Topic: Klingons!
Started by: oreso
Started on: 4/6/2006
Board: First Thoughts
On 4/6/2006 at 6:44am, oreso wrote:
Klingons!
Klingons!
Have a looky at the link and tell me what you think.
Its meant to be a one shot party game to give you an excuse to act like a Klingon.
My concerns are:
That it might be too repetitive. If the players arent geared towards acting like Klingons, then it hasnt got alot of complexity to keep them interested in the conflict on its own. I'll add some more colour if I were to release this (useful klingon phrases, recipe for bloodwine), but would that be enough to get folk involved? If not, could making it more complex and tactical help? How, just by adding more possible actions? More stages to the game?
On the reverse side in a related way, it might be too abstract. Do you think the rules are just too fiddly for a party game? Again, if released properly I would provide examples of play and work hard on the wording to make it clear, simple and mood setting, but thats not much good if folk just cant relate simple maths to intangible ideals of alien behaviour and get turned on by it.
Aside from this, is there anything else that could make it better or dissuade me from bothering?
any and all help appreciated,
Cheers!
(apologies for typos. i just cant type today for some reason)
On 4/6/2006 at 6:39pm, oreso wrote:
Re: Klingons!
I've spruced up the design of the page to be a bit more evocative, so check out the link and tell me if it works.
While I'm here I'll submit my answers to the big 3 and alt.3.
big 3
1. What is your game about?
A group of peers competing for social supremacy.
2. What do the characters do?
Socially engage with other characters to make themselves feel better and win respect.
3. What do the players do?
Manipulate and/or correctly gauge each other to increase their self-respect and demand that respect is given to them.
alt.3
1. What is your game about?
Competition to test the ability of players to manipulate and/or successfully gauge the other players.
2. How is your game about that?
Compete to gather (and avoid losing) a resource through correct gauging and/or manipulation. The gauge also functions as a hidden secondary resource used at the end of the game.
3. How does your game enforce/reinforce what it’s about?
The resource is gathered by successfully selecting advantageous processes which reward correct assessment of guages controlled by the other players and punish poor assessment. To minimise risks to themselves, the other players are likely raise these gauges against successful players which has the effect of gathering a secondary resource.
My concerns are still there if anyone has any insight, but I'll cast some more light on them.
The lack of variables and options is made up for by them being much more dynamic (but not arbitrary) and closely linked to the metagame between the players (I hope i used that word right). Success is dependant on playing the other players, not playing the system. The emphasis on metagame may well devalue the narrative however. Even if it doesnt, the narrative focus will be a kinda episodic account of how a given character performs and relates, not a coherent story.
The lack of different stages of play (no development, no endgame) is perhaps a downside, and without it, the feeling of character progress would be strained over extended play (extended probably meaning more than ten minutes). Adding different stages would structure the narrative lots more, but given how limited the narrative is anyway this may well be superfluous. I mean, this aint My Life with Master.
Is this kinda game workable and interesting?
On 4/6/2006 at 8:29pm, Czar Fnord wrote:
RE: Re: Klingons!
oreso wrote: Have a looky at the link and tell me what you think.
I think it's quite interesting, though I would appreciate a slightly more detailed section on preparing to play (the dice, paper grid, box tops, whatever) and a general order of events (who goes first; the exact sequence of declare, compare, narrate; how credability is apportioned at declare and narrate stages; exact timing rules for changing ones own Honor to Others). Also--not to be too nitpicky--but I think it would benefit from a slightly more referential structure to the actions and more consistent diction in that structure. To whit:
[table][tr][td]Action[/td][td]Values Compared[/td][td]Result[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Butt heads[/td][td]Actor Pride v. Target[/td][td]Actor Pride = Target Honor to Actor[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Gossip[/td][td]Conspirator Honor to Actor v. Conspirator Honor to Target[/td][td]Actor Pride = Actor Pride + (Conspirator Honor to Actor - Conspirator Honor to Target)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Challenge[/td][td]Actor Pride v. Target Pride + Target Honor to Actor[/td][td]higher Value = Pride + difference[br]lower Value = Pride - difference[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sabotage[/td][td]Actor Pride + Target Honor to Actor v. Target Pride[/td][td]higher Value = Pride - difference[/td][/tr][/table]
(Note that I think it's better to say actor and target, as many of the action are not "attacks" per se.)
As further reinforcement of that notion, I think building such a table (or expanding upon what I have knocked out above, with better break-downs of Results) will help you confirm that you have "all cases" covered. As you no doubt realize, the Action names are, themselves, color; the set of possible types of interactions makes up the root of the game, and there are a finite number of interrelations of these core elements:
1) Pride
2) Honor to Actor
3) Honor to Other
4) positive value comparison difference
5) negative value comparison difference
And the types of interrelations should be equally narrow:
A) Unmodified elements
B) Added elements
C) Subtracted elements (as yet unused in your system)
If that is exhaustive (it is comprehensive, vis a vis your current game model) then you should have... damned stats... something like 15 possible interrelationships? Or would it be 5[sup]3[/sup] (3[sup]5[/sup]?) interrelations. Hmmm... and many of those interrelations could be ignored because they reflect a needless complication or would be a total muddle to determine why one side or the other won an Action. MATH FOLKS CHIME IN ANY TIME! :-)
Its meant to be a one shot party game to give you an excuse to act like a Klingon.
Again, I feel that's just color; your current interrelations are abstract enough that it could equally be "stylized" as:
• Catty Sorority Girls
• Backroom Dealing Politicians
• Tragically Hip Vampires
Though, thinking of interrelations again, it would seem that there might be ways to more closely couple system and setting, for some of the permutations of interrelations. Perhaps one of them would just scream "Insult War" or some-such... but you might not want to bother. Color, for a "party game" like this could just get in the way of a broad marketing approach. (More on that later.)
That it might be too repetitive.
Only in the way that checkers can become too repetitive. ;-)
If you come up with a tight pure strategy game like this one, and test out all interrelations cases that you want to include, it will hum right along, even WITHOUT Klingons. In fact, there's really not a "reason" to narrate in the game at all (that I can see): there's no benefit to consistent, good, or amusing narration; it's a "bolt-on" to the Gamist core mechanics. And that's fine...
If the players aren't geared towards acting like Klingons, then it hasn't got alot of complexity to keep them interested in the conflict on its own. I'll add some more colour if I were to release this (useful klingon phrases, recipe for bloodwine), but would that be enough to get folk involved?
I think it could get abashed: the core mechanics are highly competitive and Gamist, manipulation of others in mainly through real-life persuasion and argumentation (i.e. more like Diplomacy than Risk), and the narration is all flavor--or, at best, a type of justification after the fact for the Action and Results.
If you want the narration to have hooks into the game's success/failure mechanics, then you need some way to get/lose Pride with Action declaration narration (by vote?).
If not, could making it more complex and tactical help? How, just by adding more possible actions? More stages to the game?
I think an endgame trigger wouldn't hurt at all: any trigger short of "I got all the Pride and you got none" will make for strategizing. It all comes back to risk v. reward. Take Munchkin as an example: everyone has Level 10 as the victory goal, but no one can get there solo (almost never, at least); therefore, there's a push-pull in the core game strategy to help folks just long enough to stab them in the back and overtop them. Study up on Diplomacy, Munchkin, and other such games that have clear victory conditions and intrinsic mechanics that make it neigh impossible to accomplish without some cooperation.
On the reverse side in a related way, it might be too abstract.
Use judo: make your perceived weakness its strength. Heck, this game could be rolled up with NO flavor, the appendix of narration cut out, and packaged with a set of, say, ten matching d10s (one larger than the other). Then, each player brings their set, uses the large d10 for Pride, and trades a die with each other player (to get one of their color) and use that to track Honor.
(By the way, another nit-pick: change "Honor" to "Respect"... it's a more accurate term for what it represents, and it's more evocative of other possible "genres" (crime lords, samurai, GIs in basic training, you name it).
Do you think the rules are just too fiddly for a party game? Again, if released properly I would provide examples of play and work hard on the wording to make it clear, simple and mood setting, but thats not much good if folk just cant relate simple maths to intangible ideals of alien behaviour and get turned on by it.
Too fiddly, no. Too inconsistent to quickly apprehend, yes. Tables and procedures would obviate that confusion a lot (as I allude to above). Adding a ton of additional interrelations would also make it tougher to comprehend, but then again it could help the whole "meta math" of the mechanics "gel" in someone's mind better than four (non-symmetrical) cases do.
any and all help appreciated
Heh... I bet this whopper of a post will teach you not to leave such a wide-open door! ;-)
HTH;
David
On 4/6/2006 at 10:53pm, oreso wrote:
RE: Re: Klingons!
a general order of events (who goes first; the exact sequence of declare, compare, narrate; how credability is apportioned at declare and narrate stages; exact timing rules for changing ones own Honor to Others).I thought this was pretty clear, but thats the downside of hiding rules in blocks of text mixed in with the colour.
Anyone can go first or at any other time they like, as long as there are no actions currently being resolved. The action is declared and narrated by the player you wants it, at which point the target cannot touch their Honour gauges until the results are calculated and then narrated by the winner. Other than this, a player may change their Honour towards others as much as they like.
A nice little tabulated break down of the actions like you did is a must for the character sheet. Nice ^_^ I think I'll keep it as 'attacks' though since Klingons are kinda aggressive (the friendliest thing you can do would cause GBH to most humans).
The sheet will also contain more specific advice. Really though, its up to the player. As long as they can hide their Honour gauges if they want (say, with their hands even) and its clear which gauge belongs to whom then all is good. You could keep a written record if you want or use chips or something, but since the gauges will be so changeable then a die will be less frustrating.
As further reinforcement of that notion, I think building such a table (or expanding upon what I have knocked out above, with better break-downs of Results) will help you confirm that you have "all cases" covered. As you no doubt realize, the Action names are, themselves, color; the set of possible types of interactions makes up the root of the game, and there are a finite number of interrelations of these core elements:I admit, the colour came first. I started with the kind of actions i wanted and then made them work in a system (to start with i even had stuff like suicide, going off to battle together and so on).
I'm only interested in adding new actions if:
1. it's tactically useful
2. it's justifiable within the colour.
It works the other way too though, so if there is something needed to make it tactical or I'm missing something from the colour, then I dont mind adding stuff, say, stats, other resources, etc.
Your breakdown isnt quite right, i think the picture is more complex. Alrighty, let me work it some:
I think you could extend it thus:
Attacker's Pride
Target's Pride
Conspirator's Pride (not used)
Conspirator's Honour towards Attacker
Conspirator's Honour towards Target
Target's Honour towards Attacker
Target's Honour towards Conspirator (not used)
Alot of the combinations of addition or subtraction of these variables is valid for gaining the two values to compare (though as you noted, subtraction isn't currently used). This is a big number of possible operations, and you could even calculate more than two values if you wanted.
Since this game is about the difference between expectation and reality, the only legitimate comparison is subtraction of the larger value from the smaller to get the difference.
The difference can then modify the following (which variable to modify and whether the modification is addition or subtraction is decided by whose Pride is involved with the larger total):
Attacker's Pride
Target's Pride
Conspirator's Pride (not used)
So then, given that these are the options and i want something colourful and tactically viable, what's missing?
You could indeed. And that is why I dont think setting can be tied to colour any better. Klingons just arent that unusual when it comes to competitive socialising.
* Catty Sorority Girls
* Backroom Dealing Politicians
* Tragically Hip Vampires
If you come up with a tight pure strategy game like this one, and test out all interrelations cases that you want to include, it will hum right along, even WITHOUT Klingons. In fact, there's really not a "reason" to narrate in the game at all (that I can see) .... If you want the narration to have hooks into the game's success/failure mechanics, then you need some way to get/lose Pride with Action declaration narration (by vote?).
This scares me. Ive made this kind of 'narrative wargame' before, and it didnt work (there's one here if you are interested. its not even balanced as i tried to add more variables to make up for its dullness. Bad bad bad.).
Methinks if narrating itself feels superfluous then I do need some kinda drama point system to encourage players. There certainly isnt the tactical depth of draughts (aka checkers) to make up for it. Perhaps not a modification of Pride (giving control of your primary resource to your opponents is kinda suicidal) but perhaps something in the metagame whereby the player is forced to do something silly if the group think they aren't acting Klingony enough. Drink lemon juice or something.
I dont want it to turn it into an acting constest, but i also dont want the acting to be optional. You think making the narration more structured and ritualised would help?
I think an endgame trigger wouldn't hurt at all: any trigger short of "I got all the Pride and you got none" will make for strategizing. It all comes back to risk v. reward. Take Munchkin as an example: everyone has Level 10 as the victory goal, but no one can get there solo (almost never, at least); therefore, there's a push-pull in the core game strategy to help folks just long enough to stab them in the back and overtop them. Study up on Diplomacy, Munchkin, and other such games that have clear victory conditions and intrinsic mechanics that make it neigh impossible to accomplish without some cooperation.Hm. I think the system as it stands already favours co-operative play (because if you trust each other, you can pretty much advance as you like). I guess this wouldnt be too much of a problem if the endgame could only be resolved solo, but I'd still prefer something that divides the players.
(By the way, another nit-pick: change "Honor" to "Respect"... it's a more accurate term for what it represents, and it's more evocative of other possible "genres" (crime lords, samurai, GIs in basic training, you name it).Call it respect if you want, but true Klingons warriors know what it really is. ^_^ Like i said, the colour came first and thats all I'm interested in really.
If someone cared enough to use the game for some other colour, I'm sure they could bring themselves to rename the stat to fit (to Respect, Wealth, Votes, Lovers, whatever). As long as its a measure of success determined by your opponents, then that's it.
Heh... I bet this whopper of a post will teach you not to leave such a wide-open door! ;-)Not at all, I'm much oblidged. Truly, Kahless the Unforgettable himself would smile upon your honour! ^_^
That's not to say I'm still not greedy for input though, ^_~
Cheers!
On 4/7/2006 at 10:45am, oreso wrote:
RE: Re: Klingons!
I dont think it helps, but here's the actions written mathematically:
honTA means "Target's Honour towards Attacker", honCT means "Conspirator's Honour towards Target", etc.
[table]
[tr][td]Action[/td][td]Calculate this[/td][td]To find the new value for[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Butt Heads:[/td][td]honTA[/td][td]prideA[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Gossip: [/td][td](honCA - honCT) + prideA[/td][td]prideA[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Challenge: [/td][td]2 * pride - (prideT + honTA)[/td][td]prideA[/td][/tr]
[tr][td][/td][td](2 * prideT + honTA) - prideA[/td][td]prideT[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sabotage: [/td][td]2 * prideT - (prideA + honTA)[/td][td]prideA (except prideA cannot increase)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td][/td][td](2 * prideA + honTA) - prideT[/td][td]prideT (except prideT cannot increase)[/td][/tr]
[/table]
So yeah, asymetrical and not very memorable written like this (at least to me). Not nearly as 'hands on' as say, Mexican Standoff.