Hello, all. I've been planning on running a really rules light game. However, I noticed some of the top candidates like Risus has limited room to expand after the first session. Since then I've cobbled together a few posts about what I'm looking for, including:
- Requirements: (http://dancingchimera.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/current-projects/) rules light, easily extensible, fast start with detail added in play.
- Flow: (http://dancingchimera.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/adventure-flow/) build up to a final confrontation by taking on lesser challenges
- Big Three: (http://dancingchimera.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/delvers-big-three/) The game is about character overcoming something more powerful than themselves through determination, cooperation, and luck. Character actions determined by role (extra, main character, adversary, supporting character). Player actions guided by side (nemesis, neutral, heroic).
There are also some posts up about character progression (http://dancingchimera.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/current-projects/) and plot drivers (http://dancingchimera.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/plot-drivers/), but those are more design musings than firm requirements.
My questions to your fine folks are:
- What systems already handle this? If there's already a really strong match out there, I may just use that instead. Otherwise, I'll be designing a new system.
- If this were made into a new game, what name might fit? I've been thinking of a few different names, but nothing's gelling yet. Current ideas include things like: Lurking Menace, Perilous Paths, Nemesis Mine, and My One Weakness.
Let me know if you'd like any more detail on any of this. I tried to keep this post as light as possible to avoid walls of text.
I'm curious about how you'd define "against the odds" sort of play. Do you actually want players to pursue mechanically unlikely outcomes? Or simply have characters that can perform seemingly unlikely outcomes?
The first would be something like: "Wow, I've only got one hit point left, so I need a super unlikely roll in order to beat this guy - screw it, I'm gonna give it a shot!"
The first would be unlikely fiction, but mechanical aspects that actually make these "unlikely" events quite common.
*Obviously that should read "The second..."
It's more like "No one can defeat the overlord!", then discovering what makes then unbeatable and finding a way around it. I suppose that makes it more like the second instance. After despite the obstacles seeming insurmountable in fiction, the mechanics should support the eventual triumph of the heroes. That being said, I have been thinking of scaling rewards up with risk. There is definitely some appeal to giving long shots an even larger payoff to encourage risk taking.
I dig those player roles!
If you want "against the odds" leading up, through skillful play, to eventual success, here's an idea:
The Nemesis side starts with a ton of resources that give them power to effect the fiction and the fate of the Main Character. The various Nemesis players get to strategize with each other about the best way to spend these resources. Perhaps the mechanics should prevent them from killing the Main Character, but their goal within that constraint could be to make his/her life as hard as possible.
The Heroic side starts with very few resources. Initial build-up is slow. If resources are tokens, you (the Heroic players) get one token at a time for each small achievement you make. At any time, you can try for a bigger achievement called a Coup, but before you've scored any Coups, your odds are very bad, as the Nemesis side will have way more tokens. When you lose a Coup attempt, you're either back where you started, or almost, or maybe even worse (if you like the arc of the hero being beaten down before rising). But when you win a Coup, your number of tokens multiplies. So each Coup dramatically shifts the odds going forward. If you want an arc of "struggle, struggle, struggle, struggle, turning point, victory" then you plan one Coup that suddenly flips the balance of power. If you want an arc of gradual progress, then you have multiple Coups required.
So that covers determination and luck. As for cooperation, maybe a Help mechanic where you can give a token to someone else's attempt, and if the attempt fails, you lose your token, but if it succeeds, you get extra tokens back.
As for the Neutrals, maybe they shift the Heroic-Nemesis token balance based on some other criteria of play, like which side is judged to be better hitting aesthetic or narrative targets the Neutrals establish.
I apologize for doing the "I'll design your game for you!" thing, but all that blather was really meant as illustration rather than advice. I just hope it gives you some ideas you can use.
Ps,
-David
P.S. I know plenty of games that do bits of what you're after, but nothing that does even close to all of them.
Shimera,
You might want go look at FATE or Solar system. In fate, you have to use prep and teamwork to overcome tough opponents. For instance, in the last Dresden game I ran, I wicked a leprachaun on the players. The first setup.an ambush by creating aspects for.later use, then some players did maneuvers that gave other players a big enough bonus to overcome their defenses. It was really neat for me to se, because this group does not always do well in the think first/team play.
The interesting thing about solar system is that the conflict rolls are super simple, until the players backs are against the wall. The benefit of this is that you don't really use the same rules for PC vs Kook combat. And it is also a way for the players to.signal to.the GM that the current conflict is not significant to them.
There are probably other systems that meet these criteria, but these ar the two I thought of when you said it.
First off, thanks for the feedback. I'm actually getting close to working out chance mechanics now. I'm just fleshing out the "heroes can push the odds when they need to" mechanics. After than I'll have to decide if I want the cards or dice route for my randomizer. I've done some initial math and have a good idea of the probability curve I want, but I'll put that up in a later post.
David,
I've actually been toying with some similar mechanics myself (http://dancingchimera.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/against-the-inevitable-threat-pools/, http://dancingchimera.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/against-the-inevitable-breaking-down-the-walls/). Essentially, I've got the nemesis side starting with a large threat pool which can in turn be invested in obstacles. The heroes thin out that pool by taking down those obstacles.
Threat can also be invested in an obstacle to improve it's abilities as needed. This potential creates an interesting tactic where the heroes "feint". The way it would play out is the heroes attack an obstacles strong point to get the nemesis side to invest more in it. There's a good chance they'll fail in that first assault, but the heroes are resilient so they may fall back and try again from a better angle. By hitting the strong points first they draw more threat into the obstacle so they make more progress when it's actually defeated. This actually makes, "fail then win" a valid tactic from the heroes side.
As for the Neutral side, I'm thinking they should mostly support whatever results make for the most entertaining story. Since they're not set to "win" in a traditional sense, they should be free to go with whatever appeals to them. This matches them up nicely to act as "fickle fates" or "lady luck" in game world terms.
Dindenver,
I did look at FATE for this. While there's definite appeal in some features I'm looking to go a bit more free form and less structured with my character traits. In short, I'm more likely to borrow things like Aspects and less likely to use things like the skill pyramid. The pyramid does help characters grow organically, but I'll have to mull over whether it allow for fast character set up.
I'm started looking into Solar system. I've got some familiarity with the Shadows of Yesterday game it's based on, and have had a lot of fun with offshoots like Lady Blackbird. I may borrow some elements from this side after I've dug through it more.
As far as I know neither system has built in mechanics for supporting that "lurking menace" feel, so even if I go from one of those as a base I'll need to add that system.
So, looking at it from the Heroes' perspective, what's the incentive for feinting now and then overcoming later, as opposed to just overcoming (with or without feinting) now?
Given your aims for the game's arc, I assume you'd want a very strong incentive here!
The feinting tactics basically plays off the following:
- Threat can be invested in obstacle to either improve it's traits or make it more persistent.
- Obstacles with boosted traits are significantly harder to overcome when those traits apply.
- Each trait usually applies to a limited range of challenges.
- When an obstacle is removed, the nemesis side loses most of the threat invested in it.
So let's say the heroes take on a threat directly. The nemesis side could decide to pump it's traits, making it difficult to score a victory on that challenge. However, in doing so, they've raised the amount of threat that will be lost when the obstacle is overcome.
The heroes can play to this by setting up a challenge where the nemesis side will want to spend threat buying traits for the obstacle. If they fail the first challenge, they can try setting up a secondary challenge where the traits purchased in the first challenge don't apply. The nemesis side will then have to decide if they want to sink more points into improving the obstacle's traits or if they want to leave the an opening for the heroes to win out. The nemesis side can keep trying to block the heroes, but eventually they'll run out of threat. The heroes will likely also be building up their own resources in this time, so they will eventually break through one way or another.
I'm also planning on making "can not retry this challenge" a common price of failure, with retries as a possible reward. As such, when heroes fail they'll often need to change their tactics.
I'll admit I currently don't have anything keeping the heroes from immediately starting their secondary challenges. Forcing the heroes into a new scene does seem like an appropriate reward for the nemesis side when they win a challenge though.
On a side note, I'm currently looking into reward mechanics for both sides. For the heroes, thing like moments of characterization might help fuel their ability to push for long shots later. For the villains, things like being the kind of enemy the players lover to hate might help them survive or otherwise mitigate the results of the heroes' victory.
Quote from: Shimera9 on November 25, 2011, 11:39:45 PMthey can try setting up a secondary challenge where the traits purchased in the first challenge don't apply.
Ah! Now I get it.
Hmm. That doesn't seem to me like it would feel like a desperate struggle against the odds. It seems like it would feel like a strategic grinding down of a reactive opponent. I guess it depends on how much risk there is of the strategy
not working out, and also the costs.
Quote from: Shimera9 on November 25, 2011, 11:39:45 PMForcing the heroes into a new scene does seem like an appropriate reward for the nemesis side when they win a challenge
Yeah, I think some sort of consequence is crucial. In addition to "you can't just try again", I'd want something to make sure the loss
felt like a loss to the heroes. Maybe a menu of options including the sorts of things that directors use to put heroes through the wringer in action movies? Stuff like:
- home destroyed
- loved one killed
- status ruined (job, bank account, innocence in the eyes of the law, etc.)
- gruesome injury
- witness to something awful they couldn't prevent
As for the rewards, I like your line of thinking. I think it'd be especially cool if those achievements could be measured via fictional outcomes rather than just through votes or fanmail. Like, "prove you really hate this villain by spending your resources against them rather than some other equally valid expenditure". But that may just be my personal taste.
Ps,
-David
Quote from: David Berg on November 26, 2011, 04:16:55 AM
Hmm. That doesn't seem to me like it would feel like a desperate struggle against the odds. It seems like it would feel like a strategic grinding down of a reactive opponent. I guess it depends on how much risk there is of the strategy not working out, and also the costs.
I was aiming for a certain "seek out their weak points" approach. It's also a common genre convention for the first plan to fail. I'll need to consider if I want to add a "secret weakness" mechanic or maybe just a way to throw more complications at the players on a failure. That being said, there is some precendence for trying two challenges in rapid order, such as the heroes talking down a villain after being beat down in combat. This will take a bit more mulling over.
Quote from: David Berg on November 26, 2011, 04:16:55 AMYeah, I think some sort of consequence is crucial. In addition to "you can't just try again", I'd want something to make sure the loss felt like a loss to the heroes.
The thing is the challenge mechanics apply to small things like picking a lock as well as to climactic battles. Having the character's home destroyed for failing to climb a wall seems a bit drastic and is likely to dull the edge of those big stakes.
That being said, I am setting rewards for a challenge to be roughly equal to chance of failure * cost of failure. So big risks yield big rewards. If the players want to do something big they have to either ante up something valuable or be ready to slowly build up through smaller challenges.
I may want to make anteing up big stakes neccesary to progress, but I want to limit how often I force that. As I said, if that's overplayed it may lose it's edge.
Quote from: David Berg on November 26, 2011, 04:16:55 AMAs for the rewards, I like your line of thinking. I think it'd be especially cool if those achievements could be measured via fictional outcomes rather than just through votes or fanmail. Like, "prove you really hate this villain by spending your resources against them rather than some other equally valid expenditure". But that may just be my personal taste.
I'll have to see how that works out as the rest of the mechanics evolve, but it should be possible to track where the players are focusing their time and resources. Heck, players investigating a villains weakness is another sign of their interest.
Do you want the players to feel like the odds are against them? Or are you cool with them simply portraying characters who see the odds against them, while the players see a path to victory?
My misgivings pertain only to the former.
If you're after the latter, I think you're in good shape! The main thing I'm missing is color. What's going on in the fiction to make the Hero feel like they're up against impossible odds? If you already described how this is determined, and gave examples, then my bad, I must have missed it.
First, I'd like to say thanks for the responses. I've set up a couple posts that flesh out the player incentives I talked about earlier.
- Drive (http://dancingchimera.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/against-the-inevitable-long-shots/) encourages heroic player to flesh out characters and tie them to setting by letting those character shift the odds in their favor.
- Notoriety (http://dancingchimera.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/against-the-inevitable-notoriety/) encourages nemesis players to make tough obstacles which hit the heroes on a personal level by letting them mitigate the heroes victory narration when those obstacles are defeated.
This should create an interesting back and forth where heroes build up power over time, but taking too long can let the nemesis side sour their eventual victory.
Second, I've been thinking over the "against the odds" theme and how the game's been shaping up. What I'm actually aiming for involves a shifting balance of power.
At the start of the adventure, the odds actually are against the heroic side. The nemesis side is fully capable of making obstacles that are extremely difficult for the heroes to overcome. However, as play progresses the heroes will build up Drive and find ways to counter obstacles and enemy strong points. At the same time, the nemesis side will start running low on the resources that power up their obstacles. By the end of the adventure, the heroes should be looking at a far more even battle. In fact, the heroes may even have favorable odds if they've built up a good supply of Drive.
In short, "against the odds" isn't meant to be a constant theme. Instead, it's part of the larger theme that heroes are those willing to face things that are beyond their ability to handle, but that in facing those things the heroes can grow to rival and even overcome those threats. That feeling of growth and progress is a significant part of what I'm shooting for.
Cool. So, let's say I'm playing the Hero, and it's early in the game. A Nemesis player points to their big ol' threat pool and throws an Obstacle at me. (That's how it works, right? I'm trying to do something -- a heroic quest? just live my life? -- and then an Obstacle comes and interposes itself, right? As opposed to me going out and finding the Obstacle because it's my Mission or something?) Let's say the Obstacle is a ninja who will fight me to the death.
So now my big choice is how many of my own resources to spend in pursuit of victory. That choice will depend on the odds and outcomes of winning, losing without spending, and losing with spending. So, outcomes:
I think I understand what happens when I win.
What happens if I give up, spend no resources, and allow the ninja to defeat my character? The ninja gains Notoriety, which is cool, and bad news for my character's future happiness! Does anything else happen? (Example: Does my character simply take a beating and escape? If so, does that beating matter going forward?)
What happens if I spend all my resources, but the Nemesis spends more, so I get tapped out, and am defeated that way? Does that produce different outcomes than if I spent nothing?
What if I spend some of my resources, then give up before I'm tapped out?
Quote from: David Berg on November 29, 2011, 10:34:20 PM(That's how it works, right? I'm trying to do something -- a heroic quest? just live my life? -- and then an Obstacle comes and interposes itself, right? As opposed to me going out and finding the Obstacle because it's my Mission or something?)
Actually, the game is set to the heroes starting with a reason and desire to overcome a larger problem. Obstacles are primarily a pacing mechanic to keep them from jumping straight to the final conflict too soon.
That's not to say the character can't start of just living their lives, but you need to establish why they're involved in the main conflict. Otherwise they're bystanders or supporting characters, not heroes. For the first hero, this means their motives should be established in the first scene.
Quote from: David Berg on November 29, 2011, 10:34:20 PMWhat happens if I give up, spend no resources, and allow the ninja to defeat my character? The ninja gains Notoriety, which is cool, and bad news for my character's future happiness! Does anything else happen? (Example: Does my character simply take a beating and escape? If so, does that beating matter going forward?)
What happens depends on how much the player was willing to risk. The pay off for any challenge is tied to how much each side risks and how likely failure is. I'm still working on how risks are set, but it will probably come down to the active chracter / initiator setting the risk.
In this case, that means what happens is determined by the ninja. At this stage is the game, permanently taking the hero out of play is of the table (tough removing non-heroic characters is a possibility). I'm still working out the list of possible nemesis awards. Off the top of my head that could include forcing characters into a new scene (possibly one of their choosing), inflicting wounds, adding complications, locking traits, and removing or transforming unprotected setting elements.
However, it's worth noting that the chance of success won't reach 100%. Since reward scales with chance of failure, that means a highly skilled ninja (low chance of failure) will need to set their own personal risks pretty high to have a big impact. That also means if the character is shooting for a big impact on a win, they'll hand the hero a very sizable reward if the hero pulls off a lucky win.
Quote from: David Berg on November 29, 2011, 10:34:20 PMWhat happens if I spend all my resources, but the Nemesis spends more, so I get tapped out, and am defeated that way? Does that produce different outcomes than if I spent nothing?
Not at present. I'll mull it over some more. The thing is Drive is meant to be largely saved up for the final confrontation. Making it renew on failure would encourage more use early game. That's a possible option, but it might dull it's impact if it's used all the time. That being said, I might let Drive be applied after the roll, so it's never actually wasted. The problem there is that makes accumulating enough Drive an effective auto-win.
I think there's some confusion here over Drive's role. It's not meant to carry you through all or even most challenges. Most of the time it will work out more like this:
- Heroes try to progress toward the final confrontation.
- Nemesis players introduce obstacles. The difficulty of overcoming the obstacle is set by how much threat is spent.
- Heroes bring previous awards into play either gain an advantage or counter the obstacles advantages.
- On success, heroes defeat obstacle and may gain award that helps with future challenges.
- On failure, the heroes fall back and need to either look for an approach where the obstacles strengths don't come into play, or they need to hunt down more rewards to bolster their chances on a rematch.
This does mean the nemesis side can play aggressively and try blocking the heroes at every turn. However, if hey do so they will run out of threat sooner. At that point the heroes the heroes are free to hunt down easy challenges and start running over already established and fully known threats.
Quote from: David Berg on November 29, 2011, 10:34:20 PMWhat if I spend some of my resources, then give up before I'm tapped out?
Same as the previous scenario. Drive is relatively slow building, so you probably want to save it up for high stakes events rather than spending bit of it in every challenge.
Oops! Sorry for running with an incorrect picture of Drive.
This sequence is really helpful, I feel like I understand the game a lot better now:
Quote from: Shimera9 on November 30, 2011, 11:24:40 AM
- Heroes try to progress toward the final confrontation.
- Nemesis players introduce obstacles. The difficulty of overcoming the obstacle is set by how much threat is spent.
- Heroes bring previous awards into play either gain an advantage or counter the obstacles advantages.
- On success, heroes defeat obstacle and may gain award that helps with future challenges.
- On failure, the heroes fall back and need to either look for an approach where the obstacles strengths don't come into play, or they need to hunt down more rewards to bolster their chances on a rematch.
By "fall back", what you really mean now is "suffer Nemesis-imposed consequences", right?
Quote from: Shimera9 on November 30, 2011, 11:24:40 AMOff the top of my head that could include forcing characters into a new scene (possibly one of their choosing), inflicting wounds, adding complications, locking traits, and removing or transforming unprotected setting elements.
These sound like good options to me! Maybe some of these could simply be imposed by the Nemesis, while others would require collaboration with the Neutral players?
I've got the challenge rewards roughly sketched out in a new post (http://dancingchimera.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/against-the-inevitable-challenge-rewards/). It looks like I can cover it pretty much everything I want with a combo of 6 effect types:
- Narrate: grants limited run narrative rights / authority, where cost scale with impact of narration on setting and plot
- Empower: grants traits. Can also be used to assist allies or place temporary vulnerability on target.
- Weaken: temporarily downgrades traits.
- Block: prevents certain actions. Can also be used to protect character from certain actions. Combine "can not act" with "can not be acted on" to take character out of play.
- Invest: attach left over points to a setting element so they can be cashed in after a future challenge.
- Negate: cancel a previous reward. Cost will probably be higher than initial rewards cost to prevent flipping between gaining a reward and losing it right away.
These should be open to both Nemesis and Heroic players. However, heroes will probably have some safeguards in place to protect their progress. Otherwise, it would be easy for the Nemesis side to slow the heroes progress to a crawl. Neutral players don't directly use these reward. However, they do get to make judgement calls. This often mean they'll set the cost on effects, especially on Narration rewards. That doesn't exactly mean Nemesis and Neutral sides need to team up for big hits, but it does mean getting neutral players on your side makes it significantly easier to afford the effects you want.
As far as falling back goes, I kind of meant "drop out of the challenge, and maybe even the scene". However, that will include nemesis determined consequences, most likely using the same reward table above.
On a side note, I'm considering letting some of the point pools double as a form of passive plot protection. For example, the cost to take a hero out of play long term may scale up with Drive. That lets us have a continuum between expendable allies and established heroes, which may be useful. By the same token, investing reward points in story elements may make them more costly to remove. That lets investment serve a second purpose beyond accumulating points. It also helps mimic more "important" items having a certain level of plot protection.
That list looks fun to me!
As for protecting player progress: isn't player progress measured by whittling down the pool the Nemesis gets to spend on? Or are you talking about protecting purely fictional advances, so you don't wind up with some stupid "I take the castle!", "the enemy reclaims it!", "I re-reclaim it!" thing?
How do you envision the Neutral judgment call on costs playing out? That doesn't sound like the most rewarding play contribution there, but I guess it depends on what they're able to express in the process. "I think that'd be hard" sounds more like work than fun, but "I'm making it cost less because I think it's awesome, and I'll make it cost even less than that if you use my idea for how to pull it off" could be fun. This may just be my taste; I dunno. What do you think?
As for measuring importance and protecting important elements/characters, that makes sense to me, but I think it makes it a very different game strategically. If you want your side to triumph, you probably track what's about to become more expensive and try to knock it off the board before that happens. Perhaps injecting some noise in the signal might be good? Like, when you gain Drive or invest points, roll to see how much plot protection is granted? And then you can engineer that to produce the kind of arcs you want: e.g., more random and whiff-prone early on (1d10), more guaranteed later (1d10+10). Just a thought. I'm probably not tracking all the incentives in play at once. A demo would be helpful!
Quote from: David Berg on December 11, 2011, 02:59:54 PMAs for protecting player progress: isn't player progress measured by whittling down the pool the Nemesis gets to spend on? Or are you talking about protecting purely fictional advances, so you don't wind up with some stupid "I take the castle!", "the enemy reclaims it!", "I re-reclaim it!" thing?
The nemesis pool gets worn down when hero's defeat challenges the which have been invested with threat. It's assumed the heroes will build up smaller advantages to topple those pumped up challenges. Without those accumulated advantages, it's harder for heroes to beat those challenges. Since the enemy side starts out with greater ability to push for victory, they could just repeatedly use the Negate option to keep the hero's from building up an advantage. That would lead to an unpleasant stalemate scenario (heros can't win, but are hard to eliminate) that I'd like to avoid.
Quote from: David Berg on December 11, 2011, 02:59:54 PMHow do you envision the Neutral judgment call on costs playing out? That doesn't sound like the most rewarding play contribution there, but I guess it depends on what they're able to express in the process. "I think that'd be hard" sounds more like work than fun, but "I'm making it cost less because I think it's awesome, and I'll make it cost even less than that if you use my idea for how to pull it off" could be fun. This may just be my taste; I dunno. What do you think?
I do like the idea of a bartering phase. The neutral players are supposed to represent fickle fates, so costs should probably be entertainment based. That being said, some calls should be based on things like game world impact. What I'll probably do is start with an objective judgement ("that'd be hard"), while letting Neutral players offer a discount or advantage to entertaining options or actions that follow their suggestions.
Quote from: David Berg on December 11, 2011, 02:59:54 PMAs for measuring importance and protecting important elements/characters, that makes sense to me, but I think it makes it a very different game strategically. If you want your side to triumph, you probably track what's about to become more expensive and try to knock it off the board before that happens. Perhaps injecting some noise in the signal might be good? Like, when you gain Drive or invest points, roll to see how much plot protection is granted? And then you can engineer that to produce the kind of arcs you want: e.g., more random and whiff-prone early on (1d10), more guaranteed later (1d10+10). Just a thought. I'm probably not tracking all the incentives in play at once. A demo would be helpful!
I'll have to think this one through more. I may just grant a certain amount of plot protection to any character with main character status. The big thing with protecting investments is keeping the other side from cheaply negating an investment by taking out the thing it's attached to.
I'll see about getting a demo up in a little bit. I've actually got enough pieced together that I'm stepping through what an actual play session might look like, starting with character creation.
The current issue I'm puzzling over actually has to do with backgrounds. I want details to be fairly free form and easy to add, though they only provide a low level benefit ("can't do", "capable", and "competent" ability ratings). The part I'm leery about on that front is that by making them so open a player might take something really versatile like "reality warper" or "demi-god" and use it move every action into the "capable" and "competent" ranks. That's probably not a game breaker, but I do think a mitigating factor may be in order. Perhaps having your background prevent an action grants drive and/or being able to draw out exceptional abilities grants threat? I'm less concerned about this on the villainous side as that kind of move actually helps enemies feel more overwhelming.
Quote from: Shimera9 on December 12, 2011, 07:02:57 PMSince the enemy side starts out with greater ability to push for victory, they could just repeatedly use the Negate option to keep the hero's from building up an advantage.
Ah, right. I'd say the solution is to define Negate very carefully, especially when you can use it. On the one hand, it seems bad to have lots of play achievements undone. On the other hand, that'd be okay if getting your opponent to play their Negate really depleted their resources going forward, so forcing their hand that way could be seen as a victory in itself.
Quote from: Shimera9 on December 12, 2011, 07:02:57 PMI do like the idea of a bartering phase. The neutral players are supposed to represent fickle fates, so costs should probably be entertainment based. That being said, some calls should be based on things like game world impact. What I'll probably do is start with an objective judgement ("that'd be hard"), while letting Neutral players offer a discount or advantage to entertaining options or actions that follow their suggestions.
Nice. I'm really curious to see how the Neutral role plays out -- how frequently are they involved, how significant is their input, how much of the spotlight do they get? My first instinct is to keep Neutral involved all the time, but to give them a quick and easy option to keep the fiction moving if they'd rather do that than use play time inventing and introducing suggestions.
I am also curious to see what kind of rewards come out of this; whether the Neutral players feel appreciated and have a sense of progress and direction throughout play, or whether they feel more like an audience.
Can there be multiple Neutral players? If there are two, does that cut each one's spotlight time in half, or mean they have to reach consensus on suggestions, or offer competing suggestions, or what? My first impression was that each side is a team, but I'm fuzzy on how that teamwork works in play.
Quote from: Shimera9 on December 12, 2011, 07:02:57 PMThe current issue I'm puzzling over actually has to do with backgrounds. I want details to be fairly free form and easy to add, though they only provide a low level benefit ("can't do", "capable", and "competent" ability ratings). The part I'm leery about on that front is that by making them so open a player might take something really versatile like "reality warper" or "demi-god" and use it move every action into the "capable" and "competent" ranks. That's probably not a game breaker, but I do think a mitigating factor may be in order. Perhaps having your background prevent an action grants drive and/or being able to draw out exceptional abilities grants threat? I'm less concerned about this on the villainous side as that kind of move actually helps enemies feel more overwhelming.
Here's my understanding; please correct me if I'm wrong:
For a character to be good at one thing and less good at another thing is most relevant in that opponents can target the weakness and bring it into play by creating corresponding situations. That is, if your Hero is good at Fighting but bad at Diplomacy, then I, as your Nemesis, after beating you in a challenge, will Narrate you into a scene where the Prince demands that you defend your trouble-making; and perhaps I also Invest points in making the Prince a stickler for etiquette and protocol. Ha ha! Take that, you Diplomacy-challenged fool!
Accordingly, it seems to me that, when defining Hero capabilities, you want to map them to fairly broad types of situations, not specific tasks. If a Hero is utterly amazing at shooting people with guns (a specific task) and shoots their way out of every situation*, the only meaningful blow a Nemesis can strike is, "I take away your gun, and also your ability to buy another one."
I'd be inclined to brainstorm what situation types best represent your vision for this game's possible fiction, make a list, and tell Heroes they must pick one to truly excel at, pick another to be good at, pick another to be bad at, and then assume the rest are either average or unknown. Answering, "So
why are you great, good, and awful at those three?" would be Background creation.
Not sure if that's fully compatible with how you want to define characters, but that's the
kind of stuff I'd be looking at to help decide on backgrounds, traits, attributes, skills, etc. -- "How does it intersect with the fundamental Hero/Nemesis dynamics of play?"
*There are, of course, solutions to the "one action type fits all situations" approach, like sticking a "Can't be shot" Attribute onto an Obstacle. If you'd prefer to go that route, I'd be curious to see how you'd do it.