The Forge Archives

Previous Misery Bubblegum discussion here.  Source of the ideas I'm about to discuss here.

People started discussing, in the actual play thread, how you would support a system where people provided warm-up and integration connecting their characters to the big conflict either about to happen or just finished.  It was widely agreed that this was a worthwhile goal.

So here's my thinking, specific to Misery Bubblegum.  Basically, your characters are going to have all these dice in various places on the diagram.  And all of those help to position the character relative to what type of conflict they'd like to get involved in.  But it doesn't provide any positioning about which actual conflict they want to get involved in.

I suggest that you have Issues (like "Do these characters fall in love" or "Terrorists are holding hostages in the Hayworth building" or whatever).  By taking the warm-up types of actions, players can take dice from their diagram and put them on that Issue instead.  Those dice can then be spent (theoretically... more later) on any roll where the Issue is at stake, no matter where in the diagram it would originate.  So it's a slush fund, to cover gaps in your character's emotional positioning.

The thing is, who decides when an Issue is at stake?  My take is that whoever has the most dice on the issue can say it's relevant (or later say "it's not relevant any more") and only they can say that.  If folks are tied for first then the state can only be changed (irrelevant to relevant or vice-versa) by consensus.  Note that, as they spend dice off of the Issue, the person who had the most dice may rapidly lose that position of authority).

This gets into definite dollar auction territory.  Whoever is in second place has a large amount of their resources tied up in something they have no direct control over... investing just a little more would give them control.  I like to think that the dynamics of a two-way dollar auction would nicely replicate the "build to climax, then spend out suddenly" dynamic of dramatic tension.  Hard to say before play-testing.

But I think this would give people a clear motivation and mechanic for connecting their character to the situation:  They are motivated to become personally invested in the Issues, because of the strategy involved.  Then, when the Issue is largely resolved, they are motivated to soak off the last few dice hanging around in the Issue, to get them back onto their diagram.

So what sort of actions, mechanically, would they be doing to put dice on Issues and to take them off?

Tony,

This is a quick comment, as I'm concentrating on Game Chef this week.

Quote from: TonyLBThe thing is, who decides when an Issue is at stake? My take is that whoever has the most dice on the issue can say it's relevant (or later say "it's not relevant any more") and only they can say that. If folks are tied for first then the state can only be changed (irrelevant to relevant or vice-versa) by consensus. Note that, as they spend dice off of the Issue, the person who had the most dice may rapidly lose that position of authority).

Suggestion: whoever has the highest pip count on an Issue controls the Issue. Whoever has the highest pip count on a character Trait controls the Trait. Conflicts consist of moving a dice from a relevant Trait you control to a Fact (or from a Fact you control, to a Trait) and rolling both the Trait and the Fact.

And that's it.

(But can talk about it some more, if you're interested.)

Two things:  One, the logistics (literally, in terms of moving hands, moving drinks, 3x5 cards, recording sessions, etc.) of tracking pips is much more complicated than just tracking "There are five red dice on this card" and ignoring their value.  I'd need to be convinced that the pip-counting might give the system something really substantial before I invested much energy in developing it.

Second:  You're proposing that traits also be holding-places for people's dice, which is new.  Care to elaborate?

Quote from: TonyLBSecond:  You're proposing that traits also be holding-places for people's dice, which is new.  Care to elaborate?

Sure, I've managed to get some sleep now!

This was an idea that came to me a few days ago, and I've been mulling it over since. It's largely inspired by some of the Capes/Universalis/what's a roleplaying game discussions that went on recently.

Universalis has a resource system for creating facts; in Capes, whoever has the highest score on a conflict controls the situation (but has to resolve it.) This idea is a bastard child of both systems.

Traits are really Facts about people, and the design goals treat them similarly as well. The Facts change in play as a result of character action; unlike many RPGs, we want the Traits to change as well (not just increase in value, but actually change meaning).

Conflict in the game can be reduced to two stakes: "What happens next?" and "What does this mean?"

Examples: I'm on a date and the local bully walks towards our table: what happens next? Jenny is a really shy person: what does this mean? Joey wants me to lend him money for drugs: what happens next and what does this mean about Joey? About me?

So, I was wondering whether or not this process could be wrapped up into a tight package. Each player assigns their dice to Traits (about themselves) and Facts (about the world). They can (and should) hold dice back in a Reserve pool.

In turns, each player frames a conflict, which targets a Fact or Trait that they do not currently control. They can move dice from any relevant Fact or Trait they control (even dice of another player's colour) onto the target Fact or Trait. Other players can do the same if they are involved (and if someone moves one of your dice, you are now involved.)

To resolve the conflict, roll all the dice on the Target Fact or Trait: who ever has the highest pip count now controls that Fact or Trait, and may narrate a change to its meaning.

However, any Facts or Traits that had dice moved away from them must also be rolled: this may result in a change of ownership to those Facts or Traits as well.

Reserve dice: A character can use spare dice to target a conflict, by moving these directly from their Reserve to the Fact or Trait under conflict. The Reserve is the only area which is solely under one player's control, so it's very useful.

At the end of each session, you don't need to keep the pip counts - the only important information is who currently controls the Trait or Fact, and how many dice of each colour are on it. This isn't a big leap from your current requirements.

I also think that you don't need many more rules than this to make the game playable. Maybe allow players to support each other in a conflict, which means you can add their totals together for determining who controls the trait this time around.

(By the way, if you're not interested in this, I'd like to pick it up and run with it myself some time, is that OK?)


EDIT: I've just remembered that this isn't necessarily compatible with Bribes (in other words, it may nt be so usful after all.) Hope it's still interesting.

Wow that's neat.

I don't think it fits my design goals in Misery Bubblegum of having your character change as a result of who you make connections with, but it's really extremely cool.  I think you should run with it.

Thanks, Tony - I'll put it on my project list!

In the meantime, back to your original question. Putting dice onto an issue sounds like an act of emotional investment, so I'd expect the player to narrate this. Example: "I'm working hard because I want to please my father."

Taking dice from an issue could be an act of emotional withdrawal ("I don't care what he thinks about me anymore, let's go!") or maybe even an act of "closure" ("I'm still hurting, but I'm getting over it.") or even denial ("I'm going to throw myself into study/the gym/the play so i can forget about my issues.")

Is this any closer?

Yeah, I think that's what I'm generally thinking too.

It's just... hrm... "show, don't tell", y'know?

Instead of "I'm working hard because I want to please my father", I'd like to see a scene where the kid and father interact in ways that make this clear without ever stating it.

Like, I think it would be really cool if someone framed a scene at the breakfast table... their father comes blazing down, late for work.  Kimmy says "Dad, you know, the science fair is..." and gets interrupted, "I'll want to hear all about it tonight when I get home... may be late, I've got that Henderson meeting."  Dad grabs a danish and bolts out the door.  Kimmy's player nods, takes a die and puts it on the "Impress daddy" Issue.

Which is, mechanically, identical to the scene where Kimmy's dad is tremendously attentive, and supportive, and how could you live with yourself if you let him down?  But I, as a fellow player, need to know the details.

And I'm thinking that, to the extent you can measure "success" or "failure" in such scenes, the players should be committed to changing the Issue some way or another, whether they succeed or fail.  Maybe they could go in saying "I want to get some closure on this", to farm dice out, and then if they fail (as in the first example) they have to put dice in instead.

Yes, the scene is essential. So take a page from My Life With Master and require your players to have a million d4s... I mean, give each player a "turn" to frame a scene and require him/her to frame a scene specifically highlighting an issue in order to move dice onto that Issue.

Quote from: TonyLBLike, I think it would be really cool if someone framed a scene at the breakfast table... their father comes blazing down, late for work.  Kimmy says "Dad, you know, the science fair is..." and gets interrupted, "I'll want to hear all about it tonight when I get home... may be late, I've got that Henderson meeting."  Dad grabs a danish and bolts out the door.  Kimmy's player nods, takes a die and puts it on the "Impress daddy" Issue.

It would be even cooler if this could be framed as a "flashback" scene, to help the player in a conflict that they have now.

(I'm not sure if this is quite the same as Sydney's comment, by the way.)

Oh, that would be really cool in some circumstances... particularly if the rules system called for it, because the player got in over their head and realized (a little late) that they should have spent more time preparing in the first place... so they call a scene in flashback, to fill in the gap.

I wouldn't want to do this too often, of course... it would get gimmicky.  But yeah, I like the potential for it.  And also for integration flash-forwards ("But how did you end up breaking your arm?"  "I was just getting to that.")

Hey, what happens if the dice that go into Issues don't come from the players store of their own dice, but only from their dice that they've given away temporarily to other players?  Sort of like Fan-mail is awarded in PTA for saying cool things, but more specific and structured.

From the point of view of the player trying to get their dice onto an issue, this means that they want to (a) give those dice away, and then (b) do something spectacularly cool to entice the people who now have those dice to give them back, rather than any of the other things they could do with them.

From the point of view of the player choosing whether to spend the dice... well, if the issue is one they want dice on as well then it behooves them to make it an issue of interest to other players, which they can do by rewarding those other players for having played to the issue.  But rewarding them in that way is likely to give them control of the Issue, which means that you can't get to the dice you've had put on it at will, which means... urggh....

Okay, for a dead simple rule, this one is unfolding enough strange ramifications that I have trouble getting my head around it.

[*]Annie uses two Traits created on her character (Sophia) by Bob.  She gives Bob two of her red dice.
[*]Annie then raises the "Shamed by her geeky appearance" Issue.
[*]Annie does this wonderful scene where a boy she really likes comes up and tries to talk with her, but Sophia is too ashamed of herself to really engage, and convinces the boy that she doesn't like him.
[*]Bob rewards Annie by placing one red die on the "Shamed by her geeky appearance" Issue.
[*]Annie now controls that Issue and may spend the die any time she decides it's relevant.
[*]Bob decides that his character, Vanessa, is taking Sophia under her wing, and trying to make her feel less ashamed.  He uses two Traits created on Vanessa by Annie, giving her two blue dice.
[*]Annie is so touched by how Vanessa cares about her issues, and so wants to continue building that tension, that she places both of Bob's two dice on the Issue.
[*]Bob now controls that Issue.  Annie cannot spend her die unless he decides that the Issue is relevant.
[*]Bob thinks this is cool too, and wants more dice on it (so he can make a really big, splashy success later).  He gives Annie two more blue dice.
[*]Annie is interested, but figures that Vanessa is vested enough in that Issue already.  She has no intention of making it even more Vanessa's issue until Bob wises up and puts some of Sophia's red dice onto the Issue as well.
[*]Maybe they communicate this, and build up a mutual stock of tension on the issue.  Maybe they don't, and the Issue never grows beyond current levels (and eventually gets resolved and vanishes).  Who knows?[/list:u]What makes this more fun, in my opinion, is cross-polinating it with Goals, as discussed earlier.

If Sophia's Goal is "Other girls care about me", and Vanessa's Goal is "Stop being so shallow and selfish" then maybe Annie doesn't mind loading up the Issue with a ga-dozen of Bob's blue dice, because she gets Sophia's goal the more Vanessa is interested, whether she controls how things play out or not.

If Sophia's Goal is "Be valued for my independence", and Vanessa's Goal is "I choose who is popular and who isn't" then the Issue is going to play out very differently.

EDIT:  And you get yet other dynamics if you say that the player with the least dice on the Issue is the one with control.  Oy.