Discussion with Joshua AC Newman

From Verge

Conversation with Joshua AC Newman on the Story Games chat system, October 13, 2006, late at night (early in the morning).

Adam: Heh.

So, I've reached that point where I'm absorbing new information about game design faster than I can apply it. I think that's part of the reason why Verge isn't getting done.

Joshua A.C.N.: Tell me about it.

I think that means one of two things:

Adam: Shit is, like, *clicking* for me in a big way though.

Joshua A.C.N.: 1: The game's not done on a conceptual level and you shouldn't bother trying to finish it until you've cemented it in place.

Adam: Yeah, partly true.

Joshua A.C.N.: 2: The game IS done, and you're getting enamored with shiny new ideas that don't actually help.

Adam: No, it's #1.

I'm missing, like, a reward system. ;)

Joshua A.C.N.: Really?

Adam: A real one, yeah.

Joshua A.C.N.: Huh.

Adam: A Nar-driving one.

Joshua A.C.N.: Do you want help?

Adam: I'd love help.

Joshua A.C.N.: Maybe I can help.

Adam: When's the last time (if ever) you saw the Verge rules?

Joshua A.C.N.: Can you give me a rundown of the process of play?

... like... a year ago?

More?

It seems like a long time.

I don't remember them at all.

Adam: Okay, it's a totally different game now.

At a high level, players first build a sort of relationship map on paper using a setup procedure. It's words and lines connecting them and little !'s after them to indicate votes of coolness (which become power and dice).

Joshua A.C.N.: OK

Adam: That network becomes the entirety of the fiction in mechanical terms.

Joshua A.C.N.: OK

Sounds good so far.

How do you change stuff on that R-map?

Adding !s or people or whatever?

Adding lines between characters?

Adam: Then it's freeform play until someone wants to spend tokens to change the network. It's not just characters, too. Players can add people/ideas/orgs/technology/anything as elements. The lines between them are verbs.

Joshua A.C.N.: How do you get those tokens?

Adam: So mechanical actions include adding new nodes and edges, adding more !'s to them, and subtracting !'s from them (by adding ?'s to them).

I've changed my mind a lot of times about how you get them.

The tokens, I mean.

Joshua A.C.N.: OK

Well, what kind of behavior to you want to happen?

You want people to do stuff that threatens the state of the R-map, right?

Adam: Well, I want Verge to be about human identity in the face of cyberpunk-style change. (Sound familiar? ;)

Joshua A.C.N.: It sure does.

OK.

Lemme think about that for a second.

What does human identity mean to you?

Adam: So setup dictates what /kind/ of nodes people add.

And I imagined a sort of human rights angle to it, and a sort of "am I still human?" angle to it. I want both to be possible.

I imagined play starting with a network that represented each player having lost something important to them.

Joshua A.C.N.: Well, I think those are orthogonal questions, and are therefore completely compatible.

Adam: What did you lose? How does that make you less human? What are you willing to do to get it back?

Joshua A.C.N.: Question 1: How should I treat humans? Question 2: What qualifies you for that treatment?

Adam: My cover has pictures of a woman doing questionable things to get her daughter back.

Joshua A.C.N.: I see.

"I've done...

... questionable things."

Adam: Heh.

Joshua A.C.N.: Hm.

Adam: I am hoping to have the network represent this situation at the start of play, after setup.

Joshua A.C.N.: I've never much thought about that couple of sentences.

I'm writing an essay about Blade Runner for Xenoglyph.

OK!

Adam: It's easy enough to tell each player to add a node representing what they lost with an edge/relationship that says "lost."

Joshua A.C.N.: So!

Yeah.

Adam: So situation isn't too hard. But rewards? Ack.

Joshua A.C.N.: Well, how about this:

Adam: The dice system has some incremental award possibilities, but they don't really tie into Nar. *listens*

Joshua A.C.N.: The players gain tokens by making things worse — taking things away from other characters (I don't know if this has to be fictionally causal) and spend them to make things better for themselves.

to make things really grim, there's an economy of scale that says, doing one little bad thing only gets me a little, but doing more or bigger bad things to other people gets me a lot.

Adam: Oh, there's a GM right now. Dunno if there needs to be one.

Joshua A.C.N.: Here's my recommendation about GMs:

Adam: Rules as written so far: http://verge.legendary.org/index.php/Verge_Reprogrammed

Joshua A.C.N.: Don't think about the GM as a role. Think about the responsibilities that are filled by having a AGM.

Adam: I'm with you.

Joshua A.C.N.: DLing

Adam: The PDF is out of date. The web page is updated.

Joshua A.C.N.: OK, reading the web page.

The GM facilitates discussion, guides play, and controls (acts the role, rolls the dice, makes decisions for...) all the characters that aren't controlled by the other players. The GM gets to create a character like any other player during the Load s

"Facilitation of discussion" is vague, but interesting.

What does "guides play" mean?

Adam: Scene framing.

Pacing.

Joshua A.C.N.: You've played PTA, right?

Adam: Once.

Joshua A.C.N.: Huh.

Well, the Producer's job is basically to make sure that things keep driving at coflict.

Conflict.

Adam: Right. I think Verge needs a GM for that.

Joshua A.C.N.: Pacing is done mechanically, and I think it's a good way to do it.

Adam: By pacing, I mean cutting between scenes and such.

Joshua A.C.N.: Ah.

Adam: Not pacing in the broader scale.

Joshua A.C.N.: I see.

Adam: Avoiding scenes going too long.

Joshua A.C.N.: Well, I think that can be by consensus.

It's usually pretty easy to see when a scene's going on too long.

When that happens, it's usually because someone's avoiding conflict.

I don't think that will happen when people realize the rules won't bite them.

Adam: Also, the network tends to get a lot of non-player agents on it. I think someone needs to play them, and that should be a GM, not a regular player.

In other words, a more traditional split.

Joshua A.C.N.: I agree.

Well, but here's the thing:

you have to confront The Impossible Thing here.

Tell me something: do the characters get back what they've lost?

Adam: Depends on their actions and the dice.

Joshua A.C.N.: OK

Do you want them to?

Adam: I see them setting up the 'what I've lost' like a kicker.

Then the GM pushes hard at it.

Joshua A.C.N.: In other words, they have to choose between getting what they lost and losing their humanity, right?

Adam: Tries to keep it from them. Make it worse. And offer them compromises of their humanity.

Joshua A.C.N.: OK!

Adam: Yes.

Joshua A.C.N.: There's your reward system!

Adam: I don't have a compromise mechanism at all.

Getting what they want is the reward? It's that simple?

I guess it /is/ the longest reward cycle in the game.

Joshua A.C.N.: The GM offers them control of the R-map for doing things.

Adam: It doesn't lend itself well to long-term play, but that was never a real goal for me.

Joshua A.C.N.: I don't know about that "longest cycle" thing. I don't understand it.

Adam: You've heard Vincent talk about it, though, right?

Joshua A.C.N.: The important thing about "reward" for me is that it closes the feedback loop.

Of course.

We actually talked about it a little bit last night.

So!

Adam: But can you have rewarding play if you don't get it back?

Joshua A.C.N.: The GM bribes the players into doing things contrary to their humanity.

Sent at 01:01 am on Friday.

Joshua A.C.N.: They get dice from the GM. The more dice they roll, the more likely it will be that they get to influence the R-map, but the more likely it is that there will be negative consequences to their humanity.

Let's say you get d6s.

(I don't know your res system at all)

Adam: Pools of d6s with a 'more dice' mechanism and a 'reroll useless dice' mechanism, essentially.

Always opposed.

Multiple 'exchanges,' back and forth. Player controls when to stop.

Joshua A.C.N.: You have to get a certain number of dice over 4 (a number determined procedurally). Every 1 you get gives the GM the ability to change something on the R-map.

Excellent.

(What you said is excellent. I'm not commenting on my own thoughts here)

So, the more you roll, the more likely you are to get what you want, and the more likely the GM is to get what they want.

Adam: It's a margin-of-success system already. I can just say that each MOS translates to a change somehow, I think.

Joshua A.C.N.: Yep.

Adam: The system as written already is tied up in altering the network to get it how you want though.

Joshua A.C.N.: Do protags get into it with each other?

Adam: If they want, sure.

I've never had a playtest where they didn't somehow.

Joshua A.C.N.: OK.

But most conflict is with NPCs.

Adam: Yeah, but I haven't playtested since some of the largest changes.

Like all the setup stuff.

Joshua A.C.N.: Huh.

brb

OK.

Back

Adam: I'm here.

Joshua A.C.N.: Had to look something up in the Glossary.

Adam: If everything about the game is about 'do I have the power I need to change the fiction (the network diagram) to further my goal of getting back what I lost?' is that all I need?

Joshua A.C.N.: Well, I think you want it to be a trade, or at least a risk.

Adam: I suspect that the reward system is already mostly there. I just needed the situation-creating stuff that is in my head but not in writing. The 'no where to go but out' stuff Vincent talks about.

Joshua A.C.N.: Changing an edge is an implicit Stake.

That's how you get back something you lost.

Adam: Right. Loss has to be costly. Right now, losing a conflict loses you the tokens and narration but nothing network-wise.

Joshua A.C.N.: I'm not too keen on that.

Adam: (Actually, you can lose the conflict and still win narrational authority for the scene. I don't think that's relevant though.)

Joshua A.C.N.: What I think you want to happen is, you can roll as many dice as you want to get something done. Doing so increases your chances of succeeding, but also increases the cost.

If it's just color you're adding, then no, it's not relevant.

So you can take a low risk of failure by rolling few dice, which has a lower risk of an untenable price, as well.

Adam: What do you have in mind when you say cost and price? Tokens? Network changes?

Joshua A.C.N.: Only network changes really matter. Everything else is a tool to do that.

I'm seeing something like, "Every 1 that the players roll is a coin that the GM has to apply grief."

You're rolling to change an edge. The GM gets to do it by spending a coin.

Adam: I might tinker with the difference in the size of the Noise pools.

It's not as elegant as 1's though.

Joshua A.C.N.: When the GM spends a coin, it becomes a die that anyone can use on others' conflicts without risk of the 1-thing.

I'm thinking that 1s might be a tsunami of loss.

Adam: Yeah. Difference of Noise will be smaller.

Joshua A.C.N.: It could be something less likely, but almost as likely as success. Tied dice, for instance.

Adam: Just as a quick terminology check... 8d6 ==> 66544432 ==> Signal=444 (MOS:3) Noise=66532.

Joshua A.C.N.: I see.

You've got a lot of numbers to play with.

Adam: So I can do things with MOS for Signal /and/ Noise. You could win the conflict but still pay a big price because your difference of Noises comes out in the GM's favor.

Joshua A.C.N.: I suggest that you choose something unrelated to success

Yes.

That can also turn into dice the GM has to roll to make shit happen, though I think the GM should have lots of power to sow pain.

Adam: Because you brought in too many dice. GM's Noise cancels yours. Whatever you have left is the price you pay.

Joshua A.C.N.: Oh!

I see!

Yes, good!

Adam: And if your Noise is smaller than the GM's, you get some kind of additional perk.

Extra tokens and shit.

Joshua A.C.N.: I don't know if that's necessary.

Adam: Yeah, maybe not.

Joshua A.C.N.: That dilutes the "rolling more dice is dangerous and more profitable" algorithm.

The way I look at "reward" is that it closes the feedback loop. (did I already say this?)

Adam: Yep.

Joshua A.C.N.: It's how you change stuff about your resources.

Adam: But if you win a conflict with only a few dice vs. the GM's pool of dice, is that worth a reward?

Joshua A.C.N.: Since your resources are the elements of this R-map, you're all primed to be changing stuff.

Sure.

It's luck, though. It'll only happen rarely.

Most of the time, you'll lose conflicts when you do that.

Adam: I think all is left is to write strong advice for the GM on how to push conflicts and offer "compromises."

Joshua A.C.N.: Write the rules down in a page or two.

See if it's playable.

Adam: Yep.

Joshua A.C.N.: See if it does what you want.

Adam: This helped a lot.

I needed to riff, and you cut right through my blockage. =)

Joshua A.C.N.: Rock on.

Adam: And I don't think Verge competes with Shock much, though they aim at similar themes. My game won't be out for 6-12 months anyway.

Joshua A.C.N.: Heh.

I think they're the kind of games that the same kind of people will want to own both of.

Once it's done, I'd be happy to run an ad in Shock: for you.

I just got my Q3 IPR check today.

Suffice to say, things are looking good in the indie RPG market for SF games.

Adam: An ad exchange could be very cool.

Joshua A.C.N.: Is that an offer?

Adam: Absolutely.

Joshua A.C.N.: Rock.

Lemme know when it's time and I'll get you an ad.

Adam: Sure thing.

It's bedtime. Joshua, I really appreciate all your help.

Joshua A.C.N.: In that timeframe, Sign In Stranger and Galactic should also be done.

No problem!

Adam: 2007 will be the year of indie SF.

Joshua A.C.N.: Rock.

And let's get some vaginas in there.

Adam: *laugh*

My cover does not have a vagina on it.

First comp of the cover (I need to rework the titles): link

Joshua A.C.N.: looking

Adam: By Jake Richmond.

Joshua A.C.N.: I like how uncool the character is.

... and how awkward.

Adam: I wanted her to be even more everyday mom, but that's what I got.

I demanded the hoodie though.

Joshua A.C.N.: She comes off as an everyday mom in a crisis situation.

Adam: Good.

My other goal for the cover was that the story was different depending on the order of the boxes.

Joshua A.C.N.: Interesting.

Adam: Are they after her because she took something? Did she take something to help get her daughter back? Is she innocent or not?

Joshua A.C.N.: Yeah.

I read it as reactive, that her daughter was taken, but I see some other readings.

Adam: Anyway, I should sleep. I'll ping you once I've revised the rules.

Thanks again!

Joshua A.C.N.: I'm glad to help.

Good night!