I am designing a LARP system, along with a friend. We have been working on this for a while now, and even though our setting and color are pretty well fleshed out, we are currently trying to figure out our mechanics. We've already built up a complete system, looked at it, said "this doesn't support what we want it to," and torn it down completely to start over from scratch.

The central focus of the game is on player competition/conflict. However, there are two important caveats to this:

1) Resolution must be fast. The ideal situation would be that resolution takes no longer than the in-game events it represents. A good compromise would be that a large (ten or so players) group combat takes no longer than 15 minutes to resolve.

2) Character death should be rare -- not impossible, but darn difficult. In almost any one-on-one conflict, neither character should be able to kill the other.

What I want to know is whether the system I'm currently toying with (outlined below) will achieve the first of these two goals -- fast conflict resolution, especially in combat. Not because combat is a focus in the game, but because that's where a system frequently bogs down or shows problems. This is a very targeted post, so while other comments/questions are welcome, please try to address this key question.

The Basic Mechanics
* Characters have four Attributes (Body, Mind, Heart, Spirit). These Attributes serve as, well, for lack of a better term, "fuel" that lets the characters get stuff done. These are resources, which are gained and lost throughout the course of the game.
* Characters have Skills, which allow players to spend Attributes on certain activities. For example, Armed Combat might be a Skill, which would allow a player to spend Body points in order to win, say, a knife fight.
* Characters also have a number of other traits (including magic), which allow them to gain additional resources, do things they wouldn't otherwise be able to, etc. These aren't really important at the moment, I'll post more on these later.

Conflict Resolution
A) One player announces his intentions and bids a certain number of Attribute points on the action, up to the amount of their relevant Skill.
B) Any player or players are free to counter the bid with Attribute points of their own.
C) Players may choose to add their bids to another player's bid, or bid on their own.
D) Each bid allows the player to narrate getting a step closer to their goals (in a manner very similar to Dogs in the Vineyard). Bidding continues until everyone has either reached their limit (defined by the Skill in use) or chosen not to bid any further.
E) Conflict is resolved. Losers keep their Attribute points, the winner distributes them as evenly as possible among the losers, with any extras being lost (given to the GM).

Example of Play
Player A (Unarmed Combat 6): "I want to knock Player B on his ass and steal his stuff -- Unarmed Combat. Bid 3. I take a swing at his head.

Player B (Running 5): "No way, I'm using my Running to get the heck out of here. Bid 4. I take off like a shot, leaving only an empty place where you're swinging."

Player A: "Aha, but before you get too far, I trip you to the ground. Bid 6."

Player B: "Damn, I'm out. Bid is still 4."

Player A: "Hah, I beat you mercilessly, and take everything you've got in your pockets."

Player A then gives six Body point tokens to Player B, who in turn gives over his character's possessions, and notes that he has been injured, giving him a penalty of 1 point to all his bids (i.e. he could only bid up to his Skill-1 until next game).

Okay, that's probably too much information, but my main question is this: Does this system seem like it will move fast enough to achieve my goal? Also, does this seem workable in a LARP setting? Any help or advice on this topic would be appreciated.

It *seems* like it should work fairly quickly, but this is a pretty basic example, so it's hard to tell. The permutations are where things tend to bog down, IMHO. How differently would something like this go if magic were thrown into the mix?

As far as PC death, how is something like that even determined? Is there a health trait, or can everyone take the same amount of damage, or what?

Also, I'm curious as to the rationale behind the winner of the conflict losing the points he bid while the loser gets to keep his. Is winning the stakes of the conflict the only benefit?

Nick

ironick wrote: How differently would something like this go if magic were thrown into the mix?

ironick wrote: As far as PC death, how is something like that even determined? Is there a health trait, or can everyone take the same amount of damage, or what?

ironick wrote: Also, I'm curious as to the rationale behind the winner of the conflict losing the points he bid while the loser gets to keep his. Is winning the stakes of the conflict the only benefit?

How large are you envisioning the pools of attributes starting?

How would you handle follow-up conflicts? i.e. "Sure, you just knocked me on my ass and stole my stuff... now, with the attribute points you just gave me, I'm going to sneak after you, knife you in the back, and take all your stuff... including what you stole from me?"

Would the -1 for injury be cumulative with successive injuries? Does that run the risk of a death-spiral dysfunction?

EDIT: Cross-posted with Andrew's answer about the cumulative -1 injuries. I still see a death-spiral mechanic in the offing.

'Nother quick question: Do these attribute points refresh at any point, or can you only regain them by losing conflicts?

Also, can you choose to stop bidding short of your limit? If so, it seems like people might start conflicts for stakes they don't care about, make their opponent bid themselves out, and then intentionally lose to gain attribute points. Is this intentional?

I've gotta admit, I'm intrigued--the more you win, the easier it is to lose, and the more you lose, the easier it is to win.

Nick

ironick wrote: Do these attribute points refresh at any point, or can you only regain them by losing conflicts?

ironick wrote: Also, can you choose to stop bidding short of your limit? If so, it seems like people might start conflicts for stakes they don't care about, make their opponent bid themselves out, and then intentionally lose to gain attribute points. Is this intentional?

ironick wrote: I've gotta admit, I'm intrigued--the more you win, the easier it is to lose, and the more you lose, the easier it is to win.

Yay! Tony's commenting. It was Capes that made me decide to start putting pieces of S&L up for peer review in the first place, after seeing how awesome that game turned out.

TonyLB wrote: How large are you envisioning the pools of attributes starting?

TonyLB wrote: How would you handle follow-up conflicts?

TonyLB wrote: Would the -1 for injury be cumulative with successive injuries? Does that run the risk of a death-spiral dysfunction?

I think the mechanic is feasible for LARP. NERO used to do much more, in the way of on-field mechanics. Don't know what they're doing these days.

In terms of speed, I might recommend a "Hold up fingers to signify your bid" thing, if people can get used to it. What with the possible bids ranging from 1 to 10, and all.

I think the balance of attribute pools to skills is going to be a big deal. At 100-to-10, I would think that the natural strategy would be to horde, rather than to go out and seek defeat. The -1 penalties totally swamp any benefits you could possibly accrue from a deeper pool to bid from.

At 10-to-10, the strategy of losing in order to win becomes the only strategy of importance in the game: skills become important only between people with equally powerful histories of defeat.

Somewhere between those extremes is probably where you want to position things. I'll be very interested to hear about playtesting (which, it seems to me, should be done in a room with a few friends milling around, seasoned heavily with alcohol, munchies and good movies playing in the background... Porco Rosso just got a US release).

Tony, your comments on the different strategies resulting from the different pools are much appreciated. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that each game will run around six hours -- does this change your opinions about the high ("hoarding") end and low ("lose to win") end?

Well... not really.

Hoarding (thanks for catching the spelling, BTW) isn't a long-term plan. It's the result of successive short-term valuations that each indicate "The comforting potential to squash somebody later is more important to me than getting involved in a conflict right now."

Yes, the value of that potential descends as you get closer to the end of the game, but there is a lag-time between the rational descent of that value and people getting their head around the fact that it has descended.

My experience with LARPs (albeit, weekend LARPs) is that what you'll get is a frenzy of activity in the last tenth of the game, as people suddenly realize that they've hoarded too effectively, and now can't possibly spend their resources.

I love "lose-to-win" systems (well, I love that part of Capes), so I find this intriguing. To elaborate on what Tony said, the really tricky bit is setting the initial stockpiles of points -- and any alternative refreshing systems besides lose-to-win.

Now, again looking at the example of Capes, you may want some kind of mechanical reward for winning as well -- a reward of a different kind than the reward for losing. You have a bit of this already in the injury penalty and the ability to take someone's stuff, etc. etc. But if no one dies, and if the loser walks away with more resources, and the winner walks away with, well, not much, then lose-to-win becomes the only strategy, and win-to-win becomes phyrric every time.

Which creates the faintly comic situation of everyone running around desperately trying to get their asses kicked so they can become more powerful, then shrieking and running away when they realize they might run some danger of, horror of horrors, winning.

Actually, along those lines, I strongly recommend a quick look at The Nighttime Animals Save the World, which though short has perhaps the clearest, fastest mechanism of this type ever to be suggested.

Without recapping the whole rule system, it has the advantage that you get a diminishing return from constantly losing: you can only get so much better in terms of your resources. Then you're forced to win, which in turn gives you a gap in your resources that you can fill by losing later.

Yeah, I love Nighttime Animals. I hadn't considered how it could relate to this project, though. That's some food for thought.

As to not winning anything, I'm not sure I follow. Sure, you lose resources to accomplish further in-game events. But only because you already accomplished what you wanted to.

There is a "cap" to the maximum amount of resources you can gain in each category -- is this sort of what you are suggesting, Tony?