never short their taxes--cheat.

As for "play[ing] cards": sure, I play no-limit hold-em and some omaha hi-lo from time to time, to make rent. I used to spread fear in my Vampire: The Eternal Struggle group, back when it was still called Jyhad. Has nothing to do with LARPs, frankly.

So I seek a Fortune Tool that is not susceptable to cheating. Make that axis 7 of my six-way problem....

A deck of standard playing cards, unfortunately, does not serve. Even I can force a cut, and I ain't even particularly dexterous.

[M. J. Young]

O.K., I can usually find a solution to any problem, once I understand the problem.

Let's set up a twelve-point scale, but use letters instead of numbers. Let's consider that we need something that doesn't have a real top value or a real bottom value.

[*]A: beats C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K; loses to B, D; ties A, L.[*]B: beats A, D, F, G, H, I, J, K; loses to C, L; ties B, E.[*]C: loses to A, D, F; beats B, E, G, H, I, J, K, L; ties C.[*]D: beats C, F, H, I, J, K, L; loses to A, B, E, G; ties D.[*]E: beats D, G, I, J, K, L; loses to A, B, C, F, H; ties E.[*]F: beats E, H, J, K, L; loses to A, B, C, D, G, I; ties F.[*]G: beats F, I, K, L; loses to A, B, C, D, E, H, J; ties G.[*]H: beats G, J, L; loses to A, B, C, D, E, F, I, K; ties H.[*]I: beats H, K; loses to A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, L; ties I.[*]J: beats I, L; loses to A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K; ties J.[*]K: beats J, L; loses to A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I; ties K.[*]L: beats B, H; loses to C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K; ties A, L.[/list:u]Now, each card has four sides, and each player is issued a single card to represent his characters ability. There are twelve possible sides, and if we assume no duplication of the same value on two sides of the same card we've got seventy-two possible cards. Note that no one side is invincible, and no one side is completely useless. I would say that A, B, C, and D represent superhero levels of ability, E, F, G, and H extraordinary levels, and I, J, K, and L ordinary levels.

I'm assuming that the winner wins by controlling the field of contest; that is, Aunt May doesn't tie Superman in a wrestling contest, but rather maneuvers him into a situation in which he has to release her (perhaps Lex Luthor would be a better example here). This would be a sort of fortune at the start system, in which it is agreed that the characters are entering a contest, the cards are shown, and the narration then explains how it was that one character won, or the two tied.

You might want to tweak what beats what, as I've pretty much done this on the fly, but it gives you clear power levels while at the same time creating the possibility that any conflict could go either way, even if it is most likely to go one particular way, if neither party knows exactly what is on the other's card.

The card would have to list with the letter which letters it beats. You could use other symbols, such as shapes, but letters will be easier to recognize and if listed in alphabetical order are quicker to find on the card.

If possible, the cards should be square, and probably made of cardboard, thicker than shirt cardboard or possibly yellow pad backing (the thick cards of the old Lie Detector game come to mind, if you've ever seen them). This will keep them durable, and make it so that no one can guess which side will be presented based on card angle. Probably two and a half to three inches (seven to eight centimeters) square will fit in most pockets

Does that help at all?

--M. J. Young

[M. J. Young]

Afterthought.

If you want it to be scaleable, you might consider having L also beat E, and K tie E and beat F, and so allow for play in which cards with values A through D are excluded; however, I'm not sure this is necessary, as there's nothing about the "A" value that says it has to be superhuman--it only has to be marginally best, with exploitable weaknesses.

--M. J. Young

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

if we assume no duplication of the same value on two sides of the same card we've got seventy-two possible cards.

Interesting matrix, for the twelve values. I knew there had to be a way to set up a "ring of doom" with n possible values. But I must admit I do not understand how this would reflect a character's stats.

Would a player, then, have a rank in each stat (A - L) and have the option of choosing which rank he or she reveals? Say I have an F in "dexterity" with +1 "martial arts" (making an E): do I have an option of revealing E - L in a test to hit an opponent? Suppose the opponent is known to be inferior (less than E); my choices become rather proscribed:
Choose E almost all the time,
choose G if I suspect an F will be revealed, or
choose I if I suspect an H will be revealed.

Or does it then reduce to "outguessing a Sicilian"? If they suspect *I* suspect F, they show H to beat my anticipated G; which I ought to suspect, so I show I, which they suspect I will do, so they show J... meaning I OBVIOUSLY must choose K. ;)

Or the more extreme case: A max versus L max (Superman v Aunt May).
Superman shows C every time, because it beats L and L is all May can show. Then again, maybe Superman doesn't know Aunt May is only an L until after they've had an altercation or two and he's seen May only show Ls. He might "outguess himself" and throw a B or A to start.

I reckon this merely demonstrates that no one can have an L: K is the minimum stat+skill value. If we arbitrarily max skills at +5, then the normal stat max is F. Thus, our baseline stat range is K to F: 1 - 6. Include L, for incompetance, and you get 0 - 6. Yes, you can getbase stats over F; it's just that doing so puts a cap on the utility of skill ranks. Superman, with his A in "strength," need never purchase "strength-based" skills, since their pluses would not increase his options.

Hmm... it might work. Can you give me a better idea of how you see the labeling of card sides corresponding to player stats? As it stands now, I can only imagine everyone having the same card and using their stats to limit what edges of the card they may reveal. But your post sounds more like each player has a custom card that is coupled (somehow) to their effectiveness. Help?

[Mike Holmes]

Sorry I misunderstood. I glossed over that this was for a LARP, and didn't understand the size factor, either. I've played in lots of LARPs with less than 10 people. It's definitely a different phenomenon. I'd call them social LARPs (where the players are all friends) and Event LARPS, where you won't know most of the players.

It's the anonymity that enables the cheating, see.

In any case, however, I think that you're going to a long way to prevent cheating. Sure, it's ideal, but forced cuts? I mean, there's going to be very little one can do to prevent cheating if you're saying that sleight of hand has to be ruled out. Sure it's not a difficult maneuver to pull off, but it is detectable (as opposed to deck stacking out of sight). If you put that standard in place, then MJ's method is out, too. One could "stutter throw" a card, or palm a second one, or any of a number of ways to cheat.

BTW, this does imply is that the LARP is competitive as well. As I understand it, it's next to impossible to organize an effective large LARP without competition (as it's the only way to protagonism, typically). We're lucky enough to have the inventor of the modern LARP here as a regular poster to The Forge, however, so I wonder what he thinks of that notion. Walt? Can you have a large LARP that doesn't have intra-player conflict? Would that be suitable, CF? Or is the competition implicit in the design as well?

---
I think that you're misunderstanding how MJ's system works, which, given it's presentation isn't surprising. MJ can you straighten out some points?

If I have it correctly (and there's a good chance that I don't, actually), for each skill you have, you get one card. That card has "4 sides" meaning, I think that each card is printed in halves on each side. Each of these 4 half-sides would have a letter. This would be hidden from the opponent, and then revealed with the appropriate end sticking out at the opponent to indicate which of the four sides you were actually using. That would have a letter (or some symbol, doesn't really matter) and presumably a list of what opposing letters that letter beats for quick reference. Skill would indeed, as you surmise, then be encoded in each individual card. FWIW, that's not too hard, I could make a set for you in about ten minutes with a spreadsheet.

Presumably the card would have the name of the skill on it, and maybe be color coded to match. So that players can't use the wrong card for the contest in question. A problem occurs if you want to have a lot of skills, then however. If there are thirty possible skills, for example, then you have to either give out thirty cards to each player which they then have to sort through to find the pertinent one, or have some skills with a default card or something (that would have a low value).

The reason that the cards have four sides, is so that if the players in question get into mutiple conflicts, the parties involved can select other sides than the first ones (hence why there's no duplication; though I suppose that would be a way to make for a poorer skill level). Over time, you could select cards that defeated the opponents known sides, but that's not too unrealistic. After four passes, you'd know your opponents entire arsenal, and the player with the higher level of skill might be able to defeat the other player every time (if he happens to have a card with a side that defeats all of his opponent's sides). This would make the default cards potentially very weak depending on how they were set up. The outguessing portion is still there, actually.

You have an incentive to play your lowest letter, and as such players might be tempted to do so more than once if it was successful the first time (or, occasionally, even if not). In which case, if you predict that, you might be able to counter with a lower appropriate card. The other incentive to play a card multiple times is that the player reveals less of his options, thus gaining an advantage later. Lot's of stratetgy depending on circumstance.

BTW, one of the things that makes me think that I may have this all wrong is that by my calculations, there would be 11880 total possible permutations of letters on one card. 12*11*10*9 = 11880. But that's fine because with MJ's scale, fewer would be available. He's reserving the higher levels for powerful beings, meaining that the permutations would be much fewer. A lot would depend on the scenario design.

The number of "sides can be increased, BTW. One could easily get 8 sides on a card (present any edge of a square), and maybe more if that was deemed neccessary (hexagons with twelve "sides"?).

Anyhow, looking at the checklist:
1. the symbols could be made to reflect the setting, and the cards tailor-made for the game in question. Color is no problem. In fact, symbols might make it more difficult to memorize player ability levels, thus making multiple conflicts more challenging, and extending the abilty of players to conflict with each other.

2. Cost would be for the paper and ink to print them. If you're doing color paper, or, worse, color printing, the cost goes up. In any case, the double sided thing is problematic, and you might have to go to Kinkos. Lesse, 200 players, each with 30 cards for 30 skills would be 6000 cards. Make them about 1.5" square, that's about 24 per page, that's 250 pages of printing. That's not too costly for a game that large, and we're looking at worst case scenario. In any case, it's going to be less than your $1 a player mark, unless you decide to laminate them or something.

If you can cut down to 10 skills and 100 players, that's only 42 pages. Piece of cake. Heck I could do a sloppy job here for you for free if you don't mind a somewhat non-professional approach. That might be the best, as the set would be, effectively disposable after each game. Lot's easier than collecting them up. Players can keep them as mementos like you said. Change symbols each game, or even put the character's name on each, and they can't slip them into the next. I like that - custom randomizers for each game! It's really cheaper and more possible than I think you'd expect.

3. Handling time is fast if there are few skills (it doesn't take long to go through the whole stack looking for the right card). If you really want a lot of skills, and cards for them all, then I'd go to a level system where the character had one card for each level that he had. So for all level 3 skills he'd use his level 3 card, which is balanced with, but not the same as other level 3 cards. The problem with that is that you lose some of that inter-player extensibility. How fine do you want your granularity? What's the range of abilities? If it's MET's 1-5 then this makes things very fast.

4. Cheating would be difficult, though, like I said, no more impossible than with playing cards or roshambo. It would involve standard stuff like trying to see your opponent's selection before making yours, or rotating the card at the last second (or presenting an ambiguous side, if you have lots of sides). Still, relatively good, I'd think.

----
On another note, does anyone remember the "Dragonbone"? It was a handheld electronic randomizer that displayed the output with red lights. Can you get those anymore? I'm sure that today a similar gizmo could be made that could be tiny and really cheap (think of those little games that kids get at McDonalds in kids meals). Maybe it's time for an updated electronic randomizer? The one thing that I do remember is that people complained that they weren't too random (computer randomization gets that all the time too). It's effectively superstition, but it exists.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

1) Mike's idea is good, but it's different from my idea in a lot of ways.

2) Mike might be right about the permutations; I think I used the wrong formula for my calculations.

I've never played a Roshambo-based LARP, but it's my impression that in every contest every player has an equal chance to win; that's one of the reasons it's problematic in this context. I'm saying, as with Roshambo, forget skills entirely--they are color only (take a look at Legends of Alyria--not the same, but there's a degree to which the player gets to pick which score he's going to use in each contest). What we want is not a card for each skill, or each attribute, or anything like that, but a single card that represents overall character effectiveness. Each player thus carries one, and only one, card.

I said the card should be square; that's because I envisioned it as having one score on each of the four identical edges and a blank or patterned back which would not reveal which edge was up.

Thus there wouldn't be comparitive dexterity contests or comparitive strength or fighting contests, but merely comparitive effectiveness contests: each player picks one edge to reveal, both are revealed simultaneously, and then narration determines how one side defeated the other (or how the two tied).

It would be an improvement over Roshambo because some player characters actually would be more powerful than others; it would still allow the less powerful characters to win sometimes.

The system does break down if you have prolonged contests based on repeated card exposures; it's not supposed to work that way. Rather, if Superman faces Aunt May, and Superman doesn't know anything at all about Aunt May, but his card says "A, B, J, K", and hers says "I, J, K, L", if he plays the "A" or "B" he wins, unless she plays the "L", in which case she ties or defeats him; but if he plays any other card, she might defeat him if she plays the "I". But once he's encountered her, he knows at least one letter on her card, and can take precautions accordingly--but so can she. The point is not to have a blow-by-blow resolution system, but (for rapid handling time) an encounter resolution system. You play your card, I play my card, we compare--you win, or I win, or we tie, and that's the outcome of the entire encounter. We then decide how that outcome was determined.

There is no adjustment for anything else; the card is the card. If for some reason we want to say that the character has become more effective, he needs a new card, and he may not use the old one.

Does that clarify it?

--M. J. Young

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Lots of great feedback and focusing. Lemme grab a cup of coffee; I'm gonna be here a while.... ;)

Okay,  in no particular order except "the order I find the points":

* MJ, you clarified very well. But will it work? Let's see....

* Rochambo as used in Mind's Eye Theatre LARPs is stat and skill dependant: ties go to the player with the higher stat, skill allows a player to force a re-throw (ex: if I lose a throw to punch someone, I can "burn" a dot of Martial Arts to start the whole test over with new throws).
It is very problematic for my purposes: the power range is too narrow, the results are too deterministic (66% chance of winning with high stat, all things being equal), its very easy to cheat, and White Wolf already did it. I don't like copying.
Plus, I have watched a MET player beat someone in Roshambo something like ten or fifteen times in a row, because he knew the "psychology" of Roshambo. Apparently, people are VERY predicatable in that game, once you see their "reaction pattern." It got so bad with this guy that a bunch of players made Rock, Paper, and Scissors cards, so that THEY wouldn't even choose their own throw, to be unpredictable.

* "Each player carries one, and only one, card": Doesn't this make more powerful characters LESS versatile? If there's only four edges, anyone with a rank over I - L range doesn't have all the possible choices. There's a lot of "results redundancy," though, so perhaps high power cards don't need EVERY option from x - L. Elegant, though. I might go for something in between your "one card" and Mike's "thirty cards."
How about a card for each stat (unsure of stats, yet, but 3 <= # of stats <= 9), and then skill levels can be "burned" to allow retests? Thus, someone could oppose a Strength punch action with an Agility dodge defense. That allows characters to be customized to suit a particular style, rather than just being "x" powerful at all things.

* "an encounter resolution system. You play your card, I play my card, we compare--you win, or I win, or we tie, and that's the outcome of the entire encounter": That's what I am leaning towards, also. Players declare general goals in the conflict, then run one test--perhaps with some retesting, for skills--and that's the whole she-bang.
No matter what the randomizer, that's a good General Goal: conflict is abstracted to the most basic net results, for speed.
A problem, though, is when you have Mass Combats (10, 20, or more players in a single brawl). There would be a rather long declaration stage--perhaps in reverse-order of initiative--where everyone tries to say what they are accomplishing in the fight, while hearing 20-odd other goals announced and adjusting accordingly. Mass Combat encourages the system to support granularity of action, not abstract action. It is actually EASIER (but a lot slower) to run a blow-by-blow resolution when you have more than a handful of players trying to get involved.
ARGH! Conflicting goals!

* "little one can do to prevent cheating if you're saying that sleight of hand has to be ruled out": Too true. It's a tough problem.
The card edge thing works pretty well, though, with a method like this:
1) Players choose the stat that applies totheir action/reaction.
2) Blank-backed card is held out with one edge forward, face down, with four fingers underneath convering the unused three edges. Thumb is on top of card, holding it FIRMLY.
3) On the count of three, the players both rotate wrists 90º, revealing the forward edge.
It would be very hard to "slow-throw" that method. Someone would have to "spin" the card on its surface normal axis (uh... damn computer terms... uh, the axis that sticks up out of the card, as opposed to the two axes that define the plane of the card surface) during the wrist rotation. NOT easy, particularly since they'd have to do it in a split second AND rotate it to a winning value--a value which could be symbolic and, thus, have hard-to-memorize relationships to other symbols.
I think am smelling a winner, here.... :)

* "imply is that the LARP is competitive as well. As I understand it, it's next to impossible to organize an effective large LARP without competition (as it's the only way to protagonism, typically)": Yep, you've hit it on the head.
With a 10:1 or worse player-to-GM ratio, the GMs become, primarily, accountants and bit part players. The GMs simply can not be all the antagonists AND all the NPCs AND rules enforcers AND helpers to players with questions. Thus, 99.9% of massive LARPs ("Event LARPs") end up being competative. In fact, you will find that most LARP systems have game worlds in which the players are almost forced to factionalize and then compete for resources. Some even presume players are soloists! (The Assassin Game, for instance, is primarily solo play).

* Regarding custom cards for players per event: I like it, from a promotional angle. Give 'em a goodie to take home and show off. Bring in more players.
But now that we have a better understanding of the card mechanic MJ proposes (and with my notion of coupling to stat levels), how can we tweak the notion?
How about providing stat-based cards for each player, then providing "chits" or "tags" for each level of skill that can be used to retest a stat-based test? Then, since the chit is "burned," what one actually has is a take-home memento of YOUR OPPONENTS. Kind of cool I think. I can see the after-session pitcher talk now: "And then Grog busted me in the face with this damned "Bad Ass" chit!" "Cool; look at Morgana's "Sneaky" chit, here; she got away from my friggin' E Speed with this!"
Another benefit of the stat-based cards, with skill-based retest chits: the stat-based cards could be"standardized" based on stat rank. Thus, they could be nice and laminated and (expected to be) turned in each session end, for reuse. Of course, GMs would need to have n*r*s cards on hand, where n is the number of players, r is the range of stat ranks, and s is the number of stats. Really only n*s in practice, as each player only needs s card to play. Print-on-demand from a spreadsheet would make this trivial to provide, as Mike showed. And players could, obviously, reuse the cards they used in a previous session, if they did not spend Exp on stat rank changes.

* I REALLY like the "learning oppoenents' capabilities" aspect of the card mechanic. And the gamesmanship possibilities, as folks try to underbid to obfuscate their potential but are pulled by the incentive to win each test.

* Symbols instead of letters: Good idea; more confusion and harder to memorize. For discussion and testing purposes, the letters work to simplify things, but at production time, I think it would rock to use symbols (or words) to inject color. Kudoes to Mike!

* The Dragonbone... yeah, I remember that thing.
On a related topic, I was toying with the notion of a "Pokemon Egg" device that was customized to the game mechanics. Nowadays, electronics are pretty cheap to produce, and so I figured it COULD be an option to make a randomizer that would, say, include a character's particular stats, etc, in the randomizer's code (during initial setup). The cool thing I thought about that was using infrared communications between competing players: they choose their action from a list on the "Egg", then point and shoot at their opponent; the Eggs talk a bit, and then each one's state is automatically adjusted for the results of the test. Think Laser Tag with stats.
But that's a job for the Big Boys... I couldn't hope to small-press produce such a device for use with my game.

As I said above, I think we are getting VERY close to a useable LARP randomizer, coupled closely to character ability, with options for customization of character via stats and skills (specialties).

Can we come up with any more details? It is looking pretty solid so far. And a nice thing about the system is that it could be extended by adjusting MJ's matrix: we could run a stat range of 1 - 12 as is... or go up to 1 - 26 (or 36) by including the whole alphabet (or alphanumeric range). I LIKE. I also think there could be use for the hexagon shaped card that Mike suggested, to allow for more choices for each stat rank (low stats would just have repeated values).
Hmmm.... Actually... wouldn't the number of card sides be somehow related to the stat range? I do not "grok" the MJ's matrix method enough, yet, to be able to assert yes or no, but it SEEMS as if the result redundancy allows some "reduction" of useable choices, which in turn, reduces the number of sides needed to enable a particular rank.... Uh, I think. Head spinning a bit; I shoulda stopped a paragraph ago. :)

[Walt Freitag]

Walt? Can you have a large LARP that doesn't have intra-player conflict?

You can minimize intra-player conflict but it's rarely done. Tthe two most apparent ways to do it go against the grain of most LARP design paradigms.

The first way is to structure the plot so that all of the player-characters end up cooperating against a common enemy, represented by NPCs. This is fairly standard for fighting LARPs, many of which are structured like standard dungeon modules, with parties of player-characters running through an obstacle course of hostile encounters. But for a large LARP, ganging everyone up against the NPCs is a poor formula, in that it undercuts the main strength of the medium which is intra-player interaction. And in any case, this approach has no effect on the problem of cheating, it just transfers it from player-player conflicts to player-NPC-actor conflicts.

The second way is to reduce the association of player success with character success, by encouraging different interpretations of "success" and/or by weakening the overall association between player and character. Even a conventional SIL-style LARP does this a little bit, because the character exists only for the single game, and the single game ends. There is no player investment in the character's continued existence, let alone its accumulation of possessions or "experience" or whatnot, beyond the horizon of the current event. This principle can be taken farther: see The Arabian Nights LARP for a prime example.

Personally I find most LARPs with long-term character advancement problematic. The need to protect one's investment breeds caution and cynicism in play, greatly reducing players' de facto freedom of action (unless they choose to throw caution to the wind, eschewing long-term survival/advancement, in which case their freedom of action is curtailed in a different way, by being perpetually stuck with low-effectiveness characters). Cheating is one way players try to gnaw through the bars of that cage. Security against character death (and against being put out of effective action for long periods of time) and guaranteed advancement are ways to reduce the problem, but such adjustments are often contrary to the designers' and players' ideas of genre, atmosphere, or tradition.

However, despite all that, the details of the game mechanics can make a big difference in the amount of temptation to cheat. A required action that a player must perform entirely on his own initiative, that is detrimental to the player's own interest, is a problem. Such rules should be re-designed. For instance, here's a bad rule: "to simulate taxation, each day you must discard one tenth of your money, by tearing up the bills and throwing them away." This is what ethicists call a moral hazard. One can cheat, and gain great benefit thereby, simply by not doing something that nobody is really watching to see if you do or not. I'd predict that at least half of any group of players would cheat in this case. If you want taxation, then make a big noisy event out of it; have every spare game staff/NPC player put on green eyeshades and go out and line up all the players and make them pay. (Many will then try to hide their assets -- go ahead and let them, but adjust their Social Status stat based on how much or little they actually do pay.) If that's too much trouble, then the taxation rule should be eliminated entirely.

The most fundamental protective measure is to involve the opponent in every adversarial game mechanism. Don't say that hit points lost in a combat should be marked off by each side after the combat is over; instead, put the hit points on chits or cards and make the rule that when hit points are lost they must immediately be torn in half and the torn pieces given to the opponent (who perhaps can later trade them in for some minor benefit somewhere). Make spells and powers work on a per subject or per victim basis: "if I cast this spell, I can examine all your possessions" rather than "if I cast this spell, I can examine the possessions of everyone in the room" or "... the possessions of everyone I meet for the next ten minutes." The subject/victim of the power can then be given the right to verify that the user has met the requirements (expended the needed will power, has a high enough stat to use the power, or whatever). Make sure the character cardware is arranged so that the other player is able to verify what they should be able to verify without also learning other stuff that should be secret -- this may necessitate putting different character stats on separate cards, for instance.

To avoid timing cheats like the stutter-throw, all mechanisms involving simultaneous declaration should be constructed as a simultaneous reveal of cards selected in secret and held out. There's not really a lot of sleight of hand that one can do with a single ordinary uncoated 3x5 index card (and even less with a 4x6).

The hardest form of cheating to prevent is collusion, because the opponent-verifies principle doesn't work in cases of friendly conspiracy. If a player refuses to surrender hit point tokens to an opponent, the opponent is going to complain about it to a GM and the cheating will be exposed even if it cannot be proven. But if a friendly group gets together and illegally swaps power points around to shore up their weaker members, it's going to be hard to detect at all. At the very least, you can avoid mechanisms that encourage collusion -- for instance, if there's a way for combat to provide more benefits to the winner than are forfeit by the loser, then colluding players are likely to engage in mock combats back and forth to pump themselves up. Friendly spells such as healing can be troublesome (you heal me, I overlook your failure to mark the point cost for the healing down, we both win) but can often be regulated with a bit of redesign (the healer has a limited supply of sealed envelopes containing hit points; performing the healing consists of tearing open the envelope and giving the hit points to the patient).

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

MJ, I think we're on the same page, it's just a question of how many skills or stats you want to enumerate.

A problem, though, is when you have Mass Combats (10, 20, or more players in a single brawl). There would be a rather long declaration stage--perhaps in reverse-order of initiative--where everyone tries to say what they are accomplishing in the fight, while hearing 20-odd other goals announced and adjusting accordingly. Mass Combat encourages the system to support granularity of action, not abstract action. It is actually EASIER (but a lot slower) to run a blow-by-blow resolution when you have more than a handful of players trying to get involved.

I think MJ's solution was that you just whip out cards, compare, and then declare what you were trying to do and the results afterwards. That is, in a combat situation, you'd use the relevant card, but everyone would just present them without declaring any sort of particular action, and the winners just get to say what happens. No "declarations" of action.

In any case, for a mass combat, you'd either have to come up with some sort of rule for "support" from lower folks for the leaders, or, like any other situation, everyone would have to pair off (with teaming up possible for the side with more folks). Then as fights get resolved, new pairs form, and you resolve those. Until only one side has anyone standing. Essentially, you don't allow mass combat, but instead require people to do individual combats, which in a mass situation just ends up devolving into loads of single combats.

How about providing stat-based cards for each player, then providing "chits" or "tags" for each level of skill that can be used to retest a stat-based test? Then, since the chit is "burned," what one actually has is a take-home memento of YOUR OPPONENTS.

That does sound cool.

Another benefit of the stat-based cards, with skill-based retest chits: the stat-based cards could be"standardized" based on stat rank. Thus, they could be nice and laminated and (expected to be) turned in each session end, for reuse.

Maybe. Still, having it be disposable would be neat in that they get a record of their own character as well. Given that you have to print up the skill chits each time, and distribute, it's little more difficult (mostly paper cutting and coalating) to hand out new stat cards again. Yes, if a player brings his own from last time, that works just fine. But if they forget them, or they become damaged, just print them out again and you're off. I'd have the machine there with the administrator to print out what I needed on the spot.

BTW, I have to admit that I'm seeing these with hole-punches through the middle so that they can be put on one of those cheap little locking rings. If you did go with the laminated version, then I'd definitely advocate putting these things together like that. That way you just pull out the ring with all of the cards on it, instead of fumbling through a your pockets trying to pull them all out.

* I REALLY like the "learning oppoenents' capabilities" aspect of the card mechanic. And the gamesmanship possibilities, as folks try to underbid to obfuscate their potential but are pulled by the incentive to win each test.

Yep, lots of strategies here. Anyhow, I think I like MJ's 4 sides on the same side idea. That way you only have to print one side. Going with the punch and ring idea, however, I'd definitely go with Hexagons. Six sides sounds optimal to me in some ways.

* Symbols instead of letters: Good idea; more confusion and harder to memorize. For discussion and testing purposes, the letters work to simplify things, but at production time, I think it would rock to use symbols (or words) to inject color.

The cool thing is that you could just get some symbol font that you like. Then, when converting from playtest to actual, all you have to do is change to that font to the symbol font, and voila! Instant symbols. I just did a set with my Futhark font, and it looks cool already. :-) Six per player, with 100 players would be 25 pages of paper (I'm still using squares at the moment).

And a nice thing about the system is that it could be extended by adjusting MJ's matrix: we could run a stat range of 1 - 12 as is... or go up to 1 - 26 (or 36) by including the whole alphabet (or alphanumeric range).

Well, my Futhark font has different runes for 71 symbols, My Heiroglyphics 111, and I'm sure one could do more, up to 256, or more if you wanted to do more than one font. But the problem is that this makes handling more time consuming. I think that with just twelve alone that handling will take a little time as you look for your opponent's symbol on the card. Any more than 20 and fights between badasses are going to take some time.

BTW, I used the wrong formula. I did mine with the assumption that position on the card is important (which could be implemented in a couple of ways, actually), making it a Permutation. If position is unimportant, then it's combinations, which drop the total precipitously to just 495 (the original number divided by 4 factorial). Still that's plenty. Enough to have nearly 100 players with 5 stats each and no identical cards. :-)

I LIKE. I also think there could be use for the hexagon shaped card that Mike suggested, to allow for more choices for each stat rank (low stats would just have repeated values).

That would allow for a lot more combinations again. Six sides would have 924 possible cards.

Hmmm.... Actually... wouldn't the number of card sides be somehow related to the stat range?

Not really. As I see it, the letters aren't really related directly to "stat level", as more than one are on the card representing the stat level. That is the best card would have A/B/C/D, the next best would probably be A/B/C/E. Then A/B/C/F, etc until you get to A/B/D/E, and A/B/D/F, etc, all the way on down to the worst card, I/J/K/L.

Now, that best card is certainly best, and the worst is the worst. But let's say I have A/B/C/F and A/B/D/E, which one is better? Well, each combination has exactly the same number of win conditions, lose conditions, and ties. But the first starts out stonger, but ends weaker.

This is really cool. Basically, you have not only level incorporated here, but the power/endurance thing encoded. Basically each of your combinations (495 for squares, 924 for hexagons) are somewhat different. Yes, many of these are similar in overall power. In reality you have about 12 levels of ability. But some are better in the short run, and some are better in the long run (and some sorta in-between). So you have a lot of detail in determining how to assign scores. Part of this is in other parameters as well. Some combinations will tend to tie more than lose or win, for example. It's actually really complex.

What I'd do is to simply randomize the use of equal ones. That is, if you have a character with a 5 in the system, then I'd just select one at random from those that are at about that level, and let the players figure out the differences. Again, more strategy. In fact, I'd be tempted to not include descriptors, and just let the cards speak for themselves. You'd still need something to balance scenario design, however.

One thing that I note with the flipping mechanism, is that with triangular "side" regions on the card, it's difficult to hide the data that's on other sections of the card. They'd have to hold the card out for verification and reference until one side found the matching symbol on their card (indicating the win). I'd think that both players would have to concur on the result before continuing. The longer this takes, the more of the opponent's card you can scan. Hmmm..


On the electronic idea:

The cool thing I thought about that was using infrared communications between competing players: they choose their action from a list on the "Egg", then point and shoot at their opponent; the Eggs talk a bit, and then each one's state is automatically adjusted for the results of the test. Think Laser Tag with stats.

Hmm. Going with something like the idea of Break-Keys, a craptastic idea released at GenCon by Upper Deck, you could have each device have a port on the end. To get into a conflict, you just link your egg to theirs. For games where "shooting" isn't appropriate, or if that's just cheaper than IR.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

I think there's a lot of interesting questions raised, and I'm going to give my take on these.

* "Each player carries one, and only one, card": Doesn't this make more powerful characters LESS versatile? If there's only four edges, anyone with a rank over I - L range doesn't have all the possible choices. There's a lot of "results redundancy," though, so perhaps high power cards don't need EVERY option from x - L.

If you have a player carrying more than one card, you have a number of complications that raises.

First, you have to be able to clearly identify each of those cards with the appropriate stat or skill or whatever, without showing the entire face. Two ways to do this spring to mind; one is to color code the cards (which works as long as people don't have trouble discriminating the colors, such as in dark places), and the other is to mark the backs of the cards somehow to show what they are.

Second, you complicate the encounters significantly. As Mike says, I've been presenting a concept in which the players determine the outcome of the encounter first, and then narrate how it was derived--Fortune at the Start. Superman confronts Aunt May, and she plays her L against his A, with the result that she wins. Now she narrates how it was she won--she slipped out of sight into the next room before he was aware of her presence, or she scolded him and made him realize that he was acting in an entirely inappropriate manner, or she told him that there was something elsewhere that required his immediate attention, or whatever it was. We didn't ask what either of them was trying to do before we knew the outcome; we determined the outcome, and then decided how it was derived. But if you have multiple cards, then you have to have a reason to use this card instead of that card; and you also have arguments about which card can be used in this situation--can Aunt May use her L dexterity to escape from Superman's A strength? Putting names to the cards makes explaining how the winning side one that much more complicated.

Third, you either increase the number of options characters have in such a fashion that the system starts to crack, or you create redundancies in the cards. It does me know good to have two cards with an A or two with an L if I can always find some explanation for why I get to use either one of them (e.g., if I can win with my A strength or my A dexterity, having both is a waste of my card values); but with a twelve point scale and three cards, I either have such duplication which adds nothing to the game, or I have every possible value, which completely levels the playing field back to Roshambo. The system is built on the basic rule that no player has every possible value; having one third of the values is about as far as you can stretch it before it starts to crack, I think.

A problem, though, is when you have Mass Combats (10, 20, or more players in a single brawl). There would be a rather long declaration stage--perhaps in reverse-order of initiative--where everyone tries to say what they are accomplishing in the fight, while hearing 20-odd other goals announced and adjusting accordingly.

Mike's right--twenty people can't all attack each other. You could go so far as to allow any person to attack one other person, and to defend against anyone who attacks him. That would give you a maximum of nineteen combats to resolve (if nineteen people ganged up on one--not twenty, because if the person I'm attacking is also attacking me, we have only one resolution check between us). You do it by elimination.

Of course, GMs would need to have n*r*s cards on hand, where n is the number of players, r is the range of stat ranks, and s is the number of stats. Really only n*s in practice, as each player only needs s card to play. Print-on-demand from a spreadsheet would make this trivial to provide, as Mike showed.

I just came from Ubercon. They had a nametag printer that produced a printed plastic card in seconds after the information was fed into the computer. I don't know how customizable it is, but something like that would work well. The players could create their characters, the stats would be fed into the computer, and the card would print for that player for that game. Ubercon is not swimming in money, so it can't be that pricey.

And players could, obviously, reuse the cards they used in a previous session, if they did not spend Exp on stat rank changes.

I actually have a problem with this.

I think if you're going to run this as a game (as opposed to selling it in a boxed set) and you're concerned with cheating, you want the cards for each session to be unique, so that no one can use old cards in the new game.

First, if I've got a high powered card from another game, I can always claim I don't have it with me and get a replacement, then give the old one to my buddy who's got a low character, so he can use it for his conflicts.

Second, let's say I have improved my character, raising his highest score from F to E. Why do I need the old card? Because F will beat E and H, and E won't. The matrix is designed so that no value is top of the pile, no letter beats everything below it. Having that old card with that "one more option" value on it is a big deal, and changes the permutations significantly.

I'd say that for the application you're suggesting, you want to produce customized cards for the players at the event, which cannot be used at another event. Now, you could still use these as promotionals, if you gave away promotional cards that could be traded in at registration for cards marked with the game information (or even which could be presented at any game to get a legitimate card for that game with those values). But you don't want people having spare cards in their pockets, because it is an unfair and significant advantage.

* Symbols instead of letters: Good idea; more confusion and harder to memorize. For discussion and testing purposes, the letters work to simplify things, but at production time, I think it would rock to use symbols (or words) to inject color. Kudoes to Mike!

Let me dissent here; take this with however much salt it requires.

Numbers of course have the problem that people will immediately equate them with scale; I went with letters instead of numbers because if I said that three beats two but two beats four that would be confusing, but if I say C beats B but B beats D, well, we understand that these values are not convertable to numbers.

But I'm concerned about the search time with symbols.

At each edge of the card there's a symbol--a letter by my suggestion, something else according to Mike. Below that are three lines of text. The first is "This symbol beats these", the second "This symbol loses to these" and the third "This symbol ties these". If I'm using letters, and the letters are always listed in alphabetical order on the card, I can rather quickly determine in which row my opponent's letter appears--if I find F, and E is not in front of it, E is not in that row, so I move to the next. However, if I shift to symbols, I have to look at each symbol in turn, because unless I memorize the order of the symbols (which it seems defeats the purpose of using symbols in the first place) I can't be certain that a symbol is not in row one until I either have looked at each symbol in row one or accidentally found it in row two or three.

This becomes more complicated if you increase the number of values you're using. With an alphabet system you can indeed use all twenty-six letters with little complication, because you can still almost as quickly scan each row for whether "Q" is in the right spot alphabetically in each row. With twenty-six symbols, it will take much longer.

Now, if that search time is not a problem, maybe symbols are worth something.

Of course, experienced players will learn the symbol coding, so either you'll have to change the symbols with each game or you'll have to allow them that advantage.

I also think there could be use for the hexagon shaped card that Mike suggested, to allow for more choices for each stat rank (low stats would just have repeated values).
Hmmm.... Actually... wouldn't the number of card sides be somehow related to the stat range?

Two things on this.

First, repeated values are not really workable in the system. There is absolutely no use in a card with two of the same letter on it, except to create a considerably weaker character (even if they are high values). It is the fact that each character has the same number of options that helps make the system work.

Second, because of that, yes, if you increased the number of sides on the card, you would have to increase the number of values available. With a hexagonal card, I would think sixteen (A through P) would be the minimum; an octagonal card would require a range of twenty-four (A through X) values. It would also mean larger cards, as each side must have space to list the value and all the other values in appropriate rows for win, lose, or draw. It is probably also considerably harder to hide the adjacent values on a hexagonal card than on a square one, and the more so on an octagonal one.

A quick check (I hope I did my math right) says that with twelve values you've got 650 distinct contests (A v A, A v B, A v C,...A v L, B v B,...L v L), so I'm not sure you really need to expand the range significantly. Any two players will have sixteen possible contests based on each having a single square card, so there's room to play around a bit.

I feel like there was something else I was going to cover, but I don't remember what it is; however, these are a lot of the concerns I have for making it work right, a lot of the pitfalls I see with proposed modifications--I'm not against modifying the matrix, but I do think we should understand how it works as is and how it works if you change it.

If you wanted three stat cards, you could go with thirty-six alpha-numeric symbols, use square cards, and prevent duplication. Thus each player would have twelve values--one third of the total available--and the system should scale reasonably well. You'd want to expand the matrix drastically. Currently each value is defeated by two or sometimes three lower values (usually the one immediately below and the one three below) until you reach the lowest end; that would have to be expanded to probably six lower values, which would have to be skipped through the set (probably something like -1, -3, -6, -10, -15, -16) so that the high values did not overly dominate the lower ones--and of course, the idea that the lowest value ties the highest and beats the second highest but loses to everything else (except itself) would be retained, and maybe a couple other of the lowest values would be made potent against a few other of the highest ones. Since I'm not really convinced that either multiple stat cards or an expanded matrix is all that helpful (and I really do have to finish the forums and get to bed sometime) I'll leave that for future discussion.

--M. J. Young

[David "Czar Fnord" Artman]

Again, in order I find them:

Security against character death (and against being put out of effective action for long periods of time) and guaranteed advancement are ways to reduce the problem, but such adjustments are often contrary to the designers' and players' ideas of genre, atmosphere, or tradition.

I agree, and will be noting that in the rules text section about "Designing a Game World." I think resurrection is key, here: death is just a process or type of temporary setback, not an end-of-character.
Another thing in world design that will encourage risk-taking is increased rewards, of course. I also think that increasing costs for abilities (and commensurate increase in effectiveness) encourage risk-taking, since the jaded, high-power players will have to go for the "big loot" to see a meaningful increase in their characters' effectiveness.
I will also include text about "retiring a character" (going out in a blaze of glory). That is, ultimately, the only way to re-inject interest for the long-term players: trying the world out again with a new set of abilities and a fresh character.

{Points about tearing tags for use of abilities and loss of hit points, etc}
Yep, that's how I do it. And each Reset (new day in game) means new tags for the players. SOLAR has already shown that to be quite effective.

{Collusion}
Again, tags work against this...but can't always solve it. Ultimately (as covered in the Cheating thread), the Social Contract is the only defense against cheating. AFTER all systems have been designed to reduce, mechanically, the opportunity or discrete reward for cheating to a minimum.
By the way, can we continue the cheating discussion in that thread? Just to avoid parallel posting?

I think MJ's solution was that you just whip out cards, compare, and then declare what you were trying to do and the results afterwards. That is, in a combat situation, you'd use the relevant card, but everyone would just present them without declaring any sort of particular action, and the winners just get to say what happens. No "declarations" of action.

I understand, now.
And have a bit of a problem with the "one stat" system. That makes someone more effective at ANYTHING, as they gain ranks. Thus, there is little opportunity for character customization... or, more specifically, creating weaknesses in a character. MANY classic archetypes in many genres depend upon being defined as "great at X, but has the Achilles Heel of Y." X and Y would have to be different stats.
Or... maybe we could use a TriStat-like system: the character gets their one rank, but may get more "build points" by electing to take a lower rank in specific instances.
But then we hit the wall of "no declarations": without knowing how the resolution will be "explained" after testing, a player can not know to, say, not show their A value on the card, if the resolution would have taken advantage of his or her weakness.

I feel more-and-more drawn to at least three stats, with pre-declaration. As mentioned in follow-ups, this can still be made to work in mass combat, by pairing/grouping up. MET uses the "everyone point at their target" method... and then one test is used to compare against all opposition. This means a single guy could, say, beat back four others, if all of them threw Rock to his Paper. That has a nice probability curve... but is Gamable (dare I say "cheatable"?!), if the four guys muttered to each other, "I got Rock," "OK, Paper," "Then I'm Rock...".

Though multiple stats COULD be used with explained resolutions as well as pre-declaration. If a player uses, say, their "Quickness" card, their explanation would have to employ their character's quickess, and take into account their opponent's used stat.
But what keeps folks from using the "best stat" always? Well, not much--as it ought to. Nimble, maneuvering combatant don't usually resort to brute force, and vice versa.
What encourages using other, "weaker" stats is the (VERY cool) different letters used for the same "max letter" cards. If we can work out the math right, we could be sure the players do not get "redundant" cards, from stat to stat. Thus, my "best" stat would get the least (most?) versatile letter set for that rank; and other, lesser stats would get the more (less?) versatile ones. In essence, if I have an A, D, and G, I would get cards whose letter sets have the maximum number of different letters. Then, Aunt May MIGHT just use her Force card against Superman... if her player has gamed him out enough to know which edge to show. But more often, she will resort to Quickness or Ego to dodge him (or shame him: I LOVED that example of the non-declarative resolution, even if I am still resisting the non-declarative method).

{Disposable stat cards}
We've seen debate of the good (memento, changes each session) and the bad (trading cards, using more than one). That might make this a push.
More importantly, it will be a factor of the event. One-shots are, of course, disposable. Long-terms could be GMs choice, or dependant upon when characters buy up their stat(s): one must turn in the old card for the new.
But the folks who cheat by saying they lost their card, then reusing it... that could be designed out neatly by having new cards each session, perhaps with the date to signify uniqueness. That's fine with me, as it IS trivial to reprint them all from a good database report.

{Hole Punch through middle}
I would hole-punch tags that are burned to use effects (say, skills for retest).
I would not hole-punch cards. Too cumbersome to only show one edge, with a ring ofother cards dangling and showing their values and getting tangled. As I am being persuaded to use no more than three stats, we only have three cards. Not such a big deal, I don't think, from a handling perspective, especially if color-coded for the relevant stat.

{Symbols instead of letters}
I love fonts. I love symbols. I like coming up with evocative symbols that reflect color. They would be easy to implement, typographically.
But I have been persuaded. The time it takes to reference winning/losing/tieing symbols would be too long. The advantage given to players who memorize the symbols is not good.

Now, that best card is certainly best, and the worst is the worst. But let's say I have A/B/C/F and A/B/D/E, which one is better? Well, each combination has exactly the same number of win conditions, lose conditions, and ties. But the first starts out stonger, but ends weaker.

I referred to this above, and BOY do I like it (maybe because it justifies multiple stats...?). I can not, however, handle the math/matrix for coming up with the "sets of four letters" on a continuum of effectiveness.
But it is oh-so-useful for making sure weaker stats have utility, and particularly for non-declared ("explanatory") methods of use. Players "game" to choose the stat they want, to be able to choose the letter they think will win; then, based on the two stats in opposition and the winning card letter, the winning player explains what happened, allowing for the stats involved. Nice and neat.

Of course, we have yet to "cost account" the effects which may be explained (or declared, should we fall back on that method). What's to prevent someone who wins a letter comparison from saying something to the effect of, "my guy crushes your guy's skull"?
Seems that we will end up with some more granularity of effect (say, do one Wound per success, or change range to long, or escape). But that ushers in more tests, which brings with it granularity of time (turns). We might end up regressing to the blow-by-blow combat methodology we (seem to) want to avoid.

One thing that I note with the flipping mechanism, is that with triangular "side" regions on the card, it's difficult to hide the data that's on other sections of the card

That seems to me to be a trivial problem of layout. Instead of imagining a square divided into quadrants by triangles, imagine a square divided into nine smaller squares, with the center square of each edge being the only area where letters (and the comparison charts for the letter) appear. The four corner squares are, necessarily, blank (or maybe just show the stat being used? Here's a chance for some symbolic color that doesn't slow play too much!).
Then, one only need cover the six squares "below" the three on the edge you are revealing. Cards might have to be larger. Might have to come up with a nifty way to show the win/loss/tie stuff (I can think of a few).

{Break-Keys}
Dumb things. I never DID find out what the hell the point of them was, when I went to GenCon--seemed like a particularly irresponsible way to make a bunch of plastic trash at a con with too much paper trash as it is. PLEASE don't tell me what the point was.

First, you have to be able to clearly identify each of those cards with the appropriate stat or skill or whatever, without showing the entire face. Two ways to do this spring to mind; one is to color code the cards (which works as long as people don't have trouble discriminating the colors, such as in dark places), and the other is to mark the backs of the cards somehow to show what they are.

Using my "Hollywood Squares" cards (3x3 grid of areas on each card face), we can put the stat in each corner square AND on the card back AND by color coding. I like the redundancy.

{Fortune at the start}
I am fast being persuaded to this "explanatory" method rather than my "declarative" method; but no matter what method we choose, we have the issue of cost accounting I raised above.
But I do not agree that having to make the explanation jibe with the stats employed makes it more complicated. If anything, I am inclined to say it would be easier to explain than a single stat system. The users see (1) the two letters used, which indicate "power level" employed, (2) the two stats used, indicating techniques. Those elements ought to guide the winner to coming up with a pretty good explanation, and one that will satisfy the loser, to the extent that the loser's technique is recognized and a part of the explanation.

(e.g., if I can win with my A strength or my A dexterity, having both is a waste of my card values); but with a twelve point scale and three cards, I either have such duplication which adds nothing to the game, or I have every possible value, which completely levels the playing field back to Roshambo. The system is built on the basic rule that no player has every possible value; having one third of the values is about as far as you can stretch it before it starts to crack, I think.

This is where I need the math wizzes! :)
I concur... but qualify with Mike's observation that the letter set can provide different "styles" of rank.
That is why I (above) mention providing card sets based on ranks to players that will broaden their stategic options and encourage the use of "lesser' stats from time to time.
Does it, in fact, "level the playing field" if a player could choose ranks that gave them at least one of each letter... but 2/3 of their cards are less likely to win a given test than their best ranking card?
That may be why I tried to suggest giving a player's highest rank stat the least effective letter set and the lowest rank, the most (for its rank). My Inner Mathematician may have detected this leveling you mention.
Plus, wouldn't there be some repetition of letters, from set to set for a particular character? Unless the player is trying to min-max their stats, they will surely end up with a couple of Ls or Ks amongst their three cards, won't they? Or should this be avoided, say by using a higher range of letters with the same number of cards and edges of cards (12, so far). Head spinning, again... which is a good thing, since it means there's work going on. :)

If you wanted three stat cards, you could go with thirty-six alpha-numeric symbols, use square cards, and prevent duplication. Thus each player would have twelve values--one third of the total available--and the system should scale reasonably well. You'd want to expand the matrix drastically.

Sounds like the bomb. And a plan... now if only we had a volunteer. ;)

Thank you all for the hard work. I am very, very impressed with The Forge's signal-to-noise ratio, as compared to many other forums. It is a delight to me to actually make PROGRESS on a LARP randomizer system that allows for character customization and elements of "gameiness".

If I may be so bold.... may we assume three stats, henceforth, to put focus on the cost accounting and math of the system? I can not bring myself to have a one stat system, just because I am hoping for much more character customization, and, frankly, I need more targets for "super power" effects. I mean, what's the difference between a "Slow Spell" (affects speed and dexterity) and a "Confusion Spell" (affects cleverness and logic use) if there's only one stat to target? I worry that a one stat system will become a one power system... then a one effect system... then a one-page rule book. I DO have a marketability goal WAY back on the first page somewhere. :)

[Mike Holmes]

And have a bit of a problem with the "one stat" system. That makes someone more effective at ANYTHING, as they gain ranks. Thus, there is little opportunity for character customization... or, more specifically, creating weaknesses in a character.

Well, if you have skills, that's your method of varying characters. You could just look at this method as the randomizer (which is what I think MJ intends) and the "re-flips" for skills as what separates characters. In fact, there's probably many balanced cards possible such that everyone's cards are approximately equal.

The problem that I see with this is that you quickly learn all your opponent's letters. Meaning that it does quickly devolve into an outguessing game after only a few flips. Having more cards improves this dramatically. Further, I like that you can have stats and skills encoded differently, and all the additional stuff that my method delivers.

But then we hit the wall of "no declarations": without knowing how the resolution will be "explained" after testing, a player can not know to, say, not show their A value on the card, if the resolution would have taken advantage of his or her weakness.

This isn't really a valid objection either. Because the player will neccessarily always assume the worst, or whatever intelligence he has on his opponent's intent. His play will adjust accordingly. I think that's a feature, not a flaw.

I feel more-and-more drawn to at least three stats, with pre-declaration.

I think declaration is unneccessary. And I have a simple solution to MJ's problem about cards being universally applicable. What I'd do is say that the player who institutes the conflict gets to choose the sort of card needed. So, if you attack me with your "physical" card, then I have to respond in kind. Or, more interestingly, you could have another circle again.

Assuming three stats, which I'm starting to cotton to:
Stat-------Countered By
---------------------------------
Physical---Physical or Social
Social------Social or Mental
Mental-----Mental or Physical

Maybe Social is Spiritual depending on what you like. The neat thing is that some skills could be limited as to what stats they can be used with (some to two, some to three, some with no limit). In any case, limiting the card used in response eliminates the problem with having all the letters. I think that redundancy should be used to make for weaker cards. I like the idea of the all As card. Very powerful until it's weakness is discovered.

What this will lead to, is players maneuvering conflicts to their own strengths. Which I think is only appropriate. It also gives an incentive to start conflicts which I hope will balance with the incentive of non-declaration will give to not have conflicts.

Anyhow, what stat you use would be indicated by color coding and/or on the back, and on the front, depending on how much you're willing to spend. If the players can't differentiate between the color, then they can look at the word on the front when it's flipped. Problem solved there, IMO.

The player simply says what realm the conflict is in, and then narrates the result on victory including what they were trying to do to what actually happened.

Thus, my "best" stat would get the least (most?) versatile letter set for that rank; and other, lesser stats would get the more (less?) versatile ones. In essence, if I have an A, D, and G, I would get cards whose letter sets have the maximum number of different letters.

That's also possible. Lot's of ways to incentivize the use of different stats.

{Disposable stat cards}

Long-terms could be GMs choice, or dependant upon when characters buy up their stat(s): one must turn in the old card for the new.

That's assuming that you do advancement. I'm personally against the idea in a lot of ways for LARP. The potential of advancement is what I think leads to a lot of the competitive behavior which becomes cheating. If you can only "get ahead" politically, then people will focus on that, and conflicts become more dire. If they can have any result at any time, players will only use the resolution system for important things. Which means that it'll last longer.

But the real solution to cheating here is to make them disposable, and put a code (as opposed to a date) on them that changes each session. Like a stamp you get at a club. That way they can't be forged, and players can have unique momentos from each session. I would not allow these to be traded in, as the old ones could easily be forged (with a photocopier, no less).

As I am being persuaded to use no more than three stats, we only have three cards.

Agreed that in that case they shouldn't be attached. Better yet, they can now be larger. I'd do 2.5 inches on a side. That's 12 to a page (3x4) meaning for a group of 100 that's still only 25 pages of paper. That large and you can get some ornate stuff on them.

{Symbols instead of letters}
I love fonts. I love symbols. I like coming up with evocative symbols that reflect color. They would be easy to implement, typographically.
But I have been persuaded. The time it takes to reference winning/losing/tieing symbols would be too long. The advantage given to players who memorize the symbols is not good.

Memorizing the symbols is an advantage because those players will be able to read them off of the other player's cards? I'm not sure that I'm getting that. I mean, there will only be two other visible symbols, on another player's card, and I'm pretty sure that anyone can memorize these on the spot anyhow. Yes, I'm arguing against my earlier point. :-)

In any case, I think that the only way to test search time is to playtest it. Have a control group with letters, and a group with symbols and time their interactions. I think that the additional time is in terms of a few seconds. BTW, I'd not include on the card "Cards that beat mine". That's just confusing. You know instantly that the same symbol is a tie, too. All you need to have is the symbols that yours wins against and those that it ties against other than itself. Which for some cards is not many to scan. The hard conflicts will only be the ones with low letters on both sides. Because as soon as one side scans their card completely, they can announce that they've won or lost. If it's a win, they point to their opponent's symbol on their card. If it's a loss, I'm sure no verification will be required.

I think that with "average characters" that you'll find that it goes quite quickly, IMO. Comparing only 7 or so symbols against one other. I'm a tad dyslexic, so it'll take me forever; but I can count on my opponent. :-)

I referred to this above, and BOY do I like it (maybe because it justifies multiple stats...?). I can not, however, handle the math/matrix for coming up with the "sets of four letters" on a continuum of effectiveness.

It's just a matter of adding up the wins against, ties against, and loses against, and comparing them.

Of course, we have yet to "cost account" the effects which may be explained (or declared, should we fall back on that method). What's to prevent someone who wins a letter comparison from saying something to the effect of, "my guy crushes your guy's skull"?

What prevents that in MET? You can use any method you like. I personally prefer that the winner can just declare anything. As I've said, it keeps conflicts down. Because, even if you declare a conflict that's in your strength, you could still always lose. Meaning that you're taking your character's life into your hands in each conflcit.

Then, one only need cover the six squares "below" the three on the edge you are revealing. Cards might have to be larger. Might have to come up with a nifty way to show the win/loss/tie stuff (I can think of a few).

I think that works, but it makes the display area considerably smaller (though we have more now due to size!), and the handling of the cards a bit more awkward than the flip method you had before.

Playing around with it, the best way seems to be: palm the card face up with your palm facing you so that the opponent can't see it, and curl your fingers over the protected data leaving only the required portion showing. Then, when ready drop your hand so that you look like spider-man shooting webs so that the opponent can see your card.

If players have hands that are too small to wrap effectively, then they'd have to use two hands which is awkward.

PLEASE don't tell me what the point was.

I won't. But I'll tell you that it's what you think it is. Yep, that dumb.

The users see (1) the two letters used, which indicate "power level" employed, (2) the two stats used, indicating techniques. Those elements ought to guide the winner to coming up with a pretty good explanation, and one that will satisfy the loser, to the extent that the loser's technique is recognized and a part of the explanation.

Ever play Hero Wars? It works a lot like this. So do a lot of other FTF games. It'll work great.

This is where I need the math wizzes! :)
I concur... but qualify with Mike's observation that the letter set can provide different "styles" of rank.

MJ's problem goes away as soon as you have a way to differentiate between what stat is used for what conflict. I like the idea of skills being attached to stats, such that you can only burn one if you're using the right stat. Means that players will use other stats to get the benefits of their other skills (re-flips can be as important or more important than the card).

That is why I (above) mention providing card sets based on ranks to players that will broaden their stategic options and encourage the use of "lesser' stats from time to time.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Does it, in fact, "level the playing field" if a player could choose ranks that gave them at least one of each letter... but 2/3 of their cards are less likely to win a given test than their best ranking card?

Doesn't matter. As long as redundancy isn't a problem you don't need to cover the whole field. And with other considerations, that'll add to the biases. It's all good.

Or should this be avoided, say by using a higher range of letters with the same number of cards and edges of cards (12, so far).

Again, the search time will be a playtest matter. I'd say try it out at where it is now, and if it's quick enough add some more symbols. Why not? But even with six sides and only twelve symbols, as long as the other things are in place, there will be substantial redundancy available, and hence plenty of room for characterization in terms of ability.

... now if only we had a volunteer. ;)

To do what? :-)

Mike

[M. J. Young]

I'm assuming that the sought volunteer is to create the thirty-six character matrix. I guess that's me--but if it's all the same, Czar, I'd like screen credit for that ("Thanks to Multiverser author M. Joseph Young for assisting with the resolution mechanic"; you can include Mike, too, and anyone else you think contributed significantly) in whatever literature gets handed out for this.

I'll get on that tonight; first, let me look over the comments and make some responses.

Regarding death and the impact of conflict, although there are a lot of ways it can be handled, this is what I suggest. You're talking about a card with tear-offs or break-offs to represent "hit points". This is indeed another variable in the game, as Superman would probably have more of these than Aunt May; but still, we can use this. Every conflict has these parts:

[*]Conflict is declared.[*]A single card value is revealed for each player.[*]Loser surrenders one tab from his card.[*]Winner dictates how the encounter went; death of character only occurs if the last tab has been taken.[*]The encounter is over; the winner must decide which party leaves the area. No further interaction between those two characters is possible until another encounter occurs.[/list:u]This might have to be modified for mass combat, but not necessarily. I can see a mass combat in which Aunt May beats Lois Lane, takes her chit, and then describes herself escaping from the location without further encounter, leaving Lois to fight another round (against someone else) just as easily as I can see Batman beating Spiderman, taking his chit, and saying that a wounded Spiderman flees the scene. Anyway, conflicts are thus never to the death unless a character is on his last chit (although being trapped in a mass combat in which your opponents keep beating you and leaving could shorten the value of a chit).

You mentioned something about skills that I think is interesting. If a character could have a skill which prevented an opponent from using a specific stat to counter, that would be interesting--if Aunt May had some skill that prevented Superman from using his strength/physical against her, that changes things greatly. This would have to be played at the beginning of the encounter, and comprises an extra step; however, if all skills functioned this way, it would eliminate the need for multiple contests created by skill use "replays" and thus significantly reduce the degree to which players learn each other's options.

That and the possibility that players would be restricted in which cards they could use to counter makes redundant values less problematic (although redundant values also make such skills, and this card use restriction, less effective).  I would still go with no redundancies on cards, and with the thirty-six symbol system that's not so difficult.

To put a twist on Mike's idea, you might consider whether the defender gets to pick which card he's going to use, and the attacker is then limited in his attack choices. I mention it because it's a very different game if Superman can always attack with his strength than if Aunt May can prevent Superman from using his strength. On the other hand, this may create a tension situation--the advantage is clearly to the player who gets to limit the other's card use (and if I can limit you to two cards by my choice of card and then further eliminate one of those two with a skill, I have a very significant advantage, particularly since you can only eliminate one of mine with a skill use). Thus if the attacker choose the field, it makes the game more aggressive, but if the defender, players will tend to back off and try to lure the other into attacking.

Anyway, I'm really thinking out loud there.

I'm sort of with Mike on the idea of not having character advancement. For one thing, the resolution system isn't really linear--an ABCD card is better than an ABCE card, but as observed above there are times an E will win and a D will lose. I think the thirty-six step version will increase this factor. But if you are going to allow advancement, there are a couple possibilities:

[*]New skills; if skills prevent the use of a particular card, skills are a way of empowering the character. (It occurs to me just now, so I'll mention it in passing, that you could also allow "counterskills", which overcome the skill played and allow the player to use the disallowed card. You would want to specify that no player can play more than one skill/counterskill in any encounter. Having counterskills would mean that sometimes a player would hesitate to play a skill because he might want to play the counterskill. You might also want to specify which side must play skills first, but allow that a side may play a counterskill if a skill is played against him and he has not played a skill already.) (Also, I note that you may have a problem in mass combat; a player attacked by multiple opponents should be allowed to use a skill against each of them, if he has enough skills.)[*]More hit points; if you give a character a new sheet of chits, he's alive longer. You might even make these sheets in set values representing levels.[*]New value cards; if you really want to do that, the old ones would be traded in for new ones. Figuring out the matrix of how to improve the character could be tricky, but with the rules locking out the use of some cards in some encounters the problem of duplication is not as significant.[/list:u]

Mike, Memorizing the symbols is an advantage because the function of the symbols was supposed to make it more difficult to remember the values on the opponent's cards. I don't think it more difficult to remember that he has an asterisk or a pound sign than it is to remember that he has an E or an F; the difficulty lies in knowing what that symbol means in terms of its value. Once I've memorized the sequence of symbols, they're not different from letters. If they're not different from letters, there's no reason to use them. What's worse, if they're not different from letters for some players, but they are for others, then the players for whom they are different are disadvantaged.

To put it in sharp relief, let us suppose that we decided to use Arabic numerals for the values, but we're playing in an international group in which some of the players do not use Arabic numberals. For some players, it will be immediately apparent when they see your 4 that you've got a rather high value; for others, they will be trying to figure out whether 4 is better or worse than 7, and where 9 falls relative to them.

In fact, as I look at that example, it occurs to me that in using symbols instead of letters, you may be disadvantaging players directly, in that it might take quite a while for one player to understand that the pound sign on his card is a higher value than the asterisk, even with the explanations on the card.

I understand the objection to including "cards that beat mine" on the card; but then, I'd think as a dislexic you'd be particularly desirous to have that list--after all, if you don't happen to find the letter on your card, you're assuming you lost, when it could be merely that you didn't find the letter (and the more so with symbols). I don't think the entire matrix can be included on the card, but I think having a list of cards that beat yours is worthwhile.

I agree that it is redundant to list that a card ties itself; but some cards tie cards that are not self, and so the row should be there, and should have some content, just so people know what they're looking at. Minor point, but I think valid.

Thirty-six characters means bigger cards, maybe, but this is not impossible.

What is meant in this context by "cost account"?

I'll do a new matrix for thirty-six values and put them in a separate post. I'm thinking digits above letters, but haven't yet decided whether 0 is high or low. It may be later--I've got something that just came up to which I have to attend.

--M. J. Young

[M. J. Young]

O.K., I'm back, I have most of the matrix on paper, and the rest should be easy enough to reproduce.

0 is the high number; my son Kyler pointed out that you will need to be certain number 0 and letter O are clearly distinguished (more so than they are in this font--you can tell them when they're together, but not when they're alone, perhaps, so a slashed 0 might be needed). Here goes.

[*]0

[*]Beats 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, U, V, X[*]Ties 0, W, Z[*]Loses 1, 3, 6, A, T, Y[/list:u][*]1

[*]Beats 0, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, V, W, Y[*]Ties 1, X[*]Loses 2, 4, 7, B, U, Z[/list:u][*]2

[*]Beats 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, W, X, Z[*]Ties 2, Y[*]Loses 0, 3, 5, 8, C, V[/list:u][*]3

[*]Beats 0, 2, 5, 7, 8, A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, X, Y[*]Ties 3, Z[*]Loses 1, 4, 6, 9, D, W[/list:u][*]4

[*]Beats 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W,  Y, Z[*]Ties 4[*]Loses 0, 2, 5, 7, A, E, X[/list:u][*]5

[*]Beats 2, 4, 7, 9, A, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Z[*]Ties 5[*]Loses 0, 1, 3, 6, 8, B, F, Y[/list:u][*]6

[*]Beats 0, 3, 5, 8, A, B, D, E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y[*]Ties 6[*]Loses 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, C, G, Z[/list:u][*]7

[*]Beats 1, 4, 6, 9, B, C, E, F, G, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties 7[*]Loses 0, 2, 3, 5, 8, A, D, H[/list:u][*]8

[*]Beats 2, 5, 7, A, C, D, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties 8[*]Loses 0, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, B, E, I[/list:u][*]9

[*]Beats 3, 6, 8, B, D, E, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties 9[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, A, C, F, J[/list:u][*]A

[*]Beats 0, 4, 7, 9, C, E, F, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties A[*]Loses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, B, D, G, K[/list:u][*]B

[*]Beats 1, 5, 8, A, D, F, G, I, J, K, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties B[*]Loses 0, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, C, E, H, L[/list:u][*]C

[*]Beats 2, 6, 9, B, E, G, H, J, K, L, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties C[*]Loses 0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, A, D, F, I, M[/list:u][*]D

[*]Beats 3, 7, A, C, F, H, I, K, L, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties D[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, B, E, G, J, N[/list:u][*]E

[*]Beats 4, 8, B, D, G, I, J, L, M, N, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties E[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, A, C, F, H, K, O[/list:u][*]F

[*]Beats 5, 9, C, E, H, J, K, M, N, O, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties F[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, A, B, D, G, I, L, P[/list:u][*]G

[*]Beats 6, A, D, F, I, K, L, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties G[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, B, C, E, H, J, M, Q[/list:u][*]H

[*]Beats 7, B, E, G, J, L, M, O, P, Q, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties H[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, A, C, D, F, I, K, N, R[/list:u][*]I

[*]Beats 8, C, F, H, K, M, N, P, Q, R, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties I[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, A, B, D, E, G, J, L, O, S[/list:u][*]J

[*]Beats 9, D, G, I, L, N, O, Q, R, S, U, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties J[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, A, B, C, E, F, H, K, M, P, T[/list:u][*]K

[*]Beats A, E, H, J, M, O, P, R, S, T, V, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties K[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, B, C, D, F, G, I, L, N, Q, U[/list:u][*]L

[*]Beats B, F, I, K, N, P, Q, S, T, U, W, X, Y, Z[*]Ties L[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, C, D, E, G, H, J, M, O, R, V[/list:u][*]M

[*]Beats C, G, J, L, O, Q, R, T, U, V, X, Y, Z[*]Ties M[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, D, E, F, H, I, K, N, P, S, W[/list:u][*]N

[*]Beats D, H, K, M, P, R, S, U, V, W, Y, Z[*]Ties N[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, E, F, G, I, J, L, O, Q, T, X[/list:u][*]O

[*]Beats E, I, L, N, Q, S, T, V, W, X, Z[*]Ties O[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J, K, M, P, R, U, Y[/list:u][*]P

[*]Beats F, J, M, O, R, T, U, W, X, Y[*]Ties P[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, K, L, N, Q, S, V, Z[/list:u][*]Q

[*]Beats G, K, N, P, S, U, V, X, Y, Z[*]Ties Q[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, J, L, M, O, R, T, W[/list:u][*]R

[*]Beats H, L, O, Q, T, V, W, Y, Z[*]Ties R[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, M, N, P, S, U, X[/list:u][*]S

[*]Beats I, M, P, R, U, W, X, Z[*]Ties S[*]Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, N, O, Q, T, V, Y[/list:u][*]T

[*]Beats 0, J, N, Q, S, V, X, Y[*]Ties T[*]Loses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, O, P, R, U, W, Z[/list:u][*]U

[*]Beats 1, K, O, R, T, W, Y, Z[*]Ties U[*]Loses 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, M, N, P, Q, S, V, X[/list:u][*]V

[*]Beats 2, L, P, S, U, X, Z[*]Ties V[*]Loses 0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, N, O, Q, R, T, W, Y[/list:u][*]W

[*]Beats 3, M, Q, T, V, Y[*]Ties 0, W[*]Loses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, N, O, P, R, S, U, X, Z[/list:u][*]X

[*]Beats 4, N, R, U, W,  Z[*]Ties 1, X[*]Loses 0, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, Q, S, T, V, Y[/list:u][*]Y

[*]Beats 0, 5, O, S, V, X[*]Ties 2, Y[*]Loses 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, T, U, W, Z[/list:u][*]Z

[*]Beats 1, 6, P, T, W, Y[*]Ties 0, 3, Z[*]Loses 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, Q, R, S, U, V, X[/list:u][/list:u]

I hope I copied all that correctly; I'll try to check it again, but call my attention to any anomalies you see.

--M. J. Young