Topic: Shadow + Token
Started by: Andrew Martin
Started on: 10/24/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 10/24/2002 at 10:37am, Andrew Martin wrote:
Shadow + Token
Shadow + Token
***************
This is an attempt to combine Zac's Shadow with my Token system, with the aim of producing a GM-less game system that combines the best of both systems, and allows creating of interesting stories and movie-like action, along with a sense of wonder.
Setup
====
Each player has a light D6 and a dark D6. The group of players has a pool of tokens, around ten times the number of players should be sufficient. Players start off with no tokens in their possesion. Players freely describe their character/s to fit the mutually agreed setting and style of the game. Note that characters do not have to "balance" as in conventional RPGs. Balance is handled by the use of tokens in play.
Starting
=====
Any player can start the game by proposing a complication to the character's life. For example: "Two goons burst through the door, armed with pistols!". The player then takes as a reward a token from the token pool and places it beside their character descriptions.
Players that want their characters involved, can accept the proposed complication to their character's lives, describe their character's involvement in the complication, and also take a token from the pool as a reward.
Conflicts
======
To resolve a conflict situation, the player briefly describes two outcomes, one favourable to the player's character/s and the other unfavourable to the player's character/s, then rolls the two dice. Which ever dice rolls higher determines the way the player narrates the outcome. The light D6 corresponds to the favourable outcome, and the dark D6 corresponds to the unfavourable outcome. If both D6 are equal, the light D6 beats the dark D6.
Other players can spend a token, by giving it to the player that's rolling the dice, and so force a reroll of the D6 they choose. The player that's forced to reroll the D6, gets to keep the token as a reward. Players can work cooperatively (re-rolling a low light D6 or a high dark D6), or antagonistically (re-rolling a high light D6 or a low dark D6), or even to maximise drama or to speed up boring parts.
Disbelief
======
If other player/s disbelieve the player's description of actions, they can spend a token to force the narrating player to reconsider their actions. The narrating player gets to keep the token, but must change the narration appropriately or else the disbelieving player gets to narrate.
If, instead, the narrating player is determined to stay on course, the narrating player returns the token along with one more of their own, so compensating the other player for the disbelief.
If several players express disbelief, the narrating player must be able to pay a token to all disbelieving players. If the narrating player can't afford to do this (no tokens left), the narration must be changed to suit the disbelieving players, or else the disbelieving player/s get to narrate.
Wonders
======
If a player says, "wow!" or otherwise expresses pleasure or wonderment in the narration, the narrating player takes a token from the pool as a reward. Naturally, if several players express this feeling, the narrating player gets a token from the pool for each player.
Erasing complications
==============
Players can ease the life of their characters by spending a token and returning it to the common pool, and narrating action describing the removal of the complication. If the complication affects several players, those players must also pay a token into the common pool to have it removed.
Ending the session
============
Near the end of the session, the common pool of tokens is put away. (I'm suggesting about 3/4 through the time available.) This signals to the characters that it's time to resolve complications and return to relative normality. :)
After the session
===========
After the session, and just before players leave, the players can briefly describe action scenes involving other characters, much like the teaser scenes and adverts of a TV or movie series. Players that have their characters get into situations like those described by the other players, in the next session can take a token reward from the pool.
Between sessions
===========
Players can change the descriptions of their character/s as they feel appropriate to the setting and situation. If other players disbelieve the changes, the player must remove the changes, or allow other players to take a token reward from the common pool.
Why wouldn't game X do instead?
****************************
I haven't found a free game that handles GM-less gaming and doesn't require an absolute scale or one-truth world view. If you know of one, please point it out to me. Thanks!
What do you think?
Any suggestions?
Improvements?
Any problems?
On 10/24/2002 at 3:18pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Re: Shadow + Token
Andrew Martin wrote: Shadow + Token...
I haven't found a free game that handles GM-less gaming and doesn't require an absolute scale or one-truth world view. If you know of one, please point it out to me.
Sure. What you have above is almost a perfect parallel to how Scattershot (so far, it's free) handles Experience Dice. One thing we add is explicit Genre Expectations that keep 'everyone on the same page.' Scattershot keeps gamemasters mostly as a legacy to traditional gaming, but limits their actions to supporting Mystiques so the players aren't 'in on everything' (some people really don't like knowing). Certain Approaches increase the obligations of the gamemaster, however our live-action role-playing mechanics eliminate them completely.
We discovered that origination of the Background and Circumstances and the Dynamic Status Quo (which is a web of intrigues with rudimentary reactions 'built in') eliminated any need for 'story initiative' on the part of the gamemaster. In your system, you might consider some overlap in the character histories/write-ups to create something like this.
I have a few questions/comments.
Andrew Martin wrote: Conflicts
To resolve a conflict situation, the player briefly describes two outcomes, one favourable to the player's character/s and the other unfavourable to the player's character/s, then rolls the two dice. Which ever dice rolls higher determines the way the player narrates the outcome. The light D6 corresponds to the favourable outcome, and the dark D6 corresponds to the unfavourable outcome. If both D6 are equal, the light D6 beats the dark D6.
Other players can spend a token, by giving it to the player that's rolling the dice, and so force a reroll of the D6 they choose. The player that's forced to reroll the D6, gets to keep the token as a reward. Players can work cooperatively (re-rolling a low light D6 or a high dark D6), or antagonistically (re-rolling a high light D6 or a low dark D6), or even to maximize drama or to speed up boring parts.
Do you allow the 'rolling player' to 'stay the course' like how you handle Disbelief, by paying a token to the 'forcing player?'
Andrew Martin wrote: Disbelief
If other player/s disbelieve the player's description of actions, they can spend a token to force the narrating player to reconsider their actions. The narrating player gets to keep the token, but must change the narration appropriately or else the disbelieving player gets to narrate.
If, instead, the narrating player is determined to stay on course, the narrating player returns the token along with one more of their own, so compensating the other player for the disbelief.
So the Disbeliever cannot press the point more than once? In Scattershot we considered this, but decided to allow the 'epic bidding war' instead (for especially player versus player Joueur Approach). Have you considered letting it go more than 'one round?'
Andrew Martin wrote:
If several players express disbelief, the narrating player must be able to pay a token to all disbelieving players. If the narrating player can't afford to do this (no tokens left), the narration must be changed to suit the disbelieving players, or else the disbelieving player/s get to narrate.
Have you considered letting the 'stay the course' player borrow tokens from the stock? There'd need to be appropriate 'pushing your luck' mechanics, but they don't seem that hard.
Andrew Martin wrote: Ending the session
Near the end of the session, the common pool of tokens is put away. (I'm suggesting about 3/4 through the time available.) This signals to the characters that it's time to resolve complications and return to relative normality.
I'm curious why you see this necessary? Are you implying that characters begin each game at a point of 'karmically neutral' peace? In practice we've had a lot of trouble with exactly this situation: players have to leave (real world concerns) with Experience Dice left over. We've tried a few things like the above, which didn't seem too popular with our groups (said it was like 'taking away part of their character' or there were no 'cliffhangers'). We also tried making note of them for the next session, but since people forget things, we haven't really satisfied that problem.
In practice, we have one person (the gamemaster if there is one) make notes on who has how many or start everyone with one for each player character. We're still thinking about a solution for this one.
Otherwise I like what you've got here for tokens (I should, it reads almost exactly like the Experience Dice system from Scattershot without the Genre Expectations). Good luck and let me know how the playtest goes.
Fang Langford
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 3572
Topic 2043
Topic 2173
Topic 1662
Topic 458
Topic 2803
On 10/24/2002 at 4:40pm, Jonathan Walton wrote:
RE: Re: Shadow + Token
Andrew Martin wrote: I haven't found a free game that handles GM-less gaming and doesn't require an absolute scale or one-truth world view. If you know of one, please point it out to me. Thanks!
Actually, if you modified your system a little to use Fudge dice, you could get some kick-ass shades of grey that would really work well for a less dualistic background (say CoC, Unknown Armies, etc.)
Try this:
-- for Light Dice, choose 3 or 4dF of one color (you could adjust the number of dice depending on the style of the campaign)
-- for Dark Dice, do the same with another color
-- to resolve disputes, roll all the dice
-- forget this "Light OR Dark succeeds" stuff, they BOTH succeed however much the dice read.
EXAMPLE wrote: Morally ambiguous action movie game. Think "The Professional" or "Ghost Dog" or the like.
The villain of the game is using the hero's girlfriend as a human shield. Both the hero and the villain have guns. The hero decides to try to shoot the villain without hitting his girlfriend.
Roll the Dark and Light dice.
Possible Results:
Dark +1, Light -2: The villain barely avoids the bullet, pulling the character's girlfriend in the path. She gets clocked.
Dark -2, Light -2: Both the villain and the girlfriend go down, run through by the same bullet.
Dark 0, Light 0: The bullet just nicks the villain, but he secures his grip on the hero's girlfriend. The standoff continues.
Dark -1, Light +1: The bullet slams into the villain's shoulder, causing him to drop his gun, however, he's still holding the hero's struggling girlfriend in front of him. Things have improved a little.
Etc.
Also, in situations where the characters were trying to do things that were morally wrong, they might want the Dark dice to roll higher, since the Light dice would generally support the brightest side in a world full of greys and darkness.
In fact, in a really dark, brooding game, you could call the Light dice "Grey dice," and they'd only give a mediocre outcome, as opposed to the horrible outcome of the Dark dice.
Just some thoughts.
On 10/24/2002 at 7:05pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Re: Shadow + Token
Jonathan Walton wrote: Just some thoughts.
Those are excellent thoughts! Thank you! Now I'll just have to get some multicoloured Fudge dice...
On 10/24/2002 at 7:13pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Re: Shadow + Token
Le Joueur wrote: So the Disbeliever cannot press the point more than once? Have you considered letting it go more than 'one round?'
Oops! That's a mistake on my part. Thank you for pointing it out! Both sides can press the point and other players can support either side as they wish.
Le Joueur wrote: Have you considered letting the 'stay the course' player borrow tokens from the stock? There'd need to be appropriate 'pushing your luck' mechanics, but they don't seem that hard.
I haven't considered this part. I will do so today, hopefully during the playtest.
Le Joueur wrote: I'm curious why you see this necessary? Are you implying that characters begin each game at a point of 'karmically neutral' peace? In practice we've had a lot of trouble with exactly this situation: players have to leave (real world concerns) with Experience Dice left over. We've tried a few things like the above, which didn't seem too popular with our groups (said it was like 'taking away part of their character' or there were no 'cliffhangers'). We also tried making note of them for the next session, but since people forget things, we haven't really satisfied that problem.
I'm trying to achieve a sense of completion after each "episode", like that experienced by the viewer of a TV show or movie.
Thanks for your comments, Fang. I'll be studying your links in depth later.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 3572
On 10/24/2002 at 7:42pm, Le Joueur wrote:
When Does an Episode End?
Andrew Martin wrote:Le Joueur wrote: I'm curious why you see this necessary? Are you implying that characters begin each game at a point of 'karmically neutral' peace? In practice we've had a lot of trouble with exactly this situation: players have to leave (real world concerns) with Experience Dice left over. We've tried a few things like the above, which didn't seem too popular with our groups (said it was like 'taking away part of their character' or there were no 'cliffhangers'). We also tried making note of them for the next session, but since people forget things, we haven't really satisfied that problem.
I'm trying to achieve a sense of completion after each "episode", like that experienced by the viewer of a TV show or movie.
In our playtests emulating shows, we eventually gave up ending the show at the end of the session. It turned out to be too much concentration on the ending instead of playing. I know, if you let episodes end in the middle of the session, you could 'take the bowl' at the climax of the play. This is instead of near the 'end of scheduled play.'
Unless you'd like to make time limits as a part of the rules....
Fang Langford
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 3572