Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Malcolm Craig, February 13, 2006, 07:07:36 AM
Quote from: Matt Machell on February 13, 2006, 08:32:28 AMMalc,what do you want the trust pool to highlight? At the moment it seems to highlight who is the most trusted character at any given moment and draw attention to who they trust when they spend it. On the subject of usage, if trust isn't getting used and you want it to be, I'd be tempted to revise resolution so that it's much more likely to fail if trust isn't involved. Mountain Witch is good at this, the resolution is brutal unless you spend trust. This would mean it would flow around more regularly.-Matt
Quote from: Matt Machell on February 14, 2006, 07:46:42 AMAre you intending the trust aspect of the game to start out "how we expect each other to be" and drift towards "how we actually are". In which case I'd be tempted to start with arbitary values based on nationality (plus maybe one free point to assign, based on initial gut feeling), and then push hard for trust movement during play.
QuoteIf trust only gets moved when you've a high chance of failure (since you need the extra dice), you need to make those situations as common as possible, but with the current system that means always targeting what the character is bad at, as that's the time they're most likely to need that boost from trust. I'm not sure of a good way to resolve that issue with the current mechanics, maybe it's not as big an issue as I think it is.
QuoteAnother question that might be worth pondering is what part of the character creation gives a genuine reason not to trust the other group members? At the moment trust acts as a barometer for who is trusted, but what are my reasons not to tust them? Do they have conflicting agendas? In which case make sure that's a defined part of creation "I want something the other's don't, what is it?", maybe based off government orders? Going back to TMW as an example, it does this by giving everybody a dark fate, thus creating the situation where trust needs to be given, but you can never be sure if the guy you've given it do will use it against you later...
QuoteI like the idea of trust moving as a result of conflict consequences. Maybe add something whereby trust can be knocked out of you instead of damage? Then passed on. I think a key thing with all trust movements will be requiring from the player a reason for why that use of trust to boost is passed on to that other player, to help build the story. For example, conflict blows two trust out of my PC, but I give it to Heinrich's player. "Because the blow actually just crushed that pack of cigarettes he game me." Same with spend to boost and who you hand it off to.
QuoteLaying down who trusts who based on nationality would lead (from my point of view) to the Soviet or German characters always being in the position of least trust, thus they require to prove themselves the most during play
QuoteThe introduction of a a characteristic such as 'Hidden Agenda' would be a way of reinforcing the variety of viewpoints on interests that the characters have. 'Hidden Agenda' could inform the characters viewpoint, guide their actions and, if they are acting upon it, provide bonuses in conflicts where the character can advance their agenda. Each player would be aware that the everyone has a hidden agenda, but would be unaware what it is or how far they are pushing it.
Quote from: Matt Machell on February 14, 2006, 10:01:10 AMDepends. If you made it so each nationality's starting trust for another is 0, 1, 2, the gut reaction point has a bigger impact. If you push trust at every conflict, it should change quite rapidly. So you might have the starting trusts for others being:American:Other American: 2British: 1Soviet: 0German: 1SovietOther Soviet: 1American: 1British: 1German: 1Then each character gets a starting pool based on how much others trust him. This might skirt to close to what zodiac animals do in TMW, however. It is very effective though...
Quote from: Matt MachellSince the situation is generally "Mission-based", the logical kind of hidden agenda is one that subverts the mission aim to their governments interests. You could come up with some generics and make each player choose one for his character at the start of the mission, then fill in details as they go. I don't think it necessarily needs a mechanical benefit, after all they can always spend trust to have more chance of achieving their agenda, and that gives a nice thematic charge to things: "I trusted you, and you use it to do what?!"
Quote from: CommonDialogIf I can paraphrase the way your rules are working, basically what happens is that my PC is empowered because other people trust him/her? Basically, my ability to resolve tasks in difficult situations is directly related to the number of people who trust that I will not double cross them (as opposed to say, they believe in my ability to perform the action.) Am I missing something?If you go with this, I see a real potential for abuse and min/maxing. I can foresee a scenario where I go around, make everyone trust me, collect all the tokens and then suddenly behave completely crosswise to how I acted before (which should actually deplete the amount of trust I've built.) However, since I have everyone's tokens, I can now perform super feats, and can influence the game according to my secret agenda.
Quote from: CommonDialog#1 I think it was hinted, but not necessarily formalized that each trust token records in some way who owns it. So when I start off with a pool of say 4 trust tokens, each will have a C on them (or they may all be read or what have you.) So when I give a token to you, it's a symbolic representation that I trust you. Not Bob or Steve trusts you, but I trust you. When you use my token, I choose who that token goes to because I trust them, not because you trust them (or it may go back to my pool.)
Quote from: CommonDialog#2 I would suggest reworking the way a trust token is spent in a way that #1 becomes important. Here's my thought. Let's say you're playing a quickdraw expert who is great at mowing down enemies with your lucky revolvers. I am playing an expert locksmith who can pick any lock given time. You need to get through a superlocked security door and you have one of my trust tokens. We determine that getting through this door is something where my intelligence would come in handy, so you use my stat to augment yours (perhaps we add them together or we double my intelligence stat) for the purposes of making the lockpick roll. (Come to think of it I think there would have to be some sort of bonus over and above just adding them together as most systems have rules for characters working in cohesion.) I think one of the most important parts is that if you spend my trust token, my PC pretty much has to work with you because you are playing on my trust unless doing so would be completely out of character for the PC (For instance, you can't make the 50 year old Catholic Priest help you find a human sacrifice no matter how many trust tokens you spend. Unless that Priest has a Hidden Agenda, Dark Past, or is a general sadist. You get my drift. :))
Quote from: CommonDialog#3 I think that under dire circumstances, one player can take trust tokens from another player if that player's character acts completely untrustworthy. (Yeah, I know you helped me break into my bank, but you just shot my grandmother...) This will keep people from hoarding trust.
QuoteI think this is vital, yes. There should always be the opportunity for players to take trust away from characters who act in a manner which cause the other characters to mistrust them.
Quote from: Matt Machell on February 17, 2006, 10:23:26 AMQuoteI think this is vital, yes. There should always be the opportunity for players to take trust away from characters who act in a manner which cause the other characters to mistrust them.You could always allow players to move one point or trust around the table each after every scene. So, after the scene where my PC betrays Gregor's by using trust to boost a roll that backs my hidden agenda, we get to re-evaluate how we stand.You could do this trust movement in order of lowest trusted to highest, that way the guy who's currently most trusted can move his point he sees how the new situation is panning out. That could nicely reflect the political nature of the situation.-Matt
Quote from: CommonDialogI think you touched on the major weakness of my thoughts on trust. It leads far too much into a as you put "boring" reciprocal arrangement. I trust you...you trust me and we trade trust back and forth. Then again... this is how trust works in real life. In many larger gaming groups I've had, trust has tended to flow from me to another one or two individuals and that's all. There have been a few notable exceptions where my PC has trusted other PCs. The really funny example of this I can think of is when I convinced another PC (and her player, too) that she had me blood bonded when I was unbondable. So, I was in fact lying.
QuoteAt any rate, and I wish I knew Cold City better, is there anyway to force characters into situations where they need to trust multiple people or trust character A in the first scene (I use the term loosely since it sounded better than block of time) and trust character B in another?
QuoteThen again, playing devils advocate, this could potentially result in a static situation where the less trusted characters make no moves, which feeds on up the chain and trust never changes through induced paralysis.