Brainstorming
I've been thinking a bit lately about constructing a system using cards instead of dice. I know it's been done before, but mainly with tarot cards, which I don't have and don't know how to use.
I'd like to have task resolution take place through hands of poker. Not sure exactly how it would play out, but I have a few ideas on what i would like it to accomplish. I'd like the damage/margin of success to be accomplished through the bidding phase of a poker hand. I'd also like at least some of the experience points to be given out via winning those bids. Any ideas on how this could be handled?
I don't know exactly what setting this system would be most ideal for supporting, but it would have to involve some sort of inter-party tension, since I'd like to include the character creation idea I pitched for Josh's supers game. Kind of keeping with the bidding idea.
Obviously, none of this would work well on-line at all. Fortunately, I'll be back in Mass soon. In fact, I'll be getting in the car tomorrow morning, and reach Pittsfield on the third, then Woburn on the sixth. This is a permanent move. I'm done with AZ. Shaking the dust off my feet and all.
So, lets brainstorm, and then arrange for an actual trial run in meat-space in the near future.
14 comments:
Huh…interesting. I’ve got to admit, I’m a little skeptical, the system seems a little too complicated to be practical, but I’m willing to be proved wrong. Mainly my concern would be, what would we be betting? Those “chips” would also have to carry over and have significance in more than one game, to stop someone from losing on purpose just to help someone else out. Another concern I have is that these conflicts would have to be solved over the course of several hands. There’s very little that we can do to affect what hands we get, getting crappy cards is an element of poker. What’s important is to win big when you’ve got the good cards. So, I guess my concern really is that it seems like it would take a long time to get anything done.
Oh, and in case it matters, I have tarot cards, and I know how to use them.
And not to nag, but what happened to your Mage game? Now that you’re back, any chance we could get that running? I’ve done some reading on it, and I’m excited to get started.
For my own easy reference, here's what I suggested back when Josh was considering involving a gambling element to his character creation for CCU:
"First off, as much as I like the gambling idea, for it to work at all the game needs to have competitive elements. How will you be putting us in competition with one another? In what ways will my goals and Jeremy's be mutually exclusive, or at least able to be biased to either of us but not both? How are our needs in tension?
One possible way could relate to experience points. Whoever contributes the most materially to resolving the conflict in the scene gets x number of experience points, and everyone else gets squat. That way we have a reason to want to be better than each other, and go out of our way to get things done. Other ways might work better; that's just what came to mind first.
Once that's solved, gambling isn't too hard. Just don't rate skills by number. Instead, have qualitative values for them. Maybe skills rank at 'worst,' 'okay' and 'best.' Give us all a set number of points to bid, and we bid against each other for who gets to be the best at something. Give bonus points for being willing to take worst, and let us bid that down as well.
Say Jeremy and I both want to be best at Brawling, if brawling were a skill choice. I would bid a point. Jeremy would counter-bid. It would continue until one of us wins the bid. Then we pay that many points.
The other bidding would work kind of in reverse. Say we both want to be the worst at Swimming. I might start off the bid by saying "I'm the worst at swimming for 10" meaning you'd give me 10 extra points to bid with for that. Jeremy could say "No, I'm the worst for 7 points." And so on until one of us either decides that it isn't worth it, or one of us takes it for 1.
I guess default would be that we're okay at everything. You'd need to figure out what the modifiers are for those values. Maybe best gets you a +5 on a roll, or an extra die, or however the system works, and worst the opposite."
In reference to this, probably chips would be used to represent points, and extra cards to represent 'best' or what not.
well, that system seems to work well, I'm just not sure how it relates to card playing and gambling. I'm also a little unclear about how we can justify that in terms of roleplaying. I'm especially bad at poker, does that mean my character routinely has bad luck?
Well, first, what it has to do with the other bit is that I want to unify the two. I want the points you're bidding with at character creation to be the same chips you bid with in conflict resolution, and the same experience points you use to buy new stats and abilities in play.
Second, yes, it probably does mean your characters will end up with bad luck, or at least worse luck than someone else with the same stats. The bonus cards will still do a lot to give you better hands, and I'm not thinking this will have any kind of draw phase, so there's only so much you can do to screw it up, unless you get scared into folding.
The reason for this is as follows: In most games, I find the system to be boring. Sometimes useful, but still seeming to get in the way. Still, some system is sometimes better than the GM just dictating results, so, I thought that if I could come up with a system that was actually fun in its own right, then I might not want to abandon it in play. Obviously, this particular system might not accomplish this goal for everyone, but I think it might for me.
That said, thoughts on setting:
In an ideal world, the system ought to support the setting. What this means here is that since we have a system that heavily involves competition and situations where we can't all win, we might want a setting that welcomes that.
What sort of me-versus-you-but-also-us-versus-them type of situations might you find entertaining?
Hmm...well, let's see here.
Any sort of race or "last man standing" sort of game could support that kind of system very well. While we might make compromises along the way (example, "okay, how about the two of us work together to take down that big guy), ultimately there can only be one winner. However, in such a game we would obviously be at the mercy of some greater creature. Either a group of people, a greater being, or even someone who's sponcering this bloodthirsty event. Even if we're here on our own free will, we're answering to some "higher power." It's almost like what my "Quest for Eternity" game is based around. Ultimately, only one person can win the will, but obvioulsy you can help each other out along the way.
The same concept could carry over to a bounty-hunting game, where we're all after the same criminal, some sort of treasure-hunter...I don't know, basically anything with one obvious prize. What do you think? Any ideas cooler than the ones I can think up with?
I don't like exactly how it works, but here's an example of someone else's take on the poker mechanic: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=25390.0
Huh...well, I'm impressed. It's a lot different than what I was thinking, but I like it.
though I wouldn't exactly call it "poker"...
I'm not thinking of doing it the exact same way. My idea is to use a mechanic similar to stud poker. Four cards would be dealt face up, to be shared by everyone in the confrontation, and one or more, depending on stats, to each player. Use the cards to form a five card hand, and the best hand wins. So, yes, poker.
One thing I'm currently butting my head against is finding a way to integrate the bidding idea for the character creation. Right now I'm thinking of simply giving stats on each way you can resolve a conflict. So far, I've come up with three, which I'm calling Bully, Brains, and Bullshit. I think you can figure out what those mean.
Each of those would have a number of cards you'd get, and a maximum raise. So, how likely you are to win the conflict, and how dramatically you can win.
The problem right now is, I don't think that gives enough variety to really allow for competition over the stats. I've got two little bits of systems, and I don't know how I ought to fit them together.
Also, it may need a little bit more flavor. I could add powers, but I'd need to settle on a setting. Then, costs are still up in the air. How much should stats cost, and should that differ between character creation and advancment? I'm leaning towards no on the second question, but that doesn't solve the other question.
Random thought: I don't know if I'll need an initiative system. If I do, draw high card works fine, and allows for another place for players to sink some xp. Alternatively, everyone who wants in on the conflict can just jump on in, possibly using different stats to represent the ways they want to end it.
Example: Bob is robbing a bank, and Jim, Joe, and John are there. Bob is freaked out, and wants to shoot everyone. Jim wants to punch him in the face before he can shoot. Joe wants to make him look the other way so they can run out. John wants to talk him into giving himself up to the police.
They're all competing against each other; only one can win. Bob and Jim will be using their Bully score, Joe his Brains score, and John his Bullshit score.
Everyone antes up, to indicate their intention to participate in the conflict. Four cards would be dealt face up, and a varying number of cards face down to each, including the dealer, who is playing Bob. Then everyone bets, indicating to what extent they increase the dramatic tension.
Each charater has, in addition to a score indicating the number of card they will recieve, a score indicating the maximum amount they can raise, in addition to matching any previous bets. Say Jim raises the stakes by 5 points. Joe gets to match that, then raise, if he wishes, by whatever his Brains score says he can, even though Bob wants to shoot people and Jim wants to punch Bob.
Eventually, when everyone has called, the betting is over, and the stakes are set. When it's all over, those stakes will be realised in two forms: the winner gets the gain, the pot, everyone's cumulative bets, and the loser gets the pain, which could be fairly extreme, since each chip can represent physical damage if the winner was using Bully.
Say Bob wins. The players upped the stakes to a fairly high level. Instead of Bob just wounding someone and scaring everyone into submission, since at the end of the hand the conflict is over, he lets loose a spray of bullets, and probably people die. Bystanders aren't dramatically significant, so they didn't get to play. Bob doesn't have to dish out all that pain, but this time he wanted to, and he gets to say where it goes. He does get all that experience.
Whatever he does, the conflict is over, and the story has to continue before anyone can initiate another conflict.
If an action is dramatically insignificant, it isn't played. If it is, but there's no opponent, the dealer plays it as Fate, with whatever scores he deems appropriate.
Sorry for the delay in posting. Yeah, I think that system could work pretty well. Only thing is, I think we could stand to have at least one more stat. I mean, sure, most abilities can be divided into those three categories, but just because you're big and strong doesn't mean you've got good aim, for example.
No worries on the delay. I keep meaning to type up a character sheet, but haven't yet.
As to an additional stat, what would it be?
Let me clarify the design goals here. For the most part, when it comes to role playing games, I'm a narrativist (for explication of the terms and theory, look here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html ). I like a good story, and I pretty much like a good story to the exclusion of all other things that could be liked in a game. However, I recognize that there are in fact other things that a person might not be wrong to enjoy. For example, I enjoy a lot of other games, like board games, in which what I enjoy is not a story. So, this game is my attempt to bring out my inner gamist. Still, there are only so many goals you can fulfill at a time. I can make a game that can be fun to play as a game, and might also possibly support a good story, but if I try to throw in realism, I'll probably make a mess of it.
So, sure, another stat might be a good thing, if we can figure out what it should be, but I'm not going to add one just for the sake of realism. Remember: min-maxing is a gamist thing, and one that I actually want to encourage here. If it makes the rules more fun to play with, it's a good thing.
Also, many actions will conceivably fit into more than one stat. Obviously, you'll want to use the one with the better score, but you'll have to justify it to the Dealer. Hitting the bad guy in the head with a brick is pretty clearly Bully, but hitting your friend in the head with a brick to intimidate the bad guy into thinking you're too much trouble to mess with could also be Brains or Bullshit.
I understand that we want to keep the game simple, that's why I'm suggesting just one more stat, as opposed to say two or three. I just think that the addition of one more stat could really round out the game, and make it a much better balance of simplicity and realism.
I'd suggest something along the lines of "skill" for the last stat. Kinda like what "warfare" is in my game. Basically, the way I see it, there's a difference between hitting someone over the head with a brick and fencing. There's a difference between understanding mathmatics and being able to play cards. "Skill" would basically be the other stats applied. It could even be a sub-stat. So you've got, say 5 brains, and 4 brains-applied. Any thoughts?
Post a Comment