[Kabuki LARP] lar

[Albert of Feh]

I am in the process of designing and writing a Narrativist one-shot Live-Action game set in medieval/early-modern Japan and drawing from the traditions of Medieval and Edo-era literature and Theatre (notably Kabuki and Bunraku). The main thematic question is "What must be sacrificed to live in a world where Honor is everything?" The game will be run on the weekend of the 21st of May, and have between 15 and 20 players.

I am creating the system with the following design goals:
1. Conflict resolution should support a variety of stakes.
2. Conflict resolution should have a very small handling time relative to the amount of game time that the conflict takes. (discrepancy between real time and game time is minimized)
3. Mechanics should support the themes of the game, as well as infuse the game with color from the source literature.
4. Exercising the conflict resolution mechanics should actively contribute to the tension, excitement, and enjoyment of the game, not just be a way of declaring a victor.
5. The system should be easy to understand and quick to pick up.

I would appreciate comments on how well you think that my design accomplishes these goals, suggestions to better achieve them, and general reactions. As this is a draft of the system document, even simple editing suggestions are worthwhile.

Also, I feel like the game needs some more possibilities for increasing a character's Honor. Suggestions for good mechanisms to accomplish this are welcome.

-----------------------

So, first off, there's Honor. Honor is your public Face, and largely is supposed to represent the repressive and normalizing forces of society. It covers the standard things you would expect something Honor to cover, as well as various social conventions and proprieties... but only on the surface level. Stabbing someone in the back and leaving them in a ditch won't affect your honor unless it comes to public light.

Honor is extremely important. In addition to being a social mark to indicate how different characters should be treated (all characters will wear a visible indicator of their Honor), it gives a measure of social control (see below). Also, it reflects how hard you are to kill. Nobody's going to care if you kill the honorless ronin, but if you just took out the Honorable noble Lord, there's going to be hell to pay, socially and mechanically.

Each character (all pregenerated) will have an Ideal. A character's Ideal is what is important to that him in life, whether it is Love, Peace, Money, Integrity, or something else. Situation will then be set up such that as many characters as possible will have the achievement of their Ideal be in direct contention with maintaining their Honor.


So, here's what a conflict looks like. Conflict can be used in a variety of fashions, from fights to debates or contests of intimidation:

The two opponents (yes, only two) face off. One is designated the aggressor, and the other is designated the defender, as circumstances dictate. The aggressor goes first.

On a player's turn, he can choose either to 'raise' or 'strike'.
-If you 'raise', the conflict escalates and your turn ends. Raising has the effect of increasing your chances to succeed when you do strike and increasing your potential payoff when you win the conflict.
-If you strike, the conflict is resolved and the game moves back to non-conflict mode.

Resolution works as follows: The person who struck has a Radius Of Success equal to the number of raises in the conflict (by either participant). Each player picks and simultaneously reveals a number between 1 and 20. If the difference between them is less than the Radius Of Success, the striker has won. 20 wraps around to 1 to make an unbroken wheel of values. The function of this is to simulate a fortune result without relying on external props like dice or cards

-If the striker wins, he gets a Payoff equal to the difference between the number picks. The Payoff can be spent to accomplish your goals in the conflict. Character abilities may be used to augment your Payoff in certain situations.
-If the striker loses, his honor is reduced and his opponent gets a small Payoff to accomplish some small goal.

Some goals (most notably PC death) will require a certain amount of Payoff to accomplish. Rough guidelines will be given for other stakes, and final decisions require a vote by bystanders (see below)

This conflict takes place in real-game time. That is, as the two players are staring each other down and deciding whether or not to raise, time is passing. When it's your turn, you may speak in-character. Players may act out a fight over the course of the conflict (in slo-mo, and with heavily telegraphed moves) for dramatic effect, as appropriate. In fact, conflict should be as performative as possible.

The role of bystanders: As mentioned, the conflict mechanic is limited to two people. It is socially prohibited to interfere. Any player may interfere, nullifying the conflict, at a significant cost of honor to himself. However, bystanders do have a function in the conflict itself.
1) Provide an audience to the conflicting parties to make their conflict as dramatic and enjoyable to watch as possible.
2) To push conflict along. I mentioned that conflict happens in real time, which means that it's entirely possible to delay resolution, theoretically indefinitely. If enough of the bystanders agree (I'm leaning towards unanimity), they may order a player to either raise or strike immediately, or face censure and a loss of honor.
3) To vote on stakes and their cost. If the player wants to accomplish something that is not accounted for in the cost guidelines, he proposes a cost for it. Honorable bystanders then vote on whether or not that is an appropriate cost for the stake, evaluated relative to known existing costs. The observer with the highest honor rank breaks ties. This decision is to be made at a meta-IC level; that is, the character is not actually making the decision, but the decision should be arrived at more-or-less from the character's perspective. If bystanders vote 'yes', the Payoff is spent and the stake accomplished. If they vote 'no', the Payoff is spent for no effect and the spender is censured, losing some honor. If no bystanders are available for voting... well, the conflict is outside the bounds of the normalizing influence of society. No censure is possible.


Another note on Honor: If you Kill another player, you lose honor equal to your victim's honor. This is no problem if he was an honorless ronin, but makes you a ripe target if your honor has suddenly been vastly depleted and someone wants your blood.

----------------

Other, not-directly-conflict-related mechanics: At two or three points throughout the game, I will call an assembly of the players. Each player will briefly (but dramatically) chronicle the most important thing he has accomplished so far, and how he did so. Then the other players will vote on whether his goal and actions have been Honorable. Those that are voted honorable get an honor boost. Those that are voted dishonorable are censured.

-------------

Each character will also have a variety of limited-use abilities to accomplish certain stakes, relevant to their character and color, allowing them to accomplish certain small stakes automatically.


Thanks for your time,
-Albert

[Albert of Feh]

Er, the title should be more like "larp system up for evaluation" or something. oops.

[Adam Cerling]

Hello, Albert!

Your system strikes me as unique and entertaining. These are the questions and comments that come to mind:

How do you ensure there are only ever two participants in a challenge?

I can easily think of some situations where it would be difficult to determine an aggressor and a defender. But since these roles seem merely to dictate who goes first, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

How will the participants simultaneously choose numbers between 1 and 20 without the benefit of props?

It seems foolish to raise as far as five, so I'm guessing most Payoffs will be four or less.

Are you concerned that players might vote in blocs? That friends will vote for friends?

Good work so far: I find simple, inobtrusive LARP systems like this refreshing.

[Albert of Feh]

Hello, Albert!
How do you ensure there are only ever two participants in a challenge?

If you have 2-on-1, the 2 have to take turns (if applicable). If you have two conflicting pairs, then you have two conflicts (with fewer observers for voting purposes).

How will the participants simultaneously choose numbers between 1 and 20 without the benefit of props?

Best I can think of is to require them both to say their number loudly, clearly, and simultaneously. You may not be able to process exactly what your opponent says, but it gets the numbers out there, allowing you to sort them out at leisure.

It seems foolish to raise as far as five, so I'm guessing most Payoffs will be four or less.

five raises is when your chance of success greater than 50%, yes. But remember that striking and failing comes with a (probably sizable) penalty of honor, so 50% may or may not be good enough for you. Some tasks (notably causing a PC death) will certainly require at least 5, though other circumstances may make it easier.

Are you concerned that players might vote in blocs? That friends will vote for friends?

If you're talking about player-blocs at a metagame level, I'm not particularly worried. The Stanford Gaming Society is a pretty tight-knit group, and in-game relationships are more likely to govern voting. And actually, I want blocs of characters to vote according to petty politics. It's called Honor, but it's using a very different definition of Honor than you or I might use. In a modern setting, most of what it governs would probably better be called "Propriety" or "Conformity". But it having the role of a supreme virtue is important to the setting and important to the thematic material.

[Walt Freitag]

I think this looks really promising overall, and it's very inventive. A few comments:

I don't like the asymmetry between the "striker wins" and "striker loses" outcomes. Each player who raises is taking an increasing risk, but at high ROS the reward seems to go mostly to the first player who doesn't raise -- that is, the one who strikes. This might discourage raising above 4. Suppose I raise from 6 to 7. This is a courageous move because the odds are mounting up against me should the opponent strike. But if my opponent does strike, and I beat the odds and win, I get only a "small payoff" (plus whatever value my opponent's loss of honor might be to me). Also, it makes all the eventual strikes one-sided in a sort of AD&D "one swings, one defends" way, where I would visualize many Kabuki battles as simultaneous clashes. (Though I'm no genre expert; I might be wrong about that.)

One way to fix this might be to have an additional outcome available, so that once a player strikes, the opponent can choose between, say, "defend" and "clash." Defend would work as the existing rule (putting the striker's honor at risk should he lose but offering low rewards for the defender), while "clash" might offer higher rewards for whoever prevails and/or higher physical risks for both sides, but no loss of honor. Or something like that; I haven't thought every nuance through for that idea.

The simultaneous calling out of numbers has a potential temptation: it would be quite feasible for a quick-witted player to add or not add "...teen!" to a call of four, six, seven, eight, or nine depending on the opponent's call. Few LARPers I've known would do such a thing, but many would at least think of the possibility of doing it, which might cause suspicion even if no one actually cheats.

If I were doing this LARP I'd look for a way to put a Clix-like number wheel on mock weapons, or something similar using some setting-appropriate prop. For this particular game I'd use folding paper fans with a number on each vane. The players open their fan so as to expose one single vane with the number of their choice, and they reveal them simultaneously.

- Walt

[Andrew Morris]

How will the participants simultaneously choose numbers between 1 and 20 without the benefit of props?

Eh, that's easy enough to solve. Write it down on a pad and show it at the same time or use cards (A-10 in one color being 1-10 and A-10 in the alternate color being 11-20). Though I guess pads and cards could be considered props.

You could also go with hand gestures: 1-10 using the appropriate number of fingers, 11-15 using the right fingers and the "okay" sign with your left hand, and 16-20 using the right fingers and any other sign (like the cornu or fist of metal, or whatever). Insert your own gestures here if you prefer, the point is that you've got plenty of range to represent 1-20.

[Albert of Feh]

I think I've found a cooler way to do the choice thing. It turns out that you can buy http://asianideas.com/pafaco.html">paper folding fans for pretty cheap. On one side of the fan I will write the numbers 1-10 in order along the rim. Each player will have a fan.

When it's time to pick numbers, both participants turn their back, partially fold up the fan such that their pick is the highest number showing, and then whirl back to face each other simultaneously, fans showing.

Instead of a Radius Of Success, the striker will have a Length Of Success, which acts in exactly the same manner, but only extends in the positive direction from his picks. The probabilities should work out to the same.

[Walt Freitag]

Cool idea, Albert! Wish I'd thought of that! :-)

- W

[BrennaLaRosa]

That's a great idea! Might not ship well though, those things are cantankarous.

[Mike Holmes]

Just quickly, the odds with either the range 20 system, or the range 10 system that only wraps high do have the same odds, and they're very simple to calculate. With the 10 range you basically have a 10% chance per level to win. That is:

1 = 10%
2 = 20%
3 = 30%

etc.

But this means that the first player has to raise to 1 (so that it wins against a zero difference). He cannot strike. The second player can strike with 1 or raise to 2.

Basically, what happens is that the person who is the non-agressor will have the 10%, 30%, 50% options. The agressor will have the choice to strike with 20%, 40%. I doubt that raises will get above this point, because the non-agressor must figure that 6 would certainly get called - it's a 60% to succeed, and up to 6 reward for the agressor, and worse, if it wasn't taken, then he'd be passing to a 70% chance to get up to 7. You can't let your opponent have that.  So the non-agressor will take at 50%, I believe. They have even odds and good payoff chances.

But the uneven payoffs are key here. I think you should keep them. Because what that does is to allow the player to take a risk at, say 30% or 40%. Basically beating the opponent to the punch. With even returns, I think that you'd see people not wanting to be the agressor, because they'd have to take at 40% to get an even payout, or allow the opponent to take it at %50.

This isn't a lot of interaction. I think, again, that you'll see mostly one or two strategies. If you can get the fans to go to 20 somehow (label both sides?) then you get a bit more brinksmanship, I think. In that case, you might want to allow players to up the stakes more than one at a time. If one jumps right to 6, do you go to 7, or to 8?

Mike

[Adam Cerling]

I'm been mulling this over a bit, looking for the optimal strategy.

The system makes it perfectly clear what your odds are at any given time. Before a certain sweet spot, a striker has worse than 50% odds; after that sweet spot, a striker has better than 50% odds.

So if my strategy is simply never to strike until my odds are 50% or better -- and to strike immediately if they do reach 50% -- won't I win, on average, 50% or more of all my conflicts?

I'd be tempted to stick religiously to such a strategy. Even if I don't get much Payoff, I'm still winning an optimal number of conflicts. Winning conflicts seems more valuable than Payoff.

[Mike Holmes]

Yes, but that ignores the strategy of the other player who has precisely the same goal. Yes, of course you are incentivized to let the number get as high as it can. What stops you from letting it get that high is the fact that the opponent may take it before you do. It's an auction mechanic, you have to outguess how high your opponent is willing to go.

In this case, it's an easy guess, however, because certain options are just either very bad ones. For example, nobody is going to jump on striking on zero, one, or two. Because they have such a poor rate of return, and you are pretty much garunteed that your opponent will go higher. And there's no reason to pass on 50%, because you know that your opponent will take any higher amount.

Given that the pass/fail is equally distributed by who wins the auction, the payoff is extremely important. It puts a bias in the player's strategy that wouldn't be there otherwise. Without it, there's only two strategies, I think for each player, agressor and non-agressor, that are optimal. Maybe even only one. With the payoff bias, you have to guess (or know) how much the player desires a certain level of payoff to determine your own strategy.

If you don't believe me, then try playing with somebody a bunch of times, and see what happens. After the learning period (like where you learn to play all the strategies of Tic-Tac-Toe), you'll see very few strategies emerge as dominant. I garuntee it.


This does bring up a potential problem that I just thought of. Let's say that one player wants to kill another, but the other is only trying to avoid being killed. Well, then, why not just strike as early as possible, fail, but leave the opponent without the payoff needed to succeed?

Or is this intentional? Do characters always have the option to "retreat" by becoming dishonored? If so, that makes sense.

Mike

[Albert of Feh]

Or is this intentional? Do characters always have the option to "retreat" by becoming dishonored? If so, that makes sense.

That was the idea. Having higher honor makes you harder to kill, because it can be spent to essentially escape from these conflicts. Of course, you can't keep 'running' forever.

In addition to there being smaller consequences of killing someone with a small honor score, I think some people are also going to have abilities that make it easier, particularly any characters who are part of the vendetta subplot. A decent portion of the revenge stories involve trying to get the revenge legally authorized. Once the target is dishonored, this becomes possible and the revenge can go through.

That said, with the exception of the vendetta subplot and maybe a couple of other instances, I'm trying to generally de-emphasize player-killing as a means of accomplishing goals. Providing this sort of escape clause for the general case makes it less likely that somebody's going to end up dead unless it's the full weight of a subplot crashing down on him.

[Mike Holmes]

Two things. What, if anything, stops a player from just hitting the same "retreating" player with the same contest over and over?

1) Actually, if this is theoretically allowed, then perhaps players will not retreat knowing that they'll only get hit again right away. Perhaps the only way to get somebody to stop picking on you is to try to win against them. Are there any limits to contests?

2) If they can't hit the player again over and over, then the player can retreat, even when they are the subject of a sub-plot. Basically nobody will die (or otherwise lose big) unless there are equal goals on each side to make them participate.

I had a thought - perhaps it is cowardly for someone of high rank to kill someone of low rank? As a convention for play, say that when you kill somebody you go to the lower of your Honor minus theirs or, their honor. So if you kill a mook, you become a mook. So instead you have to send your own mooks to off them. Yes, this does mean that killing somebody reduces you to half or less honor - this could be ameliorated by some special abilities, perhaps.

This makes some strata amongst which a player can operate most effectively. That is you can best dominate those who have about half of your Honor (they're the ones you're most likely to kill).

If this doesn't quite work out for Kabuki, I'm thinking that a TSOY Ammenite LARP would be perfect for it.

Mike

[Walt Freitag]

What, if anything, stops a player from just hitting the same "retreating" player with the same contest over and over?

I can't speak for Albert's techniques, but in many larps, players can avoid contests by physically avoiding their enemies -- such as by trying not to be in the same room with them. Avoiding public spaces has big drawbacks (few resources or opportunities are accessible without entering public spaces) but sometimes survival takes priority over other concerns.

In my indoor games, I usually want to avoid having players physically chasing each other around, so there's usually an after-combat escape rule that says the opponents cannot re-initiate the engagement for a certain amount of time (e.g. five minutes) and cannot chase or follow each other during that time (allowing either party to escape, if that player wants to, without turning into a footrace). Though the original intent of such rules was safety, hence requiring no in-game-world explanation to justify them, I've found that players often interpret them, on a different metagame level, as a formal "end of scene" process. A rare example of scene framing in larp.

- Walt