I started a discussion in a previous thread, but the direction I'm going has changed significantly enough that I felt a new topic would allow me to put forth some fresh ideas.

What I'm working on is a base rules system of LARP rules to serve as the skeleton upon which all of my group's upcoming LARPs are framed.  The main two games we have in the works are a game of tongue-in-cheek urban crime, and another of gritty inner-city criminal deals and action.  The working title for the core system is "BMF" (Bids, Merits, and Favors).

Design Consideration: Math-Lite

I want the system to be very math-lite, if not entirely math-free.  No numerical stats, skills, attributes, etc.  I feel that excessive character mathematics can detract from the immersion necessary to successfully run a story-focused LARP.  I want a mechanic that flows in a more natural and social rhythm.

Design Consideration: Negotiation at the Core

A central theme that all of our LARPs have shared (and will share) is inter-character negotiations.  Our games focus on business transactions, inter-character deals and debates, and lots of political maneuvering within the character circles.  As such, I wanted to stress that theme at the deepest core of the mechanics, and make it a part of every mechanical process in the game.  My goal is to create a mechanic for conflict resolution that emphasizes that theme of negotiation.  No dice, coins, no paper-rock-scissors - I want the focus to always be on the deal.

So keeping the above two considerations in mind, here's what I've got laid out as the skeleton mechanic.  When a conflict arises in which the involved parties cannot come to their own resolution, the players engage in a Bid Battle (working terminology).  I'll use a simple two-party combat scenario as an example, and for the time being I'll exclude the more technical combat-specific ideas I've got and stick with the core mechanic.

Party A is Jack the Snitch, Party B is Otto the Cop.  Otto has been hounding Jack for information on a group of criminals in the game, and Jack's starting to clam up.  Otto believes Jack is holding out, so pushes him for more.  As the scene progresses (with a few conflicts resolved here and there), Otto gets distracted by a noise and Jack, having been paid by the crime group to do just this, uses that moment to slip a knife between Otto's ribs.  This is the Conflict I'm focus on for the moment.

The two flag down a Moderator (Mods can be Players, GMs, or even passers-by in a Convention game).  Jack's player initiates the conflict, so he first states what he wants to do: "I'm going to shiv the cop in the ribs, whisper 'Keep your nose outta this, pig,' and then high-tail it outta here."  He then stats his Bid (why he should win), using his character's Merits (written in italics) as the pieces: "I'm going to succeed because I'm Quick and Wily, and Otto has always thought of me as a spineless punk."

Now Otto's player counters.  "I'm going to notice him, lock his arm, and break it while putting him in a hold.  Jack's a punk and would never get the drop on me.  I'm going to win because I'm Street-Seasoned, Shrewd, and Agile."

Now the mod considers the Bids, and rules in favor of whichever Bid makes the most sense in the Mod's eyes.  The Mod could rule in favor of either one, regardless of how many Merits they bid.  Players can bid more merits with the hope that they would be more likely to succeed.

Players will have multiple Merits, and are primarily limited to using each merit at most once per Conflict, per Scene.  If a Merit has an Intensifier (Very Strong, Quite Attractive, etc), then they can use that Merit multiple times (haven't worked out how many yet).  If a Merit has a superlative (Stronger Than Most, Most Attractive, etc), then they will often find themselves winning related Bids.

In a con setting, players are encouraged to flag down a passer-by, give them a quick spiel, and have them Mod.  This creates opportunities for interesting outcomes, as well as free advertising.  In all settings, players are also encouraged to use other Players and GMs (called Arbiters) as Mods.  Players are inherently encouraged to be as fair in their Moderation as possible, because they are faced with the fact that sooner or later the other players are going to moderating for them.  What goes around, comes around.

I'll stop there for now.  I'll talk about Favors in a bit.  Thoughts?  Observations?  Scathing criticisms?  bring 'em on!
Thanks =)

Question, say I'm a player, and I rule against Otto.  Later on, Otto may act against my character, OR he may mod against my character because of my actions.  Some people would see this as a Bad Thing.  I am not one of them, I think that it takes even more pressure off of the merits system and leads to the sort of intrigue you're asking for, and it only requires a slight mixing of character motivations and player motivations a la DitV. 

Could you give an example of a negotiation that would come to a conclusion without moderation?

Majidah wrote:
Question, say I'm a player, and I rule against Otto.  Later on, Otto may act against my character, OR he may mod against my character because of my actions.  Some people would see this as a Bad Thing.  I am not one of them, I think that it takes even more pressure off of the merits system and leads to the sort of intrigue you're asking for, and it only requires a slight mixing of character motivations and player motivations a la DitV. 

Could you give an example of a negotiation that would come to a conclusion without moderation?