as I've mentioned recently, I'm working on the playtest document of the most recent version of The Court of 9 Chambers. I'm almost ready to post the PDF, but I need to flesh out descriptive text and pretty it up slightly. I decided to post a system overview to show everyone how the system is shaping up and to ask if anyone can spot any trouble areas I may need to address before printing out the rules for my players and actually attempting to run this puppy.

you can view the original rules for comparison here:

Co9C part 1
Co9C part 2

one minor change from the old rules: Introvert/Extrovert are now renamed to Ideal and Real, after a friend objected very strongly to my use of the older terms. setting details are pretty much the same, except that I'm drawing a little bit more on Robert W. Chambers (The King in Yellow) for inspiration. the backstory will decribe a book known as "The Court of 9 Chambers" in terms similar to those used for "The King in Yellow", but without the horror elements (which were pretty minor in the original book, but became accentuated after Lovecraft and some Call of Cthulhu game suppliments got through with the myth.)

the basic premise, remember, is "what would you do for your art?" this is a game about obsessed and possibly egotistical artists who search for deep meaning in numerological patterns behind artistic imagery; they may cooperate or compete, approach their quest aggressively or languidly; NPC enemies such as nazis or dadaists may complicate the issue.

artists no longer have to be painters only; motifs can be auditory as well as visual. motifs no longer have Intensity ratings, which is now reserved for anything that gets its own record sheet, like a painting, ally, or tool.

now the major change: I wanted to streamline the rules quite a bit, encourage lots of colorful descriptions, get players interacting in the same scenes more. game mechanics can be summed up as: “player rolls a dice pool, looks up each die result to match a secondary characteristic (motif) on the character sheet, and counts the unopposed matches as steps of success." if it's your turn in the game, you call the scene, giving your artist's basic intention ("Andre is painting a portrait", "Gaspard is chasing Etienne.") you then roll the dice and interpret each die result one die at a time, in any order.

however, there's a catch, called the rule of the duel: any player can oppose or assist any other player’s action at any time. this is why you are applying each die result one die at a time; after you interpret the first die, the player to your right may announce "I'm opposing you" -- if there's a matching motif on that player's character sheet -- and describe whatever he or she chooses... and the player on your left may then announce "I'm assisting you" (or even "I'm assisting your opponent.")

if your first die result is unopposed, or if all the opposition is balanced out by an equal number of assists, you get one step of success. you then move on to the next die. this procedure is modified by the rule of the pool: never roll more than 9 dice at a time; once all the dice in the roll have been applied, it’s someone else’s turn.

here's a quick example of play: Alice announces "I am looking for an ally" and rolls five dice and moves her first die forward: a 6. she has "steaming black coffee" listed next to 6 on her character sheet, so she describes "I spot a rather thuggish looking gentleman at my favorite cafe along the Rue Moliere and offer to buy him a steaming black coffee".

Bob notes he has "german hoodlum" listed on his own character sheet and announces "I am opposing you", then describes "the gentleman replies, in an obvious german accent, `mademoiselle, perhaps it is better for both of us if you were not seen with me, no?'"

Carol announces "I am assisting Alice" and plays her "resistance fighter" motif: "a tough gallic fellow in a blue beret overhears the other man's speach and approaches the table, saying `perhaps it would be better for you, Hans, if you were not seen at all!''

if no one else opposes or assists on the 6, Alice gets 1 step of success (because Bob's opposition and Carol's assistance cancel each other out) and moves on to the next die result. when all the dice from that roll have been used, it's someone else's turn to roll; Alice can either opt to end the scene (if she feels she has enough successes) or continue later, when it's her turn to roll again.

the steps of success are tracked on the table itself; nine sheets of paper labeled from 1 to 9 are laid out and cardboard markers are placed on the current number of steps acquired. Alice would have a marker labeled "Alice's action", which she would move as she gained or lost steps on that action, until she's ready to finish the scene.

note that Bob and Carol's artists do not need to be present to influence the scene; however, unless Bob explicitely states "I am following Alice" in a previous scene (on his turn), his artist is not personally in the scene. on Bob's turn, he announces "I am following Alice", rolls the dice, and attempts to gain enough steps of success to reach Alice's artist. he has a marker labeled "Bob's travel/escape"; if Alice doesn't have an "Alice's travel/escape" on the board, Bob will reach her with one step; if she has a travel marker at 6 (from previous movement,) he needs 6 unopposed steps to reach her.

damage is handled the same way: each player has a "wounds" marker ("Alice's wounds" and so on.) if it's not on the board, the artist isn't wounded; if one artist attacks another and earns 3 steps of success, the victim puts a "wounds" marker in the "3" sheet on the table. when an artist reaches the 9th step for wounds, that artist is dead -- but not out of the game, because of the rule of the duel; the player can still throw a monkey wrench into other players' scenes, or send allies out for vengeance. also, the artist can still roam the dreamscape as a ghost.

my assessment -- my hope -- is that these basic rules can be adapted to any action a player can dream up, that the rules are easy to understand, and that the play will be exciting and full of marvellous description. does anyone agree, or see a potential problem?

I'll save GNS questions for later, when the first PDF is done.

Well!

Here I was, expecting a Wu-Tang Clan "Adventure Into the Nine Deadly Chambers of Venom"-type game, and it turns out to be "Dueling Surrealist Artists Fight for Transcendence."

And yet, I still have a strange feeling, as if the two different worlds could be...combined...

Nazi General: "Your Cubist-Fu is weak! Kneel before our superior Lemi Reifenstahl Technique! *Woh-Pah!*

Dadaist: "My trans-dimensional nipples undulate with subdermal abandon at the epiphany of your untimely demise! *Woh-Pah!*

I'll stop being silly. But it appears as if you've certainly got an unique setting. I'll be interested to see how this turns out. For those of us not familiar with the source material, I hope you include enough background to make it comprehensible.

I'd really like to see the results.

Spooky Fanboy wrote: I'll stop being silly. But it appears as if you've certainly got an unique setting. I'll be interested to see how this turns out. For those of us not familiar with the source material, I hope you include enough background to make it comprehensible.

Personally, I'd prefer seeing all the rules in one place before I judge. There's something about having the rules all organized in .pdf or on paper that organizes and clarifies it for me.

Something in me twitches a little over counters on sheets of paper. But I'd have to see it in action.

Yeah, I'm going to agree with Spooks here. The mechanic seems fine so far. Out of context, though, I'm not so sure.

One thing that I'm interested in is the linkage between characters numeralogically. As I recall, you start with three motifs. So some players will have characters with all three motifs with matching numbers to those of another character. And some few will have none in common. The rest will have one or two overlaps. To the extent that you overlap is the extent that you can help or hinder the other artists. Will there tend to be too much overlap? Or too little (more likely, I think). How will this affect play? Is it intended?

Mike

ok, I have some "quickstart" rules up:
Court of 9 Chambers mini-game 1

this is basically chapter 2 of the version 1.5 rules. this mini-game only covers actions in the "real" world, as you'll see; chapter 3 will be a second half-hour mini-game about artists exploring the nine chambers in the "ideal" world and will introduce a few more rules. I'll try to get that chapter finished by friday. chapter 1, the introduction, is almost done, but I need to write more on the backstory and do some formatting before its ready.

Mike Holmes wrote: One thing that I'm interested in is the linkage between characters numeralogically. As I recall, you start with three motifs. So some players will have characters with all three motifs with matching numbers to those of another character. And some few will have none in common. The rest will have one or two overlaps. To the extent that you overlap is the extent that you can help or hinder the other artists. Will there tend to be too much overlap? Or too little (more likely, I think). How will this affect play? Is it intended?

Cool. So overlap is intended to develop during play.

Let's run the stats given an even distribution of Motif numbers. Below is the likely number of total overlaps between two players of the given number of motifs:
[code]Motifs Expected Average
Held Value Value
-------------------------
2 v 2 0 0.4
3 v 3 1 0.7
6 v 3 1 1.2
6 v 6 2 2.1
9 v 6 3 2.8
9 v 9 4 3.9
9 v 12 5 4.7
12 v 12 6 5.8[/code]

Note that this does not mean that you have that many numbers that overlap. Two players could overlap twice on a 1 for example. What this means is that for most of the game only about 1 in 10 dice rolled will have an overlap, and that remains pretty consistent until you get to very high numbers of motifs.

You could choose to see this as good news, or bad news. The bad news is that it sounds like interaction will be somewhat limited. OTOH, it means that you could allow a lot of motifs into the game, and have that expand quickly.

Interesting.

Mike

hmmm. interesting. how many dice does that represent? I am assuming that someone with a Real of 6 has more potential for overlaps than someone rolling for a Real of 3.

also, how does a group of 4 players affect this?

I'm a little confused about the 9 motifs versus 9 motifs line. although it's possible for clustering around a few numbers to occur, I would guess that the strategy of most players will be to get one motif for every number... so if two players build their characters with that strategy, they will overlap every time (except when a 0 is rolled, of course.)

thanx for the chart, thought... if it really does indicate that there will be fewer matches than expected, I might raise the number of motifs to 4, plus the artist's monogram and 1 tool and 1 painting (for the full game.) that gives a potential for 7 matches for any given player, which should make play more interesting in the beginning (without getting opposed so often that it is frustrating.)

talysman wrote: hmmm. interesting. how many dice does that represent? I am assuming that someone with a Real of 6 has more potential for overlaps than someone rolling for a Real of 3.

also, how does a group of 4 players affect this?

I'm a little confused about the 9 motifs versus 9 motifs line. although it's possible for clustering around a few numbers to occur, I would guess that the strategy of most players will be to get one motif for every number... so if two players build their characters with that strategy, they will overlap every time (except when a 0 is rolled, of course.)

thanx for the chart, thought... if it really does indicate that there will be fewer matches than expected, I might raise the number of motifs to 4, plus the artist's monogram and 1 tool and 1 painting (for the full game.) that gives a potential for 7 matches for any given player, which should make play more interesting in the beginning (without getting opposed so often that it is frustrating.)

an updated version of the quickstart rules is now available. formatting still sucks (the quickstart is intended to be readable, not necessarily pretty,) but I added chapter 1, which contains the introduction to the setting.

Mike Holmes wrote:

I'm a little confused about the 9 motifs versus 9 motifs line. although it's possible for clustering around a few numbers to occur, I would guess that the strategy of most players will be to get one motif for every number... so if two players build their characters with that strategy, they will overlap every time (except when a 0 is rolled, of course.)

Well, that's why I said "even distribution" above. Read random. I was thinking that players would choose their motifs, and then learn what the associated number was by consulting the chart. But they can, of course, choose to "cover the spread". If that's a common strategy, then overlaps will be much more common, of course. OTOH, there may be that weird player who decides to just nail one number hard to really dominate it.

Mike Holmes wrote:

thanx for the chart, thought... if it really does indicate that there will be fewer matches than expected, I might raise the number of motifs to 4, plus the artist's monogram and 1 tool and 1 painting (for the full game.) that gives a potential for 7 matches for any given player, which should make play more interesting in the beginning (without getting opposed so often that it is frustrating.)

Hmm. I Like the idea of more Motifs, personally, though not too many. Given the optimization strategy you point out, I think that perhaps a little more might be the best option; maybe a little less than what you have above. OTOH, do you think that there's incentive to do a strategy where you try to stack on a number? If not, could you balance that strategy out somehow with the covering strategy (like maybe the "extra successes" count for something when not opposed)? That would make for cool player strategic choice, IMO, while allowing a few more Motifs in.

talysman wrote: this may create a problem, however; what does rolling doubles mean? in the rules as they stand now, there's no special meaning: the incentive to have more than one motif with an essence of 5 is to be able to use two 5s if you roll doubles.

if, however, a player can self-assist even when a motif was not opposed, rolling a double 5 means that you have less potential for variety in the motifs you use. hmmm. I'm not sure what to think of that.

I'll have to think about allowing multiple uses of the same motif on a single die roll. on the one hand, I probably will write it up that way, since you make a good argument for it. on the other hand, something doesn't quite feel right about it, but I can't quite place what's wrong.

there's also another issue I haven't even gotten into yet: tools and paintings can have their own motifs. I may wind up saying "no stacking, but your tools can assist you."

Mike Holmes wrote:
P.S. BTW, have you considered some secondary means to encourage goal two?

I like the "tools can assist" rule. Mechanically separates these things from other motifs. Cool. I think that might work well. I understand the concern you have; I can see how multiple motifs helping each other back and forth could be wierd.

Actually, how about this. When a player rolls doubles, he has the choice of either pushing one Motif, and then self-supporting, or to hold the other die for an additional success. That is, he must decide just asfter the roll how the stacking Motif will be used. Either it's going to reinforce the first die pushed (leaving the second die unused), or it's not, and can be used to push the second die. He has to choose right away, so he has to guess at the support or opposition that he will be up against. Adds a cool bit of strategy.

Perhaps then a tool can only support, but can support as many dice as come up. Or somesuch.

talysman wrote: did you have something else in mind, Mike?

Mike Holmes wrote: I like the "tools can assist" rule. Mechanically separates these things from other motifs. Cool. I think that might work well. I understand the concern you have; I can see how multiple motifs helping each other back and forth could be wierd.

talysman wrote: did you have something else in mind, Mike?

Well, I've been pondering whether or not narration will need to be prompted to come out OK or not. I mean, I can see some lamo player just saying, "I support Bob with my Car motif", and not narrating what's happening in the game world. I think it would be a crime, but there's no mechanics specifically that emphasize narrating out how a motif impacts something. There's every possibility that this is a non-issue as the game might not be aimed at players who would do this.

OTOH, why not hedge your bets. Specifically I'm thinking of something on the order of the Colot mechanics that have been flying around lately. Something like where the GM rewards colorful use of the mechanics, or maybe each player has currency to reward color use by other players. The currency would then, upon reciept, change to a currency for, say, rolling extra dice or something standard as a reward. Players who "eat" their currency at the end of a session, not having given it out as a reward, are penalized more harshly than the advantage that they give to another player by giving the reward. Perhaps automatic loss of Motifs, or something. So, while having to reward another player is tactically distastefull, the repercussion for not doing so is worse.

All sounds very good now.

talysman wrote: this is definitely not what I want to do. first, because I don't think colorful use of motifs will be a problem.

...

the second objection I have is that this is designed as a GMless game. rewards for good play just won't work in that kind of game. I suppose you could have a rule that if one player describes something in an entertaining manner, the others could vote to reward the player in some way.