Tales from the Rocket House
Sometimes the best thing to do (with a given level of talent) is to try to figure out what the rules are for a given genre and intentionally try to exemplify them, maybe adding one little twist, just to make it your own. That's what I've tried to do with my Tarafore System. I tried to exemplify the Simulationist and Immersive style of gaming, without any of the Gamist holdovers from roleplaying's origins. For example, random and point-based character creation are, ultimately, more about fairness and equality of power levels, or at least fairness of opportunity, since everyone rolls the same dice. It did not seem to me that they created characters that were particularly well suited to Simulationist and/or Immersive play, so I replaced them with a wholly organic, conversation based character creation process, which I first saw as a secondary side-note in the old Marvel Super Heroes Advanced Edition so many years ago. I haven't figured out this process nearly so well with my fiction as with my gaming, which explains a lot. While my friends, and even people I've never met, have used and enjoyed the Tarafore system, reshaping some parts of it to fit their own goals, but ultimately keeping the core intact, my friends and family basically read my fiction because they love me, not because they like it. Oh, well. I'd rather have friends than fans any day. But I won't be quitting my day job anytime soon.
With City of Night (Part One, Part Two, and Part Three), I did my best to break the rules HARD, removing the GM while allowing for competitive, even antagonistic, play styles. The initial playtest went well, but the Beta test (conducted as a part of Dirk Stanley's D6 contest judging) unearthed several weak points.
The first complaint was not a weak point per se, but just the reality that a lot of roleplayers, especially traditional tabletop roleplayers, neither like nor see the point of GM-less gaming. Even one great Rocket Hauser, LiamtheRuiner, asked me, “Why would you want to get rid of the GM?” “To see what happens” is at least part of the answer, honestly.
Another potential weakness was the setting's similarity to White Wolf's World of Darkness (in broad strokes, so either old or new) and the dozens of urban fantasy dimestore novels and TV shows we've seen lately. That's not entirely my fault, as the whole process began in response to a post about an online multiplayer game with that setting. That said, once I have some more time on my hands, I may try to use City of Night with a new setting, maybe fantasy, cyberpunk, sci-fi, or, if possible, something that's actually creative.
More pressing problems arose with the actual mechanics once they left the relative safety of the Rocket House. Major complaints were that the players spent too much time arguing over details in the setting (low-intensity Narrative Conflicts) and not enough time with their characters actually doing anything interesting. Further, there were concerns that the rules were not clear enough, and that different kinds of Conflicts overlapped, leaving players unsure how to handle specific events.
One complaint was that the resolution method was too arbitrary whenever two players disagreed on something concerning an upcoming Conflict, such as when it happened (important when facing down a vampire with a sunlight weakness), or which of two Conflicts takes place first (do I find you and beat you down [Physical Combat] before you use your connections to have me arrested? [Social Combat]). The previous method was basically flipping a coin. Granted, that was pretty arbitrary, but I wanted to avoid an endlessly recursive string of Conflicts to decide how the next Conflict will be resolved.
My solution would simply be that if the players disagree on the conditions of an upcoming Conflict, they must “Bid” Traits from the appropriate Conflict. Those Traits are unusable for the upcoming Conflict. If they're arguing over which of two Conflicts goes first, each must bid Traits from the Attribute that will be used in the Conflict that he or she wants to happen first. To use the previous example, the Bruiser would Bid, or hold back, Physical Traits in order to have her assault of the Socialite happen first, and the Socialite would bid Social Traits in order to have his character assassination and frame-up of the Bruiser happen first.
In other words, to get your way, you have to handicap yourself. The player who bids the most Traits gets to decide which Conflict is resolved first, or gets to decide whether the Conflict takes place in the day or night, or whatever. If, and only if, the players' bids “top off” at the same number of Traits do you flip a coin. Both the winner and the loser of this bidding process have to hold back the Traits, and cannot use them in the relevant Conflict.
Another complaint was that people would use an early “Fold” to escape serious consequence of one conflict, only to immediately start a related conflict with a different, presumably more favorable Attribute. The easiest way to deal with this would be to make Folding an optional rule. While the option to “Fold” and escape from the worst possible consequences adds some stability to a game, because it reduces lethality, it does tend to suck a lot of the suspense out of a Combat, and may leave the winning player feeling cheated. As far as “tag-backs” (immediately following one Combat with another) go, the game probably does need something like a one-hour buffer during which two characters who finished a Combat cannot enter another. That will give those characters a chance to do something else, and will give outside characters a chance to act.
The last major concern may well have been the most serious: players spent more time debating small setting details (and rolling out low-intensity Narrative Conflicts) than actually having their characters do anything. The only possible solution I have for that is to simply remove the Narrative Conflicts rule and replace it with, “setting details are determined in the course of, and as a result of, character actions,and the only way to oppose character actions is through Combat using the appropriate Attribute.”
That would certainly take the gloves off. I think part of the problem with City of Night as written is that somewhere along the line, I started playing it safe, insulating the characters from serious consequences and including mechanics that focused on small, low-risk conflicts. In doing so, I pulled the game's fangs (rimshot). Hopefully, these changes will put some bite back into it. Okay, that's enough bad puns for one column. Good night!
