Okay, I had an amazing idea the other night, after watching Reservoir Dogs.
And Snatch the night before.

One thing I notice about a lot of gangster movies (not gangsta movies, keep in mind. big difference.), is that the protagonists offer suffer as a Tragic Hero.

Despite how calm, collected and in control they are at the start, they are pulled down by a plethora of fuck-ups, betrayals, disasters, and unexpected twists.

Take for example Layer Cake. The dude knows his place, and he doesn't push his boundaries. And then he becomes forced into a downward spiral towards breakdown.

...

So, anyways, I want to write a game with the following elements:
-Centered around a (or several) protagonist(s) who fall from grace, as tragic heroes.
-The game is centered around the other players at the table trying to destroy everything that the protagonist had going for him.

-Highly cinematic, fast-paced. Like Snatch, or any other good gangster movie, I want it to jump all over the place, move quickly, and have twist upon twist.

Anyways, I came up with some half-formed ideas. They're still a bit jumbled, and that's what I want help with. I'll bold the stuff which I can't properly envision yet, and maybe you guys can help fill in the blanks.

Control Pool
So, beneath the narration and gameplay, there is an underlying need for the protagonist to keep control of himself, his situation, and his story stakes.

What I envision is a pool of dice, 5 to begin with. All start out as 6s.

Basically, through narration, characters will add, remove, shift and re-roll dice from this pool (depending on their in-game actions.) If at any point there are twice as many other dice as 6's, the player reaches break-down. (ie. loses story stakes, etc, etc.)

Yeah, and that's the core mechanic of the game.
There are certain things which give the protagonist, and the antagonists (all other players) modifications to the pool.

Sabotage - Any in-game event which is resolved with a die roll, which the antagonist succeeds on (which brings the protagonist closer to failure).
They get to re-roll any die in the Control Pool. (Ie, pick up a 6 and have a 5/6 chance of changing it to something else.)

Low Blow - If anyone rolls a 1 in the Control Pool, they immediately pick up a die (can be same one if desired) and re-roll it.

Saving Grace - Any in-game event which the protagonist succeeds on, through a dice roll, which helps regain footing. The protagonist re-rolls any die in the Control Pool (ie, picks up a non-6 and aims to roll a 6.)

Twist - A twist in plot that drastically changes things. The player who caused it can choose to remove a die from the pool, or add one facing any face they want. (except a 1, because of Low Blow.)

Flavour - Any time a character does something true to form, adds flavour to their character, pulls off something sweet... they gain a die, for Flavour.

In-game mechanics
So I figure that at the start of the first session, every character gets 5 dice (the protagonist gets these as well as the 5 which start in the "Control Pool")

As they succeed, gain opportunities, add flavour, they get more dice to spend.

Any time that a character goes into action, at first it is considered an action with a resolution: 0.
A player can choose to add a d6 (all dice in this game are d6) from their pool, and must narrate why they are gaining this upper hand.
Or, a player can check a box on one of their Fortes (like aspects in Fate, with the boxes, etc.) to add +1 or re-roll a die.

To succeed at an action, you need a higher total than opposing forces. This means that sometimes you can just check off a Forte and gain +1, and win by default more or less.
Or it means that you might end up throwing in 5 dice and checking off 3 Fortes. It all depends on how contested something is.

Controlling NPCS

I figure that the current story arc is always centered around the Protagonist. this means sometimes other players wouldn't logically be there.
So, if a PC is out of action, that player can take up an NPC. They have less Fortes (like, maybe 4 where PCs start with 8). And flavour, twists, etc all don't effect the dice the PC has when he comes back into the story.

The NPC is an independant character which is controlled until NPCs switch or the PC comes back into play.

Hi,

I like the concept.

I assume that one player controls the protagonist, the rest control antagonists?

If so the antagonists need to win 3-4 sabotage or twist rolls to end the game. If game play proceeds around the table with each player getting a turn, I can see it being over really fast. Maybe give the protagonist player an added advantage considering it's one against the world? Not enough to win, but to draw out the agony. Perhaps play proceeds from Protagonist to Antagonist 1 to Protagonist to Antagonist 2 etc. Or the Antagonist has more fortes.

I actually wasn't thinking turn-based really...
There's probably a term for what I'm thinking, but I don't know it.

For now, let's call it Interception Based.

The protagonist controls the story at the beginning. Because, well, he's in control.
And someone intercepts/interrupts him, and the controls the story until someone reacts to that.

Theoretically, someone could control play for 5 seconds, or 10 minutes. It all depends on how quick people are to intercept play.

And, one other key thing I'm thinking so far... When the "story" is over, players have the option to start a new character (if theirs died or became boring) or to continue a character.

And the dice that character has at the end of a story carries over.

Which means that once you've got people where you want them, you don't want to end the game. You want to milk the limelight in order to get more dice. You want the glory.

Does that make sense? I want some kind of dice-gaining mechanism that makes it so that characters would milk the situation than bring it to an end.
And I want antagonists to try and fuck each other over too. It's protagonist against the world, but at the same time the world is against itself too.

I forgot to address the protagonist needing some sort of advantage.

Hmm... Maybe he starts with an extra 2 dice.

I don't want fortes, because protagonist changes at the end of a story (unless it was a standalone story) and I don't want to dish out a permanent advantage.

And if the protag. starts out with bonus dice, it also creates a good tie in for deciding who becomes protagonist after the story ends, when a new one starts: He with the most dice must be brought down.

Or, maybe each protagonist (because there can be more than one) gets a bonus die for each antagonist.

Interventions sound good & addresses my concern. I look forward to seeing where you take this

Okay, I think I've got a grasp on where I'm going with this...

I've got one other question: does anyone have any ideas on how to handle:
a.) Multiple protagonists (ala Snatch)
b.) A protagonist that doesn't emerge immediately (ala Mr. Orange or Mr. White in Reservoir Dogs)

?

I want rules that allow those, but don't know how to do this.

Wow, that's kinda creepy.  I've been mulling over a similar idea based on Hong Kong bullet ballets and Japanese yakuza films.

Really, mutex?

I'm going for a less outright-violence film.

You know how a lot of Snatch is double-weaving? Unless you count Mickey's boxing as combat (which in this case I'd consider more character development than combat in terms of game mechanics, haha) then there are only a few points where characters actually hurt each other.

Same with reservoir dogs. Violent movie, but when you get down to it the violence points are:
1. escape the bank.
2. Mr. Blonde.
3. Ending Scene

Most of it is double-crossings, betrayals, stakeouts, lies, screw-ups, accidents, etc.

Could you rotate the protagonist role around?  So in one scene, Mr. Blonde is the protag and his player is trying like mad to keep from breaking down, and then at some point triggered by game events, the protag hat moves to Mr. White and Mr. Blonde is an NPC antagonist. 

This style of story usually depends heavily on outrageous coincidences and the same small pool of characters popping up again and again, so this is actually in-genre. 

The other possibility is to have separate protagonists whose stories contact each others' (like the Bruce Willis and Samuel Jackson characters in Pulp Fiction but who ultimately go their separate ways. 

And yes, in a game like this, combat would be just another form of conflict, or even just flavor, like the boxing matches in Snatch.  This part reminds me a little bit of Wushu, where the players can narrate getting brutally beaten and it still makes their die roll more effective (because every brutal blow is another detail, which earns the player another die). 

One more movie suggestion: Sexy Beast.  You can really see the turning points in the story where the protag tries to finesse the situation and it all goes south. 

Good ideas Danny, you got me thinking.

The idea WAS that the protag switches as soon as he hits Break Down (2/3s not 6s).

But I like the idea of interspersing....

So, propose mechanic: Intersperse.
Certain twists, and I'm not sure how to differentiate these from standard Twists, switch protags even before hte protagonist is Broken Down.

Each protag has a control pool, like normal... but only one is in play at a time.

OH! SNAP!
I just thought up the Reservoir Dogs solution. Everyone has a control pool in those cases, intersperse rules apply... and then if they are Broken Down they are determined not to be the protag and continue Story Arc as a antagonist.
And protags can opt to became antags at a point - ala Mr. Blonde going psycho on the cop's ear.

Last protag standing is the protag, they fall... story ends and new story starts as per regular rules (he with the highest die pool is protag).

Am I still making sense? Anyways, thank you for setting my thought trail off Danny. Sorry if this was a confusing post --- it's a confusing game.

At some point you're going to have to put dice on table and see what you've got.  Let me know if you'd be interested in playtesting it on RPG.Net, that's my usual stomping grounds.  I just have a particular interest in gangster RPG's. 

It occurs to me that switching to antagonist might be a more interesting choice for the players if it has in-game usefulness: if my character is getting dangerously close to breaking down, maybe I'll jump out of the spotlight in the hopes of getting more dice as an antagonist.  So the protagonist is a high risk/reward position, while antagonist is low risk/reward. That sound right to you? 

I'm playing Polaris at the moment, and it's really opened my eyes as to how you can have hard-edged competitiveness in the same game as cooperative story-telling.  If you can get the mechanics so that the best way to play the game is to totally screw with the protagonist's head when you're an antagonist, you're halfway there.

I've just put another game, Point of Collapse, up...

So it might be a little while before I get serious about writing/playing this game.

But if you want to be, you're there when I start up.

And yeah, Basically I want players to fucking hate each other after this game. The GM (called the arbitrator) has teh responsibility not of telling a story, but of deciding just how outrageous a backstabbing he'll let through. he he he.

Just some thoughts...

I'm wondering if you're over-thinking the seperation between protagonist and antagonist. In the personal view of any given character they are the protagonist, and everyone else is out to get them, or thwart them (the antagonists). So, really, the only difference is the perspective. The person who is in the spotlight is the protagonist, and everyone else is an antagonist. When the spotlight switches to another character, so does the status of protagonist.

Looking at "Snatch" (one of my favorite movies, by the way), I'd be hard put to say any one person is really the protagonist, except at a particular moment in the movie (based on who's in the spotlight at that moment). Each of them is the protagonist of their own agenda, and they are also an antagonist from the viewpoint of everyone else. They're pretty much all just trying to do their own thing, which ends up complicating everyone else's plans.

Just have a bunch of protagonists with individual agendas, then figure out how to make those various agendas conflict with one another. Throw in a few NPC antagonists to muck up everybody's day, and watch the trainwreck commence.
:)

Very true point Calvin.

But this game is about destroying the protagonist. And thus the distinction must be made.

That's why I'm trying to develop the rules for multiple protagonists, interspersing, etc.

Interspersing (Have several people with Control Pools, but only one or a few are counted as "in play" at any one time, and thus players swap in and out of the Protag position.) was made with Snatch and Pulp Fiction in mind.

Protag Out - Many people start as protag and last one standing must be brought down - was created with Reservoir Dogs in Mind.

Standard Protagonist scenario was created iwth Layer Cake/The Big Lebowski in mind.

Do you think between single protagonist, multiple protagonist, protagonist-out, and interspersing that we can cover the wide spectrum of protagonist situations?

I'm not yet convinced that the distinction must be made, because your inclusion of options for "interspersing" and such leads me to think it's not necessary. You seem to be starting with one basic assumption, and then adding tweaks to alter it to something different (making it be about more than just destroying a single protagonist).

If there is a mechanism for shifting from one protagonist to another within a session, then why differentiate at all? (Or differentiate beyond "gang up on the guy with the ball" at least) Just use what you're calling Interspersing as the default. At that point you don't really need an overarching protagonist and antagonist, as it's every man for himself. If people want to gang up and take someone out, that needn't change the mechanic, just the way the players handle the characters. Sure, someone goes down, maybe everyone goes down - which leads you directly into your last man standing "Protag Out." Not defining the protagonist doesn't mean no-one gets destroyed.

And if the shift only takes place between sessions ("we're playing in Protag Out mode tonight"), then that's just a choice of the type of plot/story chosen for a particular session. Then the difference would be more how the individual session is planned, than how the game is designed.

All protagonist and antagonist terms really do (generally) is highlight who's "the good guy" and who's "the bad guy." In real life (and good fiction), the bad guys think they're the good guys too. So they're the protagonist in their own perspective. Treat the game the same way; when your turn comes around you're the protagonist, and everyone else tries to mess you up. When the next guy's turn comes, you're now his antagonist, and you try to ruin his day like he did for you.

But it's also possible that I'm completely missing what you're trying to do.

Now if you really want a defined protagonist... how about making him the GM? The GM sets up his scenario, his goal, etc, and the players (antagonists) try to thwart him. It would be a turn-around on the GM playing the "bad guys" and the players always playing the "good guys." Of course this would require the system to have enough player power to keep the GM from necessarily having his way, and could even include a mechanism for handing off GM duty as the game goes onward (maybe when the protagonist goes down?). Now in that case I could see it being a meaningful distinction (between protagonist and antagonist), as it involves more than just who's in the spotlight.

I love the idea of GM as the "protagonist".

Now, Calvin, I think that part of the reason for our differentiation in opinion is definitions of protagonist.

My definition is as follows:

protagonist - The character who the story is based around. The "main character" of a book or movie.
antagonist - A force existing in the world which opposes the protagonist.

The core mechanic of the game is the Control Pool. Having every character have one wouldn't make sense to me, because most people don't suffer the Tragic Hero Downfall, which is part of the game I really want to emphasize.

Maybe protagonist/antagonist is the wrong word choice for an RPG in this case, becuase indie gamers carry slightly different connotations maybe?

I am not saying I want a game that's cut/dried, etc.

But I want the main characters (let's call them protagonists for the time being) to have a Control on the situation. And I want all the other forces in the world to strip them of this control.

And I'm trying to stress also that the antagonists aren't what the story revolves aruond. The antagonists come and go more - That's why there are even rules for taking up NPCs if your character is out of the game...

Or do you still think taht the differentiation doesn't have to be made? And by that, what are you suggesting happen to the Control Pool?
That the part of yuor argument I don't grasp - what happens to the control pool?

I don't think we're off much on the definitions. I agree with your's as being the more accurate, with the observation that most (though not all, certainly) stories are about the "good guy(s)."

As to what happens to the Control Pool, you could just have it available for whoever is the protagonist of the moment. When they're in the spotlight, they have access to the pool. When they're acting as antagonist, they don't. Possibly.

Though I'll admit that I'm still uncertain why you want only one player to have a Control Pool. If each player is drawing from their own finite pool, then they're all going to be in the Down Spiral. It'll just be a battle to see who lasts the longest. It would be perfect for the noir style tale where the hero only manages to win the day (and sometimes as a hollow victory) after loosing almost everything, and would work equally well for "Snatch" or "Pulp Fiction" type scenarios where everyone's actions rebound off each other in a growing trainwreck of  disaster for everyone involved. Perhaps people can steal points from someone's Control Pool to add to their own, beating down the other guy while they build their power up, so the more the character is beaten down, the harder it is to get back up (though that might make for a depressing game after awhile).

The way I see it, you only need a single Control Pool if you only want scenarios where all the other players are ganged up on one person. If you're not sticking to that, then it doesn't make much sense to me.

But it's your game. It doesn't have to make sense to me, as long as it does to you.
:)

Okay. Now I think I like where you are going with this.
And at the same I want the story to have distinct "central" characters sometimes. While Reservoir Dog takes equal focus of everyone, L4YER CAKE doesn't.

So, I want a process that outlines who the players are (protagonists, antagonists).

Storyline wise, they differ as such: protagonists are there trying to deal with their own problems, antagonists are there to "deal" in someone else's problems.
Mechanically, Protagonists use their dice to stay in control, and to fend off enemies. Mechanically, Antagonists use their dice to gain the upper hand, and press against enemies.

So, here's my suggestion that I think meets both your and my agenda, Calvin:
The Arbitrator (GM) starts by outlining the story.
Arbitrator: We're going to be playing a jewel thief story. We're going for a gritty, pulp feel right now. Think Reservoir Dogs done in film noire.

Then players can take their current character sheet, or create a new, more fitting, one. If they use their old character sheet, they keep the fortes (both checked and unchecked) and the dice they had at the end of last story.
If they create a new character sheet, they get 10 "points", to spend on fortes and dice.
Todd: I'm going to use Jimmy again.
Arbitrator: Okay, he fits in with this story. I'll definately allow that.
Mike: And I'm going to use Tyrone again.
Arbitrator: Hold on, how does Tyrone make sense in this story?
Mike: ahh... um... well, he... Maybe I'll just create a new sheet.

Then, everyone who "submits" a character into the story is a protagonist. Each player who doesn't is considered "antagonist force". They get a set amount of dice, and don't start the game with a character.
They introduce new characters as frequently as they want, and in effect are storytellers (akin to the GM of most games). They might play a single antagonist throughout the game, or might switch characters/elements every 5 minutes.t
Arbitrator: That leaves you, Stacy, without a character. You're the only antagonist.
Stacy: Correct. I'm ready to take these assholes down.

I'm thinking antagonists get 10 dice, multiplied by the total amount of protagonists, divided by the total amount of antagonists. So in this case, she gets 10 x2 :1 = 20 dice.
This is probably way too much, but some kind of formula would probably be used.

Antagonists get no control pool, and get no fortes.

Then, the GM outlines a starting scene, and protagonists say whether they are in that Story Arc.
Arbitrator: A scene starts outside the jewellry store, 10 minutes before the robbery.
Todd: Alright, my character starts in that scene.
...

If all the protagonists are not "put in a scene" at that point, the GM outlines another scene.

And story arcs "intersperse". I actually want a mechanic for this to happen, because the longer you can keep it on your story arc, the more chances you have to hog the limelight. aka, the more chances there are for you to gain dice.

And at any point, a character can "opt out" of being a protagonist to play antagonistic forces. This would be used rarely, but when a player saw a real opening for sabotage, that was even more fun than playing their protag, they might just take the opportunity up.

Sabotage, Saving Graces, Low Blows, Twists all still apply.

I guess the biggest thing I don't quite grasp is the functional difference between the protagonist's Control Pool, and the pool of points that the antagonist has to use against him. Why does the protagonist have one pool and the antagonist has the other? What does this do that the simple intent of the character to "deal with their own problems" or "'deal' in someone else's problems" won't? And why is it necessary?

Really, I'm not trying to beat you up on this. I think maybe I'm just missing something. To me it seems like it would work fine to allow all characters to function the same and let their actions, or the emphasis of the current scene or story arc, determine their status as a protangonist or antagonist.

I do like the idea of having the antagonists function as sort of shared-GMs. That might have some potential. Similar to the idea of making the protagonist the GM, I think giving a level of dramatic editing ability to the antagonists would also make me see a much greater reason for a divide between antagonist and protagonist.

I guess I'm just thinking that the characters could be functionally the same. As in, each character can be a protagonist or an antagonist depending on the story arc that's currently in play. Perhaps the mode of play changes (perhaps certain options are available or unavailable in protagonist mode or antagonist mode), but the characters could function as either type as the story progressed and the different characters each get their moment in the limelight. So, in this scene, you might be an antagonist to the character in the spotlight (and trying to keep him from doing his thing) - but in another scene, where you're in the spotlight, you can become the protagonist (because then you are trying to do your own thing, and they're getting in your way).

Perhaps it could even be set up independent of scene, so that the abilities you have available to the character depend on what you intend to do with them, not whether you're in the spotlight. If you are trying to advance your own cause, you have protagonist "powers." But if you're trying to thwart someone else, then you're restricted to antagonist "powers."

And, just to be clear, I really don't have an agenda. I'm just throwing some thoughts around. Feel free to tell me to back off at any time. I just think you're onto something here with the potential to be pretty cool.

Okay, a note on dice "pools"

Protagonists have a Control Pool. The dice that are in this pool stay in this pool (with the exception of twists pulling them out).

ALL PLAYERS have a collection of dice used in play too.
Protagonists start out with 10 fortes/dice. Antagonists start out with a set amount of dice that is undetermined at this point.
But, protagonists get X dice, and antagonists Y dice.

X and Y dice are used in play during conflict resolution. The effects of conflict resolution alter the control pools.

The control pool is moderated in reaction to in-game dice/forte use. The control pool is "broken" when 2/3rds or more aren't sixes.

I'm not sure on the details,

but the protagonist Control Pool is a meter. A meter of how close to breaking they are.

and the in-game dice are used by protags/antags/everyone. They alter the meter.

The game style (but not the mechanics) remind me of a great free game I played called Scarlet Wake.  It's intended to simulate revenge flicks like Kill Bill, and the progress of play is that each player takes a turn with their protagonist, while the other players throw waves of mooks and bosses at them.  The winning strategy in that game was to take on a lot of mooks and win -- so that you had enough fighting power saved up to kill the boss at the end. 

In that game, the in-game resources aren't shared by the players -- if you kill your boss, it doesn't hurt my protagonist, but you're winning the game.  The main appeal for the antagonistic players was the thrill of pretend sadism, trying your best to stomp the protagonist into mush.  That's a powerful appeal, at least for me.  So I don't think the game is broken if there are separate die pools for each protagonist.  On the other hand, I don't know how I would have felt if I'd played the whole game as antagonist, without ever having a chance to show how cool my guy could be. 

Okay, so I've come up with a more realized idea of what I want:

GM outlines the story.
Every player starts with a character. That character has 10 "dice", of which some can be spent to gain a Forte box.
One or more protagonists are chosen. They each get a control pool.
The protagonists cannot have their story stakes succeed.
Once the protagonist(s) is(/are) broken, either the story ends or a new protagonist is chosen.

If a player switches characters, then they keep the same amount of "dice points" they had before, minus one. They give that one die to another player around the table.

When a conflict is won, the winning player gets 1 die for every point he won by.

Anyways, I want to outline an example of gameplay now. This takes place in the events of the Merchant of Venice (just to add some diversity to our discussion.) I summarize most of the movie in game terms. Skip to the next post if you don't want to read the full length

Shylock starts the game as the protagonist. He has a control pool of full 6's.
His story stakes are [Trump the Christians.]
He has 4 fortes (stickler for rules 3, hates christians 1) and 6 dice.

Antonio: I enter Shylock's office, telling him the story of how I need to borrow 3000 ducats on behalf of my friend Bassanio.
Bassanio: And I agree to this story, telling Shylock of my current debts.
Shylock: Well, I'm currently in total control. I have the enemies feeding from teh palm of my hand. "Sure, Antonio, I'll give you the 3000 ducats. And I won't charge a spec of interest."
(everyone at game table drops their jaw - waits for the catch...)
Shylock: "But if I don't get payment in 3 months exactly, you owe me one pound of your good Christian flesh."
-----This is a twist, and Shylock takes one of his 6 dice, and adds it to the control pool, facing a 6. He grins, having just widened his realm of control drastically.-----
GM: Shylock, take a die for Flavour there. Nice play!
Antonio: Shit, that's brutal!
Bassanio: Man, I need teh money - my story stakes depend on it.
Antonio: And my story stakes are [Help out my friends]. So I guess I'm kind of forced into this one. "Shylock, I accept your deal."
GM: Antonio, take a die for flavour too - friends through thick and thin. I like that.

Another Player: GM, I'm retiring my character to take on a new one - Shylock's trusted confidante. Here's the sheet (shows the GM the sheet).
GM: Sounds good. Everything looks to be fine, who gets teh throwaway die?
Confidante: Give it to Portia.
Confidante: Shylock, I come to you with grave news. Your daughter has been revelling with Christian men. (This is sabotage. He rolls a die, gets a 4)
Shylock: I'm still stable and in charge of my game - I'll get revenge on Antonio soon enough. I won't let this weigh me down. (Rolls, gets a 5.)
Confidante: Sir, she has eloped with one of the men. (He rolls again, gets a 2. Total: 6.)
Shylock: Then I will punish her. She will run out of money soon enough and come crawling back to me. Therefore, if I bide my time I'm still in control. (He rolls again, gets a 4. Total 9)
Confidante: Ah, but she has plenty of money. She sold her family heirloom ring, and can live off that income for a while. (Checks off a forte box of snoop, to reroll the 2. Gets a 6. Total: 10)
Shylock: Okay, I'll let you win this one. bastard.
Confidante: Does this count as a twist, GM?
GM: No, I don't think so. But it definately counts as a sabotage.
-----Because the confidante won the in-game bidding/rolling, he won the conflict. Since the sabotage was successful, he picks up one of the 6's in the control pool, and re-rolls it. The pool now looks like: {6,6,6,6,6,2}
---And the confidante takes his one die for winning the conflict by 1.

Bassanio: GM, this would be a good place to intersperse to Bassanio's story.
GM: Sounds good. We're going to cut to Portia's Palace now.
Portia: Oh, I hope that this new gentleman - Bassanio - will be the man I've been looking for.
GM: The herald anounces Bassanio's presence, and he enters.
Bassanio: "Hello, fair lady. I have come to win your hand in marriage!"
Portia: "So I have been told. however, it is not my decision alone. There is a grave test you must undertake in order to win my hand."
Bassanio: "So I have heard."
Confidante: GM, I want to submit a new character now.
GM: Can it wait till after the test?
Confidante: No, I want my character to BE the test.
(everybody raises eyebrows, then smirks.)
GM: Draw me a sheet.
(Confidante had 6 die points left. He gives the GM: The Test. Mislead 2, Dice: 4.)
(However, he is forced to give away 1 die for switching characters. He gives it to Shylock.)

Test: Okay, Bassanio. I am 3 boxes - one silver, one gold, one lead.
Bassanio: And I just have to pick the right one?
Test: Yes. There is a confusing riddle on each one. (Rolls a die, gets 3).
Bassanio: I read the gold box.
Test: All that glitters is not gold... (reads whole riddle)
Bassanio: That one won't catch me with its superfluois pomp and splendor. (Rolls a die, gets 5) I move on.
Test: The silver box reads: Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves... This box looks very promising (Uses a mislead forte to re-roll the 3, gets a 6).
Bassanio: Still, I move on to the lead box. (rolls a die, gets 4. Total 9)
Test: The tension is definately making it hard to think clearly, hey (Rolls a die, gets 4. Total 10)
Bassanio: Fuck off. What does teh lead box say?
Test: Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath...
Bassanio: What? That doesn't sound very pleasant.
Test: If you fuck this up, Portia won't marry you. (rolls a die, gets 3. Total 13)
Bassanio: I am intelligent enough to figure this out - and I have all the time in the world. (Rolls a die, gets a 5. Total 14.)
Test: Okay. I'm done.
Bassanio: (In this case, because he beat the test in conflict, he doesn't need to say which box he chose. Or, he can pick any box and it is assumed the right box. Or the test tells him the correct answer.) (This is because he beat the test, because a player chose to BE the test.)
GM: I'll award test a point of flavour for being a well thought out riddle.
(Bassanio wins his story stakes, and is awarded 1 die for winning the conflict by one.)

Shylock: It's been three months.
Antonio: Well, my ships have returned with their cargo I assume.
GM: This is crucial - I'm going to let people contest this.
Antonio: I check off a box of Sailor, to give me +1. Total: 1.
Shylock: Yeah, I read in the news that severe storms hit the waters. (Rolls die, gets 4).
Antonio: Well, my men received training from me, personally. (Rolls, gets a 3. Total: 4).
Shylock: And there are rumours of piracy spreading. (Rolls a die, gets 2. Total 6.)
Antonio: My ships are too fast to be pirated. (rolls a die, gets 3. Total 7.)
Shylock: Several people I know have been in tears because their husbands have not returned home. (Rolls a die, gets 6. Total, 12.)
Antonio: That is only because the ships are late. (Rolls a die, gets 2. Total 9.)
Shylock: Ha! Caught you there - you just confessed the ships aren't here yet. (Checks off Hates Christians forte, rerolls the 2. Gets 5. Total 15.)
Antonio: Fuck, 15? I am obviously going to lose, but I can't let you win 6 dice on this conflict.
GM: So...
Antonio: I said the ships were late for there arrival - I didn't say they haven't arrived yet. (Rolls a die, gets 4. Total 13.)
Shylock: Still, you have no money.
---Shylock just scored a Saving Grace. He gets to pick up a die on the control pool and re-roll it. Obviously he picks up the 2, and hopes for a 6. He unfortunately gets a 4, so nothing changes.---
Shylock: And, I get my 2 dice for winning that one. Back up to 3...    3 fortes, 3 dice.
Antonio: You'll still never get away with this Shylock!
Shylock: We'll see about that in court.

Bassanio: News reaches my ear that Antonio is due in court. I must go reach him.
Portia: Well, my story stakes are [Have a loving husband]. I don't want to get in the way of his friends, because that'll further me from my stakes. "Go, Bassanio. And take this chest of gold, should its use arise."
GM: This could symbolize you lending Bassanio a die, if you wanted to. Or the money could be just for storyline.
Bassanio: "Thank you, my love." (takes a die from Portia.)

Test: GM, I wanna switch characters again.
GM: What? You've only got 2 dice. That means after giving one away, you'll only have 1.
Test: Yeah. hee hee, I know.
GM: Sheet? (Test slides him a sheet: Judge. Dice: 1.) Fine, you can be the judge.
Judge: Antonio, Shylock, please step forward. Shylock, state your case.
Shylock: Antonio signed a deal saying that if he didn't pay me 3000 ducats in three months, he owed me 1 pound of flesh. And I have come to relinquish it. (Rolls a die, gets 5).
Judge: This is outrageous! Antonio....
Antonio: I beg of you mercy, good man! (Rolls a die, gets 1).
(Portia searches through a dictionary for the definition of flesh, then smiles.)
Portia: GM, I'm switching characters. Here's a sheet. (Portia in disguise as a doctor of law. Cunning 2. Dice: 7.)
GM: I'll allow that character. (Portia hands one of the 7 dice to Antonio.)
Bassanio: I burst forward, offering him 6000 ducats to forget about the flesh. (rolls a die against Shylock. Gets a 4. Total against: 5.)
Shylock: I care not for money at this point - this is about something bigger. (Rolls a die, gets a 2.)
Antonio: What you are doing is murder sir! (Rolls, gets a 4)
Shylock: You signed a contract, fool. (checks off a stickler forte box, rerolls the 2, gets a 6. Total: 11.)
Bassanio: Six Thousand Ducats! Just walk away. (Rolls a 4. Total: 9.)
Judge: We have an honourable lawyer coming forward. Let us hear his take now.
Portia: Actually, the lawyer could not make it. However, there is a young doctor of law waiting outside.
GM: Let him in now.
Doctor of Law: ...Thank you. Shylock, produce your bond.
Shylock: Here is is ma'am. (Stickler forte: +1. Total: 12)
Doctor of Law: Okay. After some deliberation, I've come to the conclusion that you are within your rights to take a pound of this man's flesh. However, I urge you to choose the money instead. (Rolls a die, gets a 5.)
---Shylock is legally allowed to cut this man. This is a saving grace. He picks up the 4 in his Control pool {6,6,6,6,6,4) and re-rolls it. He gets a 3.---
GM: I'll give you a flavour die just for sticking to your goal Shylock.

GM: We see that you are legally allowed to, now all you have to do is physically do it I guess.
Shylock: I bring a blade to the man's heart. (Rolls a die, gets a 4. Total: 4)
Doctor of Law: Hold it for one moment. I forgot to mention that the law allows you to render one pound of flesh. However, you are not allowed to spill any of this man's blood. You have no bond allowing you to take any of Antonio's blood. Thus, it would be a crime. (Rolls a die, gets a 4. Total: 5.)
GM: That's a twist.
Doctor of Law: haha, sucker! (Takes one of the 6's in the control pool out, and adds it to her own pile.)
Shylock: Well, in that case, I'll just take the money. (Rolls his final die, gets a 2. Total: 6.)
Doctor of Law: No, you officially made the choice to take his flesh. Therefore, you can't go back on that decision. (Rolls a die, gets 3. Total: 8.)
Shylock: I'm out of dice. Fuck!
GM: So, are you going to try to skin him still?
Shylock: I can't. I've been trumped.
GM: Doctor of Law, that's a sabotage success. And a die for being so cunning and sly.

Doctor of Law picks up one of the 6's {6,6,6,6,3} and rolls it. She gets a 1, which counts as a low-blow. Meaning she picks up another 6 {6,6,6,3,1}, and rerolls it. {6,6,4,3,1}.

Bassanio: The crowds I am standing in all cheer at his failure, and rejoice in that the greedy man met his end. (Rolls a die, gets a 4. Total: 4)
Shylock: I have nothing to contest that with. That means another sabotage in me trying to trump teh christians.
Bassanio picks up a die in the control pool {6,6,4,3,1} and rolls it.
{6,4,3,3,1}.

GM: Shylock, you have officially been broken.

For anyone who's seen The Merchant of Venice, the story doesn't end here. Let's say Bassanio has the most dice at this point (because he got 4 dice for his final action!) He know becomes the protagonist, and everybody switches story stakes. His stakes would be [make it up to his wife for being away]. He fails this by betraying her and handing her the ring, and thus the story continues that way.

Wow. What a long post. My apologies.

That's definately what I want to see with Down Spiral, though.

The question I have now is GMs: Is it necessary to have a GM at this point?
All the GM really does is arbitrate whether something is a twist, sabotage, saving grace, etc.

The reason it MAY be necessary is that players might be venemous and unfair about such arbitrations if they are sharing that arbitration duty.