The Forge Archives

This thread builds on previous work in [Dulcimer Hall] How crazy is this?.

So there is this character that I have never seen done right in RPGs.  Michael, from La Femme Nikita (TV).  Amon from Witch Hunter Robin.  Early Angel from Buffy.  The Angsty Loner Cypher Guy.  He has the following properties and behaviors:

[*]Shows no emotion 99.9% of the time.
[*]Excels at absolutely everything.
[*]Has broad authority to meddle in other people's problems.
[*]Has unprecedented independence from other people's authority.
[*]Knows way more than he's telling.
[*]Continually contradicts any nascent theory that might make clear his brooding depths.
[*]Thrives on situations where other characters are distracted from pinning him down by external conflict[/list:u]In genre fiction I find this guy mesmerizing.  I will sit there and rack my brains, trying to figure out what the lift of an eyebrow portends, whether he really is as cold as he seems or simply restrained beyond human endurance.  And when other protagonists try to figure him out (as they always do) I bond with them instantly.  We have an obsession in common.

In RPGs... oy.  I've never seen this done as anything better than a pale non-entity.  Including the many times I've tried to do it myself.  The inactions that make up the core of the character don't have any rules-impact.  So you're relying entirely upon other players to be interested... but you can't give them any authorial input into the character without violating your whole angsty loner vibe.

In short, the character structure does not give the player anything to contribute to the fun in most games.  But I want to fix that for Dulcimer Hall.  Because I love this character, and I want to make him playable.


So what are we talking about here, in Dulcimer Hall terms?

[*]Draws none of the traits people assign him, 99.9% of the time.  This means that whatever bonus those give in the rules, it can't be required for the cold competence that the character needs.
[*]High stats for practical purposes.
[*]Creates a large number of traits on other players characters.
[*]Creates contradictory traits... particularly when players are close to consolidating the traits he has assigned them into a single coherent trait.
[*]It must be possible to create incentives for other players to use the traits the ALCG's player creates, despite the characters lack of emotional connection.[/list:u]That's a tall order, but I think I have a few steps toward it.

Dice Mechanic

Until something better comes along, I am thinking about hybridizing a dice-matching mechanic with the Dogs "See/Raise" pattern.  

Players each have a "Pile" (as distinct from, later, Pools) of six-sided dice.  These dice are all the same, distinctive, color.  One player can have red, one blue, one white, etc.

When a Conflict arises, players roll a pool of dice.  They then take turns putting forward sets of identical dice (i.e. 2 dice that rolled 3, if they have that many).  The opposition must See that Raise by putting forward a matching set of dice that are equal or greater in total.  So, against 2d@3 they can play 2d@3, 3d@2, 1d@6, etc.

To use a Trait of level N on your character, you slide one of your colored dice from your Pile (not your pool) to the Pile of the person who made the Trait.  Then you can reroll up to N of the dice in your Pool.  This helps fill in larger matches, and allows for spectacular individual results:  Generally the motivation and modus operandi of players who get themselves jerked around emotionally a lot.

Dice that are not your color may be rolled into your Pool at any time.  This helps create a larger pool, inherently filling out matches, and allows the character to win wars of attrition with ease:  Generally the motivation and modus operandi of players playing the ALCG.

If you have both of these operating (i.e. you can roll a large pool of bonus dice earned by mystifying other players, then hone it with several rerolls earned by having figured yourself out) you become unstoppable.  That would be Buffy or Nikita as the end of their series's drew nigh.

And this is about where I peter out, thought-wise.  Agggh!  

I think that there is room to have different sort of counters depending on whether you spend more or less dice than your opponent (in the same way that Dogs in the Vineyard has Turn the Blow, Block/Dodge and Take the Blow), but I haven't figured out what they should be.

So, triple question:  Does this mechanic seem like a good fit for what's gone before?  Does it help to support ALCG?  And what else is needed?

OK, that's a lot to absorb... for now, one question.

If I've read you correctly, players (any players) can increase the effectiveness of their Pool by:

- Adding dice from their Pile, or
- Re-rolling dice in their Pool

In other words, the route to increased effectiveness is:

- Naming traits for other players, which they want to use, and
- Using traits which other players give you

Now, the ALCG can only do the first of these with any regularity, but "normal" characters can do both, right?

So, what, if any mechanical advantage does the ALCG gain in return for not using traits? Because at the moment, I think the answer is "none".

Hrm... quite right.  That is, indeed, a problem.

My first thought for a possible response:  Is there a cost to the red-dice player when somebody else has and/or uses a red die?  Because then the mechanical advantage of not using Traits is that you don't give away any of those dice.

I'll need to think about the actual mechanical impact of this more, but I just want to say now that I love the idea of this.

It's a bit like, by acting in the way people expect you to behave (by naming your traits) you're giving them a little piece of your soul.

I don't know if this is a useful exercise or not - but if that my little pile of black (must be black!) dice is my character's game "soul", how should it be affected by:

- my character trying to understand your character (by naming a trait) and succeeding;
- my character trying to understand your character and succeeding
- your character to understand mine and failing;
- your character trying to understand mine and succeeding.

(also note that this is ripe for "prisoner's dilemma" style game theory.)

Gotta go now (at work!), will check in later.

Good questions!  I'll put out some provisional answers:

[*]Assume Ada (Character A) and Bart (Character B).  Ada has red dice, Bart has black.[*]Bart cannot gain a better chance to add a trait to Ada by spending red dice (that would create a death-spiral loss of control for Ada).[*]Bart can reduce Ada's chance of consolidating her own Traits into larger ones, by spending red dice.[*]Can Ada increase her chance of consolidating her Traits by spending black dice?[/list:u]I think that adding traits to another character is not, in-game, trying to understand them.  Consolidating traits is trying to understand things.

New thoughts:

[*]The world as a whole needs a sheet of traits for people to manipulate.
[*]Can people consolidate across sheets? (e.g. Megan: "I respect Shen - 1" + Shen: "I have a duty to Megan - 1" = World:  "Megan and Shen, formidable team - 2")  I'm thinking, initially, no... because doing so actually reduces the need to interact as characters.
[*]Can people mine the world-sheet for traits to consolidate with their own sheet? (e.g. Megan:  "Shen respects me - 1" + World: "Shen didn't let Megan fight her own fight - 1" = Megan:  "Shen pretends to respect me - 2")  I'm thinking yes, because it makes for some competition to consolidate... if someone else gets that traits before you, it's gone (i.e. no longer has mechanical consequence).[/list:u]

At this stage the system is so nebulous that I'm having a hard time actually analyzing its effects.

The basic "You have traits given to you by others that you can use or not" is really cool.  So, some questions on that:

-How do you consolidate?  Just say so?  Is there some sort of cost?  What keeps you from just consolidating everything into one big trait (i.e. who judges whether that's allowed)?
-How do you prevent consolidation from happening?
-How often are you going to need to utilize extra dice to win?
-Are most contests opposed between players or against some other obstacle?

I'm really digging this so far, well what I can figure out of it...

Thomas

Yeah... too many ideas, not enough skeleton to hang them on.  I know this feeling... time to do a little work offline.  I hope to have a preliminary (but coherent) rules draft and example of play up by tomorrow morning.  Wish me luck!

I will, of course, still be watching this thread for suggestions while I'm doing this.  I may not jump in a whole lot with contributions, though.

Quote from: TonyLBI think that adding traits to another character is not, in-game, trying to understand them.  Consolidating traits is trying to understand things.

If this is so, then I have the germ of a plan:

- Each player has a Pile of dice (in their own colour, to begin with)
- In order to "activate" a trait offered by another character, you have to give them a die from your Pile. You can give them a die of your own colour (indicating more emotional investment) or return a die of their own colour (ALCG behaviour).
- Once the trait is "activated" it doesn't have to be paid for in this way again - it's a known fact about the character.
- To resolve another character's traits, you can only use dice that you own which are their colour.

So, the more my character accepts traits from your character, the more your character understands me, and the more power they have to resolve my character's traits.

But, if I want to be a Cypher, I will attempt to give you traits which you find attractive - and then pay for my own traits using the dice you gave me. Ths allows me to rack up a stack of abilities and/or backstory, while remaining mysterious.

But if I want to exert control over other player, without losing control of my own dice, I've got to take less traits than I accept. That way, I get to keep my own dice, and some of yours too - the flipside is that I've got less traits. So it's a strategy, rather than a gamebreaker.

Does this work for you?

Hrm... resolve (by which I imagine you mean "consolidate") another player's character's traits.

That's not something I was thinking about (because it undermines a lot of the remaining player control over character), but it has some very intriguing options.  After all, if you didn't want them to have that sort of power, all you had to do was not give them your dice.

Yeah, exactly my point.

Reducing it to it's bare mechanical bones:

- You offer me the chance to gain a permanent mechanical advantage over the world in exchange for some of my dice
- If I take up the offer (now or later) then you gain a resource (my dice) which gives you a permanent mechanical advantage over me
- If I already hold some of your dice, I can give them back to you instead of giving you some of mine

What specific mechanical advantages are gained, can be changed, but I think the core idea is sound.

One thing about this that seems really cool to me is that it sets things up such that the person who is willing to give up the most control of their character (i.e. give away more of their dice) controls the pace of the game.  If all but one of the players are desperately striving to not give out any of their dice then the one player who is willing to give them out controls the pace.  I think that is totally sweet.

Thomas

Wow... you're right.  I hadn't thought of it that way.

The genre (which, until I hear a better term, I'm going to dub "crypto-romance") has a very strong correlation between "star of the show" and "pereson who gets repeatedly and completely screwed over by other characters".

In author-directed fiction, it's easy to start from the axiom "this character is the star" and proceed to brutally manipulate and torture them.  But participants object to that sort of force (with good reason) in community-directed fiction.  It doesn't really fly in RPGs.

But maybe you can get the same effect without force by reversing the causality:  not "You are manipulated because you are the star", but rather "You are the star because you are manipulated."

Also, never underestimate the enthusiasm with which players hose their own characters, or encourage other players to hose their own characters, when the system provides ultimate rewards for doing so.

Unlike the gamer version of the angsty loner, the real version suffers and suffers badly, all the time. The gamer says, "Nothing can touch me, because I'm so cool and no one knows the Truth about me," but the real movie, novel, comic, or TV show says, "Owwie! Owwie! Oh, woe is me! But I'm tough and can take i -- Owwie!"

The whole point of such a character is that others are always reaching out to them, because they want to help.

Best,
Ron

There are certainly characters who outwardly suffer, and who you could apply the terms "Angsty" and "Loner" to.  Maybe even "Cypher".  But those characters are not what I'm talking about when discussing Angsty Loner Cypher Guys.  I really am talking about characters who don't visibly suffer, or evolve, or emote.

Those characters are not fit to be protagonists in the story of a group following a narrativist agenda:  they are not, themselves, fit to address theme.  But they can still be very good tools for players acting as facilitators.

I keep encountering players who say that they want to play in a game where the protagonists suffer, but they don't want to play those protagonists.  I want to make a game where they can have fun doing that, and where doing so supports the game as a whole (and particularly makes their fun dovetail nicely with the fun of people playing the suffering protagonists).

So, some questions, to make sure I understand what you want from Angsty Loner Cypher Guys (or Gals) in play. (Line-by-line me if it's easier to answer that way.)

They don't show emotion, but they are very competent, right? And this means that they are going to actively demonstrate that competence in play, and will help or hinder other characters in doing so?

So, by choosing to help or hinder, they are in fact making deliberate choices, but because they don't show their feelings, it's hard to tell why they made those choices?

And is this why you don't consider them to be fit to be protagonists in narrativist play? Or is it something else?