I have been toying with an idea for a few weeks. There are similar games, I know that, but I wanted to put this idea forward and see what you guys think. This is just the idea, I haven't spent any real time developing it or thinking out the logistics so it is probably really broken, but I just want to get a consensus to see if it is something that I might want to pursue.

I have really gotten into Story over mechanics sorts of games and I have been thinking how much I like Story points in games like the new Doctor who RPG and things like PDQ that give the players a lot of narrative control, I began thinking about what a system would look like if that was the primary mechanic in the game. Each player (and maybe a game master - I haven't decided if a GM would be needed or if it COULD be a GMless game) would have a number of story points and would wager those points when they want to do something and the GM would wager against them, and who ever won the wager would give that number of story points to the person that lost.

I havn't figured out if you would even need character creation type stuff other than just a rough description of what your character is like. I supose you could have attributes and values that are like free story points for those kinds of actions.

Here is what I in-vision a combat looking like at the table.

(player) I attack the goblin and decapitate it for 5 story points (the player sets his story point token out in front of him.

(GM) The goblin dodges just before the blade comes down he (the GM places 6 story point tokens in front of him.

the wager happens at the same time-

In this case the GM wins the action but give the player the story points that he spent.

Now I suppose it could make sense to have players have character sheets and numerical values- that give them "bonuses" to their wagers this might be worth while.

Like I said just an idea I have been playing with but not sure if it is worth while to pursue it. would love some input on this.

Hi,

Now I suppose it could make sense to have players have character sheets and numerical values- that give them "bonuses" to their wagers this might be worth while.

To compound from what Callan posted, if the GM doesn't want you to do something, s/he is almost forced to wager a significant amount of story points which means that eventually the GM can't control the story at all. All a player would have to do is repeatedly attempt the impossible with minimal wagers and hope the GM doesn't demand character death.

The wager mechanic, as presented here, would only be advisable in games without a dedicated GM.

Since the OP raised the issue that perhaps this game doesn't need a GM, the issue then becomes who is causing the conflict? In the sample combat above, who is the goblin? If there is no GM, the goblin has to have been summoned, as it were, by another player. This seems to mean that the players are in conflict. While not a bad idea in and of itself, the apparant lack of restraint on the players makes PvP doomed to break the game. If I don't have values and dices and whatnot telling me whether or not I can decapitate the goblin, then every time a player causes conflict with me I will wager some amount that I decapitate that player's character. This appears to be bad for both the game and friendships.

And this is the conundrum I am kind of fighting through.  There could be limits or "stats, what could add tops and maybe even bottoms of wagering.  and rules for a "GM" to go by in terms of wagering.  I havn't really fit that out. 

As I was seeing the gmless game, I was thinking something more akin to round robin story telling, where all the players have "characters" but thay also act as GM during the actual game play of other characters.  Now of course there would have to be some kind of rules put to that.  but like I said this is all kind off the top of my head with put a lot of thought being put it to it,  I do see how it would all break down really quickly.

The idea (and maybe I can retain this) is that the system would let people bid on actions, Actually entire scenes could be created collaboratively via extended bidding back and forth.  and scenes would go by quickly as every little action would not have to be played out.  My example above is not really good as I don't think it would be much of a combat game.  There could possibly be a dice mechanic built in as well.  And the GM would only be able to prevent players for doing things as long as e had the story points to do so, as if he wins a wager he has to give those story points to the player he is wagering against.

The idea is collaborative story telling and less of a "This is the GMs world the GM is more of a moderator , a "banker" if you will, but he does have input into the story.

I have been playing with characters not unlike characters from the PDQ system  where stats are descriptors, but there are numbers (have a few ideas for what the numbers do) which go down to represent "hit points"

I appreciate the feedback , and there are some valid points, I think your right that the mechanics as I present them are broken.  but I'm gonna keep playing along and see what come out of it.

It might not be relevant to izlear, but to Badger, I think your drawing on examples that aren't part of a creative process. I mean, someone just repeatedly trying the impossible?

As I'm thinking about this, all parties want to creatively add to the overall project. The wager or whatever is there to see who's creativity is added. Say we were building a sandcastle and I want to add towers and you want to add sea shells. Both of these are creative outcomes. We roll or wager to see whether you do your thing or I do mine.

Someone repeatedly trying the impossible simply as a currency soak (without even a future creative vision) haven't got something they want to add at a creative level - they are just enacting a pure power struggle in a way that doesn't even seem like gamist fun (ie, it never climaxes at a win). It's just sheer, bloody minded power mongering. I would think the mechanism that avoids that is that it's shit, so either no one does it because it sucks or anyone who keeps indudging in it simply ceases to be invited (as in interesting side note, winning in gamism is not actually a creative outcome, but the power struggle does end and the person who wins wins adulation from their peers, which is the constructive outcome).

Izlear, I think the thing to watch out for is hording of points. Perhaps make a maximum amount someone can hold. Also your idea of having stats which control the maximum you can bid sounds really good!

You might take a look at Polaris if you haven't already. It has players proposing actions to which other players may accede, propose modifications, or reject. The other thing I'd suggest is tying the currency of wagers to character abilities, such that a high Warrior pool, for example, gave you lots of points to propose fight-related actions, while a high Magic pool gave you points to propose spell-casting actions. Mortal Coil actually does something like this, although its pool points reflect intensity of effort or commitment and are not "wagered" per se. Other people have noted the game-breaking strategy of proposing stupid or crazy things so that the GM will have to resist, which is another argument for making the game GM-less. But look at some of the discussions of how Capes because of its GM-less, free narration mechanics can result in many players doing wacky shit just because they can, at least when they first start playing the game. Still, the idea is worth pursuing.

Ok, so I've been thinking about this and I am beginning to see what some of the others were saying.  I wonder if there are any thoughts on how to keep the the players from always bidding the maximum possible.  As others have said I would hope people just wouldn't but I think there should be a mechanic that sets it up so that you don't always want to or need to.

I guess what I want to push is that the game is about telling a story not necessarily at succeeding all of the time. 

One thing you might do is divorce the currency of the wagers from the outcome of the in-game action--if you think about, that's tantamount to saying that the guy who bets the most money always wins. Instead, you might give the players options like "Play It Safe" and "Play the Long Shot" (and make them describe taking conservative or foolhardy in-game actions in order to do so). Then you roll the dice or whatever and they tell you whether you lose all or part of your stake of "Action Points" (or whatever) or whether you get a little or a lot back. Then you use Action Points (or whatever) to buy game-mechanical outcomes as in Otherkind dice: safety for your character, injury for another, narration rights, task success or failure, advancement toward the conflict's resolution, and so forth. That could work.

I'm not quite sure I see the problem with them always bidding the max? I'm tryin to guess and wondering if it's some dread thing about just playing the system directly without any fictional component?

Callan,
I am using my normal gaming group as an example.  Me personally I prefer to play the fiction, but a lot of my players prefer to play the game, and that is my fear.  I think if the group was interested in telling the story that would be fine.  Aldo though the reason I would like people to not always spend the max is because it takes any suspense out, and maybe that it the flaw of the system that it is not a random system, but instead a system that is designed to shift narrative power. . . so once I figure out the balance, I think i will be good.

Bill, I keep coming back to this thought of adding a more traditional dice mechanic in with it, but then I think so many games already do that, BUT if the story point mechanic was part of the normal roll mechanic it might work.  I'll keep playing with something like that.

I keep seeing the mechanic being based on fate but thats just in my head not stuck on it. 

Do they honestly play just for the game? I mean, when I play monopoly, it ends up with a fictional element. Chess as well. Are you sure they don't, or do they just not think in terms of fiction as much as you? If so, perhaps its not fair to say they only play the game mechanics?

It might just be that they can max bid all the time AND it's part of a story falling into place.

izlear wrote: Bill, I keep coming back to this thought of adding a more traditional dice mechanic in with it, but then I think so many games already do that, BUT if the story point mechanic was part of the normal roll mechanic it might work.  I'll keep playing with something like that.

Callan wrote:
It might not be relevant to izlear, but to Badger, I think your drawing on examples that aren't part of a creative process. I mean, someone just repeatedly trying the impossible?

wrote: Ok, so I've been thinking about this and I am beginning to see what some of the others were saying.  I wonder if there are any thoughts on how to keep the the players from always bidding the maximum possible.  As others have said I would hope people just wouldn't but I think there should be a mechanic that sets it up so that you don't always want to or need to.

I guess what I want to push is that the game is about telling a story not necessarily at succeeding all of the time. 

Even if the way a player does it isn't fun, creative, etc. they have the motivation of advantage. Maybe you want towers on your sandcastle, and maybe somebody else wants seashells, but there's always the kid who just wants to kick it in. So, prepare for that kid.

Callan wrote:
You don't see musicians include someone into the band who just smashes their gear or just shouts over the rest of them.

The traditional gamer pattern of thinking is 'ostracizers are evil', so you invite everyone. I'm talking from the paradigm of not inviting that kid (have to add a sub note to that: What might look like a kicking in might be a person wanting to use a boot as part of the sandcastle instead of sea shells - and as kinky as that is, it's weird but is still constructive. Had to put in a note about not identifying any transgression of ones own preferences as automatically being destructive - it might just be being different. Actually come to think of it, I guess I rely on that understanding alot...)

I think it's on topic in atleast as a design concern of izlear's, that people would play sans any fiction at all. In terms of 'ostracizing', it is counter productive to certain goals. It is not counter productive to all goals. For example, not so many years ago 'good buisiness' including selling narcotics like cocaine to children to 'quiet' them. So as my suggestion I wouldn't treat any mention of 'good buisiness' as something one would automatically want to do/copy. There are different types of 'good buisiness', which have varying (and not always compatable) goals. I think weve described some goals izlear could possibly choose from, or not, as he wishes.

In terms of design tools, of which the wager is kind of embedded in (a smaller part of)

"If you know people that want to bend rules to gain personal advantage in a way that is unfair and not fun for the group, don't invite them."

Briefly:
1) 'Good business' is what makes money. Whether it is moral, makes sense, etc. is irrelevant. The point to conducting business is to make money, and RPGs make money based on the number of people buying the books. Telling people not to include others or telling people they cannot be included are directly opposed to this end. More people included should equal more people buying, which does equal more money. Text book good business.
2) Many people's "creativity" when approaching a game is in finding the way to gain greater advantage. Video games are probably the best source of examples. Competitive, paid tournaments are played with fighting games, for example, where the winner is decided based on who can execute their 'juggle combo' first and most often. While it may not be creative in the sense of story-telling, getting to the point of being clearly better than everyone else at the table takes a good deal of effort dedicated to that goal and hopefully a little out-of-the-box thinking. If I can theoretically break this system based on a description on a web forum, imagine what real players would do to it after product launch.
3) The claim of authors not controlling anything is based solely on the fact that Gygax on down did not set social norms into place. If I say that my game is only played when players agree to sit cross-legged on throw pillows, fine, I can claim people didn't play my game when they sat at a table. More importantly, though, if I say that my game is only played when all players agree to play with a narrative creative agenda, I think no one at all would have played my game even if I sold a million copies. We, at the author level, cannot predict, select or enforce what type of play is used by people who use our products any better than an automobile manufacturer can predict, select or enforce what approach to driving is used by the people who buy their cars. I can market a truck to construction workers and maybe construction workers are proven to be defensive drivers (ha!) but as soon as their teenager borrows the vehicle to go out with friends, all control is lost. Maybe the OP's game draws narrative people to buy it but, do all of their players feel the same way? We cannot, as authors, tell people not to bring their friends. We could warn them that maybe certain people would ruin the fun, but how often do people listen? Next thing you know, the handful of reviews about your game online are all negative and people stop expressing interest in your product. See point 1 above.