The Forge Archives

So i have been thinking quite a bit about Trust and Betrayal and i think i have most of what i want fleshed out.

I will have to test it out a bit, but i am strongly leaning toward a system that is designed for a fixed number of players (at this stage in design i am not sure whether i will go with three or four).  One will play the role of the Betrayer, one the role of the Betrayed, and then the other one or two players will take the roles of the supporting cast.  If i go with three players then the supporting cast will be entirely played by one player.  On the other hand using four players allows me to assign partisanship to the two players (one plays the supporting cast that sides with the Betrayer, and one playes the cast that sides with the Betrayed).

Resolution is looking like a hybrid Drama-Karma system using a bidding system involving meta-game currency.  The current idea is to resolve most things within the SIS through simple dramatic play.  The metagame currency (coins) is used for two things: first, to mediate disputes; second, it acts as a timer.

I will come back to mediating disputes, but i want to lay out how i see the timer working.  The game is divided into three Acts: Trust, Betrayal, Conclusion.  All players are given an extremely limited supply of non-refreshing metagame currency.  Once everyone has spent all of their currency the current Act ends, all players refresh, and the next Act begins.  I want to aim for a coin supply that generates approximately one hour of play per Act, but that will have to be play-tested.

Montages.  I see montages being an extremely common and powerful tool for this game since you have limited resources and often want to convey a sense that time is passing.  Additionally you often want to give a glimpse of what is happening during that time.  I am still trying to formulate some mechanics for handling these specifically.

Now, back to conflict mediation and the point of the post.  Where is it?  Specifically: what forms does it take and when does it arise?  My experience with specifically freeform play is nil and my experience with mediated freeform play (like Universalis) is limited.

I believe i have a lot of interesting stuff going here, but i have hit something of a brick wall.  I believe that this wall is attributable to my inexperience and was hoping to draw upon the collective experience of the Forge.

Questions and comments regarding the rest of the system are welcome, but anyone who has specific insight into when, where, and how conflict arises in such a game is specifically invited to share their knowledge.

Thomas

I don't have answers, but I have questions with a slightly different slant.

What choices should conflicts help the characters make, and what issues should the help the players examine?

Since the name of the game (literally) is Trust and Betrayal, I think one way to go with a Karma system is simply to give the players a choice between doing a practical, expedient thing that moves them one step closer to betrayal and doing a impractical thing that enforces their trustworthiness.

Which gets me to a question:  In the second phase (Betrayal) of the game, does the Trusting person have anything to do other than wait for the inevitable shoe to drop?  What goal should the player be pursuing, that will keep them engaged in the conflicts?

First, a quick note.  I believe that i have misused the idea of Karma based resolution which may have confused others as to what i am envisioning here.  Apologies all around.  If further clarification is desired, well, that is what i am here for.

Quote from: TonyLBI don't have answers, but I have questions with a slightly different slant.

What choices should conflicts help the characters make, and what issues should the help the players examine?

I should try to clarify a bit.  As i see things the "conflicts" here are not conflicts in the narrative sense.  What i am trying to get at are conflicts of desire and SIS adjudication.  Since there is not GM (or everyone is GM) there must be some system that determines where the buck stops in terms of SIS input.  Consider the following example:  Bob the player thinks that the next scene should take place at a family reunion, Jill the player feels that the next scene will be better if it takes place in the car on the way back from the reunion.  If no compromise is reached through negotiation how do we decide?

Quote from: TonyLBSince the name of the game (literally) is Trust and Betrayal, I think one way to go with a Karma system is simply to give the players a choice between doing a practical, expedient thing that moves them one step closer to betrayal and doing a impractical thing that enforces their trustworthiness.

This is interesting and definately worth considering.  I have been looking at T&B as being resolved in game entirely through Drama mechanics.  This does some very interesting things with regards to metagame currency and the like, and i still really like the idea that the story is just told collaboratively with the mechanics only coming into play when people can not agree on what happens next.

Thinking about what you state above does remind me that one of the primary uses of mechanics is to encourage behavior that you want players to take.  I believe i will have to consider whether the nature of the game will be able to do that on its own or whether i will need to develop a set of mechanics along the lines you suggest.

Quote from: TonyLBWhich gets me to a question:  In the second phase (Betrayal) of the game, does the Trusting person have anything to do other than wait for the inevitable shoe to drop?  What goal should the player be pursuing, that will keep them engaged in the conflicts?

This is an excellent question and one that i had not even realized should be addressed.  Of course now that i look at it i find that i do not have an answer ready.  While i consider what the Betrayed has to do during this critical third of the game i would like to solicit suggestions: What kind of things fit thematically?

Thomas

So Trust and Betrayal has been rattling around in my head pretty much all day today.  I have hit upon an idea, which while it does not answer the question of "where is the conflict", i do believe that it gets me closer to that answer.

Furthering the idea that metagame currencty (Coins) are used as a time limit: Scenes are Framed around the circle of players.  The framing player spends one coin and provides a single sentence objective (Example: Scene One, in which we are introduced to the Betrayed.  Scene Two, in which an amusing diversion spins out of control.  Scene Three, in which the consequences of past actions come to light.).  I can see that it might be necessary to expand a bit more on the goals, but basically the Framer is where the buck stops within a scene.  If another player wishes to push through something that the Framer disagrees with he may pay one Coin to the Framer in order to have that action occur anyway.  The Framer retains control of the scene, that control is simply overridden for a moment.

Montages: A player can Frame his "scene" as a montage simply by declaring one.  The same one sentence statement of scene objective is required.  Any player who wishes to participate in a montage also pays a coin.  Montage play proceeds around the table with each player providing snapshots (ten seconds of "screen time" or less) until the original Framer, on his own turn for a snapshot, decides that the Objective has been met at which point the Montage ends.

What this does is set a limit on the number of scenes, and that limit is known to all players at the outset.  In order to impose your will in someone else's scene you give up a future oppurtunity to frame your own scene.  It strikes me as an elegant solution, but it still does not really give me an idea of what a "conflict" looks like here...  What kind of things will players disagree on, and is this a fair way to adjudicate such disagreements?

Thomas