Topic: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Started by: Paganini
Started on: 6/23/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 6/23/2002 at 9:36pm, Paganini wrote:
Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Woohoo! I think this might even be playable! :) And it no longer looks quite so much like the Pool.
Central to the game are the twin concepts of Mammon and Animus (Nod to Clinton for a great term). Mammon represents external resources that the character may call upon to aid him: Money, Contacts, Equipment, and so on. Animus represents internal power that the character may call upon to influence his situation: Skill, Knowledge, Physical Prowess, and so on.
Characters are defined by the Sources from which they derive ther Mammon and Animus. Sources should be listed on the character sheet under the appropriate headers. Sources for Mammon and Animus may be either vague or general as the player wishes. For example "Ancient Starred Broadsword" is just as valid as a source of Mammon as "Shady Street Contacts." The Mammon and Animus levels of the character are equal to the number of Sources listed for each on the character sheet. For example, a character with Mammon Sources of "great wealth," "popular socialite," and "loyal daughter" would have a Mammon level of 3.
Characters are created by writing the character's story (50 - 100 words) and choosing appropriate Sources. No more than 10 Sources should be distributed between Mammon and Animus. Leftover points (if any) are put in the character's Karma pool. Karma is a temporary, ethereal Source that can apply both to Mammon and Animus.
When a conflict needs to be resolved, the GM calls for either an Animus or a Mammon roll. The goal is to roll equal to or less than the score in question with 2d10.
If both dice succeed, the character may both narrate the scene and decide the outcome. If one die succeeds but not the other the player must choose between deciding the outcome and narrating the scene (the GM covers the one not chosen; the outcome is always decided before the narration is made). If both dice fail the GM decides the outcome and narrates the scene. Once the dice are rolled the player must assign one of them to narration and one of them to outcome. This is done even if both (or neither) dice are successful, because the differences between the target number and the actual rolls determines two things:
1. The difference between the narration die and the target number determines the number of Sources that must be incorporated into the narration. These Sources must be chosen appropriately - no narrating with Mammon Sources when the roll was made against Animus.
2. The difference between the outcome die and the target number determines the number of unique additions the player may make to the scene (or complications that the GM may inflict on the player).
A particular rating may be increased by one (before rolling) when one of the Sources is particularly relevant to a situation (essentially adding the important Source twice). This may only be done once per session, and furthermore, once used in such a way the Source is drained for the remainder of the session, no longer contributing to Mammon / Animus. A Source used in such a way must be made central to the narration, in addition to the number of Sources indicated by the result of the narration die.
Before a roll is made a single point of Karma may be spent to increase the target number by one. Whoever narrates must always include the strange or unusual incident that represents Karma's influence on the scene. Expenditure of Karma is also used to add new Sources to characters during play. If the player can convince the GM that the addition of a new Source is justified, the player may spend a Karma point to add the new Source immediately. Once spent Karma only returns when a player wins both the narration and outcome rolls *and* narrates the scene as a failure for his character. When this action is taken by the player, one Karma point is regenerated.
On 6/23/2002 at 11:20pm, Victor Gijsbers wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
This is probably a rather unhelpful post, but I'd just like to say that this mechanism sounds rather interesting. However, I'd say that using Karma ro raise a score by 1 is quite a bit less 'powerful' than using a Karma point to gain a new source. Also, is it possible to gain more Karma, or are players forever limited to 10 Sources?
On 6/23/2002 at 11:55pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Victor Gijsbers wrote: This is probably a rather unhelpful post, but I'd just like to say that this mechanism sounds rather interesting. However, I'd say that using Karma ro raise a score by 1 is quite a bit less 'powerful' than using a Karma point to gain a new source.
You are indeed correct. However, the important part of gaining a new Source is convincing the GM that you actually should get one. You can't just spend a Karma point and get one any time you feel like it... there actually has to be a reason for it.
Also, is it possible to gain more Karma, or are players forever limited to 10 Sources?
Yes, you can regain Karma. It probably got lost in my not-so-organized text. :) Players earn one point of Karma when they win both rolls (giving them the right to narrate and the right to decide the outcome) and narrate a failure for their character.
On 6/24/2002 at 10:48am, Victor Gijsbers wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
You are indeed correct. However, the important part of gaining a new Source is convincing the GM that you actually should get one. You can't just spend a Karma point and get one any time you feel like it... there actually has to be a reason for it.
So, at chargen you can choose whatever you want, but later on it's difficult? Why would anyone _not_ spend his Karma right at the beginning?
Yes, you can regain Karma. It probably got lost in my not-so-organized text. :) Players earn one point of Karma when they win both rolls (giving them the right to narrate and the right to decide the outcome) and narrate a failure for their character.
Ah, I see - I thought you could only do this when you spent a Karma-point in the process. (So I thought it was rhater vague ;) ) Thanks for clearing it up.
On 6/24/2002 at 12:21pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Victor Gijsbers wrote:You are indeed correct. However, the important part of gaining a new Source is convincing the GM that you actually should get one. You can't just spend a Karma point and get one any time you feel like it... there actually has to be a reason for it.
So, at chargen you can choose whatever you want, but later on it's difficult? Why would anyone _not_ spend his Karma right at the beginning?
They may very well do that. :)
However, remember that without Karma you can't add new Sources. This is a very DiP idea. Sure, you can spend all your Karma on Sources at the beginning of the game, but if you do that then you won't be able to add new Sources that the character might warrant during play. You can't just add whatever Sources you want, whenever you want. The Source has to be developed during the game, and Karma has to be spent on it.
If you do use up all your Karma at character creation, the only way to get more is by winning rolls and narrating failures.
On 6/24/2002 at 4:12pm, Laurel wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
What happens when a character wants to preform an action that will draw upon both external and internal resources?
Laurel
On 6/24/2002 at 5:21pm, Bob McNamee wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
That crossed my mind too....
What happens in a fight with...
Dark Swordsman versus the Human Punching Bag
Dark Swordsman
Has Mammon Source
NightBlade (his silent black Magic Sword...)
And Animus Source
Swordmaster (his sword use skill...)
which do you use?.... or would it end up a choice between what is being accomplished?...
Damage, disable...or magic effect...use Mammon
Disarm, defend, impress, simple hit... use Animus...
It would be a hard choice if the levels are different... if Darkswordsman had 3 Mammon, 5 Animus, 2 Karma... hmm
Bob McNamee
... I've been looking for a system to do a Super Genre game in....this looks interesting to me!
On 6/24/2002 at 5:51pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Good question, Laurel and Bob. My current idea is to apply the draining rule to all sources. When making an Animus roll you get all of your Animus Sources for free, but you can drain *any* appropriate Source (from Animus or Mammon) to boost it.
On 6/24/2002 at 6:13pm, Victor Gijsbers wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Paganini wrote: If you do use up all your Karma at character creation, the only way to get more is by winning rolls and narrating failures.
Could you estimate how often something like that happens during a session? I mean, how often does someone roll a double success? A player might get a _lot_ of Karma if this is often, especially in a non-violent game where failure doens't mean physical harm.
Also, I wonder - does every source count as strong as any other source? And what do you do with objects that characters pick up drunig play but do not 'Mammonize'?
On 6/24/2002 at 6:32pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Lots of good stuff here Victor!!
Victor Gijsbers wrote:Paganini wrote: If you do use up all your Karma at character creation, the only way to get more is by winning rolls and narrating failures.
Could you estimate how often something like that happens during a session? I mean, how often does someone roll a double success? A player might get a _lot_ of Karma if this is often, especially in a non-violent game where failure doens't mean physical harm.
It won't be that often. For one thing, players only have 10 points to distribute between Animus and Mammon. If we assume that the average target number is 5, double success will happen about once out of every four rolls. This might seem like a lot, but remember that players aren't neccessarily going to be willing to narrate a failure on every single double success... it depends on the situation.
Now, of course, players can jack the frequency up by having higher scores, spending Karma, and so on. However, I don't see this being a huge problem. For one thing, if you have to spend Karma to get Karma, then everything evens out. Secondly, the GM tells you which score to use.
For example, if you're getting a lot of Karma by winning Mammon rolls (maybe because you put all 10 points into Mammon when you created your character) the GM can throw you some curves by setting up situations that call for Animus rolls. If you have no Sources of Animus, the only way you'll have a chance at succeeding is by spending that acumulated Karma and draining Mammon Sources.
Also, I wonder - does every source count as strong as any other source? And what do you do with objects that characters pick up drunig play but do not 'Mammonize'?
Yes, every Source does count as strong as any other Source.
Now, that last bit really caught my eye because it's not something I've thought about. I'm thinking I should borrow from Synthesis here and say that the GM is free to narrate the loss of un-Mammonized items after an appropriate time.
Of course, there's no reason that characters shouldn't be surrounded by all sorts of normal, sensible equipment. Un-Mammonized objects are neccesary color - they don't have an effect on the game mechanics (no adding to target numbers), but you assume they're there. If your character is a "Hot Net Runner" then he can have all sorts of colorful un-Mammonized equipment like cyberdecks... which of course can be stolen, broken, burned, and otherwise mutilated by the GM at whim. But if your character also has "Simtek Uberdeck with Chinese Military Black Ice" as a Mammon Source, the situation is completely different.
On 6/24/2002 at 8:05pm, Laurel wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Let's see if I'm following character creation correctly.
1) Character Story (50-100 words)
Grenaldis is a handsome and witty thief who lived in the city of Damaskar. He typically wears black with a red sash and is fond of
spending his free time charming the ladies. Among his most notable escapades, Grenaldis stole the Eye of Hathor from the Temple of Niin,
and now wears it under a patch in his left eye socket. Beyond his shocking red hair, worn in a long braid, Grenaldis' other distinctive feature is the loss of the little finger on his left hand.
Mammon (6)
A. Eye of Hathor (all secrets are revealed to the Eye)
B. Stash of good and gems from his previous adventures
C. Excellent Reputation in Local Thieves Guild
D. High-quality thieving tools
E. Information Network in Local brothels
F. Enchanted vorpal rapier
Animus (4)
A. Catlike-Reflexes
B. Godlike Speed
C. Extraordinary pain tolerance
D. Damnable Good Looks
Karma: 0
"When a conflict needs to be resolved, the GM calls for either an Animus or a Mammon roll. The goal is to roll equal to or less than the score in question with 2d10."
Let's say Grenaldis is trapped in a dead alley by a local sheriff.
Player: "Grenaldis whips out his rapier and attempts to skewer the dumb fat sod through the belly." (thereby calling upon his Mammon: vorpal rapier and/or Animus: Catlike-Reflexes or Godlike Speed)
GM: "Roll for it!"
Player: Takes 2d10 and rolls... 2, 3. Double success. Player is able to narrate the scene -and- decide the outcome.
Player: "I leap to the side, laughing as the sheriff flails at me, as slow as an ox and dumb as a turkey. My vorpal blade eviscerates the man so quick and clean I'm not even splattered with blood. I pause long enough to take that fancy gold watch the mayor gave him and I'm on my way, back to the girls."
What has me confused is what you said about draining rule. Character's Vorpal blade gives access to the higher Mammon pool, but he's using it in such a way that the Animus Pool is really obviously the primary trait in use. Under these circumstances, what do you, as a GM do?
On 6/24/2002 at 9:02pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Laurel wrote: Let's see if I'm following character creation correctly.
Bang on, Laurel!
Let's say Grenaldis is trapped in a dead alley by a local sheriff.
Player: "Grenaldis whips out his rapier and attempts to skewer the dumb fat sod through the belly." (thereby calling upon his Mammon: vorpal rapier and/or Animus: Catlike-Reflexes or Godlike Speed)
GM: "Roll for it!"
This is close. Often, as in this example, an intended course of action will imply an obvious choice of Mammon / Animus. However, the idea is that the GM will tell the player which to use up front. So it would be something like this:
GM: Make a Mammon Roll.
Player: Okay, but I want to use my Cat Quick Reflexes and Godlike Speed Animus Sources to add to the target roll. (Thus draining the Sources, so they can't be used any more in this session.) So the target number for the roll is 8. Note that the character's Animus score goes down to 2 for the remainder of the session because Godlike Speed and Cat Quick Reflexes no longer apply to it.
Then this happens:
Player: Takes 2d10 and rolls... 2, 3. Double success. Player is able to narrate the scene -and- decide the outcome.
But you forgot that the player has to assign one roll to narration and one roll to outcome. Let's say he assigns the 3 to outcome - this lets him add (using Directoral Stance) up to 5 things to the scene (I'm assuming the gold watch, the girls, etc.)
If he assigns the 2 to the Narration roll, he has to incorporate 6 Sources into the narration, in addition to the two Sources he drained... the two drained sources have to be central to the narration. The others just have to be *incorporated* which means that they don't have to be important, just mentioned. (Frex, you might say that he feels the Eye of Hathor bouncing wildly in its socket as he leaps aside.)
Player: "I leap to the side, laughing as the sheriff flails at me, as slow as an ox and dumb as a turkey. My vorpal blade eviscerates the man so quick and clean I'm not even splattered with blood. I pause long enough to take that fancy gold watch the mayor gave him and I'm on my way, back to the girls."
What has me confused is what you said about draining rule. Character's Vorpal blade gives access to the higher Mammon pool, but he's using it in such a way that the Animus Pool is really obviously the primary trait in use. Under these circumstances, what do you, as a GM do?
I think the problem you're having is that the character's intent does not neccesarily determine the choice of score, although it *may* influence it. Frex, in this example the GM could just as easily have called for the player to make an Animus roll, and the Player could have drained his sword Source in order to bring his sword into play.
The basic idea is this: The Sources that define the score you're using MUST be brought into play, as indicated by the Narration roll. If you want to use *other* sources (frex, from the other score) or make one of those sources particularly central to the scene you drain it.
On 6/24/2002 at 9:24pm, Victor Gijsbers wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Paganini wrote: Lots of good stuff here Victor!!
It won't be that often. For one thing, players only have 10 points to distribute between Animus and Mammon. If we assume that the average target number is 5, double success will happen about once out of every four rolls. This might seem like a lot, but remember that players aren't neccessarily going to be willing to narrate a failure on every single double success... it depends on the situation.
Since Karma points seem pretty powerful and an excellent way of developing your character, I think you might be surprised how often your players will choose to narrate a failure. This might not necessarily be a problem, but it needs careful consideration.
Yes, every Source does count as strong as any other Source.
Sounds a bit strange. Suppose my character is 'pretty strong', which I use as an Animus-source. Suppose another character is 'extremely strong', which he uses as an Animus-source... yet both cost just as much, and help just as much. In effect, there is no real difference between the two.
Now, that last bit really caught my eye because it's not something I've thought about. I'm thinking I should borrow from Synthesis here and say that the GM is free to narrate the loss of un-Mammonized items after an appropriate time.
Has anyone playtested Synthesis enough to tell you whether this works?
Also, another problem came to my mind. For instance, my Mammon-source "very loyal daughter". Suppose that, in one adventure or another, my daughter dies. What happens? Suppose that, through roleplaying, her loyalty crumples. What happens?
On 6/24/2002 at 9:45pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
So, to provide a sort of foil to Laurel's post I thought I'd come up with my own example that demonstrates the system. Here we go:
Ana Nathema
Ana roams the Atomic Wastes with her biker clan, the Neo-mutants. She commands a fair amount of prestiege and attention from her fellows. Partly this is because most bikers are guys and Ana is endowed with impressive "assets," but mostly because the other bikers know about Ana's history, which includes the public ridiculing of an enemy clan cheif. Of course, the chief didn't appreciate this, at which point Ana beat up his four elite enforcers and put a world of hurt on the rival boss himself. Ana learned her martial arts skills from her mentor, the ancient sensei Giyami.
Mammon: 5
Righteous Sand Hog
Sexy Biker outfit - Leather and chains, baby!
Mentor - Sensei Giyami
Wicked Reputation
Member of Neo-mutant Biker Clan
Animus: 2
Hot Babe
Atomic style Kung Fu
Karma: 3
So, Ana is searching for the City of Spare Parts when she comes across a couple of gangers beating up a ped with clubs and chains. Naturally the gangers lose interest in the ped as soon as they catch sight of Ana. They move in for the "kill."
Player: Ana wants to distract the gangers with her feminine charms, and then bust them apart when they aren't looking.
GM: Okay, make an Animus roll.
(Ana's Animus is only 2, so she doesn't have a very good chance here.)
Player: I'll spend a Karma point and drain my Atomic Kung Fu and Sexy Biker Outfit Sources.
(This brings the target up to 5. However, Ana's Karma is down to 2 now, and her Mammon is down to 3, since the Kung Fu and Outfit Sources don't work any more.)
Ana Rolls 2d10 getting a 5 and a 2, which means that she can both decide the outcome and narrate the scene. Ana assigns the 5 to narration (which means that she doesn't have to incorporate any Sources other than the two drained ones in her narration) and the 2 to result (which means she can add up to 3 single elements to the scene).
Player: Ana struts towards the gangers, swinging her hips. "Hey there, big boys," she says, ratling her chains and creaking her leather. The gangers turn towards her and whistle. "Heey there, pretty lady," leers one. Ana hits him in the stomach with an Atomic Punch. Before the second ganger can blink he joins his buddy on the sand. Ana helps up the battered ped. It's her friend Danube. "Thanks Ana," he gasps! "Why were those dorks trying to plant you the hard way?" Ana asks. "They were trying make me tell them where I hid the map to the City of Spare Parts I found." He pulls the map out of his shirt. "Gangers aren't too smart." "Great, Danube!" Ana exclaims. Grabbing the map and the Gangers' spare gas can she leaps astride her bike and roars off in a cloud of sand.
So Ana added three things: The ped is her friend Danube, Danube has a map to the City of Spare Parts (of course, the GM is free to have it be a fake :), and the Gangers had a gas can.
On 6/24/2002 at 9:57pm, Laurel wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Thanks to working with concrete examples, its all slowly becoming clear.
Has the system been put to the rigorous of an actual playtest yet?
On 6/24/2002 at 9:59pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Victor Gijsbers wrote:Paganini wrote: Yes, every Source does count as strong as any other Source.
Sounds a bit strange. Suppose my character is 'pretty strong', which I use as an Animus-source. Suppose another character is 'extremely strong', which he uses as an Animus-source... yet both cost just as much, and help just as much. In effect, there is no real difference between the two.
You are correct, there is no difference. Tags like "extremely" or "superb / mediocre / etc." only serve as color. These sorts of descriptors are really pretty subjective. The Sources simply "aide" you. There's no indication of how much or how little they do... it depends on the situation and is left up to the narrator. So yeah, 'extremely strong' is just as likely to get the spotlight as 'pretty strong.'
Now, that last bit really caught my eye because it's not something I've thought about. I'm thinking I should borrow from Synthesis here and say that the GM is free to narrate the loss of un-Mammonized items after an appropriate time.
Has anyone playtested Synthesis enough to tell you whether this works?
I've been playtesting, but I don't think Mike's had the opportunity to remove temp descriptors yet.
Also, another problem came to my mind. For instance, my Mammon-source "very loyal daughter". Suppose that, in one adventure or another, my daughter dies. What happens? Suppose that, through roleplaying, her loyalty crumples. What happens?
That Source goes away. It could simply be lost, but I kind of like the idea that it's converted back into Karma... it fits with the idea of bad things in your character's existence generating Karma. The character fails, the player gets Karma. The character loses a Source, the player gets Karma.
On 6/24/2002 at 10:07pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Laurel wrote: Thanks to working with concrete examples, its all slowly becoming clear.
Has the system been put to the rigorous of an actual playtest yet?
Nope, but maybe I can get someone to run it on the #indieRPGs IRC channel tonight. I'd love to play in such a game and see how it goes. Sort of be on the recieving end, as it were.
And, BTW, I thought I'd mention this:
There's no reason that Ana had to beat up the thugs with her Kung Fu Source... she could have just as easily gone into the Kata of Ultimate Ecstacy and used one of her 3 directoral statements to have the two gangers kill each other in a fit of lust. That would actually be much cooler than the gas can idea. :)
On 6/24/2002 at 10:07pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Laurel wrote: Thanks to working with concrete examples, its all slowly becoming clear.
Has the system been put to the rigorous of an actual playtest yet?
Nope, but maybe I can get someone to run it on the #indieRPGs IRC channel tonight. I'd love to play in such a game and see how it goes. Sort of be on the recieving end, as it were.
And, BTW, I thought I'd mention this:
There's no reason that Ana had to beat up the thugs with her Kung Fu Source... she could have just as easily gone into the Kata of Ultimate Ecstacy and used one of her 3 directoral statements to have the two gangers kill each other in a fit of lust. That would actually be much cooler than the gas can idea. :)
Disclaimer: These examples are all set in the Mutant Bikers of the Atomic Wasteland setting that I posted a link to in the Blowing Things Up thread over on Actual Play.
On 6/24/2002 at 11:58pm, damion wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
The strangest thing I see is:
How does the GM decide weather to call for a Animus or Mammon roll?
Frex:
Dr. Evil Master Dude is a powerful mentalist in his own right and leader of the Legion of Anarchists & More Evils. Several scientists both under control and straight up being payed have outfitted his henchmen and him with an array of powerful weapondry. He commonly works with other villians to achieve his all consuming goal of gaining control of enough of the world that he can retire and stop worring about it all, but in the meantime, he likes to create plans within plans withint plans....ect.
(Ok, the idea stinks, but it illustrates the point)
Mammon:
LAME Henchmen
Mad Science villian weapondry
Good Rep with other Villians
Villian wealth
Animus:
Mentalist
Ruthless
Genius
Karma:4 (I just didn't want to write a longer story :) )
My point is: Suppose Dr EMD finds himself opposed by a hero. He could either use to mental powers on the hero, or his hechmen/weapondry. In this case it's pretty much a GM call.
Now the GM could always arrange things before hand (You don't have any of your stuff).
My point is it would pretty hard for a GM to make something so that is clearly one source or the other. The only way I can see would be to systematiclly strip all the other sources, which would be tough.
In all the examples, the player basicly choose what source to use, not the DM. For instace Ana could have run the gangers over with her bike & chain. She could also have run away.
In that sense it encourages director stance, as this prevents the GM for calling a roll the characthers isn't ready for.
It's also hard to decide what is what. Is cyberwear animus or mammon? Having the GM decide which is which seems, well
arbitrary, esp since if the two are unbalanced the GM basicly can make a pretty good prediction of success or failure by selecting one or the other and this will be obvious to the players. My point is the GM's ability to choose one side over the other is fairly deprotagonizing.
I hope I made my point, despite my incoherent rambling.
On 6/25/2002 at 12:19am, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
damion wrote: How does the GM decide weather to call for a Animus or Mammon roll?
He examines the player's statement of intent and picks whichever one seems the most appropriate based on that description. I leave the choice up to the GM in order to avoid a player using his higher score when it's not appropriate. That is, a player could put all 10 points into Mammon at chargen. The GM needs to be able to call for Animus rolls at appropriate times to balance this out. If the choice was left up to the player, the player could always choose to use Mammon, even when he shouldn't, which kind of defeats the purpose of having two scores. :)
My point is: Suppose Dr EMD finds himself opposed by a hero. He could either use to mental powers on the hero, or his hechmen/weapondry. In this case it's pretty much a GM call.
Not quite. If he says "I want to use my nifty mental powers on the hero" the GM would call for an Animus roll. In this example, it's pretty clear cut which it is. The player has pretty much decided. OTOH, in my example the player said "Ana wants to distract the gangers with her feminine charms, and then bust them apart when they aren't looking." The GM could have called either way on that one. If he had called for a Mammon roll instead of an Animus roll, then Ana would have had to drain her Hot Babe and Kung Fu sources instead of her Biker Outfit Source.
It's also hard to decide what is what. Is cyberwear animus or mammon?
The rule is, if it's internal it's Animus, if it's external it's Mammon. You're example is probably the hardest to deal with, because from certain perspectives cyberwear is both. However, I don't see this as being *that* important. It would be decided on an instant by instant basis, and could even differen from character to character. It would all depend on the player's vision of the character.
On 6/25/2002 at 12:50am, Bob McNamee wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Good post Nathan...
I was thinking about the rolling and its effects on scene narration... I believe the way you wrote it will become almost a default as far as assigning the dice goes... with two successes.
That is... the higher of the two dice rolls will be used for narration... so that less sources are rquired to be introduced to the narration, and the lower of the two dice rolls will be assigned to outcome so that as many scene additions as possible may be added by the player narrated.
This may not be a problem, but it would seem to add the greatest freedom for the player.
Bob McNamee
On 6/25/2002 at 1:02am, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
I think you're right Bob. In fact, that was one of my main goals for making this to be a Narrativist game:
Players are required by the system to take an active narrative role. They can't just offer bland cut & paste statements... they actually have to think about what ties their character to the scene.
At the same time, if the players are going to be made to narrate they're going to want to be able to do cool things. That means that acquiring directoral power will be a central player goal.
On 6/25/2002 at 1:05am, Bob McNamee wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
The case of Dark Swordsman pulling out his Nightblade and slicing into the Human Punching Bag's henchmen to free his sidekick Danger Magnet...
still a fairly uncertain call for the GM... hmmm Animus for his swordsmanship...or Mammon for Nightblade (magic blade...mentally motivated)?
GM could choose either... maybe just skewing either way to represent challenge... player can burn source to add of course.
Is there a recharge mechanism for sources? I forget...
Bob McNamee
On 6/25/2002 at 1:10am, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Bob McNamee wrote: GM could choose either... maybe just skewing either way to represent challenge... player can burn source to add of course.
Yup... if the situation is such that it could be either, then the GM gets to decide which it is. :)
Is there a recharge mechanism for sources? I forget...
Drained Sources come back at the end of the session.
On 6/25/2002 at 1:12am, Bob McNamee wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
By the way, I love the recharge method of two successes and narrate a failure.
That way you can take early successes and turn them into complications early in a session... nothing better than players choosing to turn their characters into underdogs down on their luck... only to rise to the occassion and succeed in a Blaze of Karma spending when it really counts.
Bob McNamee
On 6/25/2002 at 2:06am, Bob McNamee wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
One thing I've been thinking about, in whatever game I actually decide to use, is using a mechanism where rewards travel with the Players.
Karma points would be good for this.... Lets say you've decided that your exisitng character doesn't quite work, or better yet, your existing character has the chance to fullfill a Great Need, but at Great Cost. So the character dies, or is otherwise removed from Play.
So I would have Player create a new character, but carry over the additional sum of Karma of the previous character... for your game I might rule you need a double success... narrated as a Finale for the character, no Karma gain, but a Karma transfer to a new character...or perhaps a Karma transfer with a 1 point Karma cost.
Anyway, it probably wouldn't come into play,but I like the idea of game rewarding the Player, instead of character... freeing them to "go out with a Bang" without penalizing them greatly with a complete newby.
Bob McNamee
course it wouldn't be meant to become "lets churn through a few chars, to build up a big Karma pool" mechanic...
On 6/25/2002 at 2:22am, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Bob McNamee wrote:
Anyway, it probably wouldn't come into play,but I like the idea of game rewarding the Player, instead of character... freeing them to "go out with a Bang" without penalizing them greatly with a complete newby.
The Pool has this effect built in. The Pool belongs to the *player* rather than the character. Even if you have multiple characters *at a time* you still only have a single pool.
On 6/25/2002 at 5:40am, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Victor Gijsbers wrote: Has anyone playtested Synthesis enough to tell you whether this works?
Yep. And it does work.
Not surprising since I stole it entirely from Hero Wars. Where it works extremely well from all accounts. In fact, if you really want to know the root of this rule, it goes back to Champions where a character could not keep equipment that was not paid for in CP, as that went against the genre. Superheroes don't collect submachineguns from comic to comic. It's also a marvellous balance mechanic.
I'm starting to think that there's no other way to do things. Lots of games ty to balance money and equipment, but this is usually where things break down. And it means that the GM is always messing around with characters' money so that things don't get out of hand. Rules like this eliminate this sort of problem.
Mike
On 6/25/2002 at 2:16pm, Victor Gijsbers wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Mike Holmes wrote: I'm starting to think that there's no other way to do things.
I have to disagree. In either a very Realistic or a very Narrativistic game, this mechanic would be useless. In the first, it would destroy realism. In the second.. well, who cares avout equipment anyway, in an extremely Narrativist game?
On 6/25/2002 at 3:40pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Victor Gijsbers wrote:Mike Holmes wrote: I'm starting to think that there's no other way to do things.
I have to disagree. In either a very Realistic or a very Narrativistic game, this mechanic would be useless. In the first, it would destroy realism. In the second.. well, who cares avout equipment anyway, in an extremely Narrativist game?
Going to have to disagree here. I think you're wrong on both accounts. According to Mike, the idea was pioneered in a realistic game! Champions is a "realistic" game, in the sense that much effort is given to accurate depiction.
In the second place, Hero Wars, Synthesis, and this game (I'm calling it the Origo system now) are all extremely and overtly Narrativist.
On 6/25/2002 at 4:30pm, damion wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
First off:Yeah, deciding if a giving source is mammon or animus is probably not that
Guess I didn't make my point. What I was trying to say was that there can be a fair amount of overlap of functionality between animus and mammon, and for a characther with alot of sources of one, it may be hard to find a situation where they can't be used and the other is required.
If the GM calls for one or the other it is arbitrary and more importantly, the players know this and know the GM is intentionally screwing them. I can see this causing arguments. Frex: "Instead of grabbing the edge, I'll just use my Wings of Flying."
Esp since in many cases, a player will have a choice and choose the stronger side.
My suggestion to fix this is to increase the recharge rate of spent sources. I'd suggest they recharge every 'scene'. A scene should be relativly often, probably every few tests. (Say getting past the henchmen is one scene and fighting the villian is the next one.)
I think a faster recharge rate would encourge people to drain sources more often, and hence narrate them, and more narration is good, right?
I say this because draining sources is pretty useless. It doesn't really increase your chances all that much, and has a
fairly good chance of preventing a characther from doing anything the rest of the session.
Just some thoughts.
On 6/25/2002 at 5:05pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
damion wrote: What I was trying to say was that there can be a fair amount of overlap of functionality between animus and mammon, and for a characther with alot of sources of one, it may be hard to find a situation where they can't be used and the other is required.
I guess I'm not seeing a problem. If there's ambiguity between which to use the GM makes the choice.
I say this because draining sources is pretty useless. It doesn't really increase your chances all that much, and has a
fairly good chance of preventing a characther from doing anything the rest of the session.
Well... 10% is pretty significant. :) However, I see what you mean about Sources not being able to be used often enough. Hmm.
On 6/25/2002 at 5:48pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Paganini wrote:Victor Gijsbers wrote:Mike Holmes wrote: I'm starting to think that there's no other way to do things.
I have to disagree. In either a very Realistic or a very Narrativistic game, this mechanic would be useless. In the first, it would destroy realism. In the second.. well, who cares avout equipment anyway, in an extremely Narrativist game?
Going to have to disagree here. I think you're wrong on both accounts. According to Mike, the idea was pioneered in a realistic game! Champions is a "realistic" game, in the sense that much effort is given to accurate depiction.
In the second place, Hero Wars, Synthesis, and this game (I'm calling it the Origo system now) are all extremely and overtly Narrativist.
There will be some styles for which the fading equipment mechanic does not work. I'll agree with Victor that far. But I think they're few. You are right that it's not realistic. OTOH, I think that few RPGs are really concerned with true realism. As Nathan points out, Champions is very Simulationist, and tries for a lot of internal consistency, and yet that consistency does not include accumulating equipment, or tracking cash flow. They just don't belong in superhero games.
As far as Narrativism, I think you couldn't be more wrong. In such a game, whether that sword is just one you picked up, or the one weided by your father at the battle of Angrohard is often crucial. Equipment is an very important part of stories. What would LotR be without that Ring. Note how the ring is like a character. D&D tried to emulate this with intelligent weapons. That's fine as far as it goes, but, as in my original example, objects can just be objects and still be very important to the story. In Hero Wars, that sword that your father wielded may get you some big bonuses in combat, even if it's not technically magical. IOW, equipment is often more important in Narrativist games than it is in others.
In any case, I wasn't suggesting that people can't make successful games without the mechanic. Just that with all the advantages, I personally find it too attractive to pass up.
As this is a bit off topic, I'm going to start a new thread about this called Equipment and Balance over in the Theory forum.
Mike
On 6/25/2002 at 7:15pm, damion wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
Paganini wrote:
I guess I'm not seeing a problem. If there's ambiguity between which to use the GM makes the choice.
I guess I'm just not explaining well, or maybe I'm seeing a phantom problem.
What I'm trying to say is that is deprotaganizing if the GM selects a choice and may look like they are picking on the player, however having the player select always is unbalanced.
Take Grenaldis.
He can block the long arm of the law, or he can dodge. Given he has M6,A3. He'd rather block. If the GM calls for an Animus roll, it looks like he's being picked on.
I'd suggest randomizing it in case of conflict.
Maybe roll a D10 with a 6+ is a Mammon roll, 1-5 Animus. Then have a GM supplied modifier of -2 to +2. This way conflicts can be resolved without it looking like the GM is deliberatly selecting a more difficult roll. Also, these can be interesting to narrate.
"I tried to get my sword up in time, but tripped on a stray cat. Genaldis falls to one knee, but manages to roll backwards out of the shierfs way. He looks around, to see if there are any more of them dang cats." If he say drained a mammon source he could narrate dropping his sword also.
Another way to do source draining would be to make it a +2 or +3(I like 3). Before you have to drain a fair number of sources to get a usefull plus to a roll. (If I'm losing these for the rest of the session, I should at least make this roll...)
Just some thoughs
On 6/25/2002 at 8:17pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
This is a good point, Damion. The less a GM is required to make subjective decisions on mechanics, the better in general terms. A lot of designs lately have been popping up with a lot of "and then the GM decides something important". Personally I think staying away from that as much as possible mechanically is best. The GM will still have tons of influence elsewhere, so that's not a worry. Many of these mechanics are tantamount to saying "if the rule doesn't work chuck it". Which is also bad design. The rule should work, and not depend on the GM to produce effects.
Mike
On 6/26/2002 at 12:55am, Bob McNamee wrote:
RE: Money and Power - The next step to Directoral Enlightenment
One thing that popped into my head...
What about characters teaming up? Each rolls separate ... narration order based on best result (most under target?)...
that might offset players always putting narration die High....
Bob McNamee