There's a game I was thinking about seeing if someone could help me work out a plausible way to run/what portrait I could use to run it that is basically a HIDEOUSLY AWFUL GAME built in v opposite directions to what's been done for trauma lately, I think - instead of how most traumagames have been death death reveal awful secrets death that I've seen so far anyway, a traumagame built around the idea of "a death of a thousand cuts".
A list of locations on the body, one knife per person, and "partner" teams - either swapped out between each round or kept the same, I haven't decided which would work better - sitting on opposite sides of a containing room, watching each other. The knives in little piles in the middle of the room. The list is like a deck of cards, each round each team member is dealt a part or selection of parts listed in descending value order (again, not sure which), for example "ear 20 pts toe 15 pts hand 10 pts" if the scoring method was what I went with. (I would be using the scoring method OOCly either way, actually.) None of the parts listed will be intended to result in a lethal blow until the last round, when options like heart and stomach and neck get added to the list. The larger the damaged area (or potentially fatal) the less it will be worth. It's not a game built primarily around murder, it's about the buildup of little violences/seeing where the threshold is for people's ragequit button or if they even have one, is it really better for them if they're rewarded for being "less" nasty but more targeted in their application? So I am also thinking of completely leaving the point totals out ICly except at the beginning and end of a round, but dropping enough hints - like, Try not to kill each other this time ..., idk - ICly via the portrait dialogue that attentive characters will pick up on it.
Carrying out an action gets the team whatever the option's point total is, having an action carried out on the team subtracts the value of that option from the team's total. Failing to carry out an action nets a penalty. The penalty applies even if it's because the opposite team resists their action long enough for the round to end, and teams will be allowed to resist when the action is made. They can also simply go over and kill the other team if they like but they will not earn any points for it and unless they also carry out their actions beforehand they will take a penalty for failing to complete their actions if so.
As I see it right now it would be a four round game, probably over a long weekend, so either starting the first round on Thursday with a big finish on Sunday or ... something. The first round has no penalty for refusal/failure, it's just a chance for teams to get a taste of what the game is going to be plus a chance to puzzle over the post-round point total and how that matches what they did in the round. The second round is like - suddenly you itch all over but no points are taken away - so, another chance to clue in to how the game works, maybe. The third round they get hit with whatever option's on their card (or the lowest-point-value selection) and lose the equivalent point total, and the fourth round a randomly-selected teammate of theirs gets hit with whatever option's on the card (or highest-value selection) and lose the equivalent point total.
Scoring would be ... idk. Everyone's point totals at the end would get tallied but I like scores to be more than just "who did the best murderjob" so ... whoever has the highest percentage difference between points earned versus points taken in either direction. In other words if a team loses more points than they earned they win, if they earned more points than they lost, they win. If someone's scores in both give and take categories are equal and they cancel each other out, that's also a win condition. The team who picked the highest-scoring options most often would win too (if either of these options overlaps with the ones above then it goes to the next team down on the list, obviously), the team who picked the lowest-scoring options most often would win too. I would ... like to have more creative options, if only because the appeal of a game like this is in the effect it has on the characters and having these be the win conditions feels a lot like it isn't rewarding the dynamics enough and is ... simply choosing the lazy option. But I'm bad at working out the scoring aspect of this stuff to begin with.
Thoughts ...?
ALSO IS MARCH AN OC OR DOES HE ACTUALLY COME FROM SOMEWHERE
I'd play it! Though I"m hopeless at mechanics so don't ask me for help, my idea of mechanics is puns and hey someone else do my maths for me okok.
MARCH IS AN OC he's from my Download Wonderland Cyberpunk Verse 'v' way back when a bunch of my friends designed OCs for the main cast for it, which is why he has castmates to be apped.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
WHAT SORT OF GAMES WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE
no subject
A list of locations on the body, one knife per person, and "partner" teams - either swapped out between each round or kept the same, I haven't decided which would work better - sitting on opposite sides of a containing room, watching each other. The knives in little piles in the middle of the room. The list is like a deck of cards, each round each team member is dealt a part or selection of parts listed in descending value order (again, not sure which), for example "ear 20 pts toe 15 pts hand 10 pts" if the scoring method was what I went with. (I would be using the scoring method OOCly either way, actually.) None of the parts listed will be intended to result in a lethal blow until the last round, when options like heart and stomach and neck get added to the list. The larger the damaged area (or potentially fatal) the less it will be worth. It's not a game built primarily around murder, it's about the buildup of little violences/seeing where the threshold is for people's ragequit button or if they even have one, is it really better for them if they're rewarded for being "less" nasty but more targeted in their application? So I am also thinking of completely leaving the point totals out ICly except at the beginning and end of a round, but dropping enough hints - like, Try not to kill each other this time ..., idk - ICly via the portrait dialogue that attentive characters will pick up on it.
Carrying out an action gets the team whatever the option's point total is, having an action carried out on the team subtracts the value of that option from the team's total. Failing to carry out an action nets a penalty. The penalty applies even if it's because the opposite team resists their action long enough for the round to end, and teams will be allowed to resist when the action is made. They can also simply go over and kill the other team if they like but they will not earn any points for it and unless they also carry out their actions beforehand they will take a penalty for failing to complete their actions if so.
As I see it right now it would be a four round game, probably over a long weekend, so either starting the first round on Thursday with a big finish on Sunday or ... something. The first round has no penalty for refusal/failure, it's just a chance for teams to get a taste of what the game is going to be plus a chance to puzzle over the post-round point total and how that matches what they did in the round. The second round is like - suddenly you itch all over but no points are taken away - so, another chance to clue in to how the game works, maybe. The third round they get hit with whatever option's on their card (or the lowest-point-value selection) and lose the equivalent point total, and the fourth round a randomly-selected teammate of theirs gets hit with whatever option's on the card (or highest-value selection) and lose the equivalent point total.
Scoring would be ... idk. Everyone's point totals at the end would get tallied but I like scores to be more than just "who did the best murderjob" so ... whoever has the highest percentage difference between points earned versus points taken in either direction. In other words if a team loses more points than they earned they win, if they earned more points than they lost, they win. If someone's scores in both give and take categories are equal and they cancel each other out, that's also a win condition. The team who picked the highest-scoring options most often would win too (if either of these options overlaps with the ones above then it goes to the next team down on the list, obviously), the team who picked the lowest-scoring options most often would win too. I would ... like to have more creative options, if only because the appeal of a game like this is in the effect it has on the characters and having these be the win conditions feels a lot like it isn't rewarding the dynamics enough and is ... simply choosing the lazy option. But I'm bad at working out the scoring aspect of this stuff to begin with.
Thoughts ...?
ALSO IS MARCH AN OC OR DOES HE ACTUALLY COME FROM SOMEWHERE
no subject
MARCH IS AN OC he's from my Download Wonderland Cyberpunk Verse 'v' way back when a bunch of my friends designed OCs for the main cast for it, which is why he has castmates to be apped.
I AM OUT OF QUESTIONS I THINK