The game I'm currently experimenting with publishing, ...in Spaaace!, has a setting inspired directly by Futurama, and Douglas Adams. But more interestingly, perhaps, the mechanics were marginally inspired by Dr. Fang Deng's writings about the politics leading up to the Tianmen Square massacre.

I used to work for Dr. Deng and she recently hired me to do some editing on a long sociology paper about the repression of the student movement in China. In one of the bold strokes for which fate is known, the tool she applied was Game Theory, which has nothing to do with the type of games WE play. It's a sociological model that basically argues people lead their lives and guide their countries based on the same kind of reasoning they use to play chess, poker or RISK.

She described the events leading up to Tianmen Square in terms of a two level game. That is, the government was playing two simultaneous games, one against the protesters and one against the international community. Unfortunately for China, any decisive move to win one game meant losing the other. So they just kept muddling through trying to stalemate until events reached a crisis point. Then, even though no one wanted violence and everyone knew EVERYONE would lose from a violent confrontation, one occurred.

It probably says something very embarassing about me that, after my initial fascination with this analysis of a moving human tragedy had worn off, I had a click moment about applying this sort of double-bind to a roleplaying game.

# # #

After that lengthy prologue, here's a vague outline of what I did with Token Effort (which is the name I gave the engine behind ...in Spaaace!). The rules, while very simple, operate on two levels. One level is rather gamist, and each player (GM included) tries to accumulate tokens. Tokens can be used in wagers that affect the outcome of events in the game. But when you win a wager by betting more tokens, your reward occurs on the other level -- the narrativist level. You get control of the plot, but lose a token in the process.

In playtest, it's worked just as I hoped. If your character has things go heavily his way at the beginning, it's because the player has run through a lot of tokens. Getting ahead on the narrative level means losing on the token level. Similarly, if you take a beating on the narrative level, you can gradually amass tokens for the come-from-behind final reel victory.

There are some twists and turns to make the betting strategy interesting, but by and large you pick your poison, make your choices and decide when you'd rather have your character screw up. For a comedy game especially, I think it works pretty well.

-G.

Yo G!

I like this type of design, hence I incorporated something like it in my game. Is your game a "Zero Sum" style of mechanic like mine or does it have a more or less unlimited supply of tokens like Universalis? In your playtest, did the system encourage heavy player competition or did players cooperate at that level and compete more at the character level? Or neither?

It's zero-sum. Each player, including the GM, starts with the same number of tokens and therefore (theoretically) the same degree of influence over the plot.

In playtest, it's pretty much been everyone competing with everyone.

-G.

So, if it's operating on a player versus player resource management mechanic, and everybody has the same degree of influence gauged by the rules... What function does the GM serve here?

-Matt

The GM's role is pretty much to control pace, throw up obstacles, and describe scenery. A group of really seriously narrative players probably wouldn't need a GM.

-G.

I'm definitely interested in this. I've been working on similar ideas for use with LARP.

Are dice or some other random element involved, or are wagers decided purely by resource management and player choice?

Does a wager determine the outcome of a specific task, or of an entire conflict?

What's the handling time on the wagering system? Does wagering require a lot of attention, or is it light enough not to impact the pacing?

WhiteRat wrote: I'm definitely interested in this. I've been working on similar ideas for use with LARP.

Hopefully no one will reverse-engineer this from what I post...

Closed bids.

Winner pays one, unless he ties with the GM.

No random element.

Wagering is scalable, so you can bid for "this punch" or "the outcome of the entire five-year Salicidian conflict."

Resolution is pretty quick.

-G.

If I only lose one token when I win, why would I ever wager less than everything I have? Or do I misunderstand how this works?

If your looking for a sci-fi cartoonist, or plan on it, I'm your guy! Here's a direct link to the free online comic (I'm working on) on the Fan-Attic website: http://home.comcast.net/~slambangcomics/docparadox1.html

Take Care,
-Paul

If the GM matches your bid exactly, you get your way but the GM wins EVERYTHING you bet. Thus, the impetus against always going all-in.

-G.