Weird Tarot mechanic for shredding

[clehrich]

Mechanics Concept

Please tear this apart!  It's complicated, and may take a minute or two, and it's quite a long post.  If more clarification is needed, let me know.  Most of this will take very little time in play but takes a while in explanation (this is not the final draft of the rules, either!).

Shadows in the Fog uses Tarot cards for all mechanics; a few counters are used here and there just to keep track of numbers, but everything else is Tarot.  I wasn't happy with the first set of mechanics, because (1) they seemed like a cheap attempt to use Tarot to do stock RPG dice things, in which case why not use dice?  (2) they didn't cohere well with the in-game flavor, and I want every mechanic actually to have a certain in-game parallelism.  If you read the game (available in alpha version, which doesn't include any of what I'm about to do, at the website below), you'll see that this parallelism was always there about magic; I now want it to be central.

The game is a Victorian occult horror game based on lots of historical facts and general weirdness; authenticity is pretty much key here.

Okay, so I found two interesting points.  First, Tarot cards are still used for a trick-taking game not unlike Bridge, which I knew, but now I've studied the rules and played it quite a bit.  Second, Tarot cards do seem to have been used for a kind of predecessor to Baccarat, which I did not know but was able to confirm with some strength.  So I decided to merge the two and produce a simplified version that would support my mechanics.  In other words, I want the players to be playing this card game simultaneously with playing their RPG, which I think adds a strong Gamist element to things.

---

So here's a sketch of the concept.

First of all, everybody has a Hand of cards, dealt from a Shoe of about as many decks as there are players.  You don't actually need a real Shoe, of course; a big-ol' stack will do fine.

Now at the start, the Host (i.e. the starting GM, who is also the dominant GM in some respects) opens the Scene Bidding.  Basically the game is broken into 3 Scenes per player, including GM, which is to say usually 15 Scenes (4 players, one of whom is GM at any given time, plus 3 Group Scenes).  During a Scene, one player's PC is dominant; other players usually play NPC's and generally help out.  Since Scenes are short, nobody's left out, and besides when you play an NPC you have a lot of freedom anyway.  I figure about 15 minutes per Scene, or a 4-hour game, roughly.

Okay, so as I say, the Host opens the Scene Bidding.  The winner of this Bid will get to be the #1 player, called the Punter[1].  Next, the remaining players Bid to GM the Scene; the winner will be the Bank.

Now in order to become the Punter, you have to propose a Contract, a number of Tricks you're going to take during the Scene.  The Bank would like the Punter not to take that many, and will gain a certain bonus if he doesn't.  If the Punter makes the Contract, he will usually gain extra cards that can be paid towards skill improvement and whatnot.

A Contract involves a minimum of 3 Tricks total; if fewer than 3 are played and both Punter and Bank concur, the Contract may be voided, the Punter draws as many cards as he lost, and the Scene shifts (by Bidding) to the next Punter.

A big part of the idea here is that because both Punter and Bank want Tricks to happen, and the Punter especially wants large Tricks to happen (since he usually has the advantage), both players have an incentive to have lots of exciting things happen in the game.

A final point, before getting to mechanics in general, is that whenever a Trump is played, magic of some kind happens, quite possibly unintentionally and unrecognized by the characters.  This is a great way to win a Trick and hose your character at the same time, which (as you know from InSpectres) is a hell of a lot of fun.

---

Okay, so here goes.

Deal 6 cards to everyone.  Deal 6 more face-up; this is the Kitty (chien)[2].  Bidding begins at the current Bank's right (the Host if it's the first round).

Bids for Scenes are:

[*]Petty (petit) – Using the Kitty, you beat the Bank, and no more; minimal risk
[*]Guard (gard) – Using the Kitty, you beat the Bank, with some risk
[*]None (gard sans chien) – Ignoring the Kitty, you beat the Bank
[*]Against (gard contre le chien) – Giving the Kitty to the Bank, you beat the Bank[/list:u]For each contract, there are potential gains and losses:

Petty
win – re-draw from the Kitty or the Shoe until your hand is at original number
lose – re-draw from the Shoe until hand is at original -1[/list:u]Guard
win – re-draw from Kitty or Shoe to original hand +1
lose – re-draw to hand -1
double – no re-draw; Bank draws 1 extra card[/list:u]None
win – re-draw to hand +2
lose – re-draw to hand -2
double – no re-draw; Bank draws 2 extra cards[/list:u]Against
win – re-draw to hand +3
lose – re-draw to hand -3
double – no re-draw; Bank draws 3 extra cards[/list:u][/list:u]
—Once the Contract is accepted (i.e. the last Bid for the Scene is made, going in order Petty – Guard – None – Against, where the last Bidder must at least propose Petty if no other has been proposed), the player to the new Punter's right gets to Bid for the Bank.
—Bank bids are Cover or Double.  No Double is permitted for a Petty contract; that's why there's no risk.  A Double, if failed, loses the Bank a random card from her hand.
—Whoever wins the Bank bid (i.e. the first to Double or the last to Cover, whichever comes last, with the last bidder having to Cover if no one else has), gets dealt an additional 6 cards.  She may then decide which hand she wishes to play; the other is now her own hand for future play.
—The Kitty goes as the Contract stipulates.  In Petty or Guard, the Punter may use cards from the Kitty.  In None, nobody may use the Kitty.  In Against, the Bank may use the Kitty.
—The Kitty remains face-up in front of the Punter at all times, to keep things clear.

At the end of this process, you have a Punter and a Bank, and it's clear who has the Kitty.

—Whenever actions occur, the Bank sets a difficulty.  For example, the Punter wants to shoot someone; OK, the Bank pulls an 8.  
—Now any other player may Gamble to Raise the difficulty or Lower it.  These Gambles pick sides, automatically: whom do you want to win?  If you Gamble correctly, you'll get a re-draw, so this is a great way to get rid of low cards.  For example, a Side player bids Raise 2.
—Now the Punter is faced with 10.  He has 3 options.
1. Beat the total with a card, after subtracting Skill (max. 2, avg. 0) and Concessions (max. 5, cause problems for Punter relative to quantity, so 5 Concessions sucks hard and 1 Concession is minor).  For example, Punter has Skill 1, plays 6, takes (10-1-6=) 2 Concessions.  Punter wins Trick.
2. Fail.  Punter plays no card, loses Trick.
3. Trump.  Punter plays a Trump card, using magic (which is not at all a good thing if it's not what you had in mind, as magic is dangerous stuff).[/list:u]
If Punter Trumps, Bank may re-Trump if desired, then Punter has choice to Trump again.  This is all rare, because it means 3 Trumps for one action and thus one Trick, where both Bank and Punter end up playing 2 cards for 1 Trick.

—Once 3 Tricks have been played, either Punter or Bank may call for Close of Scene.  (Before this, they must agree to void the Contract.)  If one of the two players wishes to go on, Side players may bid to Close the Scene, using Trump only.  If one does so, the Scene ends and the Side player re-draws; the Trump is forfeited to the player desiring to continue the Scene.  Otherwise, the Scene continues until both players agree to cease or one runs out of cards.  

—At that point, the Tricks are tallied.  If Punter's Tricks minus Bank's Tricks >0, Punter makes Contract; otherwise Bank breaks the Contract.  Re-draws are assessed as per the Contract.

—If there are more than 6 cards in anyone's hand (i.e. the winner under cartain Contracts, etc.) the player must lay off the excess cards toward skill improvement immediately.  These need not be "earmarked" for special skills; they are bonuses.  

—The Bank now discards any remaining cards in her hand; she of course still has 6 of her own set aside for future play.

Thus at the very end of a Scene, everyone has 6 cards or fewer, and some cards are probably laid off for skills.  Move to next Scene.

--

I realize this all sounds rather baroque, but in practice it ought to be rather quick.  With only 4 players, bidding will be fast, and once you have a Punter and a Bank, the bidding is simple.

The in-play part really is a matter of strategy and what's going on in-game.  The Punter really needs cool things to happen so he can play those cards, win those Tricks, and make the Contract.  The Bank wants some cool things to happen as well, because otherwise the Contract will be voided.  The Side players want cool things to happen so they can Gamble on winners; based on the Contract, they know how badly a given Punter needs to win, and if it's real bad the Punter must have lots of good cards or he wouldn't have proposed a tough Contract, so they may well want to play cards along with the Punter.  And so on.

Apart from general comments, I wonder if anyone has remarks on the viability of the system for reasons of statistics.  That is, am I missing something that will ensure that the Punter should always (let's say) bid Guard and will always win?

Anyway, any comments, suggestions, or criticisms are welcome.

Chris Lehrich

Notes
1. Punter: from the Italian punto, still used in the French Baccarat and much used in Victorian slang to mean a gambler.
2. Chien: literally "dog," and the Italians and so forth use talon, but Kitty is a lovely translation; I wish I knew who proposed it.

[Peter Hollinghurst]

Shadows in the Fog uses Tarot cards for all mechanics; a few counters are used here and there just to keep track of numbers, but everything else is Tarot. I wasn't happy with the first set of mechanics, because (1) they seemed like a cheap attempt to use Tarot to do stock RPG dice things, in which case why not use dice? (2) they didn't cohere well with the in-game flavor, and I want every mechanic actually to have a certain in-game parallelism. If you read the game (available in alpha version, which doesn't include any of what I'm about to do, at the website below), you'll see that this parallelism was always there about magic; I now want it to be central.

The game is a Victorian occult horror game based on lots of historical facts and general weirdness; authenticity is pretty much key here.

I think that keeping as much in-game parallelism makes a lot of sense Chris (its an issue Im keeping very much in mind with Fortunes Wheel). The pure mechanics aside (Im terrible with statistical chances etc), to what extent does having a more conventional card game (ie Baccarat) analogy in play tie into both the dominant social/gender groups envisioned as player characters in Shadows, and does it still tie in with the use of Tarot at that time? Im just curious as to if this keeps with the in-game parallelism or starts to break it again? If you have a playing group where cards would normally be played, it is an exquisite in-game parallelism. If it can also tie in historically with the move towards restructuring the Tarot based on concepts raised through such groups as the Golden Dawn, even better.
Just a thought.
Hope you get lots of helpful replies on the statistical issue!

[Rob MacDougall]

Chris:

I know you want comments on the mechanics here - the actual rules of the card game within a game. But can you say something about how you see the card play interacting with the imagined events of the role-playing session? Is this task-resolution, scene-resolution, are we competing for narrative rights here, does each trick represent something happening in the game world, or do we play out the whole hand and then declare what has happened? On first reading, this system seems pretty baroque, but the terms certainly do give it a nice feel, and the idea of bidding for a number of tricks as a way of combining skill and strategy and randomness is pretty ingenious.

Someday I'll have to get you in touch with my friend Jeremiah, another Boston area gamer who is working right now on a bidding/trick Tarot system for a John LeCarre-esque spy RPG. (Which in turn sounds like Zero At the Bone, although it isn't really in execution - just something going around in the memespace I guess.)

Rob

[clehrich]

Peter and Rob,

I think your comments and questions really hit on a central concern here.  I do think it makes sense, but I need to explain a bit more.  See, if the mechanic and the rest of the game are really tied together, it's very hard to present just the mechanic -- you end up having to present more and more and more....  So I guess it's looking promising?

Okay.  Let me try, starting with the parallelism.

The characters are not, in a literal sense, playing this card game.

Note that there is a rules-variant option called Assumption, based on Tim Powers's novel Last Call, in which such cardplay really is sort of literal for the characters, but this is a variant (and an ugly one).[/list:u]Instead, imagine that there's a kind of magical conflict going on perpetually.  Everyone who's doing real magic, in whatever way and for whatever reason, is involved in this conflict, willy-nilly.  Most people are probably essentially pawns, being pushed around by the bigger players.  A few people are the real powers, and they all know each other, although it's quite possible that they've never met; for them, London is sort of like the Cold War for intelligence agents -- dangerous, exciting, horrible, addictive, impossible to walk away from, and a really Great Game.  (See Powers's Declare, incidentally, not to mention LeCarre.)  Everyone else is either trying to stay out of the way, so as not to get used, or trying to get enough power that nobody can push them around.

Okay, so your characters are players in this game.  Initially, they sit at the table with all the small fry and some of the rather disguised piranha.  The more they learn, and the better they get, the more the stakes rise and the players get better.  Eventually, they sit at the big table behind the velvet rope, and their play affects the world in potentially drastic ways.

Furthermore, the fact that your characters are players means -- wait for it -- that the players' characters are players.  Eh?  The point is that the parallelism comes backwards too.  The better you as a player get at having your character be good as a player, the better the character actually becomes at playing the game, and therefore your cardplay as player actually has greater power and meaning for both players and characters.  

I know this sounds like I'm on drugs, but the idea is that initially, these Tarot cards just don't mean much to the players.  Some people have some associations to the card-meanings, of course, but those are all abstractions.  After you've been playing Shadows in the Fog for quite a while, though, every Trump has become associated with not only a particular general meaning but actually with shared history, all of which can be drawn on explicitly and implicitly to shape the universe.  Thus your characters' play at the magical table actually shapes and ultimately improves your players' play at the literal table.

Enough of that; even my head is starting to spin.

----

Now since every mechanic in the RPG here is done with Tarot cards, and since Tarot these days has a pretty strong occult association, I thought that having the players compete in a Tarot card-game would neatly parallel the characters competing in a magical "game".  And by simply stealing as much as possible of the rules from the actual game Tarot as played in much of modern Europe, and which was certainly present in Victorian times (if not exactly popular), I get some color and flavor and strategy without having to be creative.  :-p

----

But can you say something about how you see the card play interacting with the imagined events of the role-playing session? Is this task-resolution, scene-resolution, are we competing for narrative rights here, does each trick represent something happening in the game world, or do we play out the whole hand and then declare what has happened?

So I'm never quite clear on terms like task and so on, but basically I think what we're competing for is narrative rights.

Punter: I shoot the gun out of his hand.  Brilliant skill.
Bank: That's seriously hard, though.  Okay, 10 Pentacles.
Punter: Ouch.
Bank: Any Side bids?
Sarah (Side player): Raise -- 5 Swords.  You're toast.
Dave (Side player): Nope, I pass.
Punter: 15?  Yikes!  Now after skill that's 13, so... Page of Rods!  
Bank: That's 2 Concessions.  Your Trick.
Punter: Okay.  With a typical negligent gesture, Lord Henry waves the revolver a few inches to the right and fires, intending to take the gun out of this thug's hand.  "I beg your pardon, but you are obstructing the path.  Kindly move aside, hmm?"  Unfortunately, I actually peg the guy's wrist, which takes the gun out of his hand but hurts like hell, and he and his pal are totally not going to back down now.
Bank: Hey, Sarah and Dave -- you guys want to be the thugs?
Dave: Definitely!  
Sarah: Gimme the one with the bum wrist -- I've got an idea.
Bank: Right you are.  Pick, um, 2 for each NPC hand, okay?
Punter: Oh shit, I'm totally hosed, aren't I![/list:u]And so on.

I'll have to think about a better example, and also a couple examples for Trumps (which represent magical forces) entering, but this is the concept.  

I hadn't thought of it quite that way, but I think what's competed for is narrative rights.  The bidding for Punter and Bank establishes what sorts of rights are available to different players during the scene.  The bidding on an action establishes narrative rights for that action (broadly construed).

Does that clarify anything?

Chris Lehrich

[Peter Hollinghurst]

The metaphor seems to hold up. It sounds rather good to me actually, plus anyone even mentioning ideas by Tim Powers goes to the top of the class in my estimation (but then Im a dedicated 100% Powers nut-I think he writes somes of the very best fantasy out there). His way of thinking works well with yours-there is a nice quirky originality.
As to the mechanics themselves, I guess the best thing is play them through and see how they work. If I get a chance I will try them out on a few friends (Im going to do that with my own Tarot mechanics, so why not yours as well at the same time?).
The main issues I can see are how well the bid system works in practice with a bunch of maverick rpg's, and if it destroys any aspect of immersion (something Im thinking may be a problem with aspects of my own tarot system). I guess I need to arrange an evening to play it all through and see what happens...