Taking Alexis's desired template of the child's card game War and incorporating elements relevant to D&D I've come up with the following tentative system. I've also set aside my inclination to have the cards be a resource as well as a static value. You get almost the same hand every time you play until one of the cards changes due to one of the reasons outlined below. I'm posting this not as a fully realized system, but as means of furthering the discussion begun on Alexis's blog with more detail added to the framework he suggested.
Social interactions are resolved with a 5-card hand hand of what is essentially War using a standard 52-card deck. The participant that wins 3 of the 5 hands will "win" the interaction. Each hand will represent one card from each suit and be determined by the guidelines below. The fifth card will be drawn randomly from a playing card deck once the four initial cards have been determined and drawn. For this reason, each participant must have their own deck.
Hearts: Based on the Charisma score of the participant.
- 1 or below, no card
- 2 through 10 equals the same numerical value card (e.g. an 8 charisma score nets you an 8 of hearts)
- 11-13: Jack
- 14-16: Queen
- 17-18: King
- 19 and above: Ace
Diamonds: Based on Intelligence or Wisdom
- 1 or below, no card
- 2 through 10 equals the same numerical value card (e.g. an 8 WIS/ INT score nets you an 8 of hearts)
- 11-13: Jack
- 14-16: Queen
- 17-18: King
- 19 and above: Ace
Spades: Based on your highest prime requisite
- 1 or below, no card
- 2 through 10 equals the same numerical value card
- 11-13: Jack
- 14-16: Queen
- 17-18: King
- 19 and above: Ace
Clubs: Based on your level
- 0 level and below get a 5 of clubs
- 1st through 3rd level get a 10
- 4th through 6th level a Jack
- 7th through 9th level a Queen
- 10th through 12th level a King
- 13th and higher level an Ace
Player's will roll initiative as if it were a combat and the winning player will decide whether to lead or reply. Each of the five hands will then proceed in this order.
Any card may be played at any time. The highest numerical value wins. In the event of a tie each player must randomly draw a card from their standard deck and compare ala War, using the battle/ war resolution system of that game to complete the hand.
PDF
Examining your system, it seems like the cards themselves are an extraneous ornament to the system--an extra level of translation that doesn't change the math. Why not just have each character say "i lead with my 16 wisdom" an "i reply with my 17 prime requisite"?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Zak's assessment. All charisma can be represented by one card, which is then rolled against your stat when played to see if it has value or it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteI'd actually reverse the order of play in a narrative game. Deal cards after initiative has been established. Winner leads and aims to take tricks, narrating actions based on which suit they play for that trick. Unlike War, this is suit driven and not value driven (closer to cut down bridge or euchre), but each trick is won based on value of led suit. Winner of the most tricks establishes winning narrative based on events as played out in the hand.
ReplyDeleteThere's room to do wallops for excessive win margins, as well as all sorts of other fun. Unfortunately, I need to write those up in my own RPG based on this sort of mechanic...
@Zak: Completely correct. The cards are just a prop in this instance and with only five "plays" easy enough to manage just with numbers. You'd still want to keep track of what was played and won and cards doesn't strike me as any more effort to manage then scratching it on paper.
ReplyDelete@Alexis: I'm not sure I understand the comment. Are you saying you'd require the player an ability check to "activate" the card? Or did you somehow think I said that? Or am I missing your point?
@EKB... that approach might work in a different application, but in this instance merely following suit makes the need for having suits or cards at all even more extraneous than what Zak pointed out. A winner could be designated by simply comparing the five respective values and never bothering with cards at all.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing to say that the dice cannot be included in the game. Yes, let's say you haven't tried to use your charisma yet; so you still have your 'charisma' card. You know perfectly well that if you play that card, it might not work; but then, that is part of the gamble, isn't it? That if you use the card, you'll have to roll against your charisma, AND you have to hope the card you use your charisma against doesn't turn out to be the opponent's anti-elf card. In which case, if you are an elf, you'll lose no matter what your charisma is. Should have played the charisma when the opponent was playing the hold-out-for-more-money card...in which case, your successfully rolled charisma would trump money.
ReplyDeleteIt's just a matter of getting all the card heirarchies worked out.
@ Alexis: So if one rolled and failed, what then? Roll to use another card or lose the hand? What happens in the event that both players fail the roll?
ReplyDelete"The hold out for money card" and any other situational cards could be abstracted by just drawing more random cards (or assigning them somehow if so inclined). This now begs the case more for actually having the cards in hand, but I figured a five card hand based on five relatively static values and one variable was enough to get us started.
In theory you could take a set of index cards and write "Holds out for more money", "Hates Halflings", "Well liked in the community" etc. There's no rule that says you have to use playing cards exclusively, which seems to be the assumption you're making.
ReplyDelete""The hold out for money card" and any other situational cards could be abstracted by just drawing more random cards (or assigning them somehow if so inclined). This now begs the case more for actually having the cards in hand, but I figured a five card hand based on five relatively static values and one variable was enough to get us started."
ReplyDeleteBy the way, what I was referring to was this part of the post. I'm wondering why you assume that standard cards are the only ones you can use. Just wanted to make sure that what I meant is clear.
C'nor: Provided those cards also had some objective value, yes. My assumption was only made to get us started. We can of course dismiss using an actual 52-card deck if it doesn't provide us what we need. The advantage to using it is, of course, its already there.
ReplyDeleteThe more preparation that needs to happen before one of these such encounters can actually happen the less it meets my specific needs, though. In combat, we roll initiative and go. If we have to generate two decks each time Angelina Jolie wants free shit, we're drifting away from the sort of game I want to play. I won't shy away from a complex system, but it has to be viable to use at the table.
Having never played the game but following the last year of campaign posts at RPG corner, it sounds like we're veering into territory already covered by Pendragon if things like "hates elves" or, let's say "greed" will come into play each game for each individual participant. Can anybody more familiar with the system say so?
ReplyDelete"I won't shy away from a complex system, but it has to be viable to use at the table."
ReplyDeleteTrue, true. Still, I think that it wouldn't take that much. The situational decks for the players could be made as part of chargen, and you'd have one for all major NPCs, but for the rest (I.E, the peon who's watching the gate) you could probably simply pick 5-10 traits from an "anyone deck" to reflect their personality and circumstances. You'd have to replace them at some point, but as long as you keep a few spares around, and make new ones anytime you run out, it shouldn't be that big of a problem.
I've asked the person who's been doing Pendragon on there to take a look at this. Hopefully your question will be answered soon.
ReplyDeleteThe prep time you mention is one of the reasons why the party should start with a set of cards, according to their background and abilities ... and NOT change the cards with every interaction. The players then learn what works for them. As they have experiences and increase their standing, they get specific, practical cards to use. The only random cards are for the NPCs. The DM knowing what the player's cards are is compensated for by the players having lots of experience using their cards, compared to the DM being unfamiliar with the collection just drawn.
ReplyDeleteThis was Carl's point on my blog; having the SAME cards for a character creates a better understanding of the player's creation. Your insistence, James, of trashing all this consistency only destroys the verisimilitude of the player's perspective.
As well as the fact that the players will stay mostly the same over the course of a campaign, so there's no reason for them to change in between, barring major changes.
ReplyDeleteThe advantage of this system seems to be the ability to instantly convert any PC or NPC from anywhere into it.
ReplyDeleteSince the main virtue is this kind of speed/flexibility, I suggest you add the complexity into what is done once the cards (or values) are thrown down rather than in selecting what cards are available.
So how would you suggest going about doing that?
ReplyDeleteMayyybeee....
ReplyDelete-the ability to use charisma points as "bonus points" on any given exchange?
-die rolling for each party on top of the exchange?
-both?
-etc.
For my money, I'd also want some kinda constant narration of what's going on implied or built in
Interesting. I'm not sure how it would fit into the existing framework, but they sound pretty good.
ReplyDeleteAlso, are you sick of Harpy Eggs yet?
"...it sounds like we're veering into territory already covered by Pendragon if things like "hates elves" or, let's say "greed" will come into play each game for each individual participant. Can anybody more familiar with the system say so?"
ReplyDeleteHere's how social mechanics work in Pendragon:
Every character has a set of Passions that they can call upon to gain a skill bonus in an appropriate instance. Passions are rated on a scale analogous to D&D attributes (i.e. nominally 1-20, but they can go higher than that). Any Passion rated at 16 or above is considered extraordinary and MUST be rolled against, even if it would force behavior inappropriate to the situation.
So yes, if you had a Hate (Orkney clan) passion of 18 and had to make nicey-nice with Gawaine, you'd have to roll against your passion first--and if you make the roll, you MUST act on your hate.
Passions are generally limited to the following:
*Loyalty (Lord)
*Love (Family)
*Honor
*Hospitality
[everyone has the above passions]
*Loyalty (Pendragon)
*Love (God)
*Love (specific person)
*Amor (specific person)
*Hate (person or thing)
There are a couple others, but those are the common ones. Things like greed are covered by personality Traits, which work similarly to passions but don't confer skill bonuses (but also don't carry a penalty for failing a roll).
Note that it's also possible to roll a contest of passions. So if Gawaine was a guest in your hall, your could contest your Hospitality versus your Hate (Orkney clan) passions. A roll of d20 against each value. If both succeed, the high roll wins.
Hope this helps your discussion somewhat!
Oh, and to clarify: a successful roll on a Passion or Trait mandates behavior appropriate to the Passion or Trait. A critical success (rolling the number exactly) means extraordinary adherence, if possible.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you fail a Passion roll, you suffer a penalty to the skill your were going to apply the Passion to rather than a bonus. A fumble (rolling a natural 20 if your Passion is below 20) induces a fit of madness in which the GM takes over your character for a time. So Pendragon is all about forcing characters to act in ways that the player may not always find appropriate.
SirLarkins, thanks for dropping in. I'm not sure how it will ultimately help along what we're trying to do, but at a minimum its an already implemented system we can chew on a bit.
ReplyDeleteAlexis, the idea of what happens in Pendragon upon a failed roll (in our case possibly a failed hand) is consistent with how you see this system working.
Also I'm intrigued by the idea of having two traits or passions work against one another. In our bribed guard example, perhaps he has a greed card and a loyalty or dutiful card that in some way work against one another? There could be lots of complex moving parts in such a system.
The idea of Pendragon seems parallel, but no, it's not consistent with my ideal. I don't see an IMech as a 'skill'-based system. And it still seems one-sided, as in the player rolls, but the NPC does not. There may be something to learn there, but it sounds to me that Pendragon went down the road you've been suggesting, James, and not my road.
ReplyDeleteI think I can - eventually - do better than that.
This thread reminds me of the old "Rage" card game from White Wolf. I used to love that game, and since it went out of favor I learned my lesson: no more games labeled "collectable". Anyway, this thread inspired me to recreate the basic mechanics of that game using playing cards as a nice intellectual exercise.
ReplyDeleteEach character has his own deck of cards, constructed and shuffled before game begins. A character's deck can contain as many cards as the player wishes, up to a full deck of 54 cards (52 +2 Jokers). A character can play "legally" any number card whose value is half his largest appropriate social attribute score rounded up. For example, a character "Adam" with social attributes of Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 10, and Level 4 can legally play any card ≤ 7, since his highest social attribute is Wisdom. A character may still be able to play number cards higher than these values as a "bluff". All face cards (J, Q, K, A, Joker) have a "playability value" of 1. A character's "Social Health" = (Int + Wis + Cha)/3 + Level. For our example character Adam, his social health is (12 +14 +10)/3 +4 = 36/3 +4 = 12 +4 = 16.
A player draws 5 cards from his deck, and chooses which card to play for each round. Cards are revealed for each round simultaneously. After each round, the cards played are put in a face-up discard pile. After enough rounds have been played so that both players' hands are empty, a new hand of 5 cards is drawn and played out. Play continues until one person has lost all their Social Health; that person has "lost the argument". If a player's deck of cards runs out before the social interaction has completed, their discard pile is re-shuffled and new cards may be drawn. After the social interaction is complete, all remaining cards are discarded, and decks are reshuffled. A character's "social health" immediately regenerates to it's full level prior to the next social interaction.
Effects of cards played each round:
legal play vs. legal play = both take effect
legal play vs. illegal play = legal play only takes effect
legal play vs. no card = legal play takes effect
illegal play vs. no card = "bluff" and takes effect
illegal play vs. illegal play = double "bluff" and both cards take effect
Number Cards = Deals the face value as "damage" to the opponent's "social health".
Jack (Dodge) = played during a round; opponent's card doesn't take effect
Queen (Daze) = played between rounds; The round after this card is played, the opponent is considered to have a maximum attribute score of 4; ie, any card of 3 or more that he plays is treated as a "bluff".
King (Stun) = played between rounds; opponent cannot play a card on the next round except for a Jack (Dodge). He may play a face card between rounds.
Ace (Specials) = played between rounds:
Ace of Diamonds = Convincing Argument = The player's attack the next round cannot be dodged.
Ace of Spades = Escape = The player can extricate themselves from the social situation, neither gaining nor losing anything.
Ace of Hearts = Call for Help = The player is able to call for "assistance" from another player/NPC. The person brought in to "assist" draws a new 5 card hand. The opponent is now "fighting" two people, and must choose who his cards will affect each round.
Ace of Clubs = Evasion = The player is able to evade all attacks the next round, even those that normally cannot be dodged.
Joker (Brainstorm) = played between rounds; Allows the player to immediately draw 5 additional cards into their hand, which may be played in any round. If the player of a Joker is able to out-last their opponent, they may then wallop on them for each round that they have cards to play.
I hope this advances your discussion. Take care! :)
It sounds almost like you want to play an abbreviated/simplified form of Bridge rather than War.
ReplyDeleteFor example, each character has a deck based on his stats, with something like those charts determining how many cards of each suit you get. A character with 9 Charisma gets ♥2, ♥3, ♥4, ♥5, ♥6, ♥7, ♥8, ♥9 and no other hearts in his deck, and so on for the other three suits. Then you take turns bidding for the trump suit, and then you play a hand of bridge as normal (I don't know whether you should "deal" yourself cards from your deck before or after bidding). If the winner of the bidding takes at least as many tricks as he bid, he wins the contest; if not, he loses.
The advantage to this is that you can easily adjust rules for cooperative and multilateral gameplay. The disadvantage is that you have to put together a deck for every social encounter, which is only easy if you've got a computer handy.