Jeeze, I'm tired. I finally got past the mechanic block that's been plaguing me for so long. Once I did that it just started pouring out.

Please take a look at what I have so far and tell me what you think.

My major concern is the readability, for some reason my writing comes out all confusing lately. Of course this is just a first draft, I'll be updating, clarifying, adding, revising, etc.

http://www.msu.edu/~smith465/unworthy/

-Joshua

In the section on Unopposed Actions, you write:

To resolve an unopposed action the GM simply gives the action a difficulty from 1-10, declaring the Governing Stat, and Skill. The character draws cards equal to his stats and plays his skill in cards. If the character has one card over the difficulty they [sic] gain a Minor Victory. Two cards is a Major Victory. Three cards a Total Victory.

First off, thankyou for taking a look at my messy little game.

I don't understand, I'm afraid.

Suppose the GM sets the difficulty at 5. My stat is 4, which is high but not outrageous. My skill is 3. So I draw 4 cards, and then "play [my] skill in cards," which I guess means that I can play up to 3 cards. Now "one card over the difficulty": does this mean that if I can beat 5 on the total of 2 out of my 3 playable cards, then I get a Minor Victory?

If I read you right, average skill is going to be 2, but PC skills are likely to be 3 on anything they opt to do. Similarly, PC stats are likely to be in the 3-4 range.

On average, just under 1/3 of all drawn cards will be Court cards, which have weird effects.

Is there any reason I wouldn't play the highest card? Do I need to hang onto my hand?

Okay, let me see if I've got this right (incidentally I'm working on a game system that uses Tarot cards myself, which is why I'm so focused on this).

Unopposed Action
1. GM sets governing stat = Physique; my Physique is 3, so I draw 3 cards (see below).
2. GM sets difficulty = 7.
3. Since there is only one exchange, I now lay down every card of 7 or higher of my 3 cards. If I've got 1 such card, it's Minor, and so on up.

Opposed Action
1. Same
2. Difficulty isn't set.
3. I play a card; the Resistor now tries to beat it with a card of her own.

With Opposed Action, how do I win several Plays in the Exchange? Once the Resistor has played, do I now get to play another card (up to a total of my relevant Skill), and the Resistor does the same? Or does the former Resistor now start the Play, and now I'm the Resistor?

I think the latter, right? Have I got it now?

One further question:

Thus if the Governing Stat of a Contest was Physique, and a participant had a Physique of 3, than that participant would draw 5 cards.

I've got another problem, which may be based on me not understanding.

Suppose we have equal Stats and Skills, and we draw relatively randomly: suppose 3-6 vs. 2-7. Note that if we just added up all the cards, we'd get 9 vs. 9.

Now there are what, 4 ways it can go from here, right:

3-2, 7-6 or 3-7, 2-6 or 6-2, 7-3 or 6-7, 2-3 (I'm switching sides in the middle of each)

Okay so my total Edge tallies are:
1/1 or -4/-4 or 4/4 or -1/-1

So no matter what cards we play, in whatever order, the total Edge will be equivalent to the difference in card values added up. If I draw a better hand than you, then I win. There may be very slight variations in terms of percentage, but they'll be slight.

I think this could be solved by having the Edge tally for each Play affect later Plays in the same Exchange. So if the first play goes 3-7, I'm at a disadvantage in real number terms, so that when you play your 2 in response my 6 isn't really 6 any more; perhaps if you used the same grading you use for desriptive advantages (1-3/4-6/7-9), you could have 1-3=0, 4-6=+1, 7-9=+2. Thus if the first play is 3-7, the next play is 2-5, not 2-6. That would have a total effect of a +1 shift in Edge at the end.

I dunno --- it seems like it's always going to come down to random card draws; it just looks like the actual plays matter.

Unopposed Action
...snip...
3. Since there is only one exchange, I now lay down every card of 7 or higher of my 3 cards. If I've got 1 such card, it's Minor, and so on up.

Opposed Action
...snip...
With Opposed Action, how do I win several Plays in the Exchange? Once the Resistor has played, do I now get to play another card (up to a total of my relevant Skill), and the Resistor does the same? Or does the former Resistor now start the Play, and now I'm the Resistor?

Why 5 instead of 3?

A suggestion on Court Cards: allow them to be used for face value (11-14), in addition to wackiness, which gives me more possibilities than simple card-card strategy.

It isn't the Actor's edge minus the Resistor's edge. Its the winner's card minus the loser's card.

If I draw a better hand than you, then I win.

I dunno --- it seems like it's always going to come down to random card draws; it just looks like the actual plays matter.

Alright, I went through the text and tried to clarify everything. Just go to the same address.

Things added/changed:
-Court Cards changed.
-Example of play
-Some fiction (old fiction)

-Joshua

To get away from the mechanics for a moment, what do you do in this game? I suspect that it's supposed to play out like Gamma World or something. But a lot easier, yet more bleak for some reason.

Let's say we had a group of characters made up. What would be the common thread? Enclave? What might an adventure look like? Other than the Kewl Powerz why do I care about my character? Is there any chance of redemption?

Mike

Thanks for taking a look!

A lot of this stuff (What do the characters do?) will be covered in the second document for the GM.

Let's say we had a group of characters made up.

What would be the common thread?

What might an adventure look like?

Other than the Kewl Powerz why do I care about my character?

Is there any chance of redemption?

Enoch wrote:
Usually the enclave is the common thread. ...?

Let's see. One of the common things that happens in every game: the PCs go to see whats in the city. Everywhere they go they hear the same thing: "NEVER go into the city."
Being PCs they naturally go to the city (well they have other reasons, like getting supplies since the cities were never looted). This usually leads to a desperate combat against the strange guardians of the city.
Other common adventures include discovering what happened to your family (those who were not taken), trying to make contact with outsiders, dealing with other communities, etc.

Other than the Kewl Powerz why do I care about my character?

Not sure what you mean by this. The thing that most players find interesting about their character's is the fact that they were once (and still are) just children.

Is there any chance of redemption?

Ok, I'm not sure what you mean by this either? Are you talking about getting back those who were taken?

That is, there is a common way that the game is designed to go in general terms that is laid out step by step with regards to some scale. Does that sound right?

Cool. That goes a long way in setting the stage. I look forward to reading the GM section.

That's a good statement. And the part about dealing with the loss of loved ones is quite compelling. That's really what I was looking for.

Basically, the setting sounds grim, and the system reinforces this with extensive rules about stress and depression. My question regards whether or not there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Can the PCs win out in the end. Or is it a battle against impossible odds? I think that most players want a sense that their character's actions are not futile, and that through play good things can happen (not all players, but..).
Is that light there? Is it really possible to get back a lost loved one? Is it possible to be free from the threat? If only in theory, if not as part of the game play.

Enoch wrote: Is this the kind of thing your talking about?

Making the world a better place is definitely a possibility. At least with things like scaring off gangs and the like.
When it comes to outsiders and getting back those who were taken, that's more up in the air. Destroying the left behind outsiders who guard the cities is entirely possible. Getting back those who were loss is a little differant. In theory it is possible, and it could possibly even happen within the scope of a campaign.
Several ways for going about this will be addressed in the GM book. Including a number of possible answers to the mysteries of the game. Nothing concrete, I want to leave it up to the GM to decide what the reality is.

I'm more worried about session to session play. And what you have is kinda frightening. Ever play Aftermath!? I did. A lot. It was exciting when there was conflict going on at the personal level.

Survival is a conflict, but it becomes really drab when it becomes just the same ting over and over (roll to find water...whatever).

This becomes especially likely to become the center of play when players become the leaders. Instead of personal play you get planning sessions and meetings. It becomes very much like a job. At best you get a challenging game out of it. But nothing like a story, and little character development. You lose a lot of what makes an RPG compelling.

Why are the PCs going to be fighting the Outsiders when they are the treasured leaders of their community? Wouldn't that be irresponsible?

Are there any standard scenes that occur often, or at set times? Like the play structure of a game like Paranioa, InSpectres, or the Whispering, Vault. This sort of structure can really help move play along. Not that you have to go this rout, but it sounded a bit like you were going that rout.

Personally, I would advocate making this a more definite part of the game's description. The GM can always refrain from using it if he doesn't need to (simply doesn't drop the clues that lead to the lost loved ones).

But I think that play will probably need this as a possible avenue to be compelling in a broad enough sense.

In fact, if you had the urge, I'd encourage you to go whole hog that way, and make the game more centered around that idea. Provides an incredibly stong long-term goal for the players to enjoy in their characters.

Something you might want to add in the GM book: what are the Outsiders guarding? Why are they there? Are there artifacts or "tunnels" to the higher planes that the characters might use? Are there still some enslaved humans being held there for some unknown purpose? Or do the Outsiders just assume that, if they wait, the survivors will come to them, and the ones that have redeemed themselves can be grabbed at that time?

Also, are there any benefits/drawbacks lists for the survivors, like: one arm, one leg, manic-depressive, etc. For this game, I'd actually recommend that a character take one close to his concept, and then get an equivalent benefit for each additional drawback after the first. It *does* fit the characters well, although there are reasons against it (min-max disease, etc.)