What makes a new method of randomizing results worthwhile?
Speed, versimilitude, strategic play, capturing the tone of the game world?

If a unique randomizing method requires players to purchase a product, how much "value add" should the additional product have?
Aesthetically pleasing (to look at or touch)? Useful in other games? Captures the "essence" of the genre?

Some examples, to help focus discussion: dice with special values on their faces, custom cards, special coins or tokens, sets of colored beads, electronic game aides (think Pokemon Eggs).

For me it would be scaled based on the cost of purchase. If i can buy it all for three to five dollars i would probably write it off as cost of entry. This assumes that one set works for any number of players.

If you are considering something that is more expensive, or something that everyone has i would consider some guidelines:

1. A really cool system - Come up with a system so cool that its worth the price to use it (Fastlane uses a roulette wheel which is pretty cool)
2. An incredibly immersive setting - You need a setting that is incredibly cool if you want to do something special tied to setting (think Glorantha)
3. Both

These guidelines are what i personally would be willing to pay money for. Your experience may vary.

Thomas

Welcome the Forge!

FVLMINATA is a Roman alternate-historical that I co-authored. Its resolution is based on Roman Tali, which were the bleached knucklebones of sheep. They had four sides numbered 1, 3, 4, 6 and four were rolled together in gambling games. In the first edition, we included preprinted stickers that could be cut out and applied to standard-sized d8 to make them serve as Tali (each number appearing on 2 faces). Before 2nd edition, custom-made d8s were created to serve this purpose. Their reception, like the reception of many aspects of FVLMINATA, has been bipolar: most people love them or loathe them.

In designing the game, we felt the "Roman-ness" that the Tali evoked outweighed any negativity that some gamers exhibit toward "funny dice." I know some folks have been looking to buy actual plastic molded sheep knucklebones to use with the game (Lxndr, IIRC), but we wanted to balance ambience with cost and ease-of-use. The molded plastic knuckbones are expensive, and difficult to read. The Tali dice have nice, clear Roman numerals on them, and they clearly distinguish the VI from the IV, which is important for certain aspects of the resolution system.

{edited to fix coding of URL}

I use cards for my current system for the very simple reason that my cat has an inordinate fondness for dice and keeps stealing them and chasing them round the room.

Probably not the most profound reason ever, but important to our game.

Hello,

Czar, if you haven't seen it already, my article GNS and other matters of role-playing theory spends a lot of time on how "Fortune methods" factor into the goals of play. Take a look at the concepts of Search Time and Handling Time, for instance.

Best,
Ron

Yeah, I'm the guy who first found the sheep's knucklebones and introduced them to rpg.net, though I think someone else bought them before I did (well, since I haven't yet). That didn't stop me from buying regular Tali, though.

Anyway, sometimes I wonder whether or not the Roulette wheel is "worth it" for Fastlane. I quite honestly feel that it's a neat investment, and I love just spinning the wheel, but I'm all for bizarre purchases like that, and most people quite honestly aren't. Heck, I bought the wheel with the thought that "maybe, just maybe, I'll design a game based on it." And I did.

The best price I've found for retail-price roulette wheels is $15 (plus shipping), but that includes chips in six colours, the croupier's crop, and a layout, and prices quickly skyrocket from there. You can also find 16" roulette sets on ebay that rarely go for over $20 - that's where I got mine.

Anyway, why do I think my alternative method of randomization for Fastlane is worthwhile for the game?

First, I believe it captures the tone of Fastlane - when using the physical wheel, it quite strongly underlines and reinforces the theme of dissipation, and of risks and rewards. Of course, the game was designed with the wheel first, theme second, so I guess that's inevitable.

Second, the wheel's spinning (and the whole "you can only bid between start and stop" rule) gives a distinct sense of urgency and immediacy to each and every bet that's made.

Third, the wheel gives a very strong amount of control over how much risk a player wants to take. The roulette bids span a range from a 47% chance for a win on the even money bets, to a 2.6% chance on a straight (single #) bet, and the roulette payoffs reinforce the whole "the greater chances you take, the bigger your windfall if it works out" mentality that I'm wanting to encourage.

Of course, in the end that's all moot, because there's also an odds-equivalent system that uses six-siders, so my game doesn't quite "require" players to purchase the product. It just strongly suggests and encourages it.

I *cough* bought the resin sheep knuckles. And they're pretty damn cool. But just as an aside, you can't actually use them for Fvlminata. The traditional Roman 1, 3, 4, 6 value distribution for the knuckles is based on how frequently the various "sides" turn up in play. The Fvlminata mechanics are based on each side having an equal probability.

Paul

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,
GNS and other matters of role-playing theory

Well, for use in LARPS, let me remind you to think about practical matters as well (you seem to have the theory down pat). Search and Handling time have to be quick, and should not require a table or other surface, if possible. Common, inexpensive randomizers have the advantage of being easily replaceable if someone A) walks off with them, B) ruins them during the course of the LARP, C) breaks them while trying to cheat (I've seen it happen) or D) God knows what else....

Hi there,

Actually, your take on Fortune is a bit too simplistic relative to GNS. I've surprised a lot of people by claiming that Fortune plays a similar structural role in Narrativist play as in Gamist play, but for purposes of "pumping" Theme creation through adversity rather than providing consequences for strategy.

Check out some of the recent threads about Simple and Extended Contests in the HeroQuest forum. They provide a lot of insight, as various people's questions illustrates their adjustments to this unusual and powerful system.

Best,
Ron

Multiverser has one mechanic that uses a d30. I can't swear to it, but I believe E. R. Jones put it in there because every gamer he knew owned a thirty-sided die and no game he'd seen to that point ever used it. He actually included it in several applications, most of which were removed in the development process (for one of them he was trying to use a d30 against a 31 point scale because he forgot there was a zero in the middle; for another, it was apparent that the d30 added an unnecessary layer of complexity to what could be resolved simply with a skill check).

Having the d30 involved, even in a small way, does sometimes negatively impact sales. People will say that they don't have that die as a reason not to buy. I'm not sure how strong a negative that is in the full spectrum, but it has an impact.

I'd say that if you want to include something unusual as a fortune generator,

• make sure it really does add something to the game, whether in terms of a resolution curve that you would not otherwise be able to generate or in terms of ambiance/color that will encourage the feel desired;• avoid anything overly complex, since if you both must have and learn to use some esoteric method of resolution you're going to balk at some point;• choose something that is easily replaced, since as mentioned people will lose, break, or otherwise disable the first set they own--I'll mention that I still have the dice that came in the original boxed Basic D&D 1 set I got in 1980, but the edges are all rounded and the twenties at least don't roll true anymore.


Those thoughts should help.

--M. J. Young

d30, huh? :)
I wrote my first RPG system in 1986 that was similar to Toon and used a d30 for everything: roll under stat/skill to succeed, roll d30/x for results. I think that was the year the d30 came out (it's the year I first saw one)....

Anyway....

Fortune plays a similar structural role in Narrativist play as in Gamist play, but for purposes of "pumping" Theme creation through adversity rather than providing consequences for strategy.

Check out these rules for TORG Live! created by Todd Furler. It uses multiple sets of standard playing cards to simulate the die roll in tabletop Torg. Since Torg uses a logarithmic scale, it should meet your need for scalability.

Interesting system, reducing the standard deck. It is susceptable, however, to a general problem with card draws: stacked/marked decks and/or cheating.

Yeah, cheaters can always find ways to cheat. Yes, a cut can help stop stacked decks. Sure, we can "audit" the players' decks, to be sure there aren't extra sixes or what-not. But the chance is always there, and the GMs must spend time on enforcement.

Also, there's no real Color to a standard deck, and I would worry about the included math operation (-4), for the sake of speed. I do like the exploding trumps--I have that in a card-based randomizing system I already devised--but anything exploding leads to slower reesolutions, and I need SPEED. Anyone who's been in a mass combat in a turn-based LARP knows how critical it is to have a resolution system that can be Handled in, like, 15 seconds or less.

I hope I don't seem to be capriciously shooting down ideas; thank you for the information! I just think I need something with a bit more "flair" and a good deal faster.

Interesting system, reducing the standard deck. It is susceptable, however, to a general problem with card draws: stacked/marked decks and/or cheating.

Hey Guys,

What makes a new method of randomizing results worthwhile?
Speed, versimilitude, strategic play, capturing the tone of the game world?

If a unique randomizing method requires players to purchase a product, how much "value add" should the additional product have?

Next, since I hope for a "generic" system, I need a fairly open-ended scale (i.e. Aunt May to Superman). We could faff about for days talking about how to create stats and abilities that are on an open scale. What really matters with regards to this thread is what sort of Fortune Tool will work with an open-ended scale while serving the above needs and avoiding the above problems. Initially, I would suggest that Color is the least important factor, as the system is generic; it might be nice, though, to have an exciting-to-use Fortune Tool (in essence, injecting aspects of Color into the System).

Mike Holmes wrote:
You're serious? You have that much mistrust of your players? If I thought that the people across from me at the table might cheat, I wouldn't play with them.
I take it you don't play cards at all, then? Or is trust different in an RPG, somehow?

O.K., I can usually find a solution to any problem, once I understand the problem.

Let's set up a twelve-point scale, but use letters instead of numbers. Let's consider that we need something that doesn't have a real top value or a real bottom value.

• A: beats C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K; loses to B, D; ties A, L.• B: beats A, D, F, G, H, I, J, K; loses to C, L; ties B, E.• C: loses to A, D, F; beats B, E, G, H, I, J, K, L; ties C.• D: beats C, F, H, I, J, K, L; loses to A, B, E, G; ties D.• E: beats D, G, I, J, K, L; loses to A, B, C, F, H; ties E.• F: beats E, H, J, K, L; loses to A, B, C, D, G, I; ties F.• G: beats F, I, K, L; loses to A, B, C, D, E, H, J; ties G.• H: beats G, J, L; loses to A, B, C, D, E, F, I, K; ties H.• I: beats H, K; loses to A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, L; ties I.• J: beats I, L; loses to A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K; ties J.• K: beats J, L; loses to A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I; ties K.• L: beats B, H; loses to C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K; ties A, L.

Now, each card has four sides, and each player is issued a single card to represent his characters ability. There are twelve possible sides, and if we assume no duplication of the same value on two sides of the same card we've got seventy-two possible cards. Note that no one side is invincible, and no one side is completely useless. I would say that A, B, C, and D represent superhero levels of ability, E, F, G, and H extraordinary levels, and I, J, K, and L ordinary levels.

I'm assuming that the winner wins by controlling the field of contest; that is, Aunt May doesn't tie Superman in a wrestling contest, but rather maneuvers him into a situation in which he has to release her (perhaps Lex Luthor would be a better example here). This would be a sort of fortune at the start system, in which it is agreed that the characters are entering a contest, the cards are shown, and the narration then explains how it was that one character won, or the two tied.

You might want to tweak what beats what, as I've pretty much done this on the fly, but it gives you clear power levels while at the same time creating the possibility that any conflict could go either way, even if it is most likely to go one particular way, if neither party knows exactly what is on the other's card.

The card would have to list with the letter which letters it beats. You could use other symbols, such as shapes, but letters will be easier to recognize and if listed in alphabetical order are quicker to find on the card.

If possible, the cards should be square, and probably made of cardboard, thicker than shirt cardboard or possibly yellow pad backing (the thick cards of the old Lie Detector game come to mind, if you've ever seen them). This will keep them durable, and make it so that no one can guess which side will be presented based on card angle. Probably two and a half to three inches (seven to eight centimeters) square will fit in most pockets

Does that help at all?

--M. J. Young

Afterthought.

If you want it to be scaleable, you might consider having L also beat E, and K tie E and beat F, and so allow for play in which cards with values A through D are excluded; however, I'm not sure this is necessary, as there's nothing about the "A" value that says it has to be superhuman--it only has to be marginally best, with exploitable weaknesses.

--M. J. Young

if we assume no duplication of the same value on two sides of the same card we've got seventy-two possible cards.

Sorry I misunderstood. I glossed over that this was for a LARP, and didn't understand the size factor, either. I've played in lots of LARPs with less than 10 people. It's definitely a different phenomenon. I'd call them social LARPs (where the players are all friends) and Event LARPS, where you won't know most of the players.

It's the anonymity that enables the cheating, see.

In any case, however, I think that you're going to a long way to prevent cheating. Sure, it's ideal, but forced cuts? I mean, there's going to be very little one can do to prevent cheating if you're saying that sleight of hand has to be ruled out. Sure it's not a difficult maneuver to pull off, but it is detectable (as opposed to deck stacking out of sight). If you put that standard in place, then MJ's method is out, too. One could "stutter throw" a card, or palm a second one, or any of a number of ways to cheat.

BTW, this does imply is that the LARP is competitive as well. As I understand it, it's next to impossible to organize an effective large LARP without competition (as it's the only way to protagonism, typically). We're lucky enough to have the inventor of the modern LARP here as a regular poster to The Forge, however, so I wonder what he thinks of that notion. Walt? Can you have a large LARP that doesn't have intra-player conflict? Would that be suitable, CF? Or is the competition implicit in the design as well?

---
I think that you're misunderstanding how MJ's system works, which, given it's presentation isn't surprising. MJ can you straighten out some points?

If I have it correctly (and there's a good chance that I don't, actually), for each skill you have, you get one card. That card has "4 sides" meaning, I think that each card is printed in halves on each side. Each of these 4 half-sides would have a letter. This would be hidden from the opponent, and then revealed with the appropriate end sticking out at the opponent to indicate which of the four sides you were actually using. That would have a letter (or some symbol, doesn't really matter) and presumably a list of what opposing letters that letter beats for quick reference. Skill would indeed, as you surmise, then be encoded in each individual card. FWIW, that's not too hard, I could make a set for you in about ten minutes with a spreadsheet.

Presumably the card would have the name of the skill on it, and maybe be color coded to match. So that players can't use the wrong card for the contest in question. A problem occurs if you want to have a lot of skills, then however. If there are thirty possible skills, for example, then you have to either give out thirty cards to each player which they then have to sort through to find the pertinent one, or have some skills with a default card or something (that would have a low value).

The reason that the cards have four sides, is so that if the players in question get into mutiple conflicts, the parties involved can select other sides than the first ones (hence why there's no duplication; though I suppose that would be a way to make for a poorer skill level). Over time, you could select cards that defeated the opponents known sides, but that's not too unrealistic. After four passes, you'd know your opponents entire arsenal, and the player with the higher level of skill might be able to defeat the other player every time (if he happens to have a card with a side that defeats all of his opponent's sides). This would make the default cards potentially very weak depending on how they were set up. The outguessing portion is still there, actually.

You have an incentive to play your lowest letter, and as such players might be tempted to do so more than once if it was successful the first time (or, occasionally, even if not). In which case, if you predict that, you might be able to counter with a lower appropriate card. The other incentive to play a card multiple times is that the player reveals less of his options, thus gaining an advantage later. Lot's of stratetgy depending on circumstance.

BTW, one of the things that makes me think that I may have this all wrong is that by my calculations, there would be 11880 total possible permutations of letters on one card. 12*11*10*9 = 11880. But that's fine because with MJ's scale, fewer would be available. He's reserving the higher levels for powerful beings, meaining that the permutations would be much fewer. A lot would depend on the scenario design.

The number of "sides can be increased, BTW. One could easily get 8 sides on a card (present any edge of a square), and maybe more if that was deemed neccessary (hexagons with twelve "sides"?).

Anyhow, looking at the checklist:
1. the symbols could be made to reflect the setting, and the cards tailor-made for the game in question. Color is no problem. In fact, symbols might make it more difficult to memorize player ability levels, thus making multiple conflicts more challenging, and extending the abilty of players to conflict with each other.

2. Cost would be for the paper and ink to print them. If you're doing color paper, or, worse, color printing, the cost goes up. In any case, the double sided thing is problematic, and you might have to go to Kinkos. Lesse, 200 players, each with 30 cards for 30 skills would be 6000 cards. Make them about 1.5" square, that's about 24 per page, that's 250 pages of printing. That's not too costly for a game that large, and we're looking at worst case scenario. In any case, it's going to be less than your $1 a player mark, unless you decide to laminate them or something.

If you can cut down to 10 skills and 100 players, that's only 42 pages. Piece of cake. Heck I could do a sloppy job here for you for free if you don't mind a somewhat non-professional approach. That might be the best, as the set would be, effectively disposable after each game. Lot's easier than collecting them up. Players can keep them as mementos like you said. Change symbols each game, or even put the character's name on each, and they can't slip them into the next. I like that - custom randomizers for each game! It's really cheaper and more possible than I think you'd expect.

3. Handling time is fast if there are few skills (it doesn't take long to go through the whole stack looking for the right card). If you really want a lot of skills, and cards for them all, then I'd go to a level system where the character had one card for each level that he had. So for all level 3 skills he'd use his level 3 card, which is balanced with, but not the same as other level 3 cards. The problem with that is that you lose some of that inter-player extensibility. How fine do you want your granularity? What's the range of abilities? If it's MET's 1-5 then this makes things very fast.

4. Cheating would be difficult, though, like I said, no more impossible than with playing cards or roshambo. It would involve standard stuff like trying to see your opponent's selection before making yours, or rotating the card at the last second (or presenting an ambiguous side, if you have lots of sides). Still, relatively good, I'd think.

----
On another note, does anyone remember the "Dragonbone"? It was a handheld electronic randomizer that displayed the output with red lights. Can you get those anymore? I'm sure that today a similar gizmo could be made that could be tiny and really cheap (think of those little games that kids get at McDonalds in kids meals). Maybe it's time for an updated electronic randomizer? The one thing that I do remember is that people complained that they weren't too random (computer randomization gets that all the time too). It's effectively superstition, but it exists.

Mike

1) Mike's idea is good, but it's different from my idea in a lot of ways.

2) Mike might be right about the permutations; I think I used the wrong formula for my calculations.

I've never played a Roshambo-based LARP, but it's my impression that in every contest every player has an equal chance to win; that's one of the reasons it's problematic in this context. I'm saying, as with Roshambo, forget skills entirely--they are color only (take a look at Legends of Alyria--not the same, but there's a degree to which the player gets to pick which score he's going to use in each contest). What we want is not a card for each skill, or each attribute, or anything like that, but a single card that represents overall character effectiveness. Each player thus carries one, and only one, card.

I said the card should be square; that's because I envisioned it as having one score on each of the four identical edges and a blank or patterned back which would not reveal which edge was up.

Thus there wouldn't be comparitive dexterity contests or comparitive strength or fighting contests, but merely comparitive effectiveness contests: each player picks one edge to reveal, both are revealed simultaneously, and then narration determines how one side defeated the other (or how the two tied).

It would be an improvement over Roshambo because some player characters actually would be more powerful than others; it would still allow the less powerful characters to win sometimes.

The system does break down if you have prolonged contests based on repeated card exposures; it's not supposed to work that way. Rather, if Superman faces Aunt May, and Superman doesn't know anything at all about Aunt May, but his card says "A, B, J, K", and hers says "I, J, K, L", if he plays the "A" or "B" he wins, unless she plays the "L", in which case she ties or defeats him; but if he plays any other card, she might defeat him if she plays the "I". But once he's encountered her, he knows at least one letter on her card, and can take precautions accordingly--but so can she. The point is not to have a blow-by-blow resolution system, but (for rapid handling time) an encounter resolution system. You play your card, I play my card, we compare--you win, or I win, or we tie, and that's the outcome of the entire encounter. We then decide how that outcome was determined.

There is no adjustment for anything else; the card is the card. If for some reason we want to say that the character has become more effective, he needs a new card, and he may not use the old one.

Does that clarify it?

--M. J. Young

Lots of great feedback and focusing. Lemme grab a cup of coffee; I'm gonna be here a while.... ;)

Okay, in no particular order except "the order I find the points":

* MJ, you clarified very well. But will it work? Let's see....

* Rochambo as used in Mind's Eye Theatre LARPs is stat and skill dependant: ties go to the player with the higher stat, skill allows a player to force a re-throw (ex: if I lose a throw to punch someone, I can "burn" a dot of Martial Arts to start the whole test over with new throws).
It is very problematic for my purposes: the power range is too narrow, the results are too deterministic (66% chance of winning with high stat, all things being equal), its very easy to cheat, and White Wolf already did it. I don't like copying.
Plus, I have watched a MET player beat someone in Roshambo something like ten or fifteen times in a row, because he knew the "psychology" of Roshambo. Apparently, people are VERY predicatable in that game, once you see their "reaction pattern." It got so bad with this guy that a bunch of players made Rock, Paper, and Scissors cards, so that THEY wouldn't even choose their own throw, to be unpredictable.

* "Each player carries one, and only one, card": Doesn't this make more powerful characters LESS versatile? If there's only four edges, anyone with a rank over I - L range doesn't have all the possible choices. There's a lot of "results redundancy," though, so perhaps high power cards don't need EVERY option from x - L. Elegant, though. I might go for something in between your "one card" and Mike's "thirty cards."
How about a card for each stat (unsure of stats, yet, but 3 <= # of stats <= 9), and then skill levels can be "burned" to allow retests? Thus, someone could oppose a Strength punch action with an Agility dodge defense. That allows characters to be customized to suit a particular style, rather than just being "x" powerful at all things.

* "an encounter resolution system. You play your card, I play my card, we compare--you win, or I win, or we tie, and that's the outcome of the entire encounter": That's what I am leaning towards, also. Players declare general goals in the conflict, then run one test--perhaps with some retesting, for skills--and that's the whole she-bang.
No matter what the randomizer, that's a good General Goal: conflict is abstracted to the most basic net results, for speed.
A problem, though, is when you have Mass Combats (10, 20, or more players in a single brawl). There would be a rather long declaration stage--perhaps in reverse-order of initiative--where everyone tries to say what they are accomplishing in the fight, while hearing 20-odd other goals announced and adjusting accordingly. Mass Combat encourages the system to support granularity of action, not abstract action. It is actually EASIER (but a lot slower) to run a blow-by-blow resolution when you have more than a handful of players trying to get involved.
ARGH! Conflicting goals!

* "little one can do to prevent cheating if you're saying that sleight of hand has to be ruled out": Too true. It's a tough problem.
The card edge thing works pretty well, though, with a method like this:
1) Players choose the stat that applies totheir action/reaction.
2) Blank-backed card is held out with one edge forward, face down, with four fingers underneath convering the unused three edges. Thumb is on top of card, holding it FIRMLY.
3) On the count of three, the players both rotate wrists 90º, revealing the forward edge.
It would be very hard to "slow-throw" that method. Someone would have to "spin" the card on its surface normal axis (uh... damn computer terms... uh, the axis that sticks up out of the card, as opposed to the two axes that define the plane of the card surface) during the wrist rotation. NOT easy, particularly since they'd have to do it in a split second AND rotate it to a winning value--a value which could be symbolic and, thus, have hard-to-memorize relationships to other symbols.
I think am smelling a winner, here.... :)

* "imply is that the LARP is competitive as well. As I understand it, it's next to impossible to organize an effective large LARP without competition (as it's the only way to protagonism, typically)": Yep, you've hit it on the head.
With a 10:1 or worse player-to-GM ratio, the GMs become, primarily, accountants and bit part players. The GMs simply can not be all the antagonists AND all the NPCs AND rules enforcers AND helpers to players with questions. Thus, 99.9% of massive LARPs ("Event LARPs") end up being competative. In fact, you will find that most LARP systems have game worlds in which the players are almost forced to factionalize and then compete for resources. Some even presume players are soloists! (The Assassin Game, for instance, is primarily solo play).

* Regarding custom cards for players per event: I like it, from a promotional angle. Give 'em a goodie to take home and show off. Bring in more players.
But now that we have a better understanding of the card mechanic MJ proposes (and with my notion of coupling to stat levels), how can we tweak the notion?
How about providing stat-based cards for each player, then providing "chits" or "tags" for each level of skill that can be used to retest a stat-based test? Then, since the chit is "burned," what one actually has is a take-home memento of YOUR OPPONENTS. Kind of cool I think. I can see the after-session pitcher talk now: "And then Grog busted me in the face with this damned "Bad Ass" chit!" "Cool; look at Morgana's "Sneaky" chit, here; she got away from my friggin' E Speed with this!"
Another benefit of the stat-based cards, with skill-based retest chits: the stat-based cards could be"standardized" based on stat rank. Thus, they could be nice and laminated and (expected to be) turned in each session end, for reuse. Of course, GMs would need to have n*r*s cards on hand, where n is the number of players, r is the range of stat ranks, and s is the number of stats. Really only n*s in practice, as each player only needs s card to play. Print-on-demand from a spreadsheet would make this trivial to provide, as Mike showed. And players could, obviously, reuse the cards they used in a previous session, if they did not spend Exp on stat rank changes.

* I REALLY like the "learning oppoenents' capabilities" aspect of the card mechanic. And the gamesmanship possibilities, as folks try to underbid to obfuscate their potential but are pulled by the incentive to win each test.

* Symbols instead of letters: Good idea; more confusion and harder to memorize. For discussion and testing purposes, the letters work to simplify things, but at production time, I think it would rock to use symbols (or words) to inject color. Kudoes to Mike!

* The Dragonbone... yeah, I remember that thing.
On a related topic, I was toying with the notion of a "Pokemon Egg" device that was customized to the game mechanics. Nowadays, electronics are pretty cheap to produce, and so I figured it COULD be an option to make a randomizer that would, say, include a character's particular stats, etc, in the randomizer's code (during initial setup). The cool thing I thought about that was using infrared communications between competing players: they choose their action from a list on the "Egg", then point and shoot at their opponent; the Eggs talk a bit, and then each one's state is automatically adjusted for the results of the test. Think Laser Tag with stats.
But that's a job for the Big Boys... I couldn't hope to small-press produce such a device for use with my game.

As I said above, I think we are getting VERY close to a useable LARP randomizer, coupled closely to character ability, with options for customization of character via stats and skills (specialties).

Can we come up with any more details? It is looking pretty solid so far. And a nice thing about the system is that it could be extended by adjusting MJ's matrix: we could run a stat range of 1 - 12 as is... or go up to 1 - 26 (or 36) by including the whole alphabet (or alphanumeric range). I LIKE. I also think there could be use for the hexagon shaped card that Mike suggested, to allow for more choices for each stat rank (low stats would just have repeated values).
Hmmm.... Actually... wouldn't the number of card sides be somehow related to the stat range? I do not "grok" the MJ's matrix method enough, yet, to be able to assert yes or no, but it SEEMS as if the result redundancy allows some "reduction" of useable choices, which in turn, reduces the number of sides needed to enable a particular rank.... Uh, I think. Head spinning a bit; I shoulda stopped a paragraph ago. :)

Mike Holmes wrote: Walt? Can you have a large LARP that doesn't have intra-player conflict?

MJ, I think we're on the same page, it's just a question of how many skills or stats you want to enumerate.

A problem, though, is when you have Mass Combats (10, 20, or more players in a single brawl). There would be a rather long declaration stage--perhaps in reverse-order of initiative--where everyone tries to say what they are accomplishing in the fight, while hearing 20-odd other goals announced and adjusting accordingly. Mass Combat encourages the system to support granularity of action, not abstract action. It is actually EASIER (but a lot slower) to run a blow-by-blow resolution when you have more than a handful of players trying to get involved.

How about providing stat-based cards for each player, then providing "chits" or "tags" for each level of skill that can be used to retest a stat-based test? Then, since the chit is "burned," what one actually has is a take-home memento of YOUR OPPONENTS.

Another benefit of the stat-based cards, with skill-based retest chits: the stat-based cards could be"standardized" based on stat rank. Thus, they could be nice and laminated and (expected to be) turned in each session end, for reuse.

* I REALLY like the "learning oppoenents' capabilities" aspect of the card mechanic. And the gamesmanship possibilities, as folks try to underbid to obfuscate their potential but are pulled by the incentive to win each test.

* Symbols instead of letters: Good idea; more confusion and harder to memorize. For discussion and testing purposes, the letters work to simplify things, but at production time, I think it would rock to use symbols (or words) to inject color.

And a nice thing about the system is that it could be extended by adjusting MJ's matrix: we could run a stat range of 1 - 12 as is... or go up to 1 - 26 (or 36) by including the whole alphabet (or alphanumeric range).

I LIKE. I also think there could be use for the hexagon shaped card that Mike suggested, to allow for more choices for each stat rank (low stats would just have repeated values).

Hmmm.... Actually... wouldn't the number of card sides be somehow related to the stat range?

The cool thing I thought about that was using infrared communications between competing players: they choose their action from a list on the "Egg", then point and shoot at their opponent; the Eggs talk a bit, and then each one's state is automatically adjusted for the results of the test. Think Laser Tag with stats.

I think there's a lot of interesting questions raised, and I'm going to give my take on these.

Czar Fnord wrote: * "Each player carries one, and only one, card": Doesn't this make more powerful characters LESS versatile? If there's only four edges, anyone with a rank over I - L range doesn't have all the possible choices. There's a lot of "results redundancy," though, so perhaps high power cards don't need EVERY option from x - L.

Czar wrote: A problem, though, is when you have Mass Combats (10, 20, or more players in a single brawl). There would be a rather long declaration stage--perhaps in reverse-order of initiative--where everyone tries to say what they are accomplishing in the fight, while hearing 20-odd other goals announced and adjusting accordingly.

Czar then wrote: Of course, GMs would need to have n*r*s cards on hand, where n is the number of players, r is the range of stat ranks, and s is the number of stats. Really only n*s in practice, as each player only needs s card to play. Print-on-demand from a spreadsheet would make this trivial to provide, as Mike showed.

Then Czar wrote: And players could, obviously, reuse the cards they used in a previous session, if they did not spend Exp on stat rank changes.

Next he wrote: * Symbols instead of letters: Good idea; more confusion and harder to memorize. For discussion and testing purposes, the letters work to simplify things, but at production time, I think it would rock to use symbols (or words) to inject color. Kudoes to Mike!

He next wrote: I also think there could be use for the hexagon shaped card that Mike suggested, to allow for more choices for each stat rank (low stats would just have repeated values).
Hmmm.... Actually... wouldn't the number of card sides be somehow related to the stat range?

Again, in order I find them:

Security against character death (and against being put out of effective action for long periods of time) and guaranteed advancement are ways to reduce the problem, but such adjustments are often contrary to the designers' and players' ideas of genre, atmosphere, or tradition.

I think MJ's solution was that you just whip out cards, compare, and then declare what you were trying to do and the results afterwards. That is, in a combat situation, you'd use the relevant card, but everyone would just present them without declaring any sort of particular action, and the winners just get to say what happens. No "declarations" of action.

Now, that best card is certainly best, and the worst is the worst. But let's say I have A/B/C/F and A/B/D/E, which one is better? Well, each combination has exactly the same number of win conditions, lose conditions, and ties. But the first starts out stonger, but ends weaker.

One thing that I note with the flipping mechanism, is that with triangular "side" regions on the card, it's difficult to hide the data that's on other sections of the card

First, you have to be able to clearly identify each of those cards with the appropriate stat or skill or whatever, without showing the entire face. Two ways to do this spring to mind; one is to color code the cards (which works as long as people don't have trouble discriminating the colors, such as in dark places), and the other is to mark the backs of the cards somehow to show what they are.

(e.g., if I can win with my A strength or my A dexterity, having both is a waste of my card values); but with a twelve point scale and three cards, I either have such duplication which adds nothing to the game, or I have every possible value, which completely levels the playing field back to Roshambo. The system is built on the basic rule that no player has every possible value; having one third of the values is about as far as you can stretch it before it starts to crack, I think.

If you wanted three stat cards, you could go with thirty-six alpha-numeric symbols, use square cards, and prevent duplication. Thus each player would have twelve values--one third of the total available--and the system should scale reasonably well. You'd want to expand the matrix drastically.

Czar Fnord wrote: And have a bit of a problem with the "one stat" system. That makes someone more effective at ANYTHING, as they gain ranks. Thus, there is little opportunity for character customization... or, more specifically, creating weaknesses in a character.

But then we hit the wall of "no declarations": without knowing how the resolution will be "explained" after testing, a player can not know to, say, not show their A value on the card, if the resolution would have taken advantage of his or her weakness.

I feel more-and-more drawn to at least three stats, with pre-declaration.

Thus, my "best" stat would get the least (most?) versatile letter set for that rank; and other, lesser stats would get the more (less?) versatile ones. In essence, if I have an A, D, and G, I would get cards whose letter sets have the maximum number of different letters.

Long-terms could be GMs choice, or dependant upon when characters buy up their stat(s): one must turn in the old card for the new.

As I am being persuaded to use no more than three stats, we only have three cards.

{Symbols instead of letters}
I love fonts. I love symbols. I like coming up with evocative symbols that reflect color. They would be easy to implement, typographically.
But I have been persuaded. The time it takes to reference winning/losing/tieing symbols would be too long. The advantage given to players who memorize the symbols is not good.

I referred to this above, and BOY do I like it (maybe because it justifies multiple stats...?). I can not, however, handle the math/matrix for coming up with the "sets of four letters" on a continuum of effectiveness.

Of course, we have yet to "cost account" the effects which may be explained (or declared, should we fall back on that method). What's to prevent someone who wins a letter comparison from saying something to the effect of, "my guy crushes your guy's skull"?

Then, one only need cover the six squares "below" the three on the edge you are revealing. Cards might have to be larger. Might have to come up with a nifty way to show the win/loss/tie stuff (I can think of a few).

PLEASE don't tell me what the point was.

The users see (1) the two letters used, which indicate "power level" employed, (2) the two stats used, indicating techniques. Those elements ought to guide the winner to coming up with a pretty good explanation, and one that will satisfy the loser, to the extent that the loser's technique is recognized and a part of the explanation.

This is where I need the math wizzes! :)
I concur... but qualify with Mike's observation that the letter set can provide different "styles" of rank.

That is why I (above) mention providing card sets based on ranks to players that will broaden their stategic options and encourage the use of "lesser' stats from time to time.

Does it, in fact, "level the playing field" if a player could choose ranks that gave them at least one of each letter... but 2/3 of their cards are less likely to win a given test than their best ranking card?

Or should this be avoided, say by using a higher range of letters with the same number of cards and edges of cards (12, so far).

... now if only we had a volunteer. ;)

I'm assuming that the sought volunteer is to create the thirty-six character matrix. I guess that's me--but if it's all the same, Czar, I'd like screen credit for that ("Thanks to Multiverser author M. Joseph Young for assisting with the resolution mechanic"; you can include Mike, too, and anyone else you think contributed significantly) in whatever literature gets handed out for this.

I'll get on that tonight; first, let me look over the comments and make some responses.

Regarding death and the impact of conflict, although there are a lot of ways it can be handled, this is what I suggest. You're talking about a card with tear-offs or break-offs to represent "hit points". This is indeed another variable in the game, as Superman would probably have more of these than Aunt May; but still, we can use this. Every conflict has these parts:

• Conflict is declared.• A single card value is revealed for each player.• Loser surrenders one tab from his card.• Winner dictates how the encounter went; death of character only occurs if the last tab has been taken.• The encounter is over; the winner must decide which party leaves the area. No further interaction between those two characters is possible until another encounter occurs.

This might have to be modified for mass combat, but not necessarily. I can see a mass combat in which Aunt May beats Lois Lane, takes her chit, and then describes herself escaping from the location without further encounter, leaving Lois to fight another round (against someone else) just as easily as I can see Batman beating Spiderman, taking his chit, and saying that a wounded Spiderman flees the scene. Anyway, conflicts are thus never to the death unless a character is on his last chit (although being trapped in a mass combat in which your opponents keep beating you and leaving could shorten the value of a chit).

You mentioned something about skills that I think is interesting. If a character could have a skill which prevented an opponent from using a specific stat to counter, that would be interesting--if Aunt May had some skill that prevented Superman from using his strength/physical against her, that changes things greatly. This would have to be played at the beginning of the encounter, and comprises an extra step; however, if all skills functioned this way, it would eliminate the need for multiple contests created by skill use "replays" and thus significantly reduce the degree to which players learn each other's options.

That and the possibility that players would be restricted in which cards they could use to counter makes redundant values less problematic (although redundant values also make such skills, and this card use restriction, less effective). I would still go with no redundancies on cards, and with the thirty-six symbol system that's not so difficult.

To put a twist on Mike's idea, you might consider whether the defender gets to pick which card he's going to use, and the attacker is then limited in his attack choices. I mention it because it's a very different game if Superman can always attack with his strength than if Aunt May can prevent Superman from using his strength. On the other hand, this may create a tension situation--the advantage is clearly to the player who gets to limit the other's card use (and if I can limit you to two cards by my choice of card and then further eliminate one of those two with a skill, I have a very significant advantage, particularly since you can only eliminate one of mine with a skill use). Thus if the attacker choose the field, it makes the game more aggressive, but if the defender, players will tend to back off and try to lure the other into attacking.

Anyway, I'm really thinking out loud there.

I'm sort of with Mike on the idea of not having character advancement. For one thing, the resolution system isn't really linear--an ABCD card is better than an ABCE card, but as observed above there are times an E will win and a D will lose. I think the thirty-six step version will increase this factor. But if you are going to allow advancement, there are a couple possibilities:

• New skills; if skills prevent the use of a particular card, skills are a way of empowering the character. (It occurs to me just now, so I'll mention it in passing, that you could also allow "counterskills", which overcome the skill played and allow the player to use the disallowed card. You would want to specify that no player can play more than one skill/counterskill in any encounter. Having counterskills would mean that sometimes a player would hesitate to play a skill because he might want to play the counterskill. You might also want to specify which side must play skills first, but allow that a side may play a counterskill if a skill is played against him and he has not played a skill already.) (Also, I note that you may have a problem in mass combat; a player attacked by multiple opponents should be allowed to use a skill against each of them, if he has enough skills.)• More hit points; if you give a character a new sheet of chits, he's alive longer. You might even make these sheets in set values representing levels.• New value cards; if you really want to do that, the old ones would be traded in for new ones. Figuring out the matrix of how to improve the character could be tricky, but with the rules locking out the use of some cards in some encounters the problem of duplication is not as significant.



Mike, Memorizing the symbols is an advantage because the function of the symbols was supposed to make it more difficult to remember the values on the opponent's cards. I don't think it more difficult to remember that he has an asterisk or a pound sign than it is to remember that he has an E or an F; the difficulty lies in knowing what that symbol means in terms of its value. Once I've memorized the sequence of symbols, they're not different from letters. If they're not different from letters, there's no reason to use them. What's worse, if they're not different from letters for some players, but they are for others, then the players for whom they are different are disadvantaged.

To put it in sharp relief, let us suppose that we decided to use Arabic numerals for the values, but we're playing in an international group in which some of the players do not use Arabic numberals. For some players, it will be immediately apparent when they see your 4 that you've got a rather high value; for others, they will be trying to figure out whether 4 is better or worse than 7, and where 9 falls relative to them.

In fact, as I look at that example, it occurs to me that in using symbols instead of letters, you may be disadvantaging players directly, in that it might take quite a while for one player to understand that the pound sign on his card is a higher value than the asterisk, even with the explanations on the card.

I understand the objection to including "cards that beat mine" on the card; but then, I'd think as a dislexic you'd be particularly desirous to have that list--after all, if you don't happen to find the letter on your card, you're assuming you lost, when it could be merely that you didn't find the letter (and the more so with symbols). I don't think the entire matrix can be included on the card, but I think having a list of cards that beat yours is worthwhile.

I agree that it is redundant to list that a card ties itself; but some cards tie cards that are not self, and so the row should be there, and should have some content, just so people know what they're looking at. Minor point, but I think valid.

Thirty-six characters means bigger cards, maybe, but this is not impossible.

What is meant in this context by "cost account"?

I'll do a new matrix for thirty-six values and put them in a separate post. I'm thinking digits above letters, but haven't yet decided whether 0 is high or low. It may be later--I've got something that just came up to which I have to attend.

--M. J. Young

O.K., I'm back, I have most of the matrix on paper, and the rest should be easy enough to reproduce.

0 is the high number; my son Kyler pointed out that you will need to be certain number 0 and letter O are clearly distinguished (more so than they are in this font--you can tell them when they're together, but not when they're alone, perhaps, so a slashed 0 might be needed). Here goes.

• 0

• Beats 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, U, V, X• Ties 0, W, Z• Loses 1, 3, 6, A, T, Y

• 1

• Beats 0, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, V, W, Y• Ties 1, X• Loses 2, 4, 7, B, U, Z

• 2

• Beats 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, A, B, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, W, X, Z• Ties 2, Y• Loses 0, 3, 5, 8, C, V

• 3

• Beats 0, 2, 5, 7, 8, A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, X, Y• Ties 3, Z• Loses 1, 4, 6, 9, D, W

• 4

• Beats 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, Y, Z• Ties 4• Loses 0, 2, 5, 7, A, E, X

• 5

• Beats 2, 4, 7, 9, A, C, D, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Z• Ties 5• Loses 0, 1, 3, 6, 8, B, F, Y

• 6

• Beats 0, 3, 5, 8, A, B, D, E, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y• Ties 6• Loses 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, C, G, Z

• 7

• Beats 1, 4, 6, 9, B, C, E, F, G, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties 7• Loses 0, 2, 3, 5, 8, A, D, H

• 8

• Beats 2, 5, 7, A, C, D, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties 8• Loses 0, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, B, E, I

• 9

• Beats 3, 6, 8, B, D, E, G, H, I, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties 9• Loses 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, A, C, F, J

• A

• Beats 0, 4, 7, 9, C, E, F, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties A• Loses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, B, D, G, K

• B

• Beats 1, 5, 8, A, D, F, G, I, J, K, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties B• Loses 0, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, C, E, H, L

• C

• Beats 2, 6, 9, B, E, G, H, J, K, L, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties C• Loses 0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, A, D, F, I, M

• D

• Beats 3, 7, A, C, F, H, I, K, L, M, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties D• Loses 0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, B, E, G, J, N

• E

• Beats 4, 8, B, D, G, I, J, L, M, N, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties E• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, A, C, F, H, K, O

• F

• Beats 5, 9, C, E, H, J, K, M, N, O, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties F• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, A, B, D, G, I, L, P

• G

• Beats 6, A, D, F, I, K, L, N, O, P, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties G• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, B, C, E, H, J, M, Q

• H

• Beats 7, B, E, G, J, L, M, O, P, Q, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties H• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, A, C, D, F, I, K, N, R

• I

• Beats 8, C, F, H, K, M, N, P, Q, R, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties I• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, A, B, D, E, G, J, L, O, S

• J

• Beats 9, D, G, I, L, N, O, Q, R, S, U, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties J• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, A, B, C, E, F, H, K, M, P, T

• K

• Beats A, E, H, J, M, O, P, R, S, T, V, W, X, Y, Z• Ties K• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, B, C, D, F, G, I, L, N, Q, U

• L

• Beats B, F, I, K, N, P, Q, S, T, U, W, X, Y, Z• Ties L• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, C, D, E, G, H, J, M, O, R, V

• M

• Beats C, G, J, L, O, Q, R, T, U, V, X, Y, Z• Ties M• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, D, E, F, H, I, K, N, P, S, W

• N

• Beats D, H, K, M, P, R, S, U, V, W, Y, Z• Ties N• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, E, F, G, I, J, L, O, Q, T, X

• O

• Beats E, I, L, N, Q, S, T, V, W, X, Z• Ties O• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J, K, M, P, R, U, Y

• P

• Beats F, J, M, O, R, T, U, W, X, Y• Ties P• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I, K, L, N, Q, S, V, Z

• Q

• Beats G, K, N, P, S, U, V, X, Y, Z• Ties Q• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, H, I, J, L, M, O, R, T, W

• R

• Beats H, L, O, Q, T, V, W, Y, Z• Ties R• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, M, N, P, S, U, X

• S

• Beats I, M, P, R, U, W, X, Z• Ties S• Loses 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, N, O, Q, T, V, Y

• T

• Beats 0, J, N, Q, S, V, X, Y• Ties T• Loses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, M, O, P, R, U, W, Z

• U

• Beats 1, K, O, R, T, W, Y, Z• Ties U• Loses 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, L, M, N, P, Q, S, V, X

• V

• Beats 2, L, P, S, U, X, Z• Ties V• Loses 0, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, M, N, O, Q, R, T, W, Y

• W

• Beats 3, M, Q, T, V, Y• Ties 0, W• Loses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, N, O, P, R, S, U, X, Z

• X

• Beats 4, N, R, U, W, Z• Ties 1, X• Loses 0, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, Q, S, T, V, Y

• Y

• Beats 0, 5, O, S, V, X• Ties 2, Y• Loses 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, T, U, W, Z

• Z

• Beats 1, 6, P, T, W, Y• Ties 0, 3, Z• Loses 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, Q, R, S, U, V, X



I hope I copied all that correctly; I'll try to check it again, but call my attention to any anomalies you see.

--M. J. Young

Especially with a low number of stats, I'd go with MJ's suggested "skills only" advancement if you need to have any at all. With only one "stat" I see it as more of a randomizer, and definitely not something that should be "advanced".

Mike, Memorizing the symbols is an advantage because the function of the symbols was supposed to make it more difficult to remember the values on the opponent's cards.

If they're not different from letters, there's no reason to use them.

I understand the objection to including "cards that beat mine" on the card; but then, I'd think as a dislexic you'd be particularly desirous to have that list--after all, if you don't happen to find the letter on your card, you're assuming you lost, when it could be merely that you didn't find the letter (and the more so with symbols). I don't think the entire matrix can be included on the card, but I think having a list of cards that beat yours is worthwhile.

I agree that it is redundant to list that a card ties itself; but some cards tie cards that are not self, and so the row should be there, and should have some content, just so people know what they're looking at. Minor point, but I think valid.

Thirty-six characters means bigger cards, maybe, but this is not impossible.

Wow... you guys are great. Sorry I've taken so long to reply; busy weekend.

Okay, so here's how I see it going, after the discussion about increasing to 36 values and their letter sets. I am thinking an A-L range (12 letter) range is going to work, for reasons above and below. Sorry to get you to do that whole matrix; but the arguments against increasing range are sound, in light of the below. Rest assured that anyone providing the sort of detailed help you have will be getting whatever credit they want.

I am going to summarize where we are now, in my mind, with modifications to suit the current thinking in the discussions. As always, this is presented to discuss the randomizer method, though I will happily discuss other elements if everyone thinks the RM is resolved.

----------------------------------------

A) Character Stats

A-1) Each Character has three primary Stats: Health (physical force and stamina), Alacrity (speed and nimbleness), and Psyche (willpower and intelligence).
A-2) Each Stat has a Rank on a scale of 1 to 12, represented by the letters A through L.
A-3) For each Stat, each Player has a Card with a letter on each edge (the four letters are called the "Rank Set") and a symbol in each corner (designating the Stat). This is used in a challenge against another Player or a Narrator to determine who is successful (see the 12-way matrix above). In summary, the Rank is the highest value letter on one edge, with indentical or lower Rank letters on the other three edges.

B) Challenges

B-1) Attacker ("Actor") chooses Defender ("Target"). Note that multiple Actors may choose one Target; one test resolves all challenges simultaneously.
B-2) Any "pre-test" Abilities being used are declared by each Player. Actor goes first; each may respond to any use of Ability by the other, until no more Abilities are being used.
B-3) Each Player selects the Rank Set (Stat Card) they want to use in the challenge, allowing for Ability declarations.
B-4) Covering the unused edges of the Rank Set, the Players simultaneously reveal the edge of the Rank Set that they are using (the "test").
B-5) Players reference the Win/Tie/Loss rows on the revealed edges to determine whether the Actor or Target wins the challenge.
B-6) Players may declare the use of "post-test" Abilities again, to retest or modify the resolution. This time, the loser goes first; each may respond to any use of Ability by the other, until no more Abilities are being used.
B-7) The winner of the challenge narrates the Results, within the confines of the Stats and Abilities used by each Player and the allowable Results (see next).

C) Challenge Results

C-1) Do a Wound {rules pending, though I am inclined to allow a Wound to prevent the use of the Stat employed by the Wounded character until healed. Thus, three Wounds will make a Character lose all subsequent challenges until healed}
C-2) Restrain opponent. Neither can act until the Actor releases the Target or the Target wins a challenge to break the restraint.
C-3) Break a restraint.
C-4) Escape the conflict. The conflict ends and may not be resumed until the Characters meet again.
{Need more Results on par with these.}

D) Character Abilities
Character Abilities generally provide one of the following advantages in a challenge in which they are applicable. Each ability below is generalized; in the system, each must specify the Stat affected or situation in which the Ability is used. Each stat is usable one per day per purchase.

D-1) Nullify a Particular Stat: User may tell opponent not to use a particular Stat (i.e. its Rank Set Card). There are three Nullify Abilities.
D-2) Force a Particular Stat: User may force opponent to use a specific Stat. There are three Force Abilities.
D-3) Retest a Loss: User may invalidate the resolution of the previous challenge, forcing another challenge. The number of Retest Abilities is limited only by the game setting and reflects the use of technology, magic, or specialized training.
D-4) Counter an Ability: User my counter the use of an Ability by his or her opponent. Counters may be General (usable in any situation) or Specific (usable in a certain class of situations) and are costed accordingly; General Counter Abilities represent penultimate power, while each Specific Counter Ability applies only to its associated Retest Ability.
D-5) Dictate a Winner: User may declare the challenge's results, even if the loser of the test. Dictation Abilities represent the pinnacle of power or influence in a game.
D-6) Change Wound to Unconsciousness: User may declare that a Wound done is, instead, a knock-out blow which renders the opponent Unconscious. {rules pending}
D-7) Prevent the Challenge: User may declare that he or she escapes before the test is conducted.
D-8) Escape the Challenge: User may dictate that he or she escapes a losing challenge.
D-9) Break a Restraint: User immediately escapes a restraining Result, without having to test.
{More to come... but you can see that Abilities are sort of a "third axis" to the Stat/Rank axes or represent "meta-effects" that change the sequence of challenge resolution.}

E) Character Improvement

E-1-a) Each edge of a Stat card can be individually upgraded to a new letter value, creating a more effective Rank Set ("incremental improvement"). If the highest value of the Rank Set is increased, the Character's Stat Rank is said to be increased ("gross improvement").
-OR-
E-1-b) Rank Sets can be listed in order of least-to-most effective for a given Rank, and each step up that listing represents an incremental improvement. Gross improvement of a Stat to a whole new Rank has an added cost in Experience, in addition to the cost of the incremental improvement within the new Rank.
{Which do you guys prefer?}
E-2) Each Ability has a fixed cost, as each is single-use-per-session.

----------------------------------------

There's still TONS to include, to make a full system, but I think this gives us enough to tune the randomizer method. For example, there need to be Abilities which represent means of moving unaccosted in the game world (i.e. Stealth, Desolid), defenses (ignore a Wound), and game world influences (Contacts, Favors, organizational ties). The Ability list is sure to be the largest section of the rules, once an Ability is created that impacts most every other rule or Stat.

This may seem a bit disjointed, but I'm trying to respond to points as I see them.

I think "Rank" is a bad term to use. In part I think this because it suggests that A is better than B, and that's not clearly true. If you look back at the 12-value scale, in terms purely of number of values for win, loss, and tie, A and B are exactly equal, and B always beats A. That suggests that B may be a higher "rank" than A in terms of its power, although A beats C, which beats B. Further, although L loses to K, on the twelve step it beats B and ties A, and so might be considered a more powerful value than any of the eight other values that beat it. I would probably replace "rank" with something a bit less implicative of relative strength; "value" is the word that comes to mind, which I can see does have some implication of better or worse, but I think less so than "rank"

I would eliminate the word "scale" for the same reason. Further, it is incorrect to say that each has "a rank on a scale of one to twelve, represented by the letters A through L", because in point of fact each stat has four such "ranks" or values. Each stat has a value set--that is a much better way to put it.

The rank set should always have four different values on the card, so that the character's full set is not easy to discover. I believe on reflection that HIJK is the weakest value set, as any three of those with L would have distinct tactical advantages.

I think that settling a contest between multiple actors and one target by a single test is inherently unfair to someone. If the defender can only use one value against all comers, he loses the ability to choose the defense he deems best suited to each attacker; if the attackers must agree on a single value to present on behalf of all, they are deprived of their individual attacks and to some degree forced to reveal their hidden values to each other to choose that one attack card. I'm inclined to think that multiple elimination should be the rule. Granted a defender might have to reveal all of his values before he had resolved all conflicts, this would still have a sense of realism--first, unless it was clear that the defender could not defeat a specific value, he still has multiple defenses which can stand against different attacks; second, if fifty people are attacking one superhero, eventually they are likely to see all his tricks, and possibly discover his weakness. If ten ordinary people are attacking one ordinary person, he's almost certain to lose anyway, so making it one contest isn't going to help him.

Since you can have many combinations of rank sets, I think it's useless to talk about the rank. For one thing that assumes that an ABCL card is an A rank card, when in fact no one value on that card can beat all the others (A only beats C, B only beats A, C beats B and L, L only beats B--this may actually be the most powerful card in the game; although D is more potent against lower values, L is more potent against higher ones).

You failed to define what your pre-test abilities do in this post. I'm assuming that a pre-test ability does only one thing: prevent the use of a specific type card in the contest. That works well with the system as outlined, and gives justification to the three-stat system. You also did not mention whether you were following Mike's suggestion that the choice of one stat to attack limited the options for defense (or my reverse suggestion), which would validate the use of three stats as well. These skills and comparable counterskills which would allow the use of the excluded card are expected in the resolution system, as the twelve-value matrix on three cards only works if players can't freely choose which card to use in every case.

If you've got some other type of pre-test ability in mind, that should be on the table, because it might seriously impact the matrix and has to be considered.

Also, if you are using pre-test abilities to prevent the use of a specific card type, you must abandon the one test to resolve all contests model. Three attackers could prevent a defender from using any cards, and that would create a situation not covered by the resolution system.

I have a lot of difficulty with any post-test skill that would force a retest, particularly with the twelve point system. I would limit post-test skills to preventing specific negative consequences from failure, or possibly countering such preventatives. To allow retests extends the resolution indefinitely, and advantages the more powerful character unduly--if I hold your A at bay with my L, and you can force me to go again, my luck probably just ran out. That is, the matrix allows the ostensibly weaker character to win, but only if the stronger character can't make him play again.

Although I like the idea of eliminating a stat from play until healed, I don't see how you can implement it in your circumstance. If you destroy the stat card, you've got to recreate it; if you give it to the other player, you've got to get it back (and somehow prevent him from using it while he's got it).

I'm also curious how you manage a restraint. If this only exists while the players are in the same space, it's a minor thing, amounting to little more than giving the winner the opportunity to gloat; if the winner can restrain the loser while the winner leaves, that requires some kind of system enforcement. About the only way you can incapacitate a character is to take his cards, which means that he can't win a challenge anyway and can't effectuate his own escape.

Escaping a conflict should be the mutual result of all ties; since there's no winner in a tie, probably in the event of a tie both parties must leave the area in the direction from which they entered it.

I think your idea of cards with tear-off wound markers may be the best. It's simple to implement, healing amounts to providing a new card, and it's hard to cheat--even harder if when issued the character (or player) name is written on the card, so they can't be transferred unless they are healer spell replacement cards (in which case the name is written at the time the healing is cast).

I have problems with some of your abilities in addition to what I've already mentioned, but I think you'd have to playtest some to see how they work and whether they are enforceable.

I am disinclined to have change in the value set for the attribute during play. For one thing, as I've already noted, an advance of one letter often is not an improvement in ability--it is only a change in which cards you can defeat. I note a mistake in the original twelve-step post suddenly (B says it ties E, E says it loses to B--E is correct). That means that B wins more often than A. I, J, and K are effectively equal in that each beats exactly two other cards and ties one; to say that you are improving by moving through them is like saying that you can advance by going from rock to scissors to paper (and what then, back to rock?). Changing your value set "upward" is not character improvement but character change which is sometimes improvement. If I had an ABCL card, I would certainly not wish to "improve" it to an ABCK card, because the L is far more valuable in that context.

If you really want to have stat changes as character improvement, you probably need to list out all the combinations, work out the number of wins/losses/ties for each value, sum them, and then use that to put the cards in value order--and even then you'll be making at least a few subjective judgements on card effectiveness.

Of course, we haven't even begun to consider how these characters are created initially. Somewhere along the way we've just assumed that some players will have superheroes and some will have ordinaries (or are all the ordinaries NPCs?) and that there's some equitable way to determine this. But let's get through this part first.

The abilities would be the way to improve, by letting players spend whatever points they get (and I'm not clear how they get points) on more abilities.

Just a thought on points and wounds. If the wound cards were done such that the tear-offs were each imprinted with a serial code (I was going to say number, but alphanumerics allow a greater range of values in fewer characters) then the winner could turn in those tear-offs which could be matched to the opponent and so make wound points scalable--you could get more points for defeating Superman than for defeating Aunt May, because the system would match Superman's points against his value. Healers would have to record to whom they gave their healing cards, and report that to be entered in the system, but that's a small administrative matter.

You might also decide that to facilitate this, rather than a tie meaning no one wins, a tie means both win, and each must give a chit to the other. However, if in the case of a tie someone plays a skill that prevents him from losing a chit, his opponent cannot lose a chit either.

I don't see any problems with your stealth and desolid ideas. In essence, stealth would be a skill card that says "You cannot engage me"; desolid would be a skill card that says "You cannot use health or alacrity against me.

Hope this helps. I'm going to have to go back and look at that matrix again (having found that one typo), but not tonight as I've miles to go before I sleep, and somehow the forum was particularly busy today.

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: I think "Rank" is a bad term to use.

If you really want to have stat changes as character improvement, you probably need to list out all the combinations, work out the number of wins/losses/ties for each value, sum them, and then use that to put the cards in value order--and even then you'll be making at least a few subjective judgements on card effectiveness.

The rank set should always have four different values on the card, so that the character's full set is not easy to discover.

Also, if you are using pre-test abilities to prevent the use of a specific card type, you must abandon the one test to resolve all contests model. Three attackers could prevent a defender from using any cards, and that would create a situation not covered by the resolution system.

I have a lot of difficulty with any post-test skill that would force a retest, particularly with the twelve point system. I would limit post-test skills to preventing specific negative consequences from failure, or possibly countering such preventatives. To allow retests extends the resolution indefinitely, and advantages the more powerful character unduly--if I hold your A at bay with my L, and you can force me to go again, my luck probably just ran out. That is, the matrix allows the ostensibly weaker character to win, but only if the stronger character can't make him play again.

Although I like the idea of eliminating a stat from play until healed, I don't see how you can implement it in your circumstance. If you destroy the stat card, you've got to recreate it; if you give it to the other player, you've got to get it back (and somehow prevent him from using it while he's got it).

I'm also curious how you manage a restraint.

Escaping a conflict should be the mutual result of all ties; since there's no winner in a tie, probably in the event of a tie both parties must leave the area in the direction from which they entered it.

I am disinclined to have change in the value set for the attribute during play. For one thing, as I've already noted, an advance of one letter often is not an improvement in ability--it is only a change in which cards you can defeat.

Of course, we haven't even begun to consider how these characters are created initially.

Sorry so long to reply, guys. Just got a new job and it's taking up a lot of my time.

I will answer the general issues, as I come to them, but I feel that this has pretty much offered me a system that I can use. Everyone's been extrememly helpful and generous with their time and thought; I want you to know that you have credit coming, for sure.
------------------------------

Clarifications - Each player selects a Stat to use on their own, before the reveal; the used Stat(s) indicates the "flavor" of the challenge. Only the "Force a Particular Stat" Pre-Test Ability forces an opponent to use a particular Stat.
To Restrain is to prevent the victim from taking any other actions. It also prevents the Restrainer from acting, BUT the Restrainer CAN defend, while the Restrained can not. This might not work out in the long run, though, but that's the notion I was working with. There has to be some way to take someone "prisoner" in the rules.

Terminology - I will think on what terms to use for game elements, rest assured. Certainly more than I did to try to get through my last post. There will eventually be clear terms for:
1) A card (any card, a Stat-specific card, the player's card or cards)
2) A card edge (an edge as displayed in a challenge, the edge of the card itself)
3) A letter on a card edge (as a game value, as a printed thing on the card)
I agree that the set of all letters on a card's edges (as the description of a character's Stat; was called Rank) is moot in the context of purchasing individual letter edges.

Stat Advancement - I think I have to keep this as a game element. Ability-only advancement turns into a bunch of tags to maintain for players, whereas new Stat cards are easy to reprint.
I also will go with allowing each edge to be individually upgraded, within the confines of a list of Letter Set scales. In other words, folks can buy up a letter at a time, so long as their set will still match one of the "allowed sets" on said list. It thus become irrelevant if they have bought up their highest edge, except in the context that the new set is one of the allowed sets.
Related to this issue, I think the list of allowed sets WILL include some redundancy of values (for "cheap" sets, or to allow someone to work up to a new allowed set sequentially).

Pre-Test Abilities that Force or Nullify a Stat - Note first that each use of "Nullify" or "Force" is single-use. It's not an Ability that one can use over and over. Now, if someone buys that Ability more than once, he or she COULD keep Nullifying or Forcing an opponent Stat--and why not? The player spent the Experience to have that option. And the opponent could always use a "Counter An Ability" Ability to counter the Nullify or Force. I think it balances, in normal play.
Perhaps the Expereince cost for Abilities should ramp up if the player already has the Ability. Thus, multiple purchases of such would be discouraged.

Note: for clarity, I will be sorting Pre-Test and Post-Test Abilities into their own sections, in the rule book.

Groups using Counter on all three of an opponent's Stats - I would add a rule that says the victim must be left with one Stat to use; the group could only collude to eliminate two of the Stat cards available to the victim, no matter how many Counters they have among them.

Also, I feel obliged to resolve "gang bangs" with a single test for one simple reason: they are common as rain, in LARPs. Every ambush is a gang bang of some kind. If a single round of challenges between the victim and the group can involve multiple tests (with Ability uses and Wounds and all) we run into a HUGE speed problem, as well as issues of which order the tests should occur (Wounds eliminate Stats, remember, which would impact the next test). There's no simultinaity to it, either: if a gang bang is going on in one corner of a melee, with one-on-one going on in other parts of the general melee, then the group fight burns through Abilities (and Stats, usually) at a MUCH faster rate than the one-on-ones. What's more, what happens if Group Member 1 puts a Restraint on the victim? Does each subsequent Group Member get unresisted challenges? ICK! Much better to have the victim do a single reveal, and address each test comparison with Abilities one at a time, in the order the VICTIM prefers. I mean, most often, the victim wants an Escape result; they might throw trying to Escape all others (beat all letters revealed) or they might try to beat MOST of them, and escape with other overrides post-test.
White Wolf had to address this, and this is what they came up with. I resisted the notion, too, until I was in a mass melee and saw the issues particular to them.

Post-Test Abilities - Yes, using them gives a double advantage to the user, since he or she can both get a retest and learn one of the card edge values. BUT, there's nothing that requires the opponent to use the same Stat in the retest. Further, the opponent can always "Counter" that retest Ability. AND, the Retest is (as all Abilities are) single-use. It is burned just to try to use it, even if the opponent Counters it (burning their own Counter Ability), uses a different Stat, or uses a Prevent in response.

Wounding - This is the least-developed element of the rules, so far (as we are in a thread about a randomizer) but I like the notion of eliminating the used stat of the Wounded character for several reasons:
1) The players have to balance risk of using their "uber" letter sets (Stats) because, if Wounded using that Stat, they lose the uber letter set.
2) It handles "fatigue" and "hit points" behind the scenes, rather than introducing a resource management element to the rules (and its requisite tracking tools, like tags).
3) It centralizes Healing (as Mike points out). A player character MIGHT be a source of Healing (via an Ability), but the GMs have to re-issue the card, and thus are kept aware of all instances of Wounding and Healing. Such tracking is important in many LARPs, for keeping metagame issues in mind (for example, to help GMs notice when one player's character is getting Wounded a lot or another player's character is dealing out a lot of Wounds).
4) A character out of Stats (i.e. with three Wounds) is going to be knocked Unconscious in the next challenge (since they must reveal "no letter", which is beaten by any letter their opponent reveals). In effect, this grants their opponent the Change Wound to Unconscioussness Ability, with an automatic success on the challenge (assuming no Abilities are used to circumvent the test in the first place, like an Escape or Prevent).

Expulsion idea - I could add that as one of the challenge results a winner can declare. It's a good idea, easily enforced in gameplay.
This result (and the Escape result) both require some kind of timing, true. I am inclined to say that the Expelling player can keep the other one away as long as they are in the same area; if they leave and come back, their Expulsion is nullified, and the loser may try to enter again (probably getting into a new challenge in the process).

Ties - Ties are ties. No one loses a card (no Wound), and no one can declare a result. The contestant are grappling, maneuvering around each other, whatever. That stuff happens in conflicts of all kinds.
The "progress" of a challenge is served by ties, also. Each player learns one of their opponent's letters (for one of their opponent's Stats). I think such revelations without resolution work well to improve the tension (and strategy) of challenges.

Escaping a doomed series of challenges - This could be a problem:
Player A loses a challenge and is Wounded. Player B wants to press the challenge; Player A is now less able to defend themselves. In another couple of challenges, Player A will be Unconscious. And, meanwhile, Player A has almost no chance of winning a challenge and being able to declare an Escape.
(Note: Escaping assumes that a chase is not legal, like a Fair Escape in White Wolf's sytem. It is enforced in rules.)
How to stop the slipperly slope phenominon without just letting a Wounded player freely declare Escape after being Wounded? Hmmmm... . That will take some though. Perhaps being Wounded confers to the wounded player a single-use Prevent Ability? That way, he or she could Prevent the subsequent challenge, but if Player B has a Counter Ability, the wounded player is doomed to keep fighting... until their NEXT Wound grants them another Prevent. So, only if Player B has a Counter for every Wound they are going to do, Player A will eventually get away. Might work.

Health, Alacrity, Psyche - Two explanations of that:
1) It makes the anagram "HAP". I like that.
2) Alacrity is the bridge between physical and mental. It takes Alacrity to be dexterous; it takes Alacrity to quickly comprehend a complex document; it takes Alacrity to notice a hidden door. Alacrity is, in my system, the "processor speed" of the character, whether the challenge is one of physical performance or mental accumen.
Thus, Health is more the "meat" in the character: what their body can endure even if they were a vegitable, intellectually. Psyche is what their mind can endure (and how strong their morality is), regardless of their intellect or the neural composition of their brain.
Imagine Health and Psyche as the positive and negative X-axis of a Cartesian Plane; Alacrity would be the Y-axis of the gird (or, to get REALLY technical, the integral of the function defined by graphing a character's Health and Alacrity as an assymetric parabolic curve).
------------------
I think that addresses everything raised since my last post. Hopefully, the things that I am "dictating" will not ruin the discussion for you all. And there is certainly some more nuances to address in the Randomizer (like, how to define the allowable sets). Not to mention a good bit of room to discuss Abilities and their enforcement/interractions. Thanks again!

Very nice so far. And I personally don't mind you deciding things - it's your system after all, and nothing gets done without a central authority making final decisions in this sort of project.

4) A character out of Stats (i.e. with three Wounds) is going to be knocked Unconscious in the next challenge (since they must reveal "no letter", which is beaten by any letter their opponent reveals).

The idea that only certain combinations of letters are permitted adds an interesting dimension to the card. I would suggest one limition: no card should be permitted to have A, B, and L (on the twelve-step set). That would mean that no card could have both A and a value that beats A on the same card.

--M. J. Young

Mike Holmes wrote: Very nice so far. And I personally don't mind you deciding things - it's your system after all, and nothing gets done without a central authority making final decisions in this sort of project.

4) A character out of Stats (i.e. with three Wounds) is going to be knocked Unconscious in the next challenge (since they must reveal "no letter", which is beaten by any letter their opponent reveals).

Hmmm. Does a player taking another on know how many cards they have? That is, can they tell how wounded the opponent is? For example, if I get wounded in one room, and flee to another, and am attacked there, do they know that I'm wounded?

What I'd do is to allow a player to do a conflict to assess the opponent. If he wins, he learns the opponent's state; if he loses, the opponent has successfully hidden his state. This can only be attempted once before doing any other conflict.

BTW, so far these things all seem to relate to physical conflicts. Are other sorts allowed? I mean, you could model certain things like expulsions and captures as social things (intimidation and seduction for instance), but what about trying to get someone to give you something, for example? Are there any other sorts of interactions that the model can be used to accomplish?

M. J. Young wrote: The idea that only certain combinations of letters are permitted adds an interesting dimension to the card. I would suggest one limition: no card should be permitted to have A, B, and L (on the twelve-step set). That would mean that no card could have both A and a value that beats A on the same card.

--M. J. Young