Okay, first check out this actual play thread where I talk hazily about the prospect of using mechanics to set stakes, rather than to resolve them.  This is my first crack at that.

Equipment:

• 3x5 Cards with your Stakes/Traits written on them:  "Johnny is so very cool," "Johnny's relationship with Bridget," "Johnny's hair-trigger temper" and so on.
• Lots of blue six-sided dice.  The blues.  Blues music.  These are called "Misery Dice."  They start in a bowl in front of one of the players.  Other players, at the start of the game, can just grab a handful.
• Lots of red six-sided dice.  These are called "Passion Dice."  They start in a bowl in front of another player.  Again, other players can grab a handful to start with.

When you want to resolve something simple, the procedure is simple:  Say you want to see whether you get in the door to the mob lord's (or school principals) office.  No big stakes, you just need to know whether you get in or not.  If any player (but especially the player holding the bowl of passion dice) is willing to give you one of their passion dice then you succeed.  Yay.  Likewise, if anyone (but especially the player holding the bowl of misery dice) is willing to give you one of their misery dice then there is some complication to your success or failure.  They can put these dice either straight into your pool or onto one of the trait-cards in front of you.  Simple, neh?  Basically, minor success and failure is being run much like PTA Fan Mail, as a way of communicating "Hey, that's sorta cool."

Let's say that you got a passion die put onto your "Reckless Curiosity" trait, a misery die put into your pool and another misery die put onto your "Relationship with Amy" trait:  You get into the room by breaking the window and opening the door from the inside.  But now there's a broken window, which may (or may not ... whatever) attract attention, and you're going to have to change your jacket before meeting Amy after school (unless you want to attract attention from her).

Now you've got a non-simple thing to resolve:  there's a non-simple procedure.  You call on somebody at the table to be on the spot to make a decision.  This can be you.  Let's say that you decide that you will be the one to make the decision.

Now, what is the decision?  Don't know yet.  There are two sides, and you're going to get to choose only one of them.  Right now there's nothing on either side, so it's probably a moot point.  But you want to put something on one side ... probably both sides, in fact.  And that's where the stakes resolution system comes in.

You are the person who is going to decide.  So you are going to be using passion dice to add, remove and change stakes on the conflict.  Anybody who wants to mess around with your stakes will use their misery dice to do that:  so, passion dice give you power to control the sort of decisions you have to face, misery dice give you power to force hard decisions on other people.

You're using passion dice.  Your base difficulty on any roll is going to be the number of misery dice you have in your pool.  We'll say you had three before starting the scene.  You got one more (breaking the glass on the door).  The one you got on your "relationship with amy" card doesn't count.  It's on the card, not in your pool.  So your base difficulty will start at a four.  You want to add the "Story:  Evidence of wrongdoing" card (currently in the "unowned" area in the middle of the table) to Side #1 of your stakes.  You roll a Passion die, and it comes up a two.  Not enough to beat your base difficulty.  You roll another, and this one comes up a four (sure ... now!)  Two plus four is six, well above the target number of four.  You've got two passion dice there, holding the "Evidence of Wrongdoing" card in place on side #1.  Go you!

Now I step up to plate, because I'm just a bastard that way.  I don't want you to have any chance of gaining the evidence of wrongdoing.  In fact, I don't even think it's in that safe!  So I want to remove that card from the stakes.  I have no passion dice right now, so my base difficulty is zero.  I need to beat the greater of my base difficulty (zero) and the highest die you've got holding down the card (a four).  So I need to beat a four.  I roll a six on my first die, because (again) I'm lucky and evil that way.

I now take the two passion dice that you had holding down the card.  I have two passion dice.  Yay for me!  And currently, "Evidence of Wrongdoing" is being held out of the stakes by my single die of six.

Well you won't tolerate that, so you roll dice, a three, and a two, and a five.  That finally brings you to a total of greater than six.  You take my misery die (bringing your own pool to five) and "Evidence of wrongdoing" is back on the table.  But you've now spent five of your six passion dice.  Just one left.

I don't like the idea of going up against that five.  Plus, I'm actually interested to see what sort of evidence of wrongdoing you turn up.  But I don't want it to be without cost.  So I roll a misery die, getting a three (just greater than my now-greater pool of two passion dice), and I add your Reckless Curiosity to Side #2 of the choice.  Yay me!

"Reckless Curiosity" comes with a passion die.  You decide to roll that immediately ... but you get a two.  You roll your remaining passion die from your pool ... and get a three.  Now that five is greater than my rolled three, but it's not greater than your pool of five misery dice (the four you started with and the one you earned from my for forcing "Evidence" back into the stakes.  So you're screwed.  You're out of dice, you can't effect the stakes any more.

I'm not out of dice though.  So I add "Relationship with Amy" to side #2.  Because I'm evil that way, and I can do it essentially for free (using the misery die already on the card).

Now, the situation:  On Side #1 you have "Evidence of Wrongdoing."  On Side #2 you have "Reckless Curiosity" and "Relationship with Amy."  Which will you choose, which will you choose? 

You choose Side #1.  The "Evidence of Wrongdoing" card goes into the area that you control.  The cards from Side #2 go into the central pile in the middle, that nobody controls.  You can make stakes again later to try to control them ... but, likewise, I can make stakes to try to take them and control them myself.  Then I would decide (a) whether your reckless curiosity helps or hinders you and (b) when you get to make decisions with that at stake.  Since I'm a vindictive fiend, if I got control of your character's reckless curiosity then I would probably use it to lead him into places he really shouldn't be, and to generally screw him mightily.

All of the dice that are still out there holding down cards (or having tried and failed to regain initiative) go back into their respective bowls.  And that's it.  You, the choosing player, get to narrate something that (a) gets you closer to real evidence of wrongdoing and (b) makes your reckless curiosity and relationship with Amy more tenuous in terms of whether they help or hinder you.

Wow ... that's a lot of rambling.  I really, really, really don't have this clear enough in my head to describe it with precision.  Is what I'm saying making any sense to people, or am I just babbling my own private moon-language?

TonyLB wrote:
• Lots of red six-sided dice.  These are called "Passion Dice."  They start in a bowl in front of another player.  Again, other players can grab a handful to start with.

TonyLB wrote:
Wow ... that's a lot of rambling.  I really, really, really don't have this clear enough in my head to describe it with precision.  Is what I'm saying making any sense to people, or am I just babbling my own private moon-language?

It's "Steve's Reckless Curiosity."  So if I (Tony) am playing Jessica, and I take control (as a player) of Steve's Reckless Curiosity then I get to use it to influence the story.

To what extent Joe (playing Steve) controls Steve's actions ... that's a detail I'm not clear on yet in my head.  The two easy options are (a) I get to tell Joe when Steve is or isn't recklessly curious or (b) Joe still controls it, but I have some reward/punishment mechanism that I get access to whenever Steve's reckless curiosity comes into play ... so if Joe defies me he suffers, and if he follows my lead he benefits.

So you're fighting over control of story elements?  That sounds like a good start.  I do wonder what that control really means -- which you say is not clear yet, which is fine -- and also who gets to frame exactly what losing control of those story elements means in the narrative.  It sounds like the choosing player gets to narrate what that means, exactly.  So like, if I lose the Evidence card in the stakes, I don't get to say what the evidence is, right?  But can I narrate that I take the evidence out of the safe, and since I'm spooked by a noise at the door I bolt out of the building with the evidence in my bag, unlooked at?  Or is moving the evidence around without saying what it is exerting some control over it?

Well, if you stuck it in your bag and fled without looking at it then you've narrated what looks like significant progress toward controlling the evidence, but you haven't backed that up with the game mechanics.

That means (I think) that when you attempt to actually (oh, say) open your book-bag and look at the evidence, it's not going to be that easy.  The gap between how easy the task looks, and how hard it measurably is in the game-mechanics, does you in.

At worst, you'll just find yourself unable to do so (and be compelled to think up an excuse).  People will use their superior resources to prevent you from adding that as stakes ... like, ever.  Turns out that the papers that looked so useful were, in fact, worthless.  Another dead-end.

An option that is a little less brutal (and easier for your opponents to achieve) is that you may be forced to choose between opening your bag and keeping your girlfriend.  You can still have the evidence, but if you open that bag, something else is going to be seen which puts you completely in the dog-house with Amy.  What the hell are you keeping in that bookbag?  A half-used pack of condoms or something?  Why the hell did you ever agree to stash those for Richie, anyway?  Amy will never believe the truth, it's too far-fetched.

Does that make any sense?

Makes perfect sense, and sounds awesome.  The only difficult I see is in clearly communicating the limits of narration in regards to the ownership of story elements.  By the by, what are you calling "the stuff you put on cards"?

Dunno.  I'm short on terms for a lot of things:

• Stuff that goes on cards
• The person who will eventually choose between the two options being listed
• The person who holds the Misery Dice bowl
• The person who holds the Passion Dice bowl
• A choice that is being presented and modified, vis-a-vis its stakes
• The act of presenting and modifying that choice
• The state of having a card in front of you, rather than in the middle (not exactly "control", not exactly "profiting from", but something between the two)
• The state of a card being in the middle, where anyone can include it as stakes

Anyone have ideas?  Some terms would help me think about this.

Also:  Should players need to spend some resource in order to open a conflict?  It strikes me that, if two people both have high Passion dice and low Misery dice, the question of who gets to open the first conflict (and, presumably, end up being the person choosing between stakes, and therefore the person with access to their Passion dice) is a big deal.  How do you mediate that?

I'll take a stab at some term ideas.  Maybe it will help or spark something.  -Bryan

Stuff that goes on cards

The person who will eventually choose between the two options being listed

The person who holds the Misery Dice bowl

The state of having a card in front of you, rather than in the middle (not exactly "control", not exactly "profiting from", but something between the two)

The state of a card being in the middle, where anyone can include it as stakes

Bryan wrote:
Why not just Trait Cards and Stake Cards?  It's simple and describes them perfectly.

TonyLB wrote: The thing is, I can't figure out (outside of the obvious one-on-one confrontations) how to distribute those cards.  If four people are all fiddling around, adding and removing stakes on the decision, how do you know which of the three non-choosers gets a given card?

But ...

Think, think,

See, there are times when the card clearly needs to go to a specific player.  Take a look at this example:

Preston wants to keep Becky safe.  Becky wants to get close to Preston.  Victor wants to find Preston's weak spot, and use it to destroy him.

Becky asks Preston whether he loves her.  She puts "Preston/Becky relationship" on one side of the stakes.  Victor is watching in secret.  If Preston admits his love for Becky, Victor will know that she's his weak spot.  Victor puts "Becky's safety" on the other side of the stakes.

Suppose Preston denies his love for Becky.  The relationship is back in Becky's court.  Victor has no motive to be involved, and really isn't thematically tied to the issue of Becky's anger and rejection.  The card has to go to Becky's player.

Suppose Preston confesses his love for Becky.  Becky's safety is now a tool that Victor can use against Preston.  The card clearly has to go to Victor.

I sort of see where you're going with this, but am finding it a little hard to follow.  Probably my fault.  But once the cards are in the center aren't they open up to whoever wants to put stakes on them.  If one player wants the card and no one opposes that desire to control that stake wouldn't that player just get the stake.  If to players want the card, then shouldn't their be a stake biding war?

Oh!

And also, d'oh!

Right.  Why would coveted cards ever stick around in the middle?  They wouldn't.  Victor probably bought himself a whole bunch of Passion dice during his work at setting the stakes.  So then he immediately pours those into grabbing "Becky's safety" out of the middle.  And if Becky agrees that he should have it then she dumps her dice into the same situation, and ...

Thank you.  You've helped me (I hope) to not get my brain wrapped around the axle as severely as it might have been.

Right.  Now I gotta get some people together to play-test this.

Tony, I think you mapped out one way in which that situation could unfold, but it's not the only way.  Sure, Victor can see Preston declare his love for Becky, and conclude that Becky is Preston's weak spot (and get the Becky's safety card).  However, it could just as easily go that Victor sees the love declaration but Preston takes responsibility for Becky's safety (and he gets Becky's safety).  Or the love-declaration thing goes down and Becky realizes that she's entering dangerous waters and will have to watch herself (and she gets the card).  Also, don't rule out the possibility of follow-up conflicts where Victor can try and take Becky's safety from Preston or whatever other combination you want.

What's the difference in the decision that Preston has to make if (a) the stakes I don't choose go to Victor specifically or (b) the stakes I don't choose get scattered to the winds, and I can't control where they go?

Additionally, is there any narration that gets paired with the die-rolling that determines what's at stake?

Joshua wrote:
However, it could just as easily go that Victor sees the love declaration but Preston takes responsibility for Becky's safety (and he gets Becky's safety).

Joshua wrote: Additionally, is there any narration that gets paired with the die-rolling that determines what's at stake?

Isn't that the ending of the first Spiderman movie? ;)

In any case, I was just throwing out different interpretations based on where the cards might go -- I think choosing "I gain control of this side, and the other side gets shuffled out randomly" could produce some interesting developments.  Why do you think that the losing side "must" go somewhere specific?  Or are you going with 'back to where it came from' which might be the middle of the table (and how is the middle of the table different than a random shuffle in terms of the narrative)?

The "where Stakes cards go" is a key thing to work out, yeah. But so is "where the dice go," because that determines who has the power to MAKE the cards go one way or another. If I'm following the economy:

TonyLB wrote:

[1. You can get dice to give out to other players at will, in unlimited quantities] "Misery Dice."  They start in a bowl in front of one of the players.  Other players, at the start of the game, can just grab a handful. ..."Passion Dice."  They start in a bowl in front of another player.  Again, other players can grab a handful to start with.

[2. You get dice into your own pools to use when the other players want to reward/bribe you:] If any player...is willing to give you one of their passion dice then you succeed.  Yay.  Likewise, if anyone (but especially the player holding the bowl of misery dice) is willing to give you one of their misery dice then there is some complication to your success or failure.  They can put these dice either straight into your pool or onto one of the trait-cards in front of you.

[3. Your Pool of Misery Dice impedes your use of Passion, Passion impedes Misery:] passion dice give you power to control the sort of decisions you have to face, misery dice give you power to force hard decisions on other people....using passion dice[, y]our base difficulty on any roll is going to be the number of misery dice you have in your pool. [SF: And conversely, using misery dice, you have to beat the number of dice in your passion pool -- right?]

[4. Dice placed on Trait/Stake cards BEFORE a conflict (in 1., above) do NOT make things more difficult (as in 3., above) but are only available when a specific card is put at stake:] "Reckless Curiosity" comes with a passion die.  You decide to roll that immediately.... add "Relationship with Amy" to side #2.  Because I'm evil that way, and I can do it essentially for free (using the misery die already on the card).

[5.  Dice placed on Trait/Stake cards DURING a conflict can be captured along with the card and go into the new owner's pool (I think):] I now take the two passion dice that you had holding down the card....

[6. All dice placed in cards involved in the conflict -- whether they were placed there before or during the conflict -- that aren't captured (as in 5.) drain from the economy, although they can easily be brought back (as in 1.):] All of the dice that are still out there holding down cards (or having tried and failed to regain initiative) go back into their respective bowls....

Sydney, good analysis.  There's a few points I'll comment on later, but first I have to laugh on a totally unrelated topic.  The laughter is not directed at you.

Heh.

Heehheeeehehhhhhh..  Bwahaha!  Heh.

Why am I laughing?  I had a really funny thought about the system.  You know how I was asking "What names do we apply to the guy who's holding the bowl of Passion dice and the guy who's holding the bowl of Misery dice"?  I thought of some.

Guy who is holding the bowl of Passion dice:  Game Master.
Guy who is holding the bowl of Misery dice:  Story Teller.

And yes part of the reason I love it so much is that it's parody.  But ... but, I think it has a kernel of very serious truth.  I think the Game Master and the Story Teller (as typified by D&D and Vampire) are different positions.  The Game Master is there to judge whether you succeed or fail, and to decide outcomes.  The Story Teller is there to help you tell your story, and to keep heaping hardship and adversity on you.

Those can be independent roles.  A game can benefit from having both.

Now here's the thing:  in Misery Bubblegum, as I've currently formulated it, the "judge whether you succeed or fail, and decide outcomes" bit is split into two places.  For simple conflicts the guy with the bowl decides.  For complex conflicts the guy who has been chosen to choose decides.  So here's the brainwave above and beyond the terms:  What if we combine those two ideas roles?

How about, whoever is currently holding the Passion dice bowl is the Game Master, and the Game Master is the one who chooses between Stake #1 and Stake #2.  Always.  The Game Master is the one calling the shots.  They decide whether you succeed or fail.  They are the ones who decide what happens with complicated stakes.  They make all the decisions.

Until they pass the bowl.

Why would they pass the bowl?  Because when you're the Game Master you have very few ways to gain Passion dice of your own.  Basically, you can only get them when somebody gives them to you.  But you can spend them, oh boy can you spend them.  Eventually you're just flat going to run out, while everyone else will be sitting there happily farming Passion dice off of you and Misery dice off of the Story Teller.  They'll never run out of resources to oppose you with.  But you don't have to stay the target forever.  You'll accumulate a great big pile of Misery, and then you can pass the large red bulls-eye to some other poor sap.

Okay, now that I've vented that.  Oh, wait.  Heh.  Heeheeeheehehehhh.  A GM and a Story Teller.  Heh.  I make myself happy.  Right ... now that I've vented that ...

Sydney, I think your analysis is solid, except for two things.

One is #1 where you assume the dice in the bowls are always available to all players.  That would, indeed, be a great big sucking chest wound in the tightness of the economy.  After that initial "Grab however much misery and passion you'd like to jump-start the game," people award misery and passion out of their own, personal pools.  The only people who can award from the bowls are the people holding the bowls.

So, for example, let's say you've got a ton of passion, and just a few dice of misery.  You get passed the GM bowl (because, dude, you clearly need it).  Someone takes an action ... and you award them a passion die from the bowl and a misery die from your personal pool.  Why?  Because that misery pool is setting your base difficulty.  As long as you're in the GM role, it's a hindrance.  You only want to build a great big pile of misery in the last instants before you pass the bowl.  Make sense?

The second is where you assume that the dice awarded to the card are the same as the dice rolled to control the fate of that card (sorta both #5 and #6).  The awards stay with the card (if they haven't been spent).  You could totally end up with a card in the uncontrolled pool that's just loaded with passion and misery dice.

I'm really fascinated, myself, by the interacton of the dice on the cards with the shifting of the GM bowl.  Passion dice on your cards are a huge pain in the ass when you're not the GM.  Misery dice are your friends.  Plus, so long as you don't have the GM bowl you're safe.  You can't choose anything, but nobody can force you to stake a card under your control.  You can only stake it voluntarily, to force the GM to a choice about it.  But, the moment you become the GM, that all flip-flops.  Now the passion dice are your friends, and the misery dice are your enemies.  What's more, the cards in your hand are not safe.  Anyone can stake them, as if they were in the uncontrolled area.

So what if you've got a ton of Passion dice in your pool, but also a ton of Misery dice on a card that you consider really important.  That's like a great big flag with a fireworks display behind it.  You need to be handed the GM bowl, and you need to have people trying to force you to make a really, really, really hard choice about that particular card, right the heck now.

Okay, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm suddenly getting very excited about the prospects here.