Topic: Has this mechanic been done?
Started by: morgue
Started on: 6/17/2003
Board: Indie Game Design
On 6/17/2003 at 4:38pm, morgue wrote:
Has this mechanic been done?
I've been tooling around with an idea for a 'core mechanic', and I'm wondering if I'm walking into territory that has already been explored. I figure I am, because it feels like someone *ought* to have come up with this system or something like it.
Basically, the idea takes as a starting point the tension between randomisers messing up narrative, and absence of randomisers making story creation an onerous responsibility. Yes, I'm deliberately massively oversimplifying/misrepresenting etc, in order that you see my point.
So, protagonists are given some 'plot points'. 'Antagonism' as an abstraction is given a secret number of 'plot points'.
The game begins. Whenever a resolution point is reached:
* antagonism can bid a plot point. If the protagonist does not respond, this causes a specific, negative outcome to occur ('you fall in the water!') and the point is spent.
* if the protagonist chooses to respond, they spend a plot point to cause a positive outcome ('I make it over the slippery bridge') and the point is spent. Antagonism, however, retains its plot point as unspent.
* if antagonism did not bid a plot point, the protagonist can still spend a plot point to cause a positive outcome.
* if neither side uses plot points, the outcome is determined randomly.
Thus the protagonist always trumps the antagonist as long as there are plot points to spare. And the two sides are each guaranteed as many positive outcomes as they have plot points - and it falls to player decision as to where those outcomes fall.
It definitely has some kinks, but in general terms it gets across what I want - key events are decided on some kind of narrative basis, but outside those key events the fall of the randomiser creates interest and surprise. And it doesn't seem too clunky.
Has this been done before, in part or in whole? Is it really all that different from bog standard 'karma'/'hero point' style mechanisms?
~`morgue
On 6/17/2003 at 5:23pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Has this mechanic been done?
SInce you asked, games to check out include Baron Munchausen, Universalis, and the new Marvel super hero game from Marvel
On 6/17/2003 at 5:26pm, ethan_greer wrote:
RE: Has this mechanic been done?
Random roll as a backup mechanic when no-one wants to spend points is new to me. Interesting. Does it work in practice?
On 6/18/2003 at 11:41am, morgue wrote:
RE: Has this mechanic been done?
ethan_greer wrote: Random roll as a backup mechanic when no-one wants to spend points is new to me. Interesting. Does it work in practice?
No idea. I'm hoping to give it a run in the next week or two. Will report back.
Munchausen and the Marvel stones games are both good examples of the 'cognitive load' of 'diceless' games (to condense epic lengths of discussion into one mostly-accurate phrase) that this mechanic backstops with a randomiser. I don't know Universalis, will check it out.
~`morgue
On 6/18/2003 at 6:54pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Has this mechanic been done?
Just to be clear, is Antagonism a player? A player who is also not playing a protagonist? Or is that pool handled differently? Communally?
Mike
On 6/19/2003 at 11:07am, morgue wrote:
RE: Has this mechanic been done?
Mike Holmes wrote: Just to be clear, is Antagonism a player? A player who is also not playing a protagonist? Or is that pool handled differently? Communally?
D'oh, should have clarified this. I'm thinking each individual player has a pool of plot points, and the GM has a pool too. 'Antagonism' is the pool the GM (I should even have clarified the existence of a GM :) uses to provide the opposition in the story.
The 'antagonism' pool could all be located in an enemy (Lord Voldemort!) or an event (the volcano is erupting!) or located in nothing in particular (you wouldn't *believe* how bad my week has been!).
Hope that helps,
Morgan
On 6/19/2003 at 1:40pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Has this mechanic been done?
GM is then arbiter of what counts as a reasonable "win" as well? That is, if the GM pays a point and says:
"There is a slippery bridge"
and the player pays a point and says:
"I fly over the river"
And the character has no known ability to fly, the GM can overrule that description? Or does the player have complete authority to narrate whatever success he wants?
Mike
On 6/19/2003 at 3:08pm, Stuart DJ Purdie wrote:
RE: Has this mechanic been done?
For the bibliography: Soap, free version at http://www.crayne.nl/index.html
It's worht noting that of the 4 games mentioned so far, three are GMless (Baron munchhausen, Unvesalis and Soap).
On 6/20/2003 at 8:14am, morgue wrote:
RE: Has this mechanic been done?
Mike Holmes wrote: GM is then arbiter of what counts as a reasonable "win" as well?
That level of detail has not yet been considered. I haven't gone much beyond what is presented here. I guess the game would work on the basis of an agreed genre emulation style game contract - if Harry Potter was the basis, then anything goes that fits in with that genre.
Thinking further as I go, ultimately I imagine the GM would decide whether a 'win' was appropriate or not, if there is any room for dispute. However, if the plot point is paid, the important thing is that the obstacle is overcome - so the GM might suggest an alternative that's more in keeping with the genre. This just comes down to negotiation among the participants, I guess. In most cases, certainly with folk I game with, players'd have no problem staying in tune with genre so this won't be a problem.
I'm just going to have to give this a whirl and report back, I guess. Cheers for the references, by the way.
~`morgue
On 6/20/2003 at 7:34pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Has this mechanic been done?
I just played Kathanaksaya last night, and realized how close it is to this mechanic. See the link to it in the threads here, or in the contact forum in the thread seeking playtesters.
Mike
On 6/24/2003 at 7:04pm, Jeph wrote:
RE: Has this mechanic been done?
Interesting idea Morgue, of thought of treading similar ground myself. A question, I ask, however, is: Are you going to provide character distinction, and if you are, how?
My proposed solution to this: Instead of just having a pool of "plot points," characters have this pool and a pool of more focused "knack points" or somesuch. For simplicity's sake, let's say that base characters start out with 10 PP, and 0 KP. If they like, they may trade in up to 5 of their PP, getting 2 KP for each traded in in this manner. However, KP, unlike PP, can only be spent on tasks that they relate to.
So. Ned the Ninja has 7 PP, and his 6 KP are put into Sneaking: 3, Slicing and Dicing: 3. So, Ned has 7 points that he can use for anything, 3 that he can use for creeping around, and 3 that he can use to kill stuff.
Just for the books, I'd cast my vote as a scene based resolution system, wrather than "blow by blow".
-Jeff