This thread builds on previous work in [Dulcimer Hall] How crazy is this?.

So there is this character that I have never seen done right in RPGs. Michael, from La Femme Nikita (TV). Amon from Witch Hunter Robin. Early Angel from Buffy. The Angsty Loner Cypher Guy. He has the following properties and behaviors:

• Shows no emotion 99.9% of the time.
• Excels at absolutely everything.
• Has broad authority to meddle in other people's problems.
• Has unprecedented independence from other people's authority.
• Knows way more than he's telling.
• Continually contradicts any nascent theory that might make clear his brooding depths.
• Thrives on situations where other characters are distracted from pinning him down by external conflict

In genre fiction I find this guy mesmerizing. I will sit there and rack my brains, trying to figure out what the lift of an eyebrow portends, whether he really is as cold as he seems or simply restrained beyond human endurance. And when other protagonists try to figure him out (as they always do) I bond with them instantly. We have an obsession in common.

In RPGs... oy. I've never seen this done as anything better than a pale non-entity. Including the many times I've tried to do it myself. The inactions that make up the core of the character don't have any rules-impact. So you're relying entirely upon other players to be interested... but you can't give them any authorial input into the character without violating your whole angsty loner vibe.

In short, the character structure does not give the player anything to contribute to the fun in most games. But I want to fix that for Dulcimer Hall. Because I love this character, and I want to make him playable.


So what are we talking about here, in Dulcimer Hall terms?

• Draws none of the traits people assign him, 99.9% of the time. This means that whatever bonus those give in the rules, it can't be required for the cold competence that the character needs.
• High stats for practical purposes.
• Creates a large number of traits on other players characters.
• Creates contradictory traits... particularly when players are close to consolidating the traits he has assigned them into a single coherent trait.
• It must be possible to create incentives for other players to use the traits the ALCG's player creates, despite the characters lack of emotional connection.

That's a tall order, but I think I have a few steps toward it.

Dice Mechanic

Until something better comes along, I am thinking about hybridizing a dice-matching mechanic with the Dogs "See/Raise" pattern.

Players each have a "Pile" (as distinct from, later, Pools) of six-sided dice. These dice are all the same, distinctive, color. One player can have red, one blue, one white, etc.

When a Conflict arises, players roll a pool of dice. They then take turns putting forward sets of identical dice (i.e. 2 dice that rolled 3, if they have that many). The opposition must See that Raise by putting forward a matching set of dice that are equal or greater in total. So, against 2d@3 they can play 2d@3, 3d@2, 1d@6, etc.

To use a Trait of level N on your character, you slide one of your colored dice from your Pile (not your pool) to the Pile of the person who made the Trait. Then you can reroll up to N of the dice in your Pool. This helps fill in larger matches, and allows for spectacular individual results: Generally the motivation and modus operandi of players who get themselves jerked around emotionally a lot.

Dice that are not your color may be rolled into your Pool at any time. This helps create a larger pool, inherently filling out matches, and allows the character to win wars of attrition with ease: Generally the motivation and modus operandi of players playing the ALCG.

If you have both of these operating (i.e. you can roll a large pool of bonus dice earned by mystifying other players, then hone it with several rerolls earned by having figured yourself out) you become unstoppable. That would be Buffy or Nikita as the end of their series's drew nigh.

And this is about where I peter out, thought-wise. Agggh!

I think that there is room to have different sort of counters depending on whether you spend more or less dice than your opponent (in the same way that Dogs in the Vineyard has Turn the Blow, Block/Dodge and Take the Blow), but I haven't figured out what they should be.

So, triple question: Does this mechanic seem like a good fit for what's gone before? Does it help to support ALCG? And what else is needed?

OK, that's a lot to absorb... for now, one question.

If I've read you correctly, players (any players) can increase the effectiveness of their Pool by:

- Adding dice from their Pile, or
- Re-rolling dice in their Pool

In other words, the route to increased effectiveness is:

- Naming traits for other players, which they want to use, and
- Using traits which other players give you

Now, the ALCG can only do the first of these with any regularity, but "normal" characters can do both, right?

So, what, if any mechanical advantage does the ALCG gain in return for not using traits? Because at the moment, I think the answer is "none".

Hrm... quite right. That is, indeed, a problem.

My first thought for a possible response: Is there a cost to the red-dice player when somebody else has and/or uses a red die? Because then the mechanical advantage of not using Traits is that you don't give away any of those dice.

I'll need to think about the actual mechanical impact of this more, but I just want to say now that I love the idea of this.

It's a bit like, by acting in the way people expect you to behave (by naming your traits) you're giving them a little piece of your soul.

I don't know if this is a useful exercise or not - but if that my little pile of black (must be black!) dice is my character's game "soul", how should it be affected by:

- my character trying to understand your character (by naming a trait) and succeeding;
- my character trying to understand your character and succeeding
- your character to understand mine and failing;
- your character trying to understand mine and succeeding.

(also note that this is ripe for "prisoner's dilemma" style game theory.)

Gotta go now (at work!), will check in later.

Good questions! I'll put out some provisional answers:

• Assume Ada (Character A) and Bart (Character B). Ada has red dice, Bart has black.• Bart cannot gain a better chance to add a trait to Ada by spending red dice (that would create a death-spiral loss of control for Ada).• Bart can reduce Ada's chance of consolidating her own Traits into larger ones, by spending red dice.• Can Ada increase her chance of consolidating her Traits by spending black dice?

I think that adding traits to another character is not, in-game, trying to understand them. Consolidating traits is trying to understand things.

New thoughts:

• The world as a whole needs a sheet of traits for people to manipulate.
• Can people consolidate across sheets? (e.g. Megan: "I respect Shen - 1" + Shen: "I have a duty to Megan - 1" = World: "Megan and Shen, formidable team - 2") I'm thinking, initially, no... because doing so actually reduces the need to interact as characters.
• Can people mine the world-sheet for traits to consolidate with their own sheet? (e.g. Megan: "Shen respects me - 1" + World: "Shen didn't let Megan fight her own fight - 1" = Megan: "Shen pretends to respect me - 2") I'm thinking yes, because it makes for some competition to consolidate... if someone else gets that traits before you, it's gone (i.e. no longer has mechanical consequence).

At this stage the system is so nebulous that I'm having a hard time actually analyzing its effects.

The basic "You have traits given to you by others that you can use or not" is really cool. So, some questions on that:

-How do you consolidate? Just say so? Is there some sort of cost? What keeps you from just consolidating everything into one big trait (i.e. who judges whether that's allowed)?
-How do you prevent consolidation from happening?
-How often are you going to need to utilize extra dice to win?
-Are most contests opposed between players or against some other obstacle?

I'm really digging this so far, well what I can figure out of it...

Thomas

Yeah... too many ideas, not enough skeleton to hang them on. I know this feeling... time to do a little work offline. I hope to have a preliminary (but coherent) rules draft and example of play up by tomorrow morning. Wish me luck!

I will, of course, still be watching this thread for suggestions while I'm doing this. I may not jump in a whole lot with contributions, though.

TonyLB wrote: I think that adding traits to another character is not, in-game, trying to understand them. Consolidating traits is trying to understand things.

Hrm... resolve (by which I imagine you mean "consolidate") another player's character's traits.

That's not something I was thinking about (because it undermines a lot of the remaining player control over character), but it has some very intriguing options. After all, if you didn't want them to have that sort of power, all you had to do was not give them your dice.

Yeah, exactly my point.

Reducing it to it's bare mechanical bones:

- You offer me the chance to gain a permanent mechanical advantage over the world in exchange for some of my dice
- If I take up the offer (now or later) then you gain a resource (my dice) which gives you a permanent mechanical advantage over me
- If I already hold some of your dice, I can give them back to you instead of giving you some of mine

What specific mechanical advantages are gained, can be changed, but I think the core idea is sound.

One thing about this that seems really cool to me is that it sets things up such that the person who is willing to give up the most control of their character (i.e. give away more of their dice) controls the pace of the game. If all but one of the players are desperately striving to not give out any of their dice then the one player who is willing to give them out controls the pace. I think that is totally sweet.

Thomas

Wow... you're right. I hadn't thought of it that way.

The genre (which, until I hear a better term, I'm going to dub "crypto-romance") has a very strong correlation between "star of the show" and "pereson who gets repeatedly and completely screwed over by other characters".

In author-directed fiction, it's easy to start from the axiom "this character is the star" and proceed to brutally manipulate and torture them. But participants object to that sort of force (with good reason) in community-directed fiction. It doesn't really fly in RPGs.

But maybe you can get the same effect without force by reversing the causality: not "You are manipulated because you are the star", but rather "You are the star because you are manipulated."

Also, never underestimate the enthusiasm with which players hose their own characters, or encourage other players to hose their own characters, when the system provides ultimate rewards for doing so.

Unlike the gamer version of the angsty loner, the real version suffers and suffers badly, all the time. The gamer says, "Nothing can touch me, because I'm so cool and no one knows the Truth about me," but the real movie, novel, comic, or TV show says, "Owwie! Owwie! Oh, woe is me! But I'm tough and can take i -- Owwie!"

The whole point of such a character is that others are always reaching out to them, because they want to help.

Best,
Ron

There are certainly characters who outwardly suffer, and who you could apply the terms "Angsty" and "Loner" to. Maybe even "Cypher". But those characters are not what I'm talking about when discussing Angsty Loner Cypher Guys. I really am talking about characters who don't visibly suffer, or evolve, or emote.

Those characters are not fit to be protagonists in the story of a group following a narrativist agenda: they are not, themselves, fit to address theme. But they can still be very good tools for players acting as facilitators.

I keep encountering players who say that they want to play in a game where the protagonists suffer, but they don't want to play those protagonists. I want to make a game where they can have fun doing that, and where doing so supports the game as a whole (and particularly makes their fun dovetail nicely with the fun of people playing the suffering protagonists).

So, some questions, to make sure I understand what you want from Angsty Loner Cypher Guys (or Gals) in play. (Line-by-line me if it's easier to answer that way.)

They don't show emotion, but they are very competent, right? And this means that they are going to actively demonstrate that competence in play, and will help or hinder other characters in doing so?

So, by choosing to help or hinder, they are in fact making deliberate choices, but because they don't show their feelings, it's hard to tell why they made those choices?

And is this why you don't consider them to be fit to be protagonists in narrativist play? Or is it something else?

I expect that they will be generating lots of facts about what they've done. But that yes, as you pointed out, these facts will be very open to interpretation. After all, they want them to be interpreted. That's part of how they get their story power, by creating the circumstances that other players puzzle over.

As for why they're not Nar protagonists: Until something is introduced into the SIS it hasn't happened. Which means that characters that only develop in the private thoughts of their players are not developing in the game. Which means that they are (more than likely) not answering the questions of Theme during play, they are simply reiterating the answers that they had coming into the game.

And, finally, I have my first, wholly inadequate, write-up. Tear into it, I know I will:
Draft Rules
Character sheets
Fabricated Example of Play

Well, I've read this a few times now, and I think I'm beginning to understand it, so:

(1) I like the range of mechanical effects - there's some clever strategy going on here. It needs some heavy playtesting, as it's really hard to tell just by looking at it if there are any "broken" strategies.

(2) It looks like Active and Decisive have exactly the same mechanical effect, is this deliberate? At the moment, I see very little difference between the two traits, both mechanically and thematically, this seems like a lost opportunity (but may be necessary for balance or "padding" the other traits.)

(3) Re: division of Secrets, Beliefs and Theories. A better division might be between Image (stuff I know about myself, and other people know too), Secrets (stuff only I know about myself) and Blind Spot (stuff other people know about me, but I don't know about myself.) This mirrors the "Johari's Window" scheme; it also allows for moments of self-discovery (moving or consolidating traits from the Blind Spot to the Image) or denial (moving traits from Secrets or Image into the Blind Spot).

(4) Is there a maximum size to the Piles? I don't see this mentioned anywhere in game.

(5) I'm not sure how explicit this in in the text, but the whole point of the game (apart from Having Fun) is to exert influence over the other character's personalities by defining their traits for them, right?

(6) Although this is heavily suggested by the examples, it probably needs to be more explicit that consolidated traits must be directly related to the traits that they are consolidated from. Because this, in conjunction with the limit on the number of traits a character can have, is what allows indirect manipulation of a character's Secrets and Theories to influence their Beliefs as well.

(7) I'd like to see more about the role of Facts in the game. For example, are any Facts defined at the start of play, in order to set the initial tone for the game? Do Facts have any impact other than as fodder for other Traits? Can I use a relevant Fact to improve my chances during a conflict?

(8) I need to understand Trait ownership better. For example, if I consolidate some Traits to add a new Trait to your sheet, do I own the new Trait? How about if I increase one of your Traits that you or someone else owns, do I own it now? Can anyone own a Fact?

And in case you hadn't guessed already, I'm hooked... tell me more!

TonyLB wrote: <snip>
As for why they're not Nar protagonists: Until something is introduced into the SIS it hasn't happened. Which means that characters that only develop in the private thoughts of their players are not developing in the game. Which means that they are (more than likely) not answering the questions of Theme during play, they are simply reiterating the answers that they had coming into the game.
<snip>

Hiya,

I'd also like to challenge you just a bit, Tony, on this point you're making.

Let's say we're playing, oh, any game in which all the characters pretty much get the same system-basis for function, and yet all of one's written attributes or whatever are purely customized by name. Over the Edge, Dogs, Capes free-form, Fastlane to some extent, HeroQuest to a larger extent than most people realize, whatever.

Let's say I get 11 dice (say, 2d10, 5d6, 4d4) to distribute across four scores, and I can name those scores whatever I want. As usual in such a game, resolution is highly Fortune-in-the-Middle, and plausibility of usage (as well as certain consequences of usage) is essentially built right there in narration.

I place my dice ...

Mysterious sudden defeat of opponent 2d6 + 1d4
Calm "take your breath away" gaze 2d6 + 2d4
Unexpected appearance 1d10 + 1d6 + 1d4
Appalling non-verbal rage 1d10

Now, all the other characters have extremely solid in-game attributes, stuff like "FBI spook skills" or "good runner." But in play, everyone rolls whatever it is they're using, and the dice resolve conflicts. The differences among the names of the scores is found only in the narration.

Is this not your angsty loner? Expressed in the system? Effective in play? ... and potentially a Narrativist protagonist with a built-in, yet functional and rather enjoyable delay in Premise expression?

Best,
Ron

That's a good challenge! I have what I think is a good response, and it even lets me use some of my more recent ideas and terminology.

In terms of "Can this character be effective under the rules?", yes, writing up the character in that way expresses them in the rules. They have no reduced effectiveness, and in fact are probably more effective than people who take traits like "Fast Runner" that most easily apply in limited circumstances.

But by writing up such a character you cut people out of the first step of Coaching your character ("Understand the drives, issues and limitations of the character"). This, in turn, means that they cannot functionally progress to any later steps of coaching. In short, other players (including the GM) will not have the signals within the system to help them create the perfect adversity that will make your character shine.

Even "I'm a fast runner" gives me ideas: "Damn! We need to make it to the switch that deactivates the automated guns, but they're so fast that they'll gun down anyone who tries!" If you spike that Trait with character-history or meaning (e.g. "I hadda run fast to get away from poppa when he was on a drunken bender") then I get even more grist for Coaching. I know to have him chased by incoherent, fast, large creatures... werewolves, perhaps?

"Unexpected appearance" is an effective Trait, but not an effective signal to help other players in Coaching your character. How am I supposed to use that to get a better grip on the type of challenges your character needs?

By comparison, the "Out" system that I wrote up, mostly on intuition, in the draft rules seems like it might become a strong way to get at such characters's weaknesses through system: They don't want to be pushed to make an important statement about themself, and that is a weakness. So another player can Coach them well, simply by offering something that tempts them to break out of their reticence. Whether they accept, decline or defy, they're making a statement about their character and rising to the adversity in an important way.

Whaddya think?

Doug: I don't know the answers to most of those questions, because I haven't figured them out yet. I agree with pretty much everything you said, as questions.

Maximum pile-size: I don't know. I need to figure out the reward and punishment that people get when they run out of dice... then I'll see whether the size of the piles needs to be balanced against those of other characters, or whether it's just a factor in your strategy.

Johari's Window: Good stuff. I'll mention this again when I deal with Thomas's suggestion.

Facts: Yeah, I've been thinking back to the Capes Facts thread while discussing this. The same problems apply, but maybe they're more easily surmounted in the context of this system.

Trait Ownership: This is something I've drafted, but firmly expect to change. At the moment it's "If you have a plurality of traits owned by one person (i.e. two traits when you're consolidating four and the others are owned by distinct people) then that person gets it, otherwise it is the choice of the consolidator, of those that are tied". And that stinks, but it's what I've got right now.


Thomas: You're talking about keeping Traits secret from other players. That would be... that could be really cool! Yes, players would be on the honor code ("I've got a level 3 trait that applies here... honest!") but I don't think that would be a huge problem.

And this gets really interesting with the Johari's Window (discussed above) issue. Because, clearly, it's the character's Secrets (in Doug's terminology) or Beliefs (in mine) that are under their secret control. So the secret stuff is, really, the bits that the other players don't have access to anyway.

Okay, that's definitely something to consider.

Actually, I hadn't had any plans to store mechanics in secret, just cool narrative stuff. That said, secret mechanical stuff rocks, and I shall falesly claim full credit for it!

Thomas

Okay, having further considered the idea of Secret Traits, I'm liking it a lot on several levels.

Viewpoints: It gives a distinct place in the rules for Facts... because Facts are what people need to reference in creating or bolstering their own Secrets. Then they create more Facts, which allow them to further bolster their own Secrets. The fun comes from how two different players, watching the facts and knowing that there is a motivation behind their creation (but not knowing what it is) can arrive at completely different sets of beliefs.

The absolute classic: Emma. She and Miss Bates hang about, while Emma is trying to make a match between whatsisname the geek and Miss Bates. Whatsisname takes every opportunity to be kind to the ladies. Emma naturally, gleefully, increases her "Whatsisname is falling for Miss Bates" Secret. Whatsisname, meanwhile, gleefully increases his "I am courting Emma" Secret. And both of them are gleeful because they can only see the actions of the other as proving that they both share the same secret beliefs.

The revelation of their different points of view causes a massive cascade of reinterpretation. Oh, he wasn't framing the portrait because Miss Bates was portrayed in it, but because Emma had painted it! Of course!


System Trickery: The easiest way to make sure that you have facts that can be interpreted from all possible angles is to give all the players all the information they need to create such vague facts. Once you hide any of the Traits you need someone/something else to coordinate. I am confident that it is possible to pass that responsibility off onto system structure, but it's something I'll have to keep an eye on.


Mechanics Reward/Punishment: In some, general, sense then players are offering up facts, of various degrees of ambiguity. If we look, for a moment, at the climactic revelations ("I love you! I've always loved you!") then what are the possible rewards and what the possible risks?

If you make such a revelation you're basically gambling that your assessment of the other person is correct: that they love you too. And it strikes me that the mathematics of this are very much akin to the Prisoners Dilemma.

• If you confess your feelings and they are reciprocated then you've both cooperated. Reasonable victory.• If you confess your feelings and they are spurned then you're hurt real bad, and the other person has a minor victory.• If you lie and your lie is slapped down then you both lose a little, but nowhere near as much as if you'd confessed your real feelings.

Except, importantly, it's not simultaneous prisoner's dilemma. I think in many ways it's sequential: You choose whether to ally or defect, then the next player (for the most part knowing your decision) chooses whether to ally or defect and you judge that pair of decisions. Then you choose whether to ally or defect, and pair that with his previous decision, and judge that. And so on.

Does anyone have pointers to analysis on this variant of the game? My search-fu fails me.

Sequential Prisoner's Dilemma play is something I've not heard anything about. I do however know that the typical analysis of the Dilemma radically changes when repeated with the same players over time. I'm not familiar with all of the permutations.

Anyway, I really like the idea of part of your sheet being secret and part public. It makes me tingle with excitement. Especially if you can do stuff to another player's public stuff, but then they can take stuff out of the public area (that you put there) and mess with it... Hurray!

Thomas