Hey everyone,

So...despite my history of pronouncements that I'm not a game designer, and that The World, the Flesh, and the Devil was an anomaly, I seem to have designed another game. I consider it to be more vanilla than The World, the Flesh, and the Devil, but potentially of less general interest...if that's actually possible:

Nicotine Girls

What do you think? I'd like to call it an Attribute + Skill system. Do you think it qualifies?

Paul

p.s. The text is pretty raw as of yet, and fails to include examples of character creation, examples of gameplay, and credit to Mike Holmes for calculating a bunch of probabilities that helped me make decisions about the dice mechanics and target numbers. That stuff is all forthcoming.

That's really cool. I'm not sure I can imagine anyone playing it, but it's definitely cool.

I don't think you can call the Methods "skills" because all characters in the system have the same ones, differing only in degree, making them more like attributes. The same for the Motivations. But it's similar enough to an Attribute + Skill system that if you want to call it that, why not?

I like the Fears list. It appears to be derived from lists that crop up in research studies (and magazine articles) about stress. (If not, then you've managed to come up with a list that conforms amazingly to current thinking in psychology.)

Though brief, this is a remarkable piece of creative writing, quite apart from its merits as a game design. Like some other games discussed recently here, the write-up strongly conveys a message all on its own, in a manner unlike, but not totally unlike, the telling of a story. Perhaps "game systems as literature" should be a topic for a different thread. I hope I can discuss this quality without implying any disparagement to the game's qualities in play (which I can't judge without having played it) or sounding like I'm promoting the "meant to be read rather than played" fallacy.

- Walt

My only concern is that there is no place, there does not appear to be anything to do. Apart from that, wuitre interesting and I like the look, too. I'm not sure I understand the nicotine association, though.

You know, Paul, it's a shame you're not a game designer, 'cause that's a really striking piece of work.

I have to agree with Henry about playability in its current state, though.

Hey,

Julie (jrs) and I spent quite a while going over Nictotine Girls. Here's what we came up with, as I recall - I seem to have left the folder with the notes elsewhere.

1) A given game session (and perhaps the game as a whole) needs a place to happen. A small town. A factory. A girls' school. An urban college. A bowling alley. But somewhere that nictotine girls would be expected to be.

One consequence of having a place is that the Hopes and Fears of each character would all be permutations of the possibilities and risks that are specific to that place. Therefore player-characters would be situated relative to one another, not just in terms of jobs and status, but in thematic terms as well.

2) It might be very handy for the first step of play, prior to making up the player-characters, to be making up a bevy of guys in that place, and what they do or what they seem to be like. The neat part of this step is that "seem to be" - the nicotine girls do not actually initially know what the guys are really like, in the clinch, but only what they seem to be like.

There were a couple of other things too, but I'll have to find those notes.

Best,
Ron

Henry,

That's really cool. I'm not sure I can imagine anyone playing it, but it's definitely cool.

Thanks.

And as far as anyone actually playing it is concerned, I'll admit that last week I allowed myself to dream of totally capturing the market of female game-buyers at GenCon with Nicotine Girls as a commercial product. But ultimately I came back down and decided that what I most wanted was for people to have access to it so they might play.

++--+-+++--+-++--+-+++--+-+-+

Walt,

But it's similar enough to an Attribute + Skill system that if you want to call it that, why not?

It's hard for me to not think "Attribute + Skill" is a descriptor that's very specific to systems where both the Attributes and the Skills are combined prior to resolution to determine either a target number or the size of a dice pool. My Skills (the Methods) do something mechanically different than my Attributes (the Motives). They're not additive. So "Attribute + Skill" seemed inaccurate to me. What do you think? Is there a precedent system commonly accepted as Attribute + Skill that isn't additive?

I like the Fears list. It appears to be derived from lists that crop up in research studies (and magazine articles) about stress.

You're exactly right. The Fears list was aggregated and modified from a couple of different print and online stress tests. One of my favorite things about the Fear mechanic is how even good stuff, like taking a vacation, contributes to it.

Though brief, this is a remarkable piece of creative writing...the write-up strongly conveys a message all on its own, in a manner unlike, but not totally unlike, the telling of a story.

Thank you.

For a while now I've had this notion that there was something missing from Ron's theory that a game is comprised of Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color...at least as far as Narrativist systems are concerned. I've come to think the missing element is "Tone." I've hinted at this idea on The Forge before, without actually proposing it for consideration. Tone, to me, is not what a story is about, but what a story is like in the telling...it's how much the author intrudes on the narrative, and how the subject is exposed and depicted in conflict. I think my suggestion for a Kennedys/Camelot variant of WYRD is true to the Tone of that game, but varies in all other ways, Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color. I think Narrativist games regulate Tone in various ways, and I think your observation that Nicotine Girls "conveys a message...unlike, but not totally unlike, the telling of a story" is an observation about Tone. What do you think?

++--+-+++--+-++--+-+++--+-+-+

Gareth,

My only concern is that there is no place, there does not appear to be anything to do...I'm not sure I understand the nicotine association, though.

Regarding "place," I think I agree. Ron makes the same point and I think it's a good one.

I'm not sure I know how to clarify the nicotine association better. Vincent seemed to grasp it intuitively when I showed him the rules. Vincent, can you say anything about the nicotine association that might clarify it? What did I fail to say about it that I should have?

++--+-+++--+-++--+-+++--+-+-+

Seth,

You know, Paul, it's a shame you're not a game designer, 'cause that's a really striking piece of work.

Thank you.

++--+-+++--+-++--+-+++--+-+-+

Ron,

1) A given game session (and perhaps the game as a whole) needs a place to happen. A small town. A factory. A girls' school. An urban college. A bowling alley. But somewhere that nicotine girls would be expected to be.

Yes...you and Gareth make the same point, and it's a good one. Right now I'm thinking part of character creation should be determining the shared location.

2) It might be very handy for the first step of play, prior to making up the player-characters, to be making up a bevy of guys in that place, and what they do or what they seem to be like.

I think you might be perceiving Nicotine Girls as more of an outgrowth of my concept for a game about teenage trailer trash girls fighting over prestigious boys, that you and I discussed by private message a bit last June, than it actually is. Perhaps it's largely my fault for the absence of examples in the game text. I think the game is definitely about relationships, but that the relationship parts of the game are largely driven by the Fear table. I think the scope of possibility for a nicotine girl's dream is broader than just getting the right young stud to be romantically interested in her. Although she certainly might dream of a ranch in suburbia and a devoted husband, she could just as well dream of meeting Ted Nugent, or of modeling for department store catalogs. I think the "create the stable of boys" idea is a cool one, but I'm hesitant to introduce it to Nicotine Girls for fear of skewing the focus of the dreams players create in that direction. I want a broad scope of possible dreams that are made complex by relationships, rather than dreams focused on relationships.

There were a couple of other things too, but I'll have to find those notes.

Cool.

Paul

First, many die pool systems are not skill+attribuite additive. So your system is not unique in that, precisely, though I think it is unique in it's exact application.

Second, I think that Gareth may just not have seen the right films to understand the Premise. Good for you Gareth.

Mike

I'm invoked! But no good answer:

Dunno, the nicotine association just reminded me of this friend Stacy I had, and her whole circle in high school. I think it's a type, like geek and jock and the rest. You see it in movies, you see it in the world, there it is.

One of the things we talked about in pm was sexism and classism: is it a sexist / classist game? Could it be accused of being one? I for one would be interested in other people's takes on that.

-Vincent

Oh and I dig it in a big way.

Suggestion for you Paul.

Right now Fear and Hope are somewhat seperate. Hope improves by using it without loss for the session, and fear declines with successful use of Hope.

What if Fear transforms into hope.

Instead of Hope just increasing, have hope increase and Fear decrease at the same time (either at critical times or once per session). What this means is that if characters run out of Fear they can't increase Hope any further. In order to continue to increase Hope, they have to first pass through and then overcome fear (by selecting one of the fear generating options from the list and then converting this fear to hope).

This way, characters who don't experience the fear can never transcend and fulfill their hope. Those who face it and over come it can.


Just a thought inspired by an idea I had for my western project, the idea of the western hero facing adversity and punishment as pennance for ultimate redemption.

BTW, Paul, I have to disagree with you about Tone. I think it's more than adequately covered by Color. Perhaps you could (in a separate thread in RPG Theory) explain what you mean by Tone, and why it needs to be distinguished from Color?

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: BTW, Paul, I have to disagree with you about Tone. I think it's more than adequately covered by Color. Perhaps you could (in a separate thread in RPG Theory) explain what you mean by Tone, and why it needs to be distinguished from Color?

I think your observation that Nicotine Girls "conveys a message...unlike, but not totally unlike, the telling of a story" is an observation about Tone. What do you think?

I had to think hard about this, but in the end I don't think Tone is quite what I was grasping for. (Though I agree that Nicotine Girls has a distinctive Tone which does contribute to its strength as creative writing -- which is why it's hard for me to be really sure I'm also seeing something other than that. Maybe it depends on how Tone is defined.) I think what I mean is something closer to Theme. In stories I think of Theme as a Premise answered by instantiating a metaphor. The system doesn't do that, but it does something similar. It has a metaphorical quality to it, a sense that it's about something other than its immediate subject matter or even its own overt Premise. Does that make any sense?

- Walt

Just wanted to chime in and say that I really enjoy Nicotine Girls. There are some subtle nods to the feel you're going for (example: fighting is different between boys & girls), as well as obivous ones (example: Smoke)

Design thoughts:
I think fights should be rolled into Conflict Resolution. With a nod to the difference between conflict vs. girlfriend/girl-enemy/boy/authority(parents,police, etc).
- A conflict vs. girlfriend would be laden with emotion, and either be a) resolved quickly with a tighter bond, or b) cause a great rift.
- Conflict vs. girl-enemy is the least laden with consequences.
- Conflict vs. boy leads to disappointment or elation.
- Conflict vs. authority leads to stubborn defiance or reluctant obesiance.

The idea of Fear (don't know how constantly accumulating Fear, while only losing them 1 point at a time would work in-play) is great. And Smoke clinches the feel of the game.

This is a game that absolutely requires everyone to be conscious of relationships between friends, family, enemies and boys.

Hi there,

I like Ralph's idea a lot, although I'm not sure about the specific mechanics involved. The concept seems eminently suited to the game, though.

As a theoretical side-note, I think that "Tone" is suffering from a je ne sais quoi problem. Right now, all I'm seeing is Color. (A lot of people dismiss Color or think that it's only one sort of Color.)

Best,
Ron

Hey Ralph,

What if Fear transforms into hope.

Instead of Hope just increasing, have hope increase and Fear decrease at the same time (either at critical times or once per session). What this means is that if characters run out of Fear they can't increase Hope any further. In order to continue to increase Hope, they have to first pass through and then overcome fear (by selecting one of the fear generating options from the list and then converting this fear to hope).

What am I missing? Isn't this is what the game does? It was pretty much the underlying concept for the way I designed it. The only difference I can see is the timing of the Hope increase. Are you suggesting that you think someone could avoid using Fear for conflict resolution entirely? If I've read Mike's probabilities correctly, it won't happen. A player who's interested in a real shot at rolling successfully for a character's dream after four or five sessions of play will need to be careful how often they rely on Hope, especially in the early game sessions when Hope is low, or when they haven't had a chance to get some advice from a PC or NPC via Smoke so their chance of success is higher. Two or three rolls of Hope in one session and you're bound to fail. And then you've got no choice but to rely on Fear. It's by using Fear most of the time that a character holds on to her dreams.

Paul

Hey Paul, first let me ask you a couple of questions to make sure I'm not missing something, and then I'll try to explain better what I was thinking.

A player who's interested in a real shot at rolling successfully for a character's dream after four or five sessions of play will need to be careful how often they rely on Hope,

Ralph,

Your analysis is not quite correct. Whie the fudge dice do skew to zero normally with any number of dice. But as soon as you add in the methods, you get an effect where more dice are usually more beneficial. It has to do with the standard deviation you mention.

Actually, if you have a attribute (Hope or Fear) that is very high (4 or 5), you actually suffer statistically. Your best bet is a three in both attribute and method. Of course, an attribute of three has zero chance of rolling a five. So it creates an interesting dynamic. Higher is better for attributes to a point as far as reliability, but after that point, it's only benefit is spreading the potential range.

Take the simple example of a 1 fear, 1 sex roll. Your possible results are 0,0,1, or an average result of .333. On a 2 fear, 1 sex roll, your possible results are -1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 or .555 on the average. That's a considerable bump in effectiveness in this system where the highest average is something like 1.5.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Ralph,

Your analysis is not quite correct. Whie the fudge dice do skew to zero normally with any number of dice. But as soon as you add in the methods, you get an effect where more dice are usually more beneficial. It has to do with the standard deviation you mention.

Valamir wrote: The positive and negatives tend to wash out. You've skewed that to the positive with the rule for methods.

Hey Ralph,

If you have 6 dice and a method of 2 the "expected" result is ++00--. Scrapping the 2 negatives gives you +2. If you have 12 dice and a method of 2 the expected result is ++++0000----. Scraping 2 of the negatives again gives +2.

Ah...damn.

Yeah...it seems I have a major problem. What your analysis is saying to me is that the dice mechanics for Method-based conflict are undermining the point structure of the Fear list; because the target for success in method-based conflict is "more pluses than minuses," effectively a target of 1, there's no mechanical reason for a player to take on higher value items from the list. Even factoring in a nebulous comfort-with-a-few-more-dice motivation, players aren't likely to be choosing items that give them more than 3 or 4 Fear, and 2 or 3 seems more likely.

And on top of that, when coupled with a Method of 1 or 2, the advantage of a positive modifier from a prior Smoke-based advice scene is minimal. Frustratingly, because a negative modifier from not taking the advice is crippling, Smoke is disincentivized.

Damn. I'm reluctant to completely gut the system.

I think, getting beyond mechanics alone, that a player's driving interest to not de-protagonize their own character is important to consider. Continuous selection of low value items from the Fear list, just to the extent necessary to offset Fear losses from successful Hope rolls, may well be an effective strategy from a mechanical standpoint, but the risk I think a player will perceive during play is that a character that doesn't experience more substantive adversity might fall by the wayside in terms of audience interest.

I think game duration is similarly limited by concerns of character protagonism. More than five or six sessions of play and the characters risk becoming de-protagonized caricatures from the unbelievable chaos and life-destabilizing effects of all the Fear items they've experienced. A mechanically effective strategy that defends against this might be to take a high value Fear item in an early game session, which would allow a player to avoid having to hit the Fear table up for another fix for maybe even a session or two. Still, that's similarly deprotagonizing. A character who has a session or two without new adversity also risks falling by the wayside of audience interest.

One thing I've been considering is requiring a character to "buy their fear" when created. However many points they've allocated to Fear need to be secured with items from the Fear table. I think it would be Kicker-esque, and also start to drive player consideration toward higher value items from the table for their earlier in-game selections, out of concern for not deprotagonizing the character with too much nickel and dime shit.

Another thing I've been considering is changing the amount of Fear a character gets from the items on the table to the value minus the session number. I was thinking it would have the effect of helping the adversity trend upward over the course of play, reinforcing audience interest in the characters. It doesn't do anything about the technique of taking on a big value item early on, maybe resulting in characters who go without additional Fear items for a session or two, but maybe that would be self-limiting. What do you think?

I guess the game has a lot of problems I don't know how to fix. I don't want Smoke to be as disincentivized as I now think it might be, and I'm not sure pressures to use it just because it's cool, dramatic, and protagonizing will be enough to overcome the problem.

Plus, unless I completely missed it, there is no Method associated with the final Hope Roll its just straight Hope.

Yeah...this is a problem. I'm thinking the roll should be just the number of raw pluses that come up, regardless of how many blanks or minuses also appear. This means on average that a character will need a fifteen Hope to have an even chance of getting her Dreams, right? If I'm right that most games end in four or five sessions, with a maximum possible Hope increase of 1 per session, that means most Nicotine Girls don't get their Dreams, leaving the player to narrate an epilogue that's something less. And I think that's appropriate.

Paul

Paul, one possible solution (I don't know if it would be the "best" but probably the easiest) is to scrap using actual Fudge dice and craft your own distribution.

If each die were labeled ++000- or +++00- or ++++-- than you would have a system that is naturally scewed to the positive such that more dice ARE better (how much depends on how much skew you put in the labeling).

BTW, as a tangent, I dunno if Paul is on LJ, but he might want to check this out:

http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=roleplayers&itemid=231146

In particular, "Hopeevey" makes some comments that echo some concerns of mine, but I didn't want to pipe up with without someone else to point to as I'm a coward. ;-)

Hey Kirt,

Something I'm thinking I need to do is write some examples. I think there's more to Sex than just sex. I think the Method includes things like flirting, and making someone jealous. It's also, for the character, being able to get things done just because you're female. If my girlfriend asks the greasy guy at the record store for one of the small Dokken posters from the front window display, she stands a far greater chance of walking away with the poster than I would for making the same request. Similarly, Money is more than just money, more than just paying for dinner, although it certainly is that. It's having a joint in your pocket when you need it. It's using your material assets to your advantage, inviting someone over to watch PPV wrestling on your pirated cable TV, or to listen to your collection of thefted CD's. And Cry is exposing your emotional vulnerability. Do you think these kinds of examples would mitigate against people's perceptions that the game is not politically correct?

Paul

I think those are all great examples, and I'd love to see them in the final text.

But I think worrying about perceptions of political correctness is detrimental and ultimately futile.

Besides, the fact that everyone whose read the game immediately knows exactly what sort of girls you're talking about (and likely we all know a few) means that sometimes a stereotype is pretty accurate.

I think the examples would help. While I agree that there is no point in being politically correct, it would be nice to attempt to ward off what I see are some obvious conclusions one could jump to...

Hey.

My gender-politic kung fu is strong.

What you've got is a treatment of the disenfranchised that forces your audience to sympathize. Your stats are good as is, with no examples. (I'm for examples, for play purposes, but you don't need them politically.) You're commenting on the powerlessness of (especially poor) young women, and you're inviting the reader and the player to put themselves in that powerless place. Nobody uses Sex, Cry and Money (the way you mean them) when they have access to Vote, Lobby and Buy.

You're describing the problem, not contributing to it. Softballing is just going to weaken your commentary.

That's what I think.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote:
You're describing the problem, not contributing to it. Softballing is just going to weaken your commentary.