Forge Notebook Entry #2: Kill Bill Inspired Mechanics.

Yeah, saw Kill Bill the other day, kicked myself for not seeing it at the cinemas, then immediately went and saw Kill Bill 2 at the cinema. Ben's quick-capsule review: Fucking Wicked.

So it got me thinking about how I could make a game where mass carnage can be had, and is indeed aimed for, while still keeping that truly human hero aspect. Here's a few points I noted:

--Nearly every fight she gets into, she gets hurt.
--She always overcomes the hurt when fighting the "bosses".
--She chews through pions like cannon fodder.
--She must go through weaker baddies before fighting the "Big Ones".
--She has the coolest goddamn sword ever.
--There is occasionally collateral damage.

So here is my attempt at recreating this coolness:

PC Stats:
Start Game with 8 points to distribute among 4 stats. Must put at least 1 on each stat.

Style: 1-3 (max 6, raised via in-game training (btw, Pei Mei is the best))
Weapon Coolness: 1-3 (max 6, raised in-game by finding a cool weapon)
Luck: 1-3 (max 6, raised in-game via advancement somehow)
Grudge: 1-3 (no max, raised in-game by killing "bosses")

You also have two derived stats:
Action Pool: equal to all your stats added together (starting character will have 8). This is how many d6 you roll to do stuff.
Damage: Built up in-game. You can't die by taking damage, but if you take an amount of damage equal to your combat pool, you become incapacitated, and if you are alone with the enemy, you gain a Grudge point and must generate an in-game description of how you survived (like, I dunno, maybe falling into a coma?).

Ok, so you use your action pool to do stuff against other people. If someone ties you up, you lose your Style and Weapon Coolness stats, so your rolls against their tying you up will be made with only your Luck and Grudge contributing to your Action Pool (unless, say, you had a knife on your person, in which case you would keep the weapon coolness of the knife). If some person is not opposing you directly or indirectly, you automatically succeed (within the bounds of plausibility, like, you can't jump from america to china).

Damage is the cool part. If you take a point of damage, you record it on your character sheet. At any time throughout the game, you can "use up" your damage to add directly to your Action Pool for that encounter. So say you just fought through a hundred pions to get to BossX, and took 6 points of damage on the way. You could add that 6 to your Action Pool against BossX, thus drastically increasing your chances of success. Once used in such a way, the damage pool becomes empty again (you're still damaged, but you can't use it to fuel your fighting anymore).


Example You've got an Action Pool of 10. You walk into a restaurant to kill Some Guy. But this guy sends like ten guys at you. They are pions, so they all have like Action Pools of 2 and for pions this means 2d4 (pions use d4, you use d6, uber-bosses use d8). So the first 3 come at you (they always come in little waves), and you roll 10d6 while the GM rolls 6d4. You get 6433221111, and they get 42 42 11. You can "kill off" any one of their rolls with a higher one of yours. You deal damage to them equal to the difference. These are weak pions, so they are probably going to only have 2 HP (enemies have hit points, only the PCs can't die). A tie between individual die means that you didn't damage them. So in this case, you managed to kill two of the attackers and damage one. If a pion takes damage, they can't participate in the next wave.

So the next wave comes, again, 3 guys. You roll 6654443332, and GM rolls 31 41 11 for the pions. This time all of them fall.

Next wave includes the damaged guy from the first wave, and the last two guys, who look like they know what they are doing a bit more (they have 3d4 and 3 HP). So you roll 6544332221 and they roll 321 322 31. So you could kill all of them, but you decide to let them damage you a bit first, cos you are near Some Guy. So you can re-arrange the order of your die to let them hit you a bit, but you still wanna kill off that earlier guy why not. So to meet 321, you use 221, to meet 322 you use 332, and to meet 31 you use 44. So earlier guy falls and you deal 1 HP to one of the remaining guys, whilst the other dude deals 1 damage to you.

Now one of the pions is out for this wave cos he took damage (they always fall to one side clutching thier wound, watch some of their friends die, then get beck in the fray). So you roll 6542222111, and pion rolls 442. You meet his 442 with 111, letting him deal 7 damage to you (your damage total is now 8). (this might have been a bad idea, in case Some Guy deals damage, seeing as he is a boss and all... but then again, it might make for some plot thickening).

Next wave includes damaged guy from before again. You roll 5555444421, and they roll 432 411. You kill them both.

Now when you fight Some Guy, you have a potential Action pool of 18 (8 from damage).


Of course, all of this would play out with a helluva lot more description from the players (who have total narration rights over the interpretation of the rolls, in how they are damaged and how they deal damage), while the GM describes the pions running/jumping/crashing in and screaming/falling/writhing/crawling away in trails of blood. Also, there has to be lots of blood.

Also, if, during the above fight, you managed to grab a second weapon, that would be considered much coolness, so your Weapon Coolness would increase, increasing your combat pool. There'd be some sort of table giving numbers for the coolness of weapons and using multiple weapons.

There'd probably also be a rule saying that the players must each generate a list of people they want to kill and why, and also generate a reason why they are all together. It could be as simple as they are all friends, so when one has a grudge, they all help out.

Oh yeah, and I just remembered, if you are fighting some guy(s) and your rolls are too crap and they damage you when you don't want it, but your Action Pool was big enough to have "spare" rolls, you can use these to "absorb" the damage dealt to you in the form of converting it to collateral damage. You must describe the collateral damage and how it plays out. Bosses can do this too. So, for example, say I had an Action Pool of 10, and this guy I was fighting had an Action Pool of 6, but I rolled all 1's and he rolled all 2's. Normally, that would mean 6 damage to me, but instead, because I have 4 1's left over, I use them to "convert" 4 damage to me into collateral damage and I take 2.


I dunno. just a thought that came to me. I liked the idea of wanting to be damaged to boost your boss-killin skillz, because it let's players narrate all sorts of dramatic blood-spraying shit and incentivises the whole "kill hundreds of dudes to get to the bad guy" thing.

What do you guys think? Is it total rubbish? Does it make no sense whatsoever? Is it too complicated? Or too basic? Does it destroy the awesomeness of Kill Bill-esque combat?

Thanks,
-Ben

Not bad at all. Would need some playtesting to make sure all the numbers work, but conceptually I'd say its definitely worth developing further to see where you can take it.

In fact, I strongly encourage you to not simply leave it as a neat brainstorm you had one day and leave it at that, but actually make something playable with it. There is potential there for a really cool game.


I'm going to now go out on a limb, and rely on you to take this in the spirit it is given. This little exercise of yours is exactly the sort of thing I think you really could benefit from doing for Eclipse.

Not the specific mechanics, I mean the process.

You sat down to write this with a clear vision of what you wanted. In this particular case, modeling a Kill Bill slaughter fest. You did not create mechanics to handle everything. You created mechanics to handle specifically those elements of Kill Bill that were worth modeling. You studied your mental image and made a list of the key features that your game needed to have. You then wrote mechanics to accomplish those key features and spent zero time on mechanics that weren't related to those features.

As a result you have the makings of what could well be a powerful game engine, focused on accomplishing exactly your clearly concieved vision of what you wanted play to look like.

Even if playtesting shows that the mechanics don't work as well as you'd hoped, I think this post is a wonderful example of the thought process of approaching a design. Its one I hope will be linked to in the future.

I personally would love to see you take this same approach with Eclipse. Again, not the specific mechanics, but rather the process. Find that element of Eclipse that makes the game exciting to you. List out those 6 or 8 or 12 key elements that make the game interesting just like you did above. And then make your mechanics focus on those elements like a laser, just like you did above.

I'm quite impressed by it. I hope you'll develop it further.


BTW: I think the word you're looking for is "peon". If I'm not mistaken, a pion is a subatomic particle. If the character were to be slicing through pions with a sword, I suspect there'd be a really big boom ;-)

Thanks Ralph! Yeah, I've only ever heard the word "peon", so I was spelling it phonetically.

I'm going to now go out on a limb, and rely on you to take this in the spirit it is given. This little exercise of yours is exactly the sort of thing I think you really could benefit from doing for Eclipse.

Find that element of Eclipse that makes the game exciting to you. List out those 6 or 8 or 12 key elements that make the game interesting just like you did above. And then make your mechanics focus on those elements like a laser, just like you did above.

I don't want Eclipse to have one type of thing that people do. I want it to have heaps. I look at it like the difference between Ultima Online and Diablo 2. Diablo 2 focuses on the killing, and Ultima Online focuses on a lot more. Hell, you can be a blacksmith for your whole career, or a tailor, or whatever. Both are great games (apparently, I've only seen them). Does that make sense?

You are members of an ancient and secret
guild, whose goal is to ensure the fulfilment of ancient prophecies,
and you are being sent to a recently discovered country to
establish a new base of operations. You play members of the
dark and feared guild of assassins known as the Wraiths, whilst
also maintaining the public façade of local merchants

Tell me more about these guys. Make a game about these guys. I've played tons of games with humans and nature loving elfs. Haven't played any about assassin guilds posing as merchants seeking to bring about an ancient prophecy (yes, I know they were two seperate ideas...they work well together though). You could do all sorts of cool mechanics with this...an empathy stat that when its high it makes them better merchants and solidifies their cover, but makes it difficult to kill indiscriminately. When its low, they are cold killers, but have trouble with their cover. A "fake it" skill that lets them pretend to have empathy so they get the best of both worlds, but which threatens to drive them mad. Mechanics for bringing the prophecy closer, for divining who the next person needing to be killed (in a sort of reverse butterfly effect) to bring it closer, and how to get back on track if you kill the wrong one. Lots of cools stuff there.

The other thing that grabbed me was your two warring lizard guy people. One useing magic, the other weapons. The same species who occupy the same ecological niche, but who hate each other. How about a game about guerrilla warfare in the swamps (or desert or whereever these guys live). Each side has its own attributes representing what each finds cultureally important. That could be cool.

Splitting them up into seperate games, while still all part of the same setting and thus with the potential to interact, would effectively give you the White Wolf/World of Darkness model.

Take that for what you will. Might be something you want to emulate, might not be.

Okay, two things:

One: The Kill Bill thing is sooooo awesome I wanna wrap it up in a fajita and eat with three or four packets of Taco Bell Fire sauce. Goddamn I want to play this. Just have to find a group now. Seriously, keep developing this one.

Two: I'm also digging the idea of splitting up the setting for Eclipse across several games, but NOT via the White Wolf model (ie: same game system morphed to accommodate several different types of characters). No no no. Instead, make up COMPLETELY different mechanics for each game to further focus on the important aspects of each "snapshot", as it were. Emhpasize that these are all part of a greater whole, and that story elements can be carried across from one game to another, but they are not specifically designed for "crossovers" (so much so that such a thing might even be physically impossible), and that this fact is a feature, not a bug.

-- The Other Ben

Valamir wrote: But I'll tell you what I did find cool in Eclipse.

You are members of an ancient and secret
guild, whose goal is to ensure the fulfilment of ancient prophecies,
and you are being sent to a recently discovered country to
establish a new base of operations. You play members of the
dark and feared guild of assassins known as the Wraiths, whilst
also maintaining the public façade of local merchants

Tell me more about these guys. Make a game about these guys. I've played tons of games with humans and nature loving elfs. Haven't played any about assassin guilds posing as merchants seeking to bring about an ancient prophecy (yes, I know they were two seperate ideas...they work well together though). You could do all sorts of cool mechanics with this...an empathy stat that when its high it makes them better merchants and solidifies their cover, but makes it difficult to kill indiscriminately. When its low, they are cold killers, but have trouble with their cover. A "fake it" skill that lets them pretend to have empathy so they get the best of both worlds, but which threatens to drive them mad. Mechanics for bringing the prophecy closer, for divining who the next person needing to be killed (in a sort of reverse butterfly effect) to bring it closer, and how to get back on track if you kill the wrong one. Lots of cools stuff there.

Three things:

- What you describe sounds like it emulates well what I've heard of the Kill Bills.
- I'm not likely to play this, but then I'm the guy who studiously avoided those movies. If you were inspiring me, you'd be doing something wrong.
- I explained the idea to a friend who did see and like both Kill Bills and he was slavering over his email so badly I had to wipe my screen.

I think you're onto something and it's something good.

SR
--

I explained the idea to a friend who did see and like both Kill Bills and he was slavering over his email so badly I had to wipe my screen.

-- The Other Ben

So I guess that means I'll be developing it a bit more. Now I'm kinda stuck for what else I can add... I guess I'll come up with something. Maybe if I watch the movies again...

Ravien wrote: P.S. Do you think that if I made this game, and it was actually pretty cool, that good 'ol Quintin might give it a big tick of approval? Does that sort of thing ever happen?

Well, I hate to be the downer here, but... No. No, it will never happen. Not in a million years. But that's okay. I wouldn't count an official license as one of your goals at this point. Make a kick-ass game first.

Well, what you need to do now is give some thought to the structure of actual play.

Ok, not takers. Fair enough.

I don't usually post twice in a row (I prefer replying to someone else), but I thought this question didn't deserve it's own topic, but I would appreciate input about it.

My questions is, as was brought up in this thread: of the GNS modes, what the hell do these mechanics support?

Andrew Morris seems to think they support Sim play, but I'm not convinced. When I think about it, at first look they feel gamist to me, but then again, when I think more about them, they feel narrativist. Here's why I think so:

Narrativist?
They rely on player narration. Not just "I hit him", but more that the actual mechanics don't say anything about what is going on (hence why I think they can't be simulationist). All they say is "decide what specific outcome you want and narrate it".
They encourage exploration of the character's life. The reward system functions solely on players narrating their history and how it relates to the present.
The rules are rather light. Whilst this really doesn't mean Nar, it does seem to be a correlate.
There's probably other reasons, but I'm not big on my Nar definition.

Not Gamist or Simulationist?
The rules do little to represent reality in any tangible way. In reality, the Coolness of a weapon does not correlate with increased effectiveness. They also do little to conceptualise what is happening in the shared imaginative space (instead, they act as guides to how the player should narrate what is happening in the SIS).
They do not reward what I typically view as gamist activities, like choosing the most risk for the greatest reward or seeking out in-game loot. Instead, they reward things that contribute to your character's story. It makes no difference if you choose to get yourself into a really dangerous bind, or a relatively safe one: there is no gamist advantage to either decision; and thus, IMHO, players are free to be as creative and interesting as they like, without fear of any penalties or bonuses for choosing a particular direction.

This is all just my view though, and I could be talking out of my ass. So I'd love to hear what GNS mode(s) any of you think this system might support. Perhaps if I know the right mode, I might be able to better cater for that when I type this thing up eventually (sometime soon I hope... and it will have a totally wicked layout :)

Thanks,
-Ben

Hi Ben,

It is hard to tell because the material presented so far is only half the story for the game. The other half of the story as far as guessing the CA is the reward system and the behaviors it encourages.

My guess is Sim. I don't think its Narrativist at the moment because I can't see that the mechanics speicifically encourage the players to address a premise, which is the definition of Narrativist. It could possibly be a 'Stay out of your way' narrativist system like the pool but again there isn't enough evidence. Just as a note, Whether something is narrativist or not has nothing to do with who gets to narrate outcomes. Narrativist play, Narrative and narration rights are all seperate ideas. You can have distributed narration rights in sim and gamist leaning mechanics as well.

The reason my guess is sim is not because the mechanics model reality but instead they model the 'kill bill' type fight scenario. Specifically they are concerned with reproducing with high fidelity the type of fight that comes about in that film.

But as I said, so far its incomplete (but definately cool.) It could be narrativist with, perhaps, a reward system that is bent in that direction.

Trevis

Trevis Martin wrote: The reason my guess is sim is not because the mechanics model reality but instead they model the 'kill bill' type fight scenario.

Just as a note, Whether something is narrativist or not has nothing to do with who gets to narrate outcomes. Narrativist play, Narrative and narration rights are all seperate ideas. You can have distributed narration rights in sim and gamist leaning mechanics as well.

I don't think its Narrativist at the moment because I can't see that the mechanics speicifically encourage the players to address a premise, which is the definition of Narrativist.

The reason my guess is sim is not because the mechanics model reality but instead they model the 'kill bill' type fight scenario.

I'm not very qualified to discuss GNS issues, but I'm pretty sure this qualifies as Sim. The game doesn't seem to address any sort of premise (like how far would you go for revenge), so it probably isn't Narrativist. The characters cannot be killed or even suffer significant setbacks (damage is at the player's discretion and serves as a benefit), so it probably isn't Gamist. That leaves Sim. And very entertaining Sim from the looks of it.

As an aside, I don't think it will take too much effort to describe concepts without mentioning Kill Bill. While I haven't seen the movies, it is my understanding that they are basically an homage to every martial arts movie and ninja/samurai anime ever made. Basically using modern SFX to make a live action martial arts movie as much a gore-fest as a martial arts anime. If you want to describe Kill Bill without mentioning Kill Bill, just go to the sources that inspired it.

Does a premise have to be in the form of a question?

Ok, so what would TRoS be? It's mechanics address a premise "what is worth killing for?", and are also very Sim, in attempting to model combat and other stuff very accurately. Is it both Nar and Sim? It looks like it plays more Sim than Nar, but uses the Nar aspects to direct play.

What is the premise of The Pool? The mechanics don't seem to address anything in particular, they merely seem to be a way to resolve things and focus play into the player goals. Is it just Nar by default (because it can't fit into Sim or Gamist)?

Is this game (which I'm calling "Scarlet Wake" for now) just Sim by default?

Help me, I'm confused!

-Ben

Let me go out on a limb and recommend that if you have not, you read Applied Theory. It attempts to discuss how to use creative agenda theory in designing games, and several people have said that it helped them immensely in understanding the three agenda.

Ravien wrote: I see your point, but... don't all (or at least most) mechanics simulate something to some degree?

Ben then wrote: As I understand Sim mechanics, it isn't enough that they merely "simulate something", they must be designed such that the very concepts explicitly correlate to some in-game event, such as a "to-hit" roll, or a "damage" roll, or a "skill check"... things which have a very clear correlation with the in-game actions and/or outcomes. I personally think, with my limited understanding, that if a mechanic is simply "do something", then it can't be Sim, but it can be Gamist or Nar. Concersely, such mechanics that are explicitly defined by a correlated in-game action can be Sim or Gamist, but not Nar. But I could be completely wrong, and it wouldn't be a surprise, because I've only read the essay twice (which means I understand 2/10ths of it), and have never even browsed the GNS forum.

Thanks, M.J., that helped alot. I read the link and considered your post and this is what I've come up with:

Gamism is about exploring system and how it helps you succeed.
Simulationism is about exploring the world and the options available therein.
Narrativism is about exploring characters and the impact their choices have.

Does this seem about right? If so, then yeah, my first instinct was correct, and Scarlet Wake is most likely Gamist, and as you mentioned, probably "low-impact" too. Cool. Gamism and Sim were always my favourite 2 GNS agendum.

-Ben

Well, I'd say that those particular definitions are insights into small pieces of the whole; each of the three agenda explores all of the five elements, in varying intensities and combinations.

But that's a good start, and I'm glad it helped.

--M. J. Young

System: Rolling lots of dice and matching them up is takes alot of time and involves numbers/tactics. This can make it kinda slow and gameist. I think that playtesting will be the real tell.
A way of reducing the number of dice rolled could be using larger dice instead of more dice for character advancement. An idea borrowed from Jade Claw is rating the different stats with different dice. Just a few options off the top of my head.
GNS: I'm with the other guys that it seems mostly Sim and kinda Gameist to me.
Possible Titles: kinda borrowed from other places
Blood, Death and Vengence! (from The Gamers)
Wrath, Ruin and the Red Dawn (Two Towers)
Mercy is for the Weak
Pray for Mercy, Bastards!
I really like the game idea. I may borrow it for one-shots, or to play when drinking. I think that the same idea could be used for Supers type games, or anything where the PCs are larger than life.
-Craig

Hey Craig.

Yeah, I was thinking that the number of die rolled might be too high, and may very well get out of hand. I'm considering a few options, all will probably have to be play-tested to see what works best:

Scale down the attributes.
Make the Action Pool divided by 2, 3, 4, whatever.
Allow the Action Pool to be halved to increase the die type.
Rate stats with die types (as you mentioned).

I might even try a few of these together. Who knows. But yeah, rolling 20d6 is kinda a bit much (as can happen quite easily with damage adding to your AP).

Thanks for the game title suggestions, but I'm sticking with Scarlet Wake as my working title for now. It's short and conveys the right meaning in a suitably gruesome and classy way.

Also, this may end up being a "one-shot" game, as you've mentioned, being designed for single-session runs for some fun and carnage. I kinda like that idea, and I think it suits the style more than trying to get a campaign going. It might also be cool to bring back old characters as extras in sessions, or better, as adversaries. Yeah, I think I might play with that idea a bit. See if I can't give this game a real feel for the cycle of revenge, by having players play characters who kill bad guys for revenge, and then play other characters who hunt those first characters in revenge for their revenge... it's a complicated but cool cycle, and fits the whole "underground killers" thing. Let's see where it takes me.

But when I get some time I'll playtest this mofo and see if I can't get an Indie Design topic going soon. I am having a lot of fun coming up with the color and art for this game, which is super-cool. I'm going for that grungy anime style from that scene in the 1st movie. It suits it all perfectly IMHO.

-Ben

Hi, there!

I've been lurking this forum for awhile, and had no intention of posting until today...I was browsing around, looking for inspiration for a mechanic for something I'm working on, when I stumbled across this thread.

Have you ever seen something so unique and inherently cool, and nearly punched your own head off for not thinking of it first?

This mechanic is so cool-sounding, that it's going to take no small effort not to develop it on my own and play it with my friends around here. Please, please, please continue developing this mechanic, so that our little gaming group can enjoy the fruits of your labor.

I'm just about to punch in to work, so I'll post more detailed thoughts later on. =-)

M'k, back for a minute, anyway. =-)

While I'm not particularly qualified (I have much more playing experience than designing experience), I'll throw in my $.02 on this.

I'm sort of on the edge of the Gamist/Narrativist positions...and from what I've seen of this mechanic so far, this game has the potential to appeal to both viewpoints. A simple mechanic like this might allow Gamists to quickly master the rules so they can get right to exploiting them...at the same time, in order to play, it seems you have to "Justify" your stats a little bit--someone with a "Weapon Coolness" of 3 to start can't be wandering around with a "Light Pistol." It's gotta be "The Pearl-Handled Revolver That Shot Down The Meanest Outlaw In The West." Narrativists would dig this, as everyone is encouraged to dig into their character more.

If it's worth it to you, I would consider keeping the Risk-Like combat mechanic in some form. It's a relatively unique mechanic, and if you don't hang onto it, I'm going to steal it from you. ;-)

It's unlikely that I'll be back on the internet again for 3-5 days, so if I don't respond right away, don't take it personal. =-)

Thanks,
-CHRIS M.

Hey Chris,

Glad you decided to become an active member, welcome! Thanks also for your input, much appreciated.

I don't know what Risk-Like combat mechanics are, but the way I've described combat will probably be close to how it turns out in the finished form, but it does need some adjusting, if only to reduce the number of die needed.

But you are spot-on about the stats. It's entirely up to the players to justifiy their stats. Their Style could be Terminator-esque hardcore tank, or Bruce Lee-esque monkey acrobatics. But a Style of 1 will be more likely to be someone getting lucky in a bad situation.

But as it stands now, I'll be beginning solid work on Scarlet Wake in around two weeks, when my exams are over. I don't know how long it will take to write up, but I can't imagine it will weigh in at much more than 50 pages.

Also, I was just thinking that when a player narrates their way out of bind, it would be cool if they essentially became the GM of their mini story, and designated the other players as different characters in their little story, giving them a little bit of info about the sort of character they are. For example, Player A gets into a bind and decides that Player B will be Pei Mei and the GM will be Bill, while player A now becomes the GM of thier little story about how their character gets out of the bind. This would make binds more interactive, and IMHO, more interesting and fun for all involved. But I guess playtesting will tell.

I also just had an idea. I'm already content with the idea that once your character has killed the five names on their list, that is the end-game for them, but what if... when you killed one of the names on your list, you became the target for someone else to get revenge on? Say you kill Unrepentant Evil Bitch, and she just happens to have a younger brother, who witnesses the murder, and now adds your name to his list. Alone, this is merely "meh", but what if this guy was your next character? What if, once your character has reached end-game, they become Bad Guys for your new characters to add to their lists, and the GM runs them against you? I like this because it highlights the futile cycle of revenge, whilst making it interesting to play. I dunno, just a thought. Any comments?

-Ben

Ravien,
Gut reaction: if you want to do the cycle thing and the talk-yourself-out-of-bind=gm thing, you might want to reconsider whether you want a central GM at all.

How about:
Each character has a list. and characters are on each other's lists. (That is, there are no NPC enemies.) Every character has an admirer (who this is doesn't really have to be decided until the character is killed). Once the character is killed, that character's player switches to playing the admirer--who will have the killer on their list.

The player who has most recently narrated himself out of a bind is GM. This player's character cannot pursue killing the people on his list, but can be hunted by his enemies. GMing switches as soon as another player narrates their way out of a bind. (Play starts with the player silly enough to volunteer for duty as the GM :)

This gives you a completely circular setup to mirror your cycle of revenge and also reflects that one person's lucky escape is another person's aggravating failure.

Use, ignore, or blast at will.
SR
--

OOooooh! I WANT!

Sorry. I really like everything so far about the idea, but have only been skimming for the time being. When I have time I'll post a more detailed appraisal.

And how did you do that logo? I really like it. (I need a logo... hint hint <looks pathetic>) ;)

Kirk

Hey Rob,

That's a pretty neat idea. At the very least it would be worth including as an alternate "mode" of play. But I'll mull it over, and it might end up being the mode of play. It might need a little tweaking to figure out who is GM when, but I like the adversarial nature of one player being pitted against the others. On the other hand, it does become problematic if the current GM's character dies, because now they lost their character... hmmm. Also, come to think of it, it also doesn't fit with the inability of PCs to die..... Hmmmm. Damn. I'll give it a think and see if I can come up with something. But as I said, it is a cool idea and it may very well become an alternate mode of play.

Hey Kirk,

I used photoshop and my arsenal of 1,868 fonts (ok, I only used 3, but they were in the 1,868 :) . Also, I used my mad photoshop skillz. I'm kinda tied up in exams right now, and I will be helping WyldKarde on some of his artwork for Outatowners when they are over, as well as working on this game, but if you email me your game's concept and logo ideas with as much flavour as you can give as to what you want the logo to "feel" like, I may be able to help you out (no promises, but I'll see what I can do ;).

-Ben

Ravien wrote: Also, come to think of it, it also doesn't fit with the inability of PCs to die

As I see it, the game is narrativist/gamist. The game has narrativist tendancies (narration out of binds etc.) but also has a focus on "winning" (killing the people on your list). But all in all, it sounds like a very good idea.

I think that the endgame and the progression onto another vengeful character has potential. That way you can display the cycle of revenge.

What if the character kills the people on his or her list, and then you play as the next character who is seeking revenge for killing the people on the previous character's list. I don't think that player characters should be killed at all. Having them be killed steps away from the Kill Bill mould. I also like the idea of players against each other.

How about narrating out of a bind (to encourage this sort of behavour) gives some sort of reward, extra coolness, more story power, whatever you want to give players as a reward. But the first player to kill off all of the people on their list becomes the GM and they take over the game, and their character becomes one of the people on the previous GM's list. Then the next person to kill off all of their people becomes the GM and their character becomes a target for the previous GM. And so the cycle of blood continues... Dumduuummmm!

Just some thoughts.

(oh, and I found out that I have access to PhotoShop so I'll be right. Thanks though) :)

Kirk

I don't think that player characters should be killed at all.

I also like the idea of players against each other.

How about narrating out of a bind (to encourage this sort of behavour) gives some sort of reward, extra coolness, more story power, whatever you want to give players as a reward.

But the first player to kill off all of the people on their list becomes the GM and they take over the game, and their character becomes one of the people on the previous GM's list.

Dumirik wrote: The game has narrativist tendancies (narration out of binds etc.)