Disclaimer: I'm still learning Forge jargon, so please go easy on my (lack of) use of it.

So I'm working on a concept for a game set in a magical post-apocalyptic world.  The characters are endowed with the ability to work minor magic, either through faith in divine beings, or through pseudo-scientific study of the remnants of pre-apocalyptic society.  They are destined to influence the rebirth of society through either Faith or Reason, or to see it destroyed anew.

The central theme of play is a three-way tension between Faith, Reason, and Destruction.  My concepts, which I'm looking for suggestions/critiques/advice on, are below.

Every (player) character has a pool of Faith/Reason tokens.  These are two-sided tokens, with opposite sides color-coded for Faith on one side, and Reason on the other.  The size of this pool is fixed, but its composition (what percentage are Faith, and what percentage are Reason) will change over time.  They represent the character's strength of allegiance to each of the forces, as well as their magical abilities.

The GM has a pool of Destruction tokens.  These represent the destructive power of magic, and are the GM's narrative currency.  The end result of a very large Destruction pool is the re-occurrence of the magical apocalypse.

In addition, every character possesses Traits.  Conflicts are resolved using a simple gambling system: Invoking a Trait is worth one betting point, and Faith/Reason/Destruction tokens can be bet as well, though all tokens bet must be of the same type.  Bidding Faith/Reason tokens commits the player to narrating a success using magic proportionate to the number of tokens bid.  Once the players involved have bid, each rolls an Nd10 dice pool (where N is the value of their bid), with the player receiving the most success gaining Authority for the conflict.

Any Faith/Reason tokens used in an unsuccessful bet must be flipped, while the winner of a bid may flip one of the opposing type.  Similarly, the GM loses Destruction tokens on a failed bet, but does not gain them on a successful one.  Rather, the GM gains one Destruction token for each Faith/Reason token bet by the winner of *every* conflict.

--------------------------------

The goal is that players should be very conservative in their use of magic, because trying and failing will result in their character's allegiance shifting, while trying and succeeding empowers the GM via Destruction tokens (this does have an in-setting analog).  My main concerns about it (without having playtested it or even run the actual probabilities) are:

1) I suspect that the shift-alllegiance-on-failure is too extreme.  The characters shouldn't radically alter allegiance after a single failure.  Not sure exactly how to tone it down though.

2) I'm worried that the GM will gain Destruction tokens too quickly.  Maybe he should only gain one for each conflict won using magic?

3) Maybe there should be a secondary currency that can be used to win conflicts without using magic?  I don't want the characters using magic willy-nilly, but as it stands I'm afraid the players will simply never be able to win a conflict otherwise.

So, any thoughts?

I like the concept of shifting allegiance, and the need to be conservative with magic. However, I think you're right that the current exchange rate is a bit too generous. I can't tell how generous, though, without knowing how many conflicts you expect to be resolved in a single game session, or how many game sessions you want the players to go through.

I would suggest working backwards from two numbers.

First, how long do you want 'conservative' players to survive? 5 conflicts? 10 conflicts? Indefinitely?

Second, how long do you want 'rash' players to get away with risking the world before it all goes BOOM? 1 conflict? 5? 10?

Those two numbers (conservative----rash) mark the limits of the play space that you're interested in encouraging. For example, you expect foolhardy players to blow up the world within 10 conflict resolutions, but conservative players could last indefinitely (or, in our terms, several hundred conflict resolutions). Crunch the numbers of conflict and reward to go from 10 to 500, and you're golden.

The same principle holds for any range -- just decide what range you want, and go from there. 1-10? 1-100? etc etc

My instant query with this premise regards the way you want a three way struggle, but then limit the players to a two-way dichotomy.

If you're really interested in a three way struggle, I'd consider a way to incorporate the destructive aspect into the players tokens.

For example:

Blue tokens for reason, Green for faith, Red for destruction. If a player spends tokens of one type, they might get different types back depending on the types of things they do. Do something rational using your faith and you get back blue tokens, do something destructive and you get back reds.

Then you can incorporate feedback effects relating to the pools...For example, the more reds you have, the more backlash you'll get from the effects you perform.

This really brings into focus the concept that it's a three way struggle rather than just a dichotomy between faith and reason with curveballs thrown by the GM.

V

Vulpinoid wrote:
If you're really interested in a three way struggle, I'd consider a way to incorporate the destructive aspect into the players tokens.

For example:

Blue tokens for reason, Green for faith, Red for destruction. If a player spends tokens of one type, they might get different types back depending on the types of things they do. Do something rational using your faith and you get back blue tokens, do something destructive and you get back reds.

Then you can incorporate feedback effects relating to the pools...For example, the more reds you have, the more backlash you'll get from the effects you perform.
V

(Going with the original idea.)

It seems to me that the GM has the "winning strategy" of not bidding anything much. I guess that you are assuming that the GM is not playing to win, but I do personally prefer games where the GM can play the mechanics hard.

Mikael wrote:
It seems to me that the GM has the "winning strategy" of not bidding anything much. I guess that you are assuming that the GM is not playing to win, but I do personally prefer games where the GM can play the mechanics hard.

Sorry, read your post too quickly.

On the second reading, the system seems to push the GM to:

- create gripping conflicts, so that the players spend a lot of tokens, at least more than the Destruction tokens used (my initial concern was that this is also likely if GM creates good conflicts but does not spend any Destruction)

- prefer and instigate player-to-player conflicts

Are the tokens bid openly or in secret?

Vulpinoid wrote:
My instant query with this premise regards the way you want a three way struggle, but then limit the players to a two-way dichotomy.

If you're really interested in a three way struggle, I'd consider a way to incorporate the destructive aspect into the players tokens.

For example:

Blue tokens for reason, Green for faith, Red for destruction. If a player spends tokens of one type, they might get different types back depending on the types of things they do. Do something rational using your faith and you get back blue tokens, do something destructive and you get back reds.

Then you can incorporate feedback effects relating to the pools...For example, the more reds you have, the more backlash you'll get from the effects you perform.

This really brings into focus the concept that it's a three way struggle rather than just a dichotomy between faith and reason with curveballs.

Erudite wrote:
How to the destruction counters for the GM get reversed? Is it possible? Or, is this world on an unstoppable course to the end?

Also, I think just the use of magic, regardless of whether the magic wins the conflict, should have an effect on the destruction pool/backlash effect.

Mikael wrote:
Are the tokens bid openly or in secret?

Owen, it sounds like you have the makings of a very interesting system. You seem to have thought out most of the aspects we have asked questions about.

I think the next stop should be a basic play test. Grab a couple players, give them basic characters, and then run them through a simple encounter that has one or two events. Once you see how things work out you can probably tweak the idea and come back to us with some new twists and some real world examples.

Oh, I’m thinking bidding in secret would add more suspense and drama, but it might not be fair unless the GM has to bid first. Otherwise they may be able to just have the game go however they want effectively ruining the intent of the players bids.