The Forge Archives

I've been working on a pet project for some time now, a science-fantasy setting inspired by the myths and religions of south-east asia. It even has a great slogan: "Get What You Deserve." I've been thinking of turning it into a stand-alone pdf game, but I want to create a system worthy of the slogan...

Design Goals:
1. It should be diceless, no chance involved.
2. Players should be rewarded for getting themselves into trouble and/or letting bad things happen to them.
3. It needs to be simple & cinematic ('cuz all my games are, baby!)

So, here's what I've come up with so far. I think I may be ripping off Baron Munchausen, but as I do not own that game, I can't say for sure. If anyone can tell me how similar they are, I'd appreciate it. Of course, all other comments are also welcome...

The Karmic Cycle

Characters are defined in purely narrative terms, no numbers required. However, each character _must_ have at least one Flaw, probably more, and I may require other things (like a Motivation).

Normally, events unfold through simple narration. Everything the GM and players _say_ happen actually _happens_. (You may have heard of this as the principle of Narrative Truth.) Whenever something happens that is (dis)advantageous for the players or the GM, Karma points must be exchanged.

When a session starts, most of the Karma should be in the GM's hands. (I envision a heaping pile of poker chips). There are two ways for the players to get their grubby paws on it. First, they can ask the GM for a point any time they roleplay one of their character's Flaws _and_ it creates problems for them. This is called a Bribe. GMs can also hand out Bribes when they use their fiat power to let an NPC escape, confiscate weapons, or whatever else.

The second, and more interesting, way that Karma changes hands is through Bids. Any time a player or the GM wants to reverse something that someone else has narrated, they can Bid a point of Karma. The original party then has the option to narrate an event that restores the original state of affairs by Bidding a Karma of their own. Whichever side accepts the current state of affairs keeps all the Karma on the table.

Let's look at a combat example. A PC is walking down some dark alley when the GM decides that a ruffian jumps out and demand her valuables (the GM slides a Karma chip onto the table). The player is quite fond of her valuables, so she says "I kick him in the jimmy and walk away" (she slides a Karma chip of her own onto the table). The GM finds this state of affairs acceptable, so he drags the two Karma chips into his pile and the game moves on.

The above example assumes that the player's character description included something relevant to kicking people in the jimmy (ie. they were a mercenary or a sadist or something). If you engage in an action that's not reflected in your Character Description, you have to Bid two Karma points for every one point Bid by the other side (usually the GM).

Another important caveat is that you cannot use Karma points in the same scene that you earn them. They should be kept separate until the end of the scene, then thrown in with the rest of your Karma.

That's the idea in a nutshell. I'd appreciate suggestions, questions, criticisms, and comparisons to other systems.

Thanks in advance, --Dan

Hey Dan,

I dig it. I haven't played Baron Munchausen, so I can't say if it's similar or not. I think adding Flaws and Motivations (as you plan to do) is a very good idea. The system itself is pretty drab, but I think it will suit the "karma" flavor you're going for. If the characters also have nice setting-connected flaws and such that help drive stories it should work pretty well.

There's a superficial similarity to the mechanic in Fred Hicks's game, Pace. Probably worth checking out.

Jeff Miller's pirate game Blackbirds had a similar Bid mechanic. During playtesting, we found that the player who was willing to narrate the silliest stuff was the one with all the chips. Stuff that was strictly within the genre but was still disruptive enough to cause the GM to start paying to negate it. Like, "That's no French carrack, 'tis a ghost ship!" Ghost ships are part of the setting, but spotting one just before the big battle with the French is just shameless fishing for extra chips. You might care about managing stuff like this with the game system, or you may not.

Quote from: ReverendBaynLet's look at a combat example. A PC is walking down some dark alley when the GM decides that a ruffian jumps out and demand her valuables (the GM slides a Karma chip onto the table). The player is quite fond of her valuables, so she says "I kick him in the jimmy and walk away" (she slides a Karma chip of her own onto the table). The GM finds this state of affairs acceptable, so he drags the two Karma chips into his pile and the game moves on.

I would suggest that the actual narration gets left until the bidding process is over.

The way you have it now sounds like potential for a lot of what is called "blocking" in improv theater. The idea is that when someone comes up with something, the very last thing you want to do is say "no". A classic improv example is that actor A walks up to actor B and says, "Do I know you from somewhere? You look familiar." In response, actor B says, "No. I've never seen you in my life." The problem is that actor B cuts off the creative momentum carried by actor A.

In an RPG things are different, of course. But I think that players are much less committed before stating what happens in matter-of-fact narration. That is, after the player has stated her specific desired outcome(e.g. "I kick him in the jimmy and walk away") she is more or less emotionally committed to that course of action. If the GM then rebukes with another bid "He blocks your kick, grabs your leg, and flips you to the ground", there ends up being an escalating exchange of unrealized narration.

It seems cleaner to me to begin with the stated action. If the player (or GM if a player is setting the scene) wants to change where the scene is going, she coughs up a Karma chip with maybe a general intention, "He's not going to get away with taking my valuables". Then the bidding war takes place. At the end, the winner of the bid narrates the outcome of the scene.

A cool fringe benefit of this sequence is that you can use the bidding to establish turning points in the scene. If the thug demands the valuables  and the player ends up putting out 3 chips to the GM's 2, she knows to narrate a scene in which the thug has the upper hand to start, is thwarted, gains the upper hand again and then is finally defeated (or evaded).

Just my opinion. Hope it helps.

I agree with Jay in that the action should be stated before the resolution.  Instead of "I kick him in the jimmys and walk away" it should be "There's no way he's taking my money.  I'm going to kick him in the jimmys and walk away."

Then the bidding can take place and yadayadayada, you're done!

I like the idea though.  It sure is a different style.

Another choice would be to treat everything said as done done done, and just disallow blocking.  "I kick him in the jimmy and walk away," and it's a done deal - the GM can't respond with "he blocks your kick" because you're already walking away.  The GM has to have the would-be mugger come limping after you or pull a gun and point it at your back or something.

You could do something extra wiggly like: to stay in the conflict ("he comes limping after you!"), you have to bid.  To block something that somebody's already said ("he blocks your kick..."), you have to pay that person a coin straight across, then bid to stay in ("...and grabs your leg and flips you to the ground!").

-Vincent

Dan,

Have you checked out Universalis?  It's good, solid Coin-driven narrative.  See it here or here.

Hey, all. Thanks to everyone who's commented thus far!

One criticism I heard from one of my usual players is that most role-players won't want to let their characters fail (ie. get tricked, foiled, and beaten up) just to earn Karma. Unfortunately, this is central to my design philosophy. Do you see this as a fundamental problem, or just a matter of selection/training the right players for the right game?

Feng - Thanks for pointing me to Pace. Definitely the same concept, and it got me thinking about some places the system could fall down.

The issue of players performing silly actions because they're more likely to be denied (and therefore to win them more Karma) is significant. A veto rule might get around it, just like in Wushu, but I'll have to put some more thought into it.

On the issue of Blocking - I've had to deal with this very old problem during my Wushu playtests. I've taken two approaches. The first is lumpley's: just disallow blocking. If someone narrates it (an there's no GM or group veto), it happens.

The only place that doesn't work all the time is in fights with major nemeses. Then, I usually want to promote more back-and-forth between myself and the players. It's a whole kung-fu thing :)  Actually, it's just the kind of exchange coxcomb cautions against. I definitely want it to be a part of Karmic.

Chris - Thanks for the Universalis link. I've heard a lot of good things, but I've never read it myself.

L8r, --Dan

QuoteOne criticism I heard from one of my usual players is that most role-players won't want to let their characters fail (ie. get tricked, foiled, and beaten up) just to earn Karma.

I don't think that's the case.  Even gamist players are willing to take a hit if they can get some kind of benefit later on.  Take my D&D group for instance.  During character creation I allowed them to purchase as much equipment as they wanted (magic or otherwise) in exchange for an equal amount of "Oppression".  The "opression" would come in various forms & degrees at random times during the game and be equivalent to an Encounter Level 1 for every 1000gp.  They jumped at the opportunity with the highest gp value being 200,000gp.

So far, players have lost limbs, gained split personalities, become psychotic , had their secrets revealed and the worst possible time and so on.  I have received no complaints from anyone.  In fact, everyone seems to be enjoying the suspense of knowing bad things are coming their way.

As long as the system is clear you shouldn't have any problems.

,Matt Gwinn

Quote from: ReverendBaynOne criticism I heard from one of my usual players is that most role-players won't want to let their characters fail (ie. get tricked, foiled, and beaten up) just to earn Karma. Unfortunately, this is central to my design philosophy. Do you see this as a fundamental problem, or just a matter of selection/training the right players for the right game?

I think it is specifically not a matter of selection and training.  Some players will help make bad things happen to their character some of the time just because of the lovely narrative involved.  Some won't.  To that extent, it might be a matter of selection.  

If it's key for your Karmic rewards to incent those decisions, but the rewards do not justify the burden, then the Karma system isn't tuned right.  Make Karma a little better and see how the players act.  Then a little better.  And so on.  Eventually you'll want to tone it back down a little and you'll be there.  You'll only get the tuning right through play testing.

Chris

I have developed a diceless mechanic of my own which involves a similar premise. In brief: a character can succeed at any task, contingent upon having sufficient time in which to do so, regardless of skill possessed. The more skilled a character is, the less time is required to complete the task. Players decide how much time the character spends in the attempt, which determines success or failure. If the character needs to complete a difficult task in haste, the player can choose to Risk potential future consequences in order to succeed in the time desired.

Character Development:
Since Karmic characters don't have any numerical stats, I'm thinking that "advancement" can be handled in purely narrative terms. For instance, if you make a new enemy, it becomes a Flaw. If you make new allies, add them to your description & any actions they can help with will cost 1 Karma point. (Recall that doing something that's not reflected in your description costs twice as much Karma.) The same thing goes for learning a new skill, unlocking psychic powers, acquiring new equipment, etc.

L8r, --Dan

Couple possibilities on getting people to hurt themselves:

1. Humor.  Hosing your characters is funny.  See InSpectres.

2. Pay.  Hose now, reward later.  Basically this is traditional RPG "balance" at work dynamically: "If I suck hard at X, I get more points to buy Y."

3. Concessions.  Lumpley's game "Chalk Outlines Waiting To Happen" proposed the idea that you can always succeed at an action, but you have to pay for it right now by inventing things that go wrong.  The system scales such that a small suck-osity requires small concessions, and a large one requires large concessions.  So basically if you're facing a huge difficulty level, you can always succeed, but you're going to pay through the nose.  The players make up the concessions, perhaps with some kibitzing from others, so that everyone gets in the habit of hosing their characters in the long run to pay for their successes now.  I've stolen this concept for Shadows in the Fog (see weblink below for an early alpha), and commend it to you highly.  "Chalk Outlines" is available at lumpley's website, for free, so check it out.

Chris Lehrich