Fictional Consequences and Mechancial Bonuses (and my Dust Devils heartbreaker)
September 26th, 2008
Because yeah, I am working on a Dust Devils heartbreaker. Looking for a nice card-based pun for the title, but I may have to skip it. (I’m going off simple draw-poker, 3/5/7 card hands.)
Many games apply a mechanical bonus to incentivize the chararacter to some course of action. Sometimes you can get mileage from incentivizing something with negative consequences. (In Dust Devils: you can get 3 more cards for using your Devil, but that means you’re doing something pretty bad.)
I’m toying with some rules where the “bonus” you get for negative behavior isn’t increased effectiveness, but an increased capacity to do (or suffer) harm. This itself provides some angle for effectiveness, perhaps; it’s an implicit threat against anyone attempting to go up against you, and encourages others to fold out of any conflicts. (I’m not yet convinced that it makes sense from a logical / optimal-play perspective. I think so.)
(This might touch on one of my perspectives here; choosing to act harmfully or irresponsibly doesn’t mean you’re more savvy or powerful. It only means that you’re going to cause harm.)
Let me describe the hypothetical mechanical situation in my case: we each are dealt some standard number of cards over some stakes. (Let’s say that we each get 5, and we’re jockeying to avoid blame for some critical business mistake. Standard poker hands apply, best hand would win.) Before we reveal cards, we both have a chance to “raise”: that is, if our personal demons are in play, we can choose to stake some of our own resources (Hit Points / Attributes, basically) on the deal. The other person must meet a raise (and optionally reraise under the same conditions), or must fold and lose. (So, I tap into my Greed and wager 2 of my points. You must do the same or give in to the stakes.) In a slight twist, the winner merely gets back her own resources, while the loser has simply lost them. (Those lost resources go Elsewhere, irrelevant here.)
Thoughts? Do you find you have a rational reason to engage with this mechanic (aside from the fictional draw)? I’m basically seeking fictional-mechanical-coherence.
3 comments on “Fictional Consequences and Mechancial Bonuses (and my Dust Devils heartbreaker)”
01
Sounds like an interesting Devils/Dogs hybrid, with the raising and what not. I do like having the “betting” aspects increasing the danger of the fictional consequences. Like, your hand is your hand, and if it sucks, you main option is to cause somebody else to fold because they’re not willing to die/kill over it and you are. Going “all in” would be staking your life (or someone else’s) on an issue.
02
If you want to hardcode in the system what’s at stake, then it makes sense to make it as points (hit points, sanity, whatever).
What might be more interesting is to think of “deeds”, like property deeds in Monopoly- what if having the deed gave you narrative control over the subject at hand?
“I’m putting my ‘One and only son’ in the pile, what’ve you got?”
“The History of My People!”
Etc.
03
[...] related: Fictional Consequences and Mechancial Bonuses, “How we decide to make decisions in games like Dogs in the [...]
Leave a Reply