This presentation is tied to this thread in the Theory forum. This is a draft of a system designed to allow intent-based resolution through Transactions instead of Contests or Expenditures. It is not a complete game because I have not given it a direct application, but I think it is a playable system of resolution with a lot of potential for custom application. I don't have questions, but since it's here, comments or suggestions are welcome.

The Cash System
©Hunter Logan 2003-4
--------------------------------------------------
The Cash System is an intent-based resolution system for roleplaying.

Terms:

Intent-Based Resolution: The single most important goal is to allow players to get what they want out of play. What happens should make sense in context of the game world, but this is emphatically not about simulating the objectivity of a real world. This is about players doing exciting things through their characters and feeling satisfied with the outcome. Of course, every player will not get his exact wish fullfilled on every occasion, but the goal is to promote an atmosphere where this happens as often as possible. When this doesn't happen, the player will at least receive some compensation for that.
Cash: Each player receives a certain amount of cash at the start of play. This can be allocated as points, chips, tokens, or whatever. Monopoly money is fine. Cash works just like money in Negotiated Resolution.
Negotiated Resolution: Players negotiate through all contradictions in the game and about the game world. So, when a character engages in combat, no one throws any dice. Instead, the players negotiate the outcome based on the situation, character ability, and their own intentions.
GM: A GM is not an absolute requirement, but many groups are comfortable having a GM to handle administrative tasks, arbitrate disputes, and provide some sort of structure for the game world. The GM is a moderator and facilitator for whatever goes on in the game. The GM mostly plays the game world and presents story hooks to engage the players in the game. In that way, the GM provides resistance to the players and helps the players find reasons to negotiate and spend cash. Yet, the GM is equal to every other player in one important way: The GM gets the same amount of cash as any other player. If each player gets 100 points, the GM also gets 100 points. The GM can create any number of NPCs or other assets for use in the game, and the GM can give these to players as desired.
Players: Each player should develop one or more characters to use in the game. Each player also has the right to make desired changes to the situation, and introduce new material into the game subject to the rules of Negotiation. If players create more than one character, these may be shared with other players or given to the GM as appropriate for the situation. Players may also play NPCs as appropriate.
Characters: The GM and players make up characters for use in the game. These characters have no numerical statistics of any kind. Players write descriptions that inform the group about the character and the character's abilities. The character's abilities should be appropriate for the game, and some performance-related items might have standard descriptors which indicate how well the character can do things. Ideally, the player also provides pictures. It doesn't really matter where the pictures come from or how they were made, but pictures are worth thousands of words. Between the pictures and the descriptions, we should get a pretty good idea of what the character is about.

Characters
Each player will need one or more characters to commence play. A character can be created on a plain sheet of paper. Here is the process:
1) Write a Concept to record initial ideas about the character.
2) Provide an Image to show how the character looks. The picture can come from most any source:
3) Indicate a Goal for play.
4) Indicate Attitudes.
5) Describe Assets. Describe the resources and abilities at the character's disposal. For each beneficial Asset, be sure to include a fairly obvious Liability. This provides a natural sense of balance.
6) Define a Problem: This is an immediate problem which the character must act to resolve. Everyone has some sort of problem. Sooner or later, that problem has to be resolved.

Cash
Cash is a resource like money. Each point of cash is treated like a dollar. Each player begins play with Starting Cash. This amount increases and decreases through negotiations during the game.
The system is intended to facilitate negotiation and satisfactory resolution, not hoarding of cash. Hoarding is dysfunctional play. A player's total cash will go up or down, but this is not Monopoly. Players should make money some money then spend it at the as needed, but discipline is good, too. A player who spends too much at the wrong time can go broke. Ideally, players will keep the cash moving while saving a certain amount for emergencies.

Starting Cash
Each player begins the game with a fixed amount of cash. $300 per player seems right to me, allowing for a combination of really cheap and more expensive transactions. Less money will make every transaction more costly. More units may encourage shrewd players to accumulate more, thus becoming unstoppable - At least for a while.

Refreshing Cash
Players in a group will have to decide when it's appropriate to refresh the cash. That is, player will have to decide when and if it's appropriate to return to Starting Cash. One group may refresh at the beginning of every session. Another may refresh only at the end of an adventure, or not at all.

Adding Cash
I think it's best if the total cash in play stays fairly constant, but that's not always possible, practical, or desired. If a player joins the game, that player gets Starting Cash. Otherwise, strategies for adding cash should be worked out on a group-by-group basis. If I were going to add cash to the game, I might consider offering rewards for completing adventures, accomplishing goals in the game, or doing cool things in the game. Anything is possible, but it really depends what a group decides to do.

Losing Cash
It might be equally possible to lose cash. When a player leaves the game, his cash is gone. Otherwise, players in a group might levy fines or penalties for missing sessions, showing up late, or whatever. I don't like the idea of losing cash because, to my mind, the money should always go somewhere. If a group is collecting fines or penalties, where does that money go? How is it used? I really don't have an answer at this point.

Going Broke
If a player spends all his cash, the player has gone broke. The player has no cash to spend in negotiations. The real question here is what to do about it. Again, I think groups will have to decide for themselves.
1) The broke player is out of play. That's pretty brutal.
2) Let the broke player suffer. The player will probably have to make sacrifices to get money from other players. This may require a careful play because the player is at a significant disadvantage. I like that idea, though. Cash is a resource; players should watch their spending.
3) Take up a collection. The player announces his dire straits and other players with more cash can help him stay in play. This is what nice people would do, but the collection is strictly voluntary. If the player went broke being a pain in the ass, he may just have to suffer.

Negotiation
Negotiation is the real heart and soul of this system. As in most rpgs, the GM may offer a situation. Then, the players can decide how their characters respond. When everyone likes the way things are going, there is no need to negotiate. People make their declarations, respond to each other, and play goes on. When someone disagrees, negotiation begins. Disagreements need resolution. Here, resolution is accomplished through negotiation, and that usually means cash will change hands.

Declarations
The declaration is powerful. A simple declaration can potentially rearrange the dynamic of an entire situation. Declarations indicate the players' intentions and set the stakes for negotiations. The more precise the statement, the more powerful it becomes.
Thus, a player can declare, "I wade into the enemy horde, blades swinging." We don't know what effect this action will have on the enemy horde. The player controlling the horde would get to reply. The Horde Player's options are wide open. If the horde is simply a bit of color, the Horde Player might reply, "And you're cutting a wide swath through the horde's ranks." This would be an agreeable exchange, requiring no negotiation.
In another situation, characters fleeing from enemies might want to take refuge on a waiting boat. A player might declare, "We run to Annabelle's boat and get aboard as quickly as we can." This time, the GM has other plans. He really doesn't want the characters to get away so easily, so he declares, "As you reach the docks, you see smoke rising. The orcs have beat you to the boat and set it ablaze. It's burning to the waterline." The boat was actually one of the player's assets, so she tartly replies, "Bullshit! The boat is fine. We get aboard and cast off." Now, it's time to negotiate.

Offers
Any time two or more players make contradictory declarations, the players must negotiate to resolve the conflict. Negotiation revolves around the Offer. Here is a basic example.
As seen above, The GM declared that Annabelle's boat was burning to the waterline. The player declared that the boat was fine, and that the group could get aboard to cast off. This must be resolved before anything else happens. In this case, the player had the last word, so the GM has an option. The GM can either make an offer, or the GM can request an offer from the player. This can be stated informally as follows:
1) The GM makes an offer: "20 bucks says the boat is burning." Now, the player has the choice. The player can take the money: "Okay. The boat is burning. We'll have to try something else." Or the player can pay the money: "20 bucks. Here. (pays the GM) The boat is fine!"
2) The GM requests an offer: "O-kay. How much?" The player replies, "20 bucks." Now the GM has the option to accept or reject as described above.

It does make a difference who makes the offer and when. Let's use the boat example again. The GM declares that the boat is burning. The player contradicts this, saying the boat is fine.
1) A player can't make or request an offer until someone makes a contradictory statement. So, when the GM says the boat is burning, the player is not allowed to say, "Oh? Make an offer!" This won't work because we don't know what happens if the player rejects the offer. We must have conflict in order to have negotiation. So, the player must respond to an unpleasant declaration with a contradiction. Obviously, if the GM says, "The boat is burning," and the player responds with, "The boat is fine," this is a contradiction.
2) When a player makes a contradicting statement, that player is not allowed to simultaneously request an offer. Thus, the player is not allowed to say something like, "Wrong! The boat is fine. How much?" When a player makes a contradicting statement, his options are limited..
3) When a player makes a contradictory statement, that player is allowed to immediately make an offer. So, the player could say, "Bullshit! $20 says the boat is fine. We get aboard and cast off." Now, the other player has to decide is whether to accept or reject the offer.
4) If the contradicting player doesn't make an offer, the other player has the option to make or request an offer. So, the GM says the boat is burning and the other player responds, the boat is fine, the GM now decides whether to make or request an offer.
5) When a player makes an offer, that is the final offer. No one else can add money to it.
6) When a player requests an offer, players who have an interest in the outcome can make the offer bigger. So, the GM declares, "The boat is burning." The player replies, "The boat is fine." The GM says, "Oh? How much?" That player might respond, "$10" At the same time, another player may say, "I add $15." And a third player could declare, "Count me in for $5." The offer is now $30, and the GM must decide whether to take the money or pay. If the GM takes the money, he gets $30. That is, $10 from the first player, $15 from the second player, and $5 from the third. If the GM pays, he gives $10 to the first player, $15 to the second, and $5 to the third. In this way, players can share in the transaction.

This system of resolution should be very quick! It's not about haggling or foot-dragging. The cash goes on the table. Then, someone gets what they want, and someone gets paid. I don't have any schedule of mandatory payments. This is all about Intent. What does the player want? How bad does the player want it? That's what really matters.
Negotiation is a strategic process. Based on $300 starting cash, trivial matters should result in offers of $5 or less. More important matters could hit $30. Climactic events could cost over $50, and vital, life-or-death affairs might result in offers of $100 or more. In some situations, players might trade a buck or two, but I sort of expect most offers will run somewhere from $5 to $30. A $50 offer is a big deal, and a $100 offer is huge. Those sorts of exchanges really shouldn't happen until the end of an adventure.

Stakes
As everything is predicated on Intent, I need to say something about the stakes in a negotiation. A player's declaration sets the stakes. Any declaration that damages or destroys assets can be contradicted in such a way that the damage is less or the damage didn't happen. So, the GM may declare, "The boat has burned to the waterline." The fire destroyed the boat. That's the GM's intent. The players have a lot of options in their response. In the examples above, the player completely undid the damage, and that makes the negotiation an all-or-nothing affair. People being people, that all-or-nothing approach will probably make the negotiation more expensive. The GM could have said, "The boat is burning! You'll have to act quickly to save it!" The players might go along with that.
Judgments like that work fine with boats and equipment, but sometimes the stakes are higher. Then, we need guidelines. Prime examples include personal contests or combat. The rule of thumb here is simple. Whatever a character does can be done back to him.
Say two characters are arm-wrestling. If both players want to win the contest, that will demand negotiation. The first player might declare, "I make a mighty effort and smash my opponent's hand right through the table!" Those are high stakes. The second player can respond in kind and say, "$50 says that's what my character does to you!" That is fine, and easy to resolve.
In combat, it is much the same. If a player declares that an opponent is wounded, the opposing character can inflict wounds. If a player declares an opponent is knocked unconscious, opponents can knock the player's character unconscious. If a player declares that an opponent is decapitated in a single blow, those are the stakes.

Ability
Anything a player declares is subject to the character's ability as written on the character sheet. If a character has a broken leg, that character shouldn't be throwing super-flying spin kicks or dancing ballet. If a character is a terrible shot, that character should not put on displays of great marksmanship. The character should have the ability to support the declared action. Much of this is on the honor system, but even here, the system provides. Any player who disagrees with any declaration is free to make a contradicting declaration with cash on the line.

I am playing with notions about sacrifice and bribery, but those can wait. This is quite enough for one day.

Hi, Hunter.
Coincidentally, I've been thinking about a system very like this all week. I was going to call it "The Lumpley Principle RPG". :) I haven't had a chance to post it because I've been sick all week. So thanks for reading most of my mind and doing it for me! :)

For the initial set up of the game, players could start with all the money shared out between then, then spend that money on establishing the principles of the game, the more specific details of the social contract. The spent money goes into the central bank and the agreed upon details gets written down along with a note on how much money was spent on the point. These details then will act as a future money supply when the social contract is questioned by later character actions.

For designing important characters, settings and situations, I thought that players can create these by detailing them and note their importantance by how much money the player gains from the central bank. The limit here is that the players are all working from the same bank of money in the centre of the table. Also the most creative players get the most reward.

For disputes, I'd use King Solomon's Auction from the Scattershot Forum. Which as I currently understand is: both parties in the dispute declare their outcomes. If there's no resolution, then all players have the opportunity to bid money to the various outcomes. If one party elects to loose, their players receive the bid money. If no resolution, then repeat the bid process. The players can also bid money from the social contract details money, and the character, settings and situations monies.

For more fluidity, I'd keep the phases of social contract negotiation, and character, setting, situation open, but with an "account book" detailing the balance available in each account.

One or three sets of Monopoly money would be most useful for the game.

Hunter wrote: 1) The GM makes an offer: "20 bucks says the boat is burning."

The first player might declare, "I make a mighty effort and smash my opponent's hand right through the table!" Those are high stakes. The second player can respond in kind and say, "$50 says that's what my character does to you!" That is fine, and easy to resolve.

Emily Care wrote:

Hunter wrote: 1) The GM makes an offer: "20 bucks says the boat is burning."

This is delicious. There's something about it being dollars that gives it oomph. Maybe because coins or chits don't have the same associated value that bills have.

Emily Care wrote: Oh, and Andrew. If you do make the Lumpley Principle Game (which basically Hunter has done), you'll have to call it the Lumpidoodly Principoodly Game, or Vincent will be all up in arms.

Hasbro
(09) 915 5200
And ask for customer service.

Emily and Andrew, thanks to both of you. You made my day! : )

Hi Andrew,

The Lumpidoodly Principoodly Game. Glad to hear I could read your mind. I hope you're feeling better. Use what I've got as a reference; that's evolution. I'm sure you'll do a bang-up job, and I'll enjoy reading it.

Hi Emily,

I hope outcomes are not just by fiat, but you might be right. I hope that keeping the cash supply limited will encourage players to think about their declarations and their offers. As marketers like to say, "Price is a rationing device." As for funky interplayer dynamics, no doubt, you're right.

Thanks again,
Hunter

Unsurprising I like this a great deal.

The "put your money where your mouth is" Negotiation principle is exactly like Universalis; only instead of the winning bid of a Challenge just going to the "bank" it gets paid to the other player.

That would make a pretty good Universalis Gimmick, I think I'll throw that up on the site.


Interestingly, in Uni, the Challenge goes to the Bank and the Complication takes from the Bank keeping the money flowing among players. Without Complications, there'd be a decided lack of money in the game; so a rule like this would almost be required to keep the economy working.

Pretty slick.

Hi Hunter,

Glad to be of help!

Hunter Logan wrote: I hope outcomes are not just by fiat, but you might be right. I hope that keeping the cash supply limited will encourage players to think about their declarations and their offers. As marketers like to say, "Price is a rationing device."

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for your kind words. I'm embarrassed to admit, I still haven't picked up a copy of Universalis. Everything I've read about it suggests you've done excellent work, but my situation is such that buying games is at the bottom of the list. It's really a shame that libraries don't buy rpgs for their collection. They buy graphic novels and anime dvds.. Why not games? Anyway, thanks.

Hi Emily,

If you try out some of these ideas, I'll be very excited to hear how they work for you. Also, I looked at auction ideas including the Scattershot material. They're great ideas, but you pegged it: I'm intent on speed and simplicity.

Thanks again,
Hunter