Topic: Punk (yeah!)
Started by: Tim Denee
Started on: 4/12/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 4/12/2002 at 3:46am, Tim Denee wrote:
Punk (yeah!)
Finished, at last: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/timdenee/punk.rtf
This is a pretty ugly rich text version. Tell me if the file is readable, please. (A .pdf version can be expected soonish).
I get annoyed by 'punk' games; steampunk, cyberpunk, and so on. They always focus too much on the first part, (the 'steam' or 'cyber'), and not enough on the 'punk'.
This is my attempt to fix that.
It's (hopefully) a narrativist game with a premise of (hopefully) "Why fight when you know you can't win?"
So, does it deliver the premise? Is it playable? Are there gaping mechanical flaws?
In particular, do you think scenes are going to drag on too long? Is the 'fact' thing too clunky?
Will hell-shifts/consequences/reactions be too infrequent? Are there too many "bits" (i.e. should I strip it down)?
On 4/12/2002 at 4:28am, hardcoremoose wrote:
RE: Punk (yeah!)
Tim,
I quickly read through Punk just now, so forgive me if not everything has sunk in yet. Overall, you conveyed the feel of the game to me, and it seems fairly workable.
Things I like...
- Hell and Hell-shifts. Dav and Ron talked about something like this in relation to a game of Little Fears they played, and I thought it was the coolest thing I'd ever heard of. I've been trying to come up with a game idea I could insert that mechanic into, but it seems like you have it right here. Not sure how the actual mechanics would work without actually playing it, but the idea seems solid.
- Rolling for Facts. This reminds me of what I did with Human Wreckage, and it works well enough as long as you're not looking for dramatic combat scenes. For those I like straight forward Fortune, but for other things, this sort of mechanic can be fun.
Things I'm not too sure about...
Player-driven scene framing. I think it would be better if The Man just framed scenes, perhaps helped along by the structure you've provided, and with a requirement that he must[/] imbed some player-derived conflict into the story. Once the scene has been framed, the players can then state their goals in relation to it. Of course, players should still be able to request specific scenes, but I'd let the man do most of the framing. Just my opinion, of course.
Player driven adversity. Sort of reminds me of Chalk Outlines, and while there were many good things about that game (some of which are also good about your game), we had trouble delivering interesting adversity to ourselves. It just came off flat.
Seems like a game about beating the system, should have some way for the players to break it. I'm not sure what that means just yet, but it's a thought I just had.
Anyway, I'll continue to think on it, but there's some feedback to get you started.
- Scott
On 4/12/2002 at 5:01am, Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
RE: Punk (yeah!)
hardcoremoose wrote:
Seems like a game about beating the system, should have some way for the players to break it. I'm not sure what that means just yet, but it's a thought I just had.
Yeah, part of the game should be trying to cheat at it. Basically, a way to ignore or alter parts of the system at will if they don't jibe with what you're trying to do.
Also, the katanapunk thing doesn't make sense. I would think that the Punk aspect of such a setting would be to break apart the traditions and become more modern and Western.
On 4/12/2002 at 5:13am, Tim Denee wrote:
RE: Punk (yeah!)
Thanks guys. Valuable feedback. I'm thinking over it all.
Adversity issue: I don't want to individualize 'the enemy' too much. I want it to be 'Us vs. The World'. But I see your point. Any solutions?
Breaking the game: cool idea. Any mechanical ideas? Some sort of bluffing thing maybe?
Scene framing: ok. It'd speed things up. That's easy enough to change.
Katanapunk: you got me, it doesn't quite fit. I guess it's sort of a Japan quite far along the 'modernisation' timeline, where western, industrialized ways of thinking/acting have become prevalent/fashionable. Samurai/bushido/old ways are looked down upon, treated poorly, marginalized.
On 4/12/2002 at 5:38am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Punk (yeah!)
Tim,
I thought the rules were well written. They were easy to understand, and seem easy to use. Good work!
I'd like to see your next RPG, as punk's premise isn't to my taste. Could you rework the mechanics to suit a more uplifting premise?
Thanks!
On 4/12/2002 at 5:54am, hardcoremoose wrote:
RE: Punk (yeah!)
Tim wrote
Adversity issue: I don't want to individualize 'the enemy' too much. I want it to be 'Us vs. The World'. But I see your point. Any solutions?
My solution would be that when bad stuff has to happen to the characters, The Man narrates it. He is The Man, afterall. But really, this is strictly an issue of taste.
As far as "breaking" the system, I dunno yet. What rules do you have in place so far that you can break? Maybe you need to impose a heavy sort of structure on the players (not just the characters) from the beginning - don't let them narrate anything, good or bad. Don't let them frame scenes. Railroad them like hell. And then, somehow, let them seize that ability away from The man. Let them tell you "this is the adventure we're playing in". Wasn't that the point of Fight Club, that you chose it? Fuck, how would you do that and not make it seem like it's the ruleset allowing for it?
Ah well, I'll let this one rest for now...
- Scott
On 4/12/2002 at 6:17am, Tim Denee wrote:
RE: Punk (yeah!)
Scott wrote: My solution would be that when bad stuff has to happen to the characters, The Man narrates it. He is The Man, afterall. But really, this is strictly an issue of taste.
What if I remove the part about players being able to decide reactions? That would mean The Man always decide what the bad stuff is. In Survival scenes, maybe, the characters can only lessen the damage done by reactions, they're not allowed to remove it.
Scott wrote: As far as "breaking" the system, I dunno yet. What rules do you have in place so far that you can break?
Well. Hm. I love this 'breaking' thing. It feels really... right. We have to nail this down somehow.
Above I mentioned not being allowed to eliminate reactions. Maybe more stuff like that... Which players can eventually ignore somehow...
I think The Man has to become more of an enemy. If everyone's working entirely co-operatively, you shouldn't need to break the rules. But if you're restricted, oppressed, frustrated even...
Just some vague ideas.
On 4/12/2002 at 6:30am, hardcoremoose wrote:
RE: Punk (yeah!)
Tim,
Man, I need to go to bed, but here's a quick thought.
What if, at the start of the game, players can only narrate a portion of the facts they roll. I don't how many, or what portion of your mechanics would detemine this - maybe it's just an arbitrary number, like, say, players can narrate 1 Fact in the opening of the scene and 1 in the wrap-up. Or maybe they just get to narrate their Trait facts to start with. The Man narrates all the rest. Those Facts they have power over they can parlay into more control - meaning the ability to narrate more and more Facts - in later scenes, perhaps by narrating self-imposed bad stuff or something, but by that time The Man has used so many Facts from early on that they players really need to work to escape the prison he's erected. And maybe, at some point (when they generate a Reaction? A Consequence? When they roll doubles?) they slip back into that pit and have to dig their way out again.
Note that if you were to do something like this, The Man wouldn't really need a Resistance number or dice at all. He'd have plenty of Facts to narrate in the early going, slowly giving way to the players ability to do more and more stuff (but still getting to frame scenes and narrate Reactions, unless you want the players to be able to do that sort of stuff too). Eventually the players would have a lot of control, but if you set up a trigger that sets them back to square one, eventually that condition will occur and The Man will be right back on top of them, giving the PCs the righteous beatdown they deserve for thinking they could beat the system.
Of course, none of this is really about "breaking" the system, it's just adding more rules to it to allow for the empowerment, and perhaps eventual beatdown, of the characters. It's grist for the mill though.
And yeah, I like the idea of The Man narrating Reactions. Again, that's just me.
- Scott
On 4/12/2002 at 7:13am, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Punk (yeah!)
I really like it. This is along the lines of shared authorial power that I 've really been digging lately. I also like how Hells are basically long term motivations put right in. I also dig the rage/survival/soul thing.
As far as Katanapunk, it definitely fits in; Check out Yojimbo(inspiration for Fistful of Dollars), Roruni Kenshin(in his early years as the Battousai), Blade of the Immortal(known for its neopunk samurai), Vagrant, and Ghost Dog(for something more modern). Japan has always had its share of punks willing to buck the system...It just happens that the Man always wrote the history...
Chris
On 4/12/2002 at 3:16pm, Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
RE: Punk (yeah!)
"Black man, white man...rip the system."
How about this. Use some kind of anger meter that goes up whenever the Man does something. Have the system involve lots of Fortune, kinda stacked against the players. Then when the meter is filled up, the player can take control / gets extra dice / whatever.
On 4/12/2002 at 6:31pm, lumpley wrote:
RE: Punk (yeah!)
Just a quick thought, from a punk in hell:
I'd change the Premise from "Why fight when you know you can't win?" to "How fight when you know you can't win?"
That'd tie in to the breaking out of the system stuff here in the thread, anyway.
But you can win after all, can't you? You can change your hell, you can get your family member off heroin, you can bring Nike to its knees if you want, and if you score facts.
I like it, but (it might just be me) I want to know I can't win. How would it be if you couldn't change your hell?
-Vincent
On 4/13/2002 at 4:01am, Henry Fitch wrote:
RE: Punk (yeah!)
I think katanapunk was definitely right if it's supposed to be 19th century. By that point modern/western had won for sure, so that's the new Establishment.
On the other hand, I disagree with whoever cited Blade of the Immortal. The real punk characters there are the antagonists, and they're all about modernity.
Sorry if that was off-topic.