General Topic: Letting things happen to you, or not

Community Larp discussion
#1

Just sitting here wondering about stuff, as you do…

In your typical World of Darkness (WoD) larp - well, the ones I’ve played in - there’s a lot of opportunity to create characters that are resistant to a lot of the in-game skills and powers. Thinking about most of the other home-brew/custom/bespoke systems that I’ve played - the vast majority of short theatre forms, the flagships, and Teonn - those sorts of abilities are in short supply or just plain non existent.

What are peoples thoughts on abilities that do nothing but let you resist other abilites? Are they essential? Desirable? Optional? A Detriment?

Is it better to have control over the actions of your own character, or is it better that other people are able to do what they want to you? What makes for a better story for you personally?

I’d appreciate thoughts on this, as I’m considering it as part of a larger “theory of larp design” thought process I’m looking at.

Thanks all!

#2

In abstract, resistance abilities are well suited to larp.

One of the big problems with larp rules is people not knowing what an ability does, or not perceiving that it’s been used. With resistance, only the player of the character who is resisting needs to understand their ability and know they are using it. That’s different to abilities that affect others, where both parties need to understand the ability and perceive that it’s been used.

On the flipside, OOC the person whose ability has been resisted may be frustrated OOC if they can’t tell whether a resist ability has been used or the target just hasn’t perceived or understood the call. Which is why a lot of resist abilities have a verbal call.

In the bigger picture, resists can affect gameplay. One of the more common and annoying challenges in adventure larps (and sometimes in intrigue) is a character or creature that can only be affected by a specific ability or item, and is resistant to everything else. It’s annoying because it resembles an artificial “lock and key” puzzle that can only be solved in one predetermined way, so it feels like jumping through hoops rather than real problem solving.

It can also be frustrating to find that many characters and creatures in a game, even most of them, are resistant to a particular ability your character has. Even if that situation works from an overall game balance perspective, it sucks for the players with that easily-resisted ability. Better if the ability at least has a reduced affect when resisted, rather than being completely nullified.

#3

I would echo what Ryan said. If you are using some sort of xp system then including resisting abilities substantially pads out the options for people to choose from, too.

One additional distinction to consider, on top of those mentioned by Ryan, is active vs passive resistance. Getting one extra hp for example would be a passive resistance to a blow (it just happens) whereas use of a shield would be active resistance (you must actively use your ability, in this case combined with OOC ability, to resist a blow). In my mind active resistances can be better for the scene if the mechanic results in a cool challenge for both the offensive and defensive parties (e.g. sword vs shield in a battle) but can run the risk of being clunky (e.g. doing paper-scissors-rock in the middle of a battle over and over). Passive cuts the interaction short (‘I do X’ ‘No you don’t’), but as Ryan said it often means fewer people have to be experts in the rules around your specific defensive ability.

#4

If you’re looking at campaign games where success in combat can mean the difference between life and death then a better question might be:

“Is it desirable to have abilities that will completely gank people if they don’t have some kind of complementary resistance ability?”

Because if a game does have abilities that can automatically defeat a character then it’s probably desirable to have counter-abilities as well.

#5

The value of a resistance is proportional to the active ability’s frequency in the game. For example, in Teonn my character has 3 resistances: Mind Control (my racial ability) and poison and venom (granted by the All Mother). I used Mind Control resistance exactly once in entire campaign, poison resistance maybe 3 times and the venom resistance not at all.

Another aspect is the distribution of counter-acting resistance ability. Specifically, if you know the likelihood of people having the resistance, this will affect your decisions around when/how to deploy the ability. Knowing or not knowing this distribution works best if it is part of the larp design.

As a GM, I like the idea of having exceptions to low-level capabilities. e.g. Turn Undead is great against zombies, but won’t hurt the Lich King - this enables interesting situations where some undead can be Turned, and others have to be defeated using other means. Higher-level capabilities are usually hard-won, so gimping them seems to be churlish.

I agree with Derek - an imperative I Get My Way-style ability has some pretty strong game-changing characteristics, at least of the characters directly impacted. As a game designer, you need to accurately model the usage of these kinds of abilities if you are to balance your game appropriately. Consider the Blink ability at the Tempest’s Wake game at Crucible. I was in the crew at the big Saturday night battle. We tried multiple times to kidnap PCs to create a hostage-crisis for the players. But they all had Blink, so we failed to achieve this at that time (IIRC, there was a battle on and I was a bit distracted :wink: ). There are usually ways around this issue, but it’s best to know what they are before you let the players start developing their characters…

#6

I think it’s very system dependent. In a more abstracted, rule-intense system such as WoD, which are more goal focused, having resistances can make for interesting strategic option, both in game-play and character building. Conversely, a theater-form games has more emphasis on collaborative storytelling, abilities are generally more sparse and a wide-spread resistances would potentially be harmful as they can shut down a lot of potential interaction and plot. Campaigns such as Teonn and Crucible fall somewhere in a middle ground.

It should also be noted, as others have mentioned, that resistances can be very frustrating. From personal experience, one of the most annoying moments I have has at a Larp was fighting people with damage resistance at Teonn. I’m not saying that resistances should not be used but rather, but if you intend to add them into a system you should ask yourself, is this fun for both the person using it and the person it is being used on.

#7

[quote=“Derek”]
“Is it desirable to have abilities that will completely gank people if they don’t have some kind of complementary resistance ability?”

Because if a game does have abilities that can automatically defeat a character then it’s probably desirable to have counter-abilities as well.[/quote]

I agree with this completely. Personally, I think that’s a pretty good reason to not have auto-gank level abilities (or have them very, very rare), because if they are at all common, then resistances also have to be common, and then you get a lot of not much at all happening, which is no fun for the people with these powerful abilities, really.

In my experience, being weaker on paper but more effective for real is more fun.

That said, not all abilities that make you give up some level of control over your own decisions/etc are auto-gank, and I don’t think that all abilities that can make someone lose some control over their actions are bad. I mean technically you can argue that anyone who beats you in a fight can control your actions to some extent - that’s kind of the point of winning. If you’re not willing to have your actions controlled/affected to some extent by other people, maybe multiplayer games aren’t really for you.

#8

That being said, if you want to go for realism with guns, guns tend to be (in real life), an auto-gank tool, and resisting them is difficult. This makes them very scary, and gun fights are high-risk affairs for all involved. As such, you tend to get things like use of overwhelming force, or if you don’t you risk high casualties on both sides or a Mexican standoff. Strategy and military intelligence become very important because a wrong move is so incredibly costly.

#9

just as s side note, the FBI defined a firefight as two or more individuals trading shots in often less than optimal visibility conditions, with all targets engaged in evasive movement while snapping un-aimed shots at a range of 20 feet or less, until a single hit rendered one or more combatants hors de combat due to shock. sure a gun is often called the great equalizer, but in real firefights its rare that the shot is precise enough to cause death immediately. In the case of modern warfare its not the skill its the sheer rate of fire that causes sufficient trauma to the target.

#10

Another angle, which has sort of been alluded too, is what happens if you let stuff happen to you.

In the case of injury, you get to act injured.
In the case of death, your actions cease.
In the case of mind control or influence, you surrender (or partially surrender) control of your actions to the other party (though they may have parameters within which they can cause you to act).

The first has traditionally been seen as a nuisance, in my opinion, but as a community we are starting to explore the great ways one can go about acting injured, and there is almost always a removal ability (healing etc) that allows for another party to engage in thematic roleplay, thus creating more story (and we are getting better at making more thematic, too). Having resistances to this, both active (shields) and passive (armour, hit points, magic) are fine, but just keep in mind their prevalence - getting to the point where all offensive attacks are nearly or completely powerless to do anything will drastically alter how combat functions in your game (which you can tailor to your design desires).

The second can be a cause for great annoyance if done too frequently (and can lead to animosity if ooc attachment and resentment start to play a part), but is an opportunity to go out with a bang if done well. Personally, I am a fan of this being a dramatic and infrequent option to initiate to someone. Having some ways to resist/undo it is fine, but if these are too prevalent it makes death simply another type of injury (see above).

The last is a matter of trust. Letting another person control or influence your actions can be awesome, even if you might end up doing something you wouldn’t normally want to roleplay. However, it can also make you become a passive part in the story telling process. I believe it can be handled well - making people lose inhibition (e.g. ‘tell the truth,’ ‘you are now attracted to someone’, or ‘you now act as if everything is a great idea even if you know inside it isn’t’) can create an environment where awesome stuff happens. Complete control (e.g. ‘domination’ effects) by contrast turn you into a prop for another player, hardly a fun roleplaying prospect. I would avoid putting complete control mechanics in unless you have a very good reason to, and if so have resistant abilities too, but I would suggest making both rare (that way the awesome rare ability of mind control (which may have other costs) is generally useful, but every so often someone else will have a trump card). Possibly even better than resist would be the ability to turn it on its wielder! By contrast, losing inhibition effects can be awesome, and resistances to this should be rare and simply to allow people who don’t want to roleplay lost inhibition (for in or out of character reasons) to have an IC way out.

#11

Hmm, didn’t consider theft in that post. Having things taken away from you. Can be a nuisance, but can also be a nice alternative route to brute force acquisition of plot items. A simple resist thief effect is a little boring, unless it is a puzzle the thief has to get past (e.g. a lock), and thus not a guaranteed resistance but more of an increase in the difficulty of the task. Tracking the theft is not something I have seen ever really done in LARP, but could add a nice dynamic if there is a cool way of doing this. Perhaps if thieves use a peg system to indicate what items they have stolen, thief-hunters could get some clues from these pegs as to the whereabouts of the thief. Or perhaps there is an underground where you can bribe people for information. This would require the GM’s to be in on where the stolen goods are at any one time, which works well if the theft mechanic goes through them rather than letting people simply nick stuff (which gets risky if people take personal props of each other).

#12

[quote=“Walter Hamer”]Another angle, which has sort of been alluded too, is what happens if you let stuff happen to you.

In the case of injury, you get to act injured.
In the case of death, your actions cease.
In the case of mind control or influence, you surrender (or partially surrender) control of your actions to the other party (though they may have parameters within which they can cause you to act).

The first has traditionally been seen as a nuisance, in my opinion, but as a community we are starting to explore the great ways one can go about acting injured, and there is almost always a removal ability (healing etc) that allows for another party to engage in thematic roleplay, thus creating more story (and we are getting better at making more thematic, too). Having resistances to this, both active (shields) and passive (armour, hit points, magic) are fine, but just keep in mind their prevalence - getting to the point where all offensive attacks are nearly or completely powerless to do anything will drastically alter how combat functions in your game (which you can tailor to your design desires).

The second can be a cause for great annoyance if done too frequently (and can lead to animosity if ooc attachment and resentment start to play a part), but is an opportunity to go out with a bang if done well. Personally, I am a fan of this being a dramatic and infrequent option to initiate to someone. Having some ways to resist/undo it is fine, but if these are too prevalent it makes death simply another type of injury (see above).

The last is a matter of trust. Letting another person control or influence your actions can be awesome, even if you might end up doing something you wouldn’t normally want to roleplay. However, it can also make you become a passive part in the story telling process. I believe it can be handled well - making people lose inhibition (e.g. ‘tell the truth,’ ‘you are now attracted to someone’, or ‘you now act as if everything is a great idea even if you know inside it isn’t’) can create an environment where awesome stuff happens. Complete control (e.g. ‘domination’ effects) by contrast turn you into a prop for another player, hardly a fun roleplaying prospect. I would avoid putting complete control mechanics in unless you have a very good reason to, and if so have resistant abilities too, but I would suggest making both rare (that way the awesome rare ability of mind control (which may have other costs) is generally useful, but every so often someone else will have a trump card). Possibly even better than resist would be the ability to turn it on its wielder! By contrast, losing inhibition effects can be awesome, and resistances to this should be rare and simply to allow people who don’t want to roleplay lost inhibition (for in or out of character reasons) to have an IC way out.[/quote]
I was waiting for someone to put up something like this :slight_smile: Thanks Walter :smiley:

If people like, would anyone like to expand/refute/further comment on this post?

Matt

#13

Not that I’m any great scholar on the matter, but to my mind you need to be fairly careful about putting resistances into the rules. It’s probably a good thing to have some degree of resistance available, as it makes the game more interesting for everyone. It can become just plain irritating however, or actually seriously problematic, if everyone has some resistance or another. I can’t remember the specific example off the top of my head, but I am certain I’ve been playing a character who basically just had one big ability (I think the character was a pre-gen), but that everyone I tried to use it on was apparently completely resistant to it, so I gave up trying to use it pretty quickly, which meant that I felt like I was playing a rather underpowered and boring character, which wasn’t conducive to a fun game. Especially not when other people had cool abilities that actually worked.

Strong resistances can also cause potentially unexpected consequences, which may not be for the betterment of the game. Take for example the ritual in Teonn that gave people the ability to ignore one point of damage in every strike - I forget the name of it. I think it sounded good on paper, but when pretty much every fighter had it, the GMs were forced to seriously escalate the power of the crew combatants to overcome it. This unfortunately meant that the non-com PCs basically didn’t stand a chance if the crew got to them. While this should probably be expected to some degree as a campaign progresses, I don’t think anyone really appreciated how there had to be an escalating ‘arms race’ to deal with it.

Or take something that sounds highly useful and fairly innocent, like a permanent resistance to the shield break ability. Sounds fine, but if you get a situation where the players all have this, are using big shields, and circle around a central point, what happens is that the players end up with a somewhat impenetrable shield wall, which sounds great, but it forces the crew to start trying to use more dangerous tactics, like attempting shots on shoulders to get over the shields, which of course drastically increases the risk of head shots. It’s another case of unintended consequences (I have seen exactly this happen, if anyone is wondering). I think the best way to get around this is to probably make the shield break resistances ‘x times per encounter’ or the like, so that if the GM running the combat feels the need to break another shield or two, they can keep giving some crew a shield break until the nature of the fight has changed a bit.

#14

It’s always more fun to have ‘Yes’ abilities in games than ‘No’. Game designers from Magic the Gathering, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2 and League of Legends all seem to agree on that point. It’s why Blue from magic is such a headache for their design teams (the current head dev says if he had his way he’d remove blue from the colour wheel) and why Crowd Control in the other mentioned games are so heavily balanced and re-balanced patch after patch. Resistance & Control abilities are problematic in a tonne of game systems.

In LARP, I believe the best way to solve the Yes vs. No problem is to have all/most abilities be flavourful, influence role-play and/or leave both the target and the caster with plenty of options. It’s been mentioned above (Walter & Derek), so I’m probably just re-iterating their points, but nobody enjoys being insta-killed or mind-controlled absolutely and given no ‘out’ or interesting avenue of play. Building in resistance only becomes necessary IF you put abilities like that in the game to begin with though. I’d probably err on the side of having lots of much weaker abilities which players can use freely, with no fear of resistance at all. That solution has more Yes and less No. Easy to say without going into specifics though I suppose.

#15

Excellent points James and Reuben. Matt, have you got specifics that you are thinking of?

#16

Yeah, I kinda do - I’m generally try to stay out of the actual conversation because I have pretty a strong bias towards a particular way of playing and I don’t want to influence the discussion one way or the other - rather I’m trying to gauge peoples ideas about it.

Here’s some examples of the kind of situations I’m thinking of (all drawn from games I’ve played, or have written).

  • Alex uses a Charm effect on Brook, which would result in Brook revealing a secret. Brook has an ability which makes the character permanently immune to Charm (but Charlie, Dale, and Elliot don’t have this ability)

  • Alex uses a Charm effect on Brook, which would result in Brook revealing a secret. Brook has an ability which negates Charm which has a limited number of uses.

  • Alex uses a Charm effect on Brook, which would result in Brook revealing a secret. Brook has an ability which could possibly negate the Charm (with some kind of test/contest)

  • Alex uses a Charm effect on Brook, which would result in Brook revealing a secret. Brook has no defence.

  • Alex uses a Domination effect on Brook, which would result in Brook being controlled by Alex for a period of time. (repeat for the four options above)

  • Alex uses a Pickpocket/Thieving effect on Brook, which would result in Brook losing an item. (repeat for the four options above)

  • Alex uses a combat ability which will destroy a piece of Brooks equipment (possibly permanently, possibly until it is repaired). (repeat for the four options above)

If you were playing Brook, which abilities would you rather have (be honest)? If you were playing Alex, which abilities would you rather Brook had? If you were designing a game, which abilities (and counter abilities) would you include, and which would you omit?

To reply to the some of the points made above I totally agree - and I think any reasonable person would - that if you’re going to have Game-Ending abilities (“You Die!” or “You Are Now My Slave!”), resistances are crucial, and that it’s probably better from a game design point of view simply not to have those abilities in the first place (although I think you could get away with them in a one-off, but definitely not in a campaign).

Thanks again :slight_smile:

#17

So the four responses that Brook could have to these abilities (using Reuben’s measure), as you’ve listed them, are:

No.
No No… Yes
Maybe
Yes

Some additional dynamics:
Alex creates Effect instantly
Alex creates Effect after simple process
Alex goes through a complex process to create Effect

In addition:
Alex requires nothing from Brook
Alex requires Brook to fall for a trick
Alex needs to overcome Brook’s OOC skill
Alex requires Brook to be willing
Alex requires Brook to do something

And all of which:
Have unlimited uses
Have limited uses tied to a personal resource
Have limited uses tied to publicly available resources
Have limited uses dependent on both personal and publicly available resources

Now, resistances (‘No’ Effects, all subject to the same parameters as ‘Yes’ Effects) come in a variety of forms:
Counter post-Effect (as you’ve suggested)
Counter during Effect creation process
Preemptive counter

So, for example:

A physical blow from Alex to Brook with a weapon is an unlimited use instant Effect that needs to overcome Brook’s OOC skill.
The ‘No’ Effects for this are usually HP and shields, and occasionally immunity.
HP are a No No… Yes resistance type that is preemptively used to counter, requires Alex to do something (attack), and has limited uses tied to a personal resource (one that can be restored with public resources - healing).
Shields are a Maybe type effect that happens instantly during Event creation, requires Alex to do something (attack) and Brook to overcome Alex’s OOC skill, and are usually unlimited use but sometimes are limited by a personal resource (e.g. 'shields can take X blows before they break).
Immunity is a No. type effect that happens instantly as a preemptive counter, is either limited to a personal (and/or public) resource or unlimited use ability.

HP by themselves can lead to a war of attrition - each party keeps losing them until one runs out. Shields add a dynamic that allows for additional OOC skills to be used in the encounter (defensive as well as offensive). Immunity creates a massive power difference between combatants, forcing the Alex’s to utilize alternative methods entirely. Shields can, with sufficient skill and saturation, effectively become an immunity effect (or very close to one).

#18

Now, to paint a picture of some of the suggestions you’ve made:

Charm:

Alex goes through a simple process to create this Effect, requiring the collection of some public resources as well as the expenditure of personal resources. The delivery mechanism requires Brook to fall for a trick (drink a ‘spiked’ beverage). Brook, to preempt this, could be wearing the Crown of the Empire or the Headpiece of the Savior, items publicly known to confer immunity to the wearer to Charm effects, but as this immunity is easily visible, Alex can avoid Brook altogether or utilize a counter-Effect to this immunity (somehow get Brook to take it off or lose the right to wear it). Brook might also secretly be the Royal Assassin, a role which requires one to undergo a ceremony to become immune to charm effects too (a preemptive counter that (if applicable) costs XP as its resource and is limited to one unidentified player). Now, Alex has a challenge to get this Charm effect to go off, and for that amount of effort might expect good bang for their buck. They payoff, assuming Alex doesn’t squander the effect on the wearer of the immunity items, is either to get the Charm off or to identify the Royal Assassin - a win win.

Conversely, Alex instantly casts a Charm Effect using a personal resource. Approximately 10% of the player base took preemptive immunity to Charm with unlimited uses (costing a personal resource of XP). The Effect is a stark ‘Charm-Yes’ or ‘Charm-No,’ and each ‘Charm-No’ will put Alex off trying further as it yields zero return, while each ‘Charm-Yes’ will encourage the 90% without the preemptive immunity to invest in it, as the prevalence of Charm makes it return more and more. Overall, the interactions are simple and an arms race ensues until the effect is useless on anyone except new players. In the end, lose-lose.

Pickpocket:

Alex goes through a simple process to create this Effect, attaching pegs to Brook’s clothes - two per item searched, and overcoming Brook’s skill of observation (and that of third parties). Beyond skill at observation, Brook has very little to counter this effect at the time. Regardless of how well Brook hides thing on their person OOC, the presence of the pegs overcomes this. However, Brook can have invested in a post-Effect counter, spending a personal resource of XP, money, and overcoming a roleplaying challenge, to get ‘in’ with the underground. This means that Brook can, after handing over the items, get a clue to the person that stole the items. Further investing in resources and overcoming further roleplaying challenges can get one further ‘in’ with the underground, allowing Brook learn the identity directly, and eventually to have a network of personal thieves capable of returning any items taken off Brook, or pawn show owners that will return Brooks items to them (except Plot items, which will have to be re-stolen by Brook). Now, theft is generally positive (invest skill, get resources), but there is a cost - the predator could become the prey. Those that have been robbed can find counter-thieves of their own to track down the person and/or the items, or do so themselves - giving them a chance for retaliation. As successful thefts happen, more and more people will invest in underground influence, but theft is still a valuable skill - you just might have to start covering your tracks (by either investing in counter-counter-thief influence, or having a ‘fall-guy’).

#19

So yeah, I’ve had a couple of instances where I had an instant “Do what I want” ability where I got flat refused by the player it was used on, basically because they really didn’t want to. (One was a Fairy Dust command to tell me the truth about something really important, the other was a Persuade to give me a plot significant item.) The first time we brangled for a few minutes in character and then I figured if the character was refusing to answer it must be because I was being betrayed and acted accordingly, the second time the other person broke character to argue about it, fetched the GM to argue about it some more, then gave me a fake item anyway. Generally, a lousy time was had by all.

And I can look at it now objectively and say that I thought they were cheating in those instances as far as the written rules were concerned, but also - they were bad rules. They deprotagonised the target and removed their in-character agency in a severe and game changing way, and reduced opportunities for roleplaying to boot, so it’s not actually surprising that the person playing the character asserted their own agency by refusing. Having thought about it some, compulsion abilities work better when they’re minor - like “tell me a true thing, you pick what”, or “show me something that you have”, or “you’re inclined to like me, but not beyond reason”. Big grunty compulsion abilities activate people’s real life competitive instincts and that’s a great way to get bad feeling for no real gain.

#20

How do people feel about rules like mute? Has anyone found it ok to have cast on them during a heated debate? Or had a problem with it?