Adapting Machinations of Court and Frame to a VN-ish format
July 2, 2023
For @liananana's Narrat Jam 2, I'm poking my ideas for a political, intrigue-based mecha game that cares deeply about ties between people with power into a little linear VN storyline. A TTRPG designed for PVP troupe-level play is pretty different from a story following one person! So I'm gonna think out loud about what I'm changing and why.
Ah no I'm writing another dicelessness article by accident oh god help
Off the bat, one of the technological aspects I ran into is that Narrat is very particular about skill rolls. They're binary in nature, you have to define how they work up front, and you don't get the roll value on a check, just pass/fail.
Now. I could possibly hack something together to account for this, it does have access to a generic random function. But honestly, I'm not gonna bother. Total//Effect's core mechanic is fine if you're a person looking at dice but kind of annoying when you're telling a computer "pick the middle of these three d6's, or the lowest or highest if a specific thing happens, but also we care about the sum of the three, and sometimes it's roll five and take the highest 3".
So in two different ways, the core mechanic changes. And these have other impacts, so we'll just go into those here...
Relationship changes
Relationships in Total//Effect compare a die of 3d6, based on the request being made, to the number of Bonds you have with the person. (Bonds in Machinations default are mutual and also add Tells to combat against each other.)
Dice rolls in TTRPGs are a tricky thing. It's very easy to add them because everyone's doing it and just as easy to forget why you're doing them. FANTASTIC article on this here. In core Machinations, Relationship rolls are a way of doing a push-pull on another character: if you succeed on that roll, you do something that influences them to act in a specified way, through whatever means your shared Bonds provide. But a mixed success gives them more narrative control about it, and a failure means they can potentially turn it around on you. In a tabletop setting, it's really easy to account for all those branching possibilities because a) you can just make shit up and b) in this case in particular, it's two players.
The thing with VNs, etc is that's a LOT of writing and uncertainty. Disco Elysium's great at this kind of random-branching but think about how much branching dialogue that takes. And that's a game where most checks can be re-tried later after gaining a skill level! In a more linear story, you could have a roll or two that just completely fucks your entire intent. (This is why you see people playing those games savescum like mad.)
I don't like that model very much! I prefer the Age of Decadence narrative model. In that, there's NO randomization. If you have 3 Persuasion and 3 Streetwise, you can always succeed at the check that needs 6 total. (That said, it conceals the check-required values from you, so you can still fail by just not having enough.)
I'm going to make a small concession, which is letting folks reach beyond their grasp: a 1d3-1 (0-2) is attached on each relationship check. So if you've got a 5, you have a 66% chance of hitting a Difficulty 6 Check, or if you have a 4 it's a 33% chance, but you'll hit Difficulty 4 checks 100% of the time. (And I might gate a few of the more important Difficulty 6 checks behind a "you must be this tall to enter" anyway. Gotta commit if you want to do the most drastic things.)
Duel changes
Duels are not random at all. Ok, that's a lie, but the main randomization is the enemy "AI", not any of the outcomes. Once both moves are locked in, it's going to play out exactly as expected based on Priority (the rock-paper-scissors of Aggressive, Defensive, and Indirect that various moves have).
The big thing here is, again, creating interesting outcomes. My goal for combat is that failing one doesn't create a "do it again, stupid" scenario: I'm already planning to have failure outcomes for fights that move the story forward rather than force you to reload and try again. But again, I think it comes down to intent: in the context of tabletop, I think it's cool as hell that sometimes you can get some wildly swingy rolls that completely change a situation! MoCaF in tabletop form is going to largely give opportunities to be as equal as possible. But in the context of a single player game, I don't want it to be as all over the place. I'd much rather it be like a chess match: you pick the best you can based on the knowledge you have. And this extends to the Tells system: this is way more egalitarian in the tabletop game, as anyone you have a Bond with has as many Tells on your business as you have with theirs. Here, it's your special edge. You can definitely win fights without one but it's gonna be a hell of a lot less reliable. (Plus, that's an awful thing to program.)
I'm also not including escalation here, partially because I don't 100% know what to do with it in duels in tabletop, but partially because we don't really have rolls for it to influence.
One POV Character, Eight Predetermined Main Cast Members, Four Predetermined Houses
Machinations in concept is a very irregular TTRPG. Most have some idea of a single "group" that you follow: Machinations expects you to hop around various alliances and have players pull out their PCs from other alliances when they show up in their expected off-weeks to do politics, have intrigue, and fight.
For the sake of me being able to finish this game, you control one character here. Your relationships with those 8 other main cast members (four noble, four common) are the key concern. They relate to each other, of course, but that's in a non-mechanical sense (like they don't have capital-R Relationships tracked or anything, just what the narrative needs them to do).
Again, switching viewpoints would be cool! But holy shit is that a different proposition scope-wise. And ultimately it'd be way harder to do any kind of branching.
In the actual game, creating your own House is a thing! Each player creates two for the game as a whole. But in this, we're sticking with four predetermined:
- House Alzur, an ancient House deeply invested in lineage from the first lightspeed traveler and steeped in tradition;
- House Reyaal, new money from betting right on other Houses' conflicts;
- House Montrant, a weapons-manufacturing House with eyes towards supply lines; and
- House Weber, an extremely tiny house with a lot of connections: they own Amirus, the planet that the plot takes place on that all of the other 3 lay some claim on.
No Court Maneuvers and Status, but Backgrounds can matter
I'm eschewing Court Maneuvers entirely, just for complication reasons. But in their place, your starting Background (Scion/Knight/Captain) matters more directly!
Backgrounds tie into Status, which is a thing in the tabletop game but I'm leaving as more nebulous here. In the tabletop game having high Status is generally always good, but you get some benny points for being low-Status; in this, instead some situations will go better if you have less-blue blood.
Adaptation is interesting! I'm hoping I can get this one across the finish line. It's definitely ambitious but doable: most of the infrastructure is there, it's just a matter of filling in the branching tree.
(Read the original on cohost here!)