*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 06, 2021, 02:24:07 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 144 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Author Topic: [Vesperteen] Creeping to the Finish Line  (Read 10859 times)
Jonathan Walton
Member

Posts: 1309


WWW
« on: December 16, 2004, 07:54:44 AM »

Okay, so design post I had going has slipped off the front page, so, according to Forge etiquette, I'm creating a new thread.  The last thread was here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13549

Thanks to Tobias, Sydney, Dan, Eero, Thomas, and Nate for help the last time around, and additional thanks to the IRC people who helped me sort out a few more things (Ben, Shreyas, etc. etc.).

Vesperteen is a game about teenagers, sin, and monsters.

I originally had characaters rated in stats called Sins, based on the Seven Deadlies (Envy, Gluttony, Greed, Lust, Pride, Sloth, Wrath), but, in conversation with Thomas, I admitted that these aren't really Sins in the theological or even practical sense.  The Seven Deadlies aren't really Sins.  They're character traits or tendencies that lead one into Sin.  Being lustful isn't a Sin.  Sleeping with 12-year-old kids (when you're 16 or so) probably is.

So, thought: what were formerly called Sins are called, collectively, "Forbidden Knowledge" or something like that.  So you have Knowledge of Lust and Knowledge of Pride and what not.  These are like esoteric secrets, dark knowledge of the evil of the world, and knowing more of a particular type of Forbidden Knowledge makes you better in the associated character trait: Cool, Buff, Rich, Hot, Smart, Slick, Bold.  This lets you do stuff better.

So how do you gain more knowledge?  You gain knowledge by being taught.  See, that makes logical sense now.  There is a process wherein people with greater Forbidden Knowledge teach a Lesson to those with less knowledge.  This Lesson can be initiated by either side and involves some mechanics that I haven't quite nailed down yet.  More on that later.

So normally, you have standard task resolution, where you roll a dice pool based on one of your traits (Cool, Buff, etc.), plus the amount of a resource called Self that you want to spend, and compare it to another dice pool (GM or another player).  It's not a very progressive resolution system, but we can tie it into other stuff later and maybe tweak it more.

So, say you roll your dice and the result doesn't come out the way you want.  You don't impress the boy you like, the bully punches you in the face, whatever.  Or maybe you succeed, but lots of your Self dice come up really low, meaning you're going to lose confidence from the encounter.  Not good.  This is where Sin comes in.  If you are willing to up the ante in the situation, if you are willing to hurt other people to get what you want, you can call on the power of Sin and re-roll a certain number of dice, trying to get a better roll than you currently have.  Both players have this option, continuing to up the ante and re-roll to try to get a more perfect score. (Another possibility: you can re-roll Knowledge dice but not Self dice.  However, having higher Knowledge dice pushes your Self dice down the row and makes it less likely that you'll lose Self).

I'm trying to figure out just how this "upping the ante" is going to work, since I want to make it distinct from Vincent's work on Dogs in the Vineyard, seeing as how high school is different from the West.  First thought, the player decides on what they're going to do to make sure they succeed (depends on the situation, obviously) and then then the group throws out ideas about potentially bad consequences, with the GM picking an appropriate one.  Obviously, more re-rolls means the consequences get worse and worse (or more and more).

I feel an example coming on:

-----------

John  Pride/Smart 3, Gluttony/Buff 2, Self 8
Jill  Pride/Smart 2, Lust/Hot 4, Self 6

John is trying to convince Jill to go out with him, because she's really hot and he thinks she'll look good as arm candy (he's full of Pride, right?).  First off, he tries to impress her with feats of strength and his rippling musculature before asking her (Gluttony/Buff).  She tries to counter by turning up her nose at his crude, unintelligent antics (Pride/Smart).

John adds in 3 points of Self, rolling 2d6 + 3d6 (different color dice).
Jill adds in 4 points of Self, rolling 2d6 + 4d6.

Self Dice are in Black, and are always ranked before Sin dice of the same #.

43321 -- John
643221 -- Jill

So, comparing the above, Jill wins by 4 dice (6421), destroys 2 of Johns points of Self (John: 43), and loses no Self herself (32 are both ties).  Note that Jills 1 is not blocked by anything, so it counts as a winning die.

John's player is none too happy with this.  He wants to re-roll all of his Sin dice, since they're on the bottom.  Since he's using Buff, he needs to commit some act of Gluttony in order to re-roll.  He decides that John will outdrink everyone in the party with his incredible alcohol consumption powers and then victoriously ask Jill again, "Come on, really.  Will you go to the movies with me?"

The players next suggest bad things that could happen to John: he could puke on his best friend's girlfriend, he could pass out on Jill's lap after she answers him, his parents could show up at the party looking for him (and find him drunk out of his mind).  The GM nods at all of these and might even suggest some ideas.

Finally, before John re-rolls, the GM decides that John's younger sister should show up at the party, coming to take him home.

John re-rolls his Sin dice: 461.  The comparison now looks like:

64431 -- John
643221 -- Jill

Now the result is tied with John at 2 dice (43) and Jill also at 2 dice (21), and Jill loses two points of Self (32) while John loses none.  But, since it's a draw, neither side gets what they want.  Jill doesn't agree to go out with John, but she hasn't completely rejected him either.

Next, John's sister shows up at the party, complicating matters.

And it's Jill's turn to decide whether she wants to re-roll or not...

-----------

Okay, there you go.  You wouldn't necessarily choose to roll all your dice, it just happened to work that way in this example, given the dice I rolled.  You'd just pick the lower ones that you weren't satisfied with.

Problems:

1. There doesn't seem to be a high enough cost for re-rolls, just looking at it right now.  I mean, maybe that's good.  Maybe the players should be lulled into thinking, "Aw, they won't come up with something THAT bad will they."  And then the other players totally destroy them.  I like that the re-roll involves input from all the other players.  That's good and will lead to vengeance, where people suggest horrible things to do to each other's characters out of revenge for the bad things suggested by others.  Shades of Polaris here, I suppose, but Polaris rocks, so that's cool.

2. I want players to be able to switch the conflict from one Trait to another, at some sort of cost.  So maybe Jill could switch from being too Smart for John to being too Hot for John.  Pulling in extra dice or starting a whole new conflict or something.  Suggestions on how this might work?  Also what should the cost be for such a maneuver?

3. You should probably be able to spend more Self if you want at various points, becoming more invested in the conflict.  Maybe you can't re-roll spent Self, but you can always roll more Self and try to push the lower dice out of danger?  Would that work?  The problem would be that you could spend more and more Self to ensure a win on the lower side of things, if you could get more dice than your opponent (since lower, unblocked dice count as wins).  Help!

Maybe once you help me get that sorted out, we can find a decent mechanic for Lessons.  First, though, let's see if we can get a conflict-resolution mechanic that makes sense.

Almost there!
Logged

Sydney Freedberg
Member

Posts: 1293


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2004, 08:45:46 AM »

Quote from: Jonathan Walton
...say you roll your dice and the result doesn't come out the way you want..... If you are willing to up the ante in the situation, if you are willing to hurt other people to get what you want, you can call on the power of Sin and re-roll....I like that the re-roll involves input from all the other players.  That's good and will lead to vengeance, where people suggest horrible things to do to each other's characters out of revenge for the bad things suggested by others.


Not a hugely substantive comment, but I'll make it anyway:

What reall appeals to me about the system you've outlined is that it uses the real dynamics among the real people playing the game to drive the fictional dynamics among the imaginary characters in the game. The character's in-game temptation to do evil is mirrored by the player's temptation to use a nasty and dangerous game mechanic {EDIT: interesting discussion of using temptation this way in this old thread; the uncontrollable consequences of doing evil in-game are created in reality by the unpredictable inventiveness of the other players.

Although I think "revenge" as an inter-player dynamic is probably less healthy -- and less likely -- than one-upmanship: "Oh yeah, you thought that last thing was so horrible? Well how about this?" And everybody laughs or gasps or whatever. I'm told Kill Puppies for Satan produces a lot of this, where the distance between player and character allows people to screw their own and each other's PCs over in brutally inventive ways. This distance may be harder to achieve in Vesperteen, especially if people are playing transparent versions either of themselves or of the people they hated in high school and want to get back at now, but then again it could be pretty frickin' cathartic.
Logged

TonyLB
Member

Posts: 3702


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2004, 09:00:20 AM »

Just a word-smithing thing:  I'd recommend "Forbidden Teachings" rather than "Forbidden Knowledge."  It seems more in keeping with your idea that the information is neither independent nor passive... it was taught to you, in a way that altered you, and now it forces others to teach it in turn.
Logged

Just published: Capes
New Project:  Misery Bubblegum
Emily Care
Member

Posts: 1126


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2004, 09:12:05 AM »

Quote
I'm trying to figure out just how this "upping the ante" is going to work, since I want to make it distinct from Vincent's work on Dogs in the Vineyard, seeing as how high school is different from the West. First thought, the player decides on what they're going to do to make sure they succeed (depends on the situation, obviously) and then then the group throws out ideas about potentially bad consequences, with the GM picking an appropriate one. Obviously, more re-rolls means the consequences get worse and worse (or more and more).

Sounds pretty distinct to me. Since you're asking people to dive into forbidden knowledge to get the re-rolls, it's more like puppies or bti than dogs in that respect.  And since it's the group/GM picking the consequences, not the player herself, it's really different.  

I love the idea of the group one-upping eachother to come up with bad juju to pay back players who push the edge.   In the best possible of ways.

best,
Em
Logged

Koti ei ole koti ilman saunaa.

Black & Green Games
Eero Tuovinen
Acts of Evil Playtesters
Member

Posts: 2591


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2004, 10:11:03 AM »

Good to see Vespertine progressing! Always when you start these threads I get a sinful lust to grab the game and run, and make my own version that'd have everything exactly like I want. Painful.

As a general note, I advice: don't fear the medieval! A part of the charm in the concept is exactly that these teens are buffeted by a world that's fundamentally wrong to modern sensibilities. Don't bother hiding the mortal sins or making them somehow optional or anything like that. Revel in the incongruency and conflict between modern ideals and the medieval. Sure, hiding your head in the sand and waiting for sin to go away is a winning strategy in the great game, but will the modern world give you that option? Not likely!

Quote from: Jonathan Walton

So, thought: what were formerly called Sins are called, collectively, "Forbidden Knowledge" or something like that.  So you have Knowledge of Lust and Knowledge of Pride and what not.  These are like esoteric secrets, dark knowledge of the evil of the world, and knowing more of a particular type of Forbidden Knowledge makes you better in the associated character trait: Cool, Buff, Rich, Hot, Smart, Slick, Bold.  This lets you do stuff better.


We have different design minds, because to me this is just semantics. I simply don't worry about the exact terminology before getting the stuff done.

Anyways, this is one way to do it. Separating the quality of sin from the attributes brings in a new theme, though, and it's one I don't personally care for: if the attributes are not about sin, then they are unilaterally a good thing, and in that case a significant part of character worth will come from how much abilities they have. Compare with a system where the attributes are the sins, and they are themselves the thing that lets you do things: in that case you can have low skills or high, and what really matters is your sense of self, and that only in the context of your own value system (a good christian position is that self is not important, because you're not sinning anyway, so don't need it to control the sin).

So, I like it better if the prideful geek character has an inbuilt theme about the pride/smarts thing: can he make the distinction and separate his gifts from the pride that unavoidably attachs to it? Your separate attributes lose this thing which is very near to the heart of Vespertine IMO.

Quote

So how do you gain more knowledge?  You gain knowledge by being taught.  See, that makes logical sense now.  There is a process wherein people with greater Forbidden Knowledge teach a Lesson to those with less knowledge.  This Lesson can be initiated by either side and involves some mechanics that I haven't quite nailed down yet.  More on that later.


About this, read carefully what I wrote in the last thread. Handling this with cooperative color mechanics (the yang of roleplaying) is the way to go. And let it be a powerful mechanic, to rival the conflict system in play control.

Quote

So normally, you have standard task resolution, where you roll a dice pool based on one of your traits (Cool, Buff, etc.), plus the amount of a resource called Self that you want to spend, and compare it to another dice pool (GM or another player).  It's not a very progressive resolution system, but we can tie it into other stuff later and maybe tweak it more.


I personally don't get excited about this particular resolution, mainly because it feels a little too abstract. No better ideas this moment, though, until you count the notion that die mechanic should only be chosen after you've absolutely decided all the inbuilt themes you're gonna have. While those are still up in the air, it's hard to say what will be important and what not, and thus whether the dice mechanic will be good.

Quote

So, say you roll your dice and the result doesn't come out the way you want.  You don't impress the boy you like, the bully punches you in the face, whatever.  Or maybe you succeed, but lots of your Self dice come up really low, meaning you're going to lose confidence from the encounter.


See, this doesn't even make sense anymore with the attributes separated. How is my self-confidence going to erode if my skills are so high? I'm hot, buff and smart, and I win the conflict, and I'm still losing self-confidence? Whatever for?

Quote

Not good.  This is where Sin comes in.  If you are willing to up the ante in the situation, if you are willing to hurt other people to get what you want, you can call on the power of Sin and re-roll a certain number of dice, trying to get a better roll than you currently have.  Both players have this option, continuing to up the ante and re-roll to try to get a more perfect score. (Another possibility: you can re-roll Knowledge dice but not Self dice.  However, having higher Knowledge dice pushes your Self dice down the row and makes it less likely that you'll lose Self).


Individual, fixed rituals are the way to go here. Every sin has defined stake progressions with stuff like "blame another" or "hit somebody" in them, getting worse the higher the stages get. Perhaps three stages, if the conflict always starts at the bottom, or perhaps more if the starting stage is defined otherwise.

Now, that means that you cannot use the reroll in all situations, which is a good thing. Actually, make the progressions really archaic and stuffily christian, so that there's plenty of situations where you don't dare or cannot raise. Then, bring in spells: these are what higher adepts of sin and especially monsters can teach you. What is the Enochian mark you learned from the aliens? Why, it's just an alternative Pride reroll of level three! Make the mark of Enoch, and you don't have to lie (the normal raise of that level in that sin)...

Quote

I'm trying to figure out just how this "upping the ante" is going to work, since I want to make it distinct from Vincent's work on Dogs in the Vineyard, seeing as how high school is different from the West.  First thought, the player decides on what they're going to do to make sure they succeed (depends on the situation, obviously) and then then the group throws out ideas about potentially bad consequences, with the GM picking an appropriate one.  Obviously, more re-rolls means the consequences get worse and worse (or more and more).


As for the concequences, these could be fixed too, at least if you want reflexive puzzling in the manner of Humble Mythologies ;)

Group creation of consequences is fine, but it's not particularly systemic in itself. That's what should be happening anyway, the players suggesting cool stuff and the GM choosing. That's freeform in practice.

Quote

1. There doesn't seem to be a high enough cost for re-rolls, just looking at it right now.  I mean, maybe that's good.  Maybe the players should be lulled into thinking, "Aw, they won't come up with something THAT bad will they."  And then the other players totally destroy them.  I like that the re-roll involves input from all the other players.  That's good and will lead to vengeance, where people suggest horrible things to do to each other's characters out of revenge for the bad things suggested by others.  Shades of Polaris here, I suppose, but Polaris rocks, so that's cool.


Increase the cost of rerolls by including defined hazards:
- If you roll one six with a sin-rerolled die, somebody is repulsed by your sinning. Might be later, when they hear about it. But somebody knows, somebody maybe sorta important to you.
- If you roll two sixes, there's lasting consequences, just exactly the things that are why you shouldn't sin in the first place: You get STD (lust), get injured (wrath), that kind of thing. Even if you used the sin for something completely different, it still happens. Don't have to get in bed to get STD, Jesus knows what's in your mind.
- If you roll three sixes, you monsterize as per the sin in question. Temporarily.

How's that for consequences?

Quote

2. I want players to be able to switch the conflict from one Trait to another, at some sort of cost.  So maybe Jill could switch from being too Smart for John to being too Hot for John.  Pulling in extra dice or starting a whole new conflict or something.  Suggestions on how this might work?  Also what should the cost be for such a maneuver?


No need for a cost if the consequences are potentially severe enough. Just count all sin-dice together when determining the above consequences. Activate two sins and it's even more likely that you monsterize, this time for both sins (becoming Abomination, as I explained long ago ;) Activate three, roll the sixes, and POOF... So just let the player roll more sin dice if he wants to.

In any case it's enough to demand narration of action that activates the sin in question. Like in DiV: change action type, roll more dice.

Quote

3. You should probably be able to spend more Self if you want at various points, becoming more invested in the conflict.  Maybe you can't re-roll spent Self, but you can always roll more Self and try to push the lower dice out of danger?  Would that work?  The problem would be that you could spend more and more Self to ensure a win on the lower side of things, if you could get more dice than your opponent (since lower, unblocked dice count as wins).  Help!


The relationship of sin to self is doubtful in this model to begin with. I however don't see any problem in allowing adding one self die more instead of a sin reroll or adding another sin. Make those three equal opportunities. Remember, the conflict ends if you don't pick one, and the other player gets a change to pick one, too, so picking self is safe, but it might be that it won't get you the win, in which case the other can just opt to end the conflict in his turn.

Quote

Maybe once you help me get that sorted out, we can find a decent mechanic for Lessons.  First, though, let's see if we can get a conflict-resolution mechanic that makes sense.


Lessons will be interesting. Just think out of the box, you can do it (remember the penguin pirates!). I've been seeing a kind of a dogmatism in your Vespertine work lately, you should really play it some to get it out of your system.
Logged

Blogging at Game Design is about Structure.
Publishing Zombie Cinema and Solar System at Arkenstone Publishing.
Jonathan Walton
Member

Posts: 1309


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2004, 10:21:18 PM »

Thanks for the comments, folks.  I seem to nail down at least one critical mechanic per design thread here.  Last thread it was the relationship mechanics and so far I'm really digging the group-brainstormed consequences for re-rolls.

Quote
I've been seeing a kind of a dogmatism in your Vespertine work lately, you should really play it some to get it out of your system.


See, this really got me thinking.  What is it about this game that's making it so hard for me to get a handle on?  What's making me come up with such uninteresting resolution mechanics?  Is it that I'm trying too much to make the system sort of resemble Little Fears, which is where the whole idea came from in the first place?  Honesly, I'm beginning to think the box that I've put myself into is really the dice.  I don't really dig dice mechanics. I never have.  And unlike Vincent and Shreyas and a bunch of other people, I find it really hard to write dice mechanics that I can get excited about.  So what if I throw them out the window right now, focus on just the abstract concepts, and then reinsert a dice mechanic later, if I even decide I need it.

So let's say that instead of dice pools we just have stats that get compared, like in Amber.  John has Gluttony 2, Jill has Pride 3.  If John bids Gluttony, he's not going to win.  But what if, unlike Amber, there were systematic ways for you to raise your standing, but the question would be "at what cost?"  Throw in points of Self, but, if you lose, you lose some self-esteem.  Throw in other types of Sin, but then you have to narrate their way into play in a damaging fashion (or maybe the group can come up with a consequence).  Or, in a fashion similar to what Eero was getting at, I think, you can committ Sins in order to temporarily raise your stat.

Here's an out-of-the-box thought:

So you can raise your stat 1 for every point of Self you invest or every consequence that you accept from another player.  The consequences are written on index cards and passed to you blind; you don't know what they are before you accept them.  Then, after you accept the help of the dark forces of Sin, you look at your cards and have to accomplish those consequences in either this scene (or maybe the next one?), otherwise, you turn into a monster temporarily, wrecking havoc until your friends (assuming you have some) can bring you under control.  The game, then would provide guidelines for writing consequences.  If you're trying to raise from Guttony 4 your consequences should be worse than some guy who's got Gluttony 1 and is trying to get more attention.  Consequences that you can't accomplish yourself (like your parents or sister showing up), would be passed to the GM and s/he would bring them into play.

(Credit to Shreyas for helping me stumble on this idea).

This makes the game a mixture of "Truth or Dare" and a pact with the devil.  There's an agreement you have made to do bad things or have bad things happen to you, and if you end the scene with cards in your hand, all hell breaks loose.  This might require specific rules for scene framing, if having the scene end becomes such a critical part of play, but we might be able to make that work.  Another option might be that if you accept all possible consequences and still lose, you become a monster.

In this model, there could only be as many consequences as there are other players, and you've only got a limited pool of Self to spend, so bidding wouldn't keep going on forever, though each raise would be another part of the extended conflict.

There's got to be an easy Lesson mechanic that comes out of this model too.  Maybe you could collect cards (consequences) of a particular Sin and have to have a certain number before you could raise to the next level.  Then, once you had the right number, you'd find yourself a Teacher, who would instruct you in the ways of such a Sin (and maybe they would gain Self from the Lesson equal to the number of cards that you gave them).  Still unsure about the Lesson process, but at least I don't feel trapped in traditional mechanics anymore.

Thoughts?
Logged

Jonathan Walton
Member

Posts: 1309


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2004, 11:09:01 PM »

More stuff, after chatting with Shreyas and Josh over IRC:

So, all of this ties very well into the relationship mechanics from last time.  Remember that you can invest Self in people in order to create relationships with them.  You lose the Self you invest in others if you don't come to their aid when they are threatened (or otherwise let them down badly).  However, by investing in them you hope that they invest in you and likewise come to your aid when you need it.  Clique relationships are based on your Sin stats, not on Self.  So Gluttony 3 would give you the equivilent of a Self 3 relationship with all Jocks, but it's totally superficial, not a real relationship.  There will probably be a systematic difference between these.

Now, as far as consequences go, "kick a dog" is not nearly as interesting as "kicking the principle's dog in front of the whole school," and the relationship mechanic gives us a way to ensure that this kind of thing happens.  Just some examples (not a real system yet):

1 - Do something bad.
2 - Do something bad to someone else's friends.
3 - Do something bad to your best friend's friends.
4 - Do something bad to your own friends.
5 - Do something unforgivable to your own friends.
6 - Do something beyond the pale to the person you have the most Self invested in.

In this way, friends are additionally valuable because you might have to burn them for extra social power.  In fact, some of the higher levels of evilness might only be possible if you have friends, so you have people that you can destroy on your way to the top.  However, burning your friends definitely means that you lose all the Self you invested in them, so we needed a way for you to gain Self that was equally interesting and unpleasant.

So I thought of the Final Fantasy method of gaining experience, where you wonder around beating up minor, defenseless monsters for the little bit of experience that they give you.  Similarly, you could pick fights with defenseless underclassmen, invest some Self in the outcome, and then gain Self if you win (since I think you should gain Self equal to the Self you invested in a victorious conflict).  Of course, it's always possible that the underclassman has a powerful senior brother, or is well connected, or has higher stats than you would suspect, or is willing to accept whatever consequences he needs to in order to show you up.

How do ya like them apples?
Logged

inky
Member

Posts: 51


« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2004, 11:55:21 PM »

Quote from: Jonathan Walton
However, burning your friends definitely means that you lose all the Self you invested in them, so we needed a way for you to gain Self that was equally interesting and unpleasant.

So I thought of the Final Fantasy method of gaining experience, where you wonder around beating up minor, defenseless monsters for the little bit of experience that they give you.  Similarly, you could pick fights with defenseless underclassmen, invest some Self in the outcome, and then gain Self if you win (since I think you should gain Self equal to the Self you invested in a victorious conflict).  Of course, it's always possible that


I don't understand what Self means in this case -- is it self-confidence? Or self-awareness? Or maturity? I'm having trouble thinking of a definition that applies for both winning at fights and having a meaningful relationship with people.

I think you're making a mistaken deduction about the design here. Yes, people need to have a way to raise their Sin level that requires sacrificing something and doing something unpleasant, but I don't think it necessarily follows from that they should have a way to get Self so they can make friendships so they can burn the friendships. It would work just as well for them to have some other ways to raise Sins that don't require burning friendships. Like luring somebody else into Sin ought to be worth something towards increasing your own Sin level, and defeating somebody better at you in a Sin ought to work too (how do you do that if you're not as good as they are? Find a way to cheat.)

The switch to diceless seems like a good move for you, but it's too bad you lose out on the gambling effect of "ok, I'll spend a point to make this roll -- nuts, I failed -- ok, I don't want to waste the point I spent, so I'll spend another one ..." One way to keep this would be to shuffle in a couple blank cards, but maybe that ruins the whole mechanic.
Logged

Dan Shiovitz
LordSmerf
Member

Posts: 864


« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2004, 09:51:37 AM »

Jonathan,

I just finished reviewing the logs from the IRC discussion last night...  Here's my contribution: Burning friends (preemtively) means that you don't suffer the consequences of having them burned for you.  Just like in real high school life!

If you ditch your friends before they become a liability then you lose nothing (or at least less).  So perhaps you can burn a friend defensively to gain part of your Self back...?

Even if not, the simultaneous increas in Forbidden Teachings will raise your apperent Self rating with all the other members of that clique...  Which may balance everything out in the end.

Thomas
Logged

Current projects: Caper, Trust and Betrayal, The Suburban Crucible
Jonathan Walton
Member

Posts: 1309


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2004, 07:20:50 AM »

Dan, it looks like the Self mechanics are the next thing that's going to get a major overhaul, because (as you and Eero both pointed out) right now they don't make that much sense as a unified mechanic.  It struck me yesterday that what are is, more or less, a version of Nobilis' Bonds mechanic given increased narrative potency.  You invest Self in things that you care about and then, when they are threatened, you have to defend them or risk losing Self.  So what does investing Self do for you?

Here's an odd idea that struck me recently: what if Self only aids you when things you've invested Self in come to your aid?  For example, if you invest Self in your Dad and he comes to help you against the bullies, you get your invested Self in a bonus when confronting the bullies with your Dad.  In Vesperteen, bringing along a baseball bat isn't going to help you in a fight, since all fights are based on force of personality and not what kind of weapons you have.  However, if it's your mother's baseball bat from when she played shortstop on the Parson County