Background: in my game people play in a noir/pulp city as gadget powered crime fighters. Inspired by the likes of everything from Nevermen to Judge Dredd to Batman to the Shadow to the Spirit. Characters are Agents working above the law as a unique crimefighting force in a unique crime ridden city.

Threat Points: the purpose of this idea is to simulate the constant level of threat the Agents face during adventures from various of their antagonists (the sort of rogues gallery you'd find in places like Gotham City). These points are collected by the GM for two purposes: firstly to pay for villain abilities (powers etc) in combat encounters with the Agents, and secondly to generate narrative incidents on the fly, for example a Bank Job or the jailbreak of a villain the Agents previously defeated.

(I'm even proposing a sentencing system (the way Judge Dredd can sentence people the fly as both cop and judge and jury) which would set the 'bail': the threat point cost to bust the guy out at random to menace the players.)

Threat points are intended to be conceded to the GM by player action or perhaps inaction. So far this happens in three ways:
1. Whenever the players want to heal damage and the effects thereof they concede points. This simulates the Agents taking time out to heal during which their foes aren't sitting still (this is the essence of the TP system). The cost can be modified by the location and resources available to the Agents - if they are in a Safehouse (an Agent base) or a Hospital then fewer points are given up.

(The capitalisation of locations is important; I intend to create a 'meta map' of the city that functions as a sort of gameboard. Not for the purposes ofminiatures, but as a fixed layout of the city the Agents work within.)

2. As with recovery above, repair - the healing of equipment and gadgets and the refuelling thereof - concedes points. Likewise too if the Agents are in an appropriate location they give up fewer points.
3. Fast Travel - ie travelling across a large distance, say from one district to the other relatively quickly, concedes Threat. This is a little trickier to justify, but again it can be modified due to resources available to the players.

I can't think of anything else that might concede such points and I am looking for any reasons why people would oppose using a system such as this. I don't want something that forces things to happen, nor do i want to limit the game play options for the players.

This is a really cool idea.

I especially like the concept of #1 in that the characters' adversaries are in limbo while they are offline doing stuff.  Also, I like the Threat Point overlay on the city map concept too.  You could even assign certain sections of the city a Threat Point number could be scale modifier to the TP tax on the character.

I would be interested in seeing how you develop this idea.

The problem with ideas like this, perennially, is measuring the pace of points and judging how many is either too many or too few.

Its a great rule for a board game but not sure why you need it in an RPG.

The way I see RPGs there are 2 basic methods.

i) World in motion - stuff happens. The PCs are embedded in this stuff and if they don't observe an event it carries on. If they don't spot the clue the killer will kill again, if they don't make it to the tower before sunset the princess will have been sacrificed etc etc

ii) PC centric - stuff in the world happens to make the adventure fun for the players. They will always arrive at teh temple just as the high priest lifts his blade to plunge it into the princess's heart, the killer will start to leave clues for the PCs because he wants to establish some sort of relationship.

Now I think both methods are pretty valid (I know most readers here will prefer option i ) . What you have is a halfway house so you want a world in motion or the illusion of such but you want to make the PCs centric to the action. Now you can do that without a rule and stuff to track and measure and plan. A good GM can just pitch the action to give the illusion of WiM without any mechanics. An RPG book that takes a page to explain this and gives advice about the pace of the action and how to give a rewarding game etc is probably enough.

The mechanic you have is good where there is no GM as it a mechanism for dictating that pace so I think great in a board game, but where there is a GM its just morre stuff to track.

(Now I might be a bit extreme here I don't use wandering monsters for example I just decide if there are monsters or not. )

Ultimately you are correct, and i am always influenced by boardgame ideas (though that isn't specifically where this came from - my ideas for this project are influenced more by Danger Patrol, though ironcially that is quite boardgamey).

So yes somewhere between those two concepts is where this idea rests. However I don't want to give up on it, and the map idea is expressly not meant to be a boardgame. No more than the map for Freedom City in M&M or Hong Kong in Feng Shui is. It's a fixed and specific location that's the setting for the game.

I just felt that something a little more concrete than, essentially, GM fiat is what I wanted. The idea of healing in return for conferring some kind of advantage to the Villains seemed appropriate: do the players want to take time out to lick their wounds, or are they hero enough to take it on the chin and deny every opportunity to their foes? It also allows for a simple healing system that doesn't need to worry about recovery times and such: either heal or don't, but there's a cost if you do.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;434419Ultimately you are correct, and i am always influenced by boardgame ideas (though that isn't specifically where this came from - my ideas for this project are influenced more by Danger Patrol, though ironcially that is quite boardgamey).

So yes somewhere between those two concepts is where this idea rests. However I don't want to give up on it, and the map idea is expressly not meant to be a boardgame. No more than the map for Freedom City in M&M or Hong Kong in Feng Shui is. It's a fixed and specific location that's the setting for the game.

I just felt that something a little more concrete than, essentially, GM fiat is what I wanted. The idea of healing in return for conferring some kind of advantage to the Villains seemed appropriate: do the players want to take time out to lick their wounds, or are they hero enough to take it on the chin and deny every opportunity to their foes? It also allows for a simple healing system that doesn't need to worry about recovery times and such: either heal or don't, but there's a cost if you do.

Yeah I totally understand but either the viallains have a plan they follow and the world is immersive or its GM fiat. This just mechanises the fiat. What is the in world rationale for the villains getting tougher if the party get healing? what if they spent the same length of time investigating a dead end clue?

I think its a great baordgame mechanic though and I can't think of a superhero boardgame......

If they spend the same time searching for clues then they are gaining something. Healing means taking time out to recover which isn't pursuing the same end. Does their search for clues turn up a dead end? Well that's another gm fiat debate (aren't most rules a mechanisation of gm fiat?). In other words, does the player's efforts at rolling something like Spot Hidden or Library Use turn up something or not. I'd rather find a different system, which is what the Gumshoe system tries to do, as is my understanding. Chasing what the GM knows to be a dead end would not be how I would design a game - if the players comit to playing out an ultimately futile sequence I'm not sure it should be futile or at least solely down to chance. But that is another discussion.

Another way of doing it would be through aspects. So if a character wishes to heal a not-insignificant amount of damage, then the GM can apply a negative aspect to a portion of the city: "The docks aren't safe to walk at night" (to pick something off the top of my head). Said aspect can be made commensurate in pwoer to the amount healed.

Then maybe such an aspect can be used by the characters when doing their detective bit. A more salubrious and seedy aspect to the docks means there's more chance of a mook to bust information out of. After all if the entire city is snug and safe where is the underworld to squeeze for information?

Though on reflection all these aspects are just going to be the same: such and such a place is more dangerous.

As a mechanical spur to the GM (and the players, who can't then complain that the GM is picking on them... yes, my players do that every time I punish them for taking a week to clear a three room dungeon...) It has a use.

However, I think the GM shouldn't necessarily be restricted to actions by the TP necessarily either.  

Thinking about it from 'adventure design'... admittedly I'm too lazy to be super good at this mind you... the GM should decide what sort of encounters the players can handle and how they should go down ahead of time.   Now, if the players have a resource similar to TP (fate points, poker chips, what have you..) they could totally use those to make the encounters got smoother, but the GM can impose various penalties by using the TP he's accrued to make the challenges harder, rather than just start getting more encounters to throw at them.  

Not quite what you were talking about, though.

But I'm trying to get a handle on what you can DO with TP before I can have an idea HOW MANY TP the GM should be expected to get.  

So, with TP, the villians (the GM) could add more henchmen to their organization.. this gives them reinforcements in a fight (The GM spends a TP and presto! Additional squad of henchmen joins a fight that is ongoing, or he spends it earlier and adds an ambush by said henchmen earlier in the adventure), he could set up booby traps or even place a decoy of himself in the fight, making the players have to track him down again to force the real fight.  He could, with TP (higher cost per use?) kidnap important NPCs to use as leverage.  In theory, based on what you were saying (Getting out of jail?) the Villain could spend his TP to ensure that the outcome of the fight is 'part of the plan'.  THink the Joker getting sent to Arkham deliberately to stir up the inmates or something.

Now, to make it really interesting, the players don't have to know how the GM spends the TP... though this may negate one value of TP (keeping bitching down because 'its the rules, mang'), so they won't KNOW the GM is pulling a dirty stunt on them until its been revealed.

But back to scaling. There are two ends to our scale, obviously. Is the bottom end Zero (the players do everything perfectly, blitzing through the badguys non-stop!) or is it some value higher than zero (no matter what they do the villian will still have SOME resources he starts with).  A non-zero outcome can come from adventure planning... having some sort of dilemma: stop X or stop Y, can't do both and failing either results in additional TP for the GM/Villain.  

But I'll assume you intend for a possible Zero outcome, leaving that as a lower end.  Assuming every TP is highly valuable, with each spent point seriously ratcheting up the threat, we don't want too high a value.  Assuming a single night of play, with three encounters default, we could presume that a typical high end for TP is... well.. three.  It could go as high as five.

Players fight hench-thugs and lose or at least fail to win. TP 1
Players rest because they lost, TP 2
Players fight mini-boss and fail to win TP3
Players rest again  TP 4
Main boss fight, players lose (TP 5, because after the encounter how would the villain spend them?)
Resting (TP 6, see above)

If adventures are serial, then unused TP can carry over, or at least can carry over if the same villain is being featured.  Being beaten soundly, or pulling out all the stops reduces his power, while beating the heroes increases it.  This is villain XP in a way.

Note that 'buying a squad of mooks' suggests that a squad of mooks is a credible, but not overwhelming thread.

Thanks for the input.

I fear though that the argument of GM fiat vs mechanisation will haunt this idea too much.

All those things, it can easily be argued, are things that the GM 'should' be able to do anyway. The implication is that, sans points, the GM is constrained.

The idea, originally, wasn't so much that TP's can buy 'plot points', but would fuel abilities used by villains when encountered (be they gadgets or powers or skills).

Perhaps it might be best to shift the use of TP into downtime; they can be used between adventures to represent the currents flowing in the underworld, perhaps leading to new adventures. I don't know.

Or perhaps they could just be bonus dice for the GM to roll when using a villain.

I do like the notion that a GM can spend TPs to have the villain suddenly whip out a hostage previously unbeknownst to the players. Or perhaps, he simply escapes.

I'm not sure i'd award TP's for having the players lose an encounter though (perhaps i read that wrong). That wouldn't happen, not because the players lost, but because they were acting directly against their foes. When they recover, for example, they are deliberately taking time out.

I can see what you are saying, GW.

First, however, I think it is important/useful to have a consequence for failure. If the bad guys are stealing the super-widget, going in a beating up a bunch of mooks isn't really as important as keeping them from stealing said super-widget.

Of course, can be turned around a bit too. Players can steal back TP by... interrogating one of the mooks who didn't escape and finding out where the Villain is planning to use the Super-widget, or some other clue they didn't have before.

The sting of failure is a recurring theme in many super-hero stories (Well, the ones where the heroes can fail at all anyway...).


I am leary of the mechanization process, but if the game makes it clear that the villain's use of TP is something 'extra' on top of whatever his normal plans are it should be fine. If the villain PLANS to kidnap Mary Jane, he totally can attempt to do that, and the players can try to stop him. But if the players are fumbling around helplessly/dragging their feet while he sets up the big world destroyign superwidget of his dreams, then he can capture Mary Jane as an extra without the Heroes even knowing she's gone (Spends TP).

Likewise, the Villain can have as many Henchmen as the GM wants to give him at his super secret base, but if the players fumble badly, then he can pull in a few extra teams to keep his fat out of the fire in the final showdown because he's had extra time to plan/the bad guys in town want on the winning team.

Though, none of this addresses the use of TP to make the Environment worse.   I personally think this might be better handled by GM fiat/description... but can totally work either as a parallel system (The city gets worse after adventures fail rather than individual failures) or as an extension of the TP system... but you'd want more points handed out.. expanding how many are handed over per 'rest/failure' and/or broadening the situations that hand them out.

At that point you have room for the bad guy to focus on making things worse overall (best for bad guys motivated by a philosophy rather than greed...) in addition to shoring up his evil plans.

In this case you'd want to have 'sub objectives' for any given situation.  DId the players look for the vital clue? No? TP point.

Did the badguys get the superwidget? Yes? TP point.

Did the bad guy's main hench-thug (named mini-villain) escape as well? Yes: Tp point

Did the players not even TRY To stop them (Failed to show, went to wrong location, performed so pathetically that its an embarassment)... yes, TP.

The more points the villain can accrue, the more flexibility the system has for things to do with the points, which also introduces as sort of granularity to the system. Where before a squad of thugs was roughly equal to (or maybe half of) kidnappign Mary Jane, now you can have a two or three point spread with room in the middle for other things like 'bomb in the train station' or what have you.

I wonder if this can be handled with aspects.

Perhaps you could make an aspect out of 'kidnapped Mary Jane'. TP's can perhaps both pay for (to bring it into play) and compel (while in play). So that if the players don't rescue MJ, then the aspect has the negative effects associated with aspects in some fashion.

Using some narrative tool would make trying to devise a complex cost scheme with balancing easier I think.

You're on your own with that one, chief.  I was providing help in a systemic void.

Ok, some revision and I think this could work. There are many variables in the example below, but the overall idea seems credible to me even in a pick up and play (or minimal prep) way.

Firstly to explain: there are TP's and now there are Clues, granted another layer of complexity but the two exist separately and interact. Players removing TP's was not enough. Clues are awarded to the players for good investigatory work as well as taking down obstacles in their path (ie winning important combat encounters).
The GM accrues TP's in pretty much the way that's been discussed. In fact I think adventures should kick off with the GM having a couple of points to start with. He uses them as and when (though timing will be an issue, i fear) to buy plot points, villains, 'extras'. He records his allowance expenditure secretly as he purchases.
Clues can be spent, with the same timing issues, to reveal what the GM has spent. Whenever Clues are spent, the GM must reveal all expenditure recorded up to the Clue expenditure. If more Clues were spent then the GM must forfeit enough TP's to make up the difference (this is to incenvitise the GM to use TP's and prevent problems from 'overhoarding' them). Now the players have learned something and can mount a greater offence - and the GM can work off that.

Note: it may well be necessary to award the GM TP's in spite of what the players do, as discussed above. I was resistant to this, but the GM may need more given how this system works, or he wont' be able to do anything. This is the problem with a system like this. Though careful design needn't prevent it from working. For now we could assume that, at certain points/encounters, the GM automatically receives +TP.

Example:

Adventure Hook: the players learn there's an arms deal going down at midnight (let's assume they have a reasonable timeframe to act - they don't learn this at 11:00pm). The GM has some TP to start. He can use this to place any villain he chooses. Regular villains cost 1TP (for example), more powerful Villains cost more. He can gamble on gaining more later to buy a more potent adversary. If he can't or doesn't then the default adversary becomes regular ganglanders - some kind of default villain level (mobsters or such). However, so long as a villain appears in time for the deal (at least) then it won't matter when the GM spends Threat.

Now the players need to find out who's behind it as well as, and perhaps more importantly, where. To this end they can hit the streets or perhaps call on contacts. The usual investigatory options most GM's would probably anticipate .

At this point the GM might be able to spend a TP to chuck a significant combat encounter their way. If the players lose, he gains a TP. If the players win they gain a Clue. Otherwise, or perhaps in addition to, the players gain a Clue or two from their investigation plans (I would hesitate to give them nothing just because they rolled badly or something; I think that's missing the point).

The GM has chosen to spend early to get Professor Megamind as the archvillain for the adventure. He's a robot with an advanced AI brain looking to buy weapon upgrades. He can be defeated with the Sanction Gun, an electronic weapon designed by his creator, Dr Rosencorp. The only weapon that can stop him entirely.

The players spend Clues and learn that the GM has purchased their earlier encounter (irrelevant learning that now) as well as that Megamind is behind the arms deal. They also learn it's going to happen at the docks (not sure whether that would require TP expenditure since it has to happen somewhere).

Now the players can get back to their investigation to learn about the Sanction Gun. Perhaps the GM can offer to tell them this up front, or even allow them to have access to the Sanction Gun because they met Dr Rosencorp before and the Gun is in their custody. This would allow the GM a TP reward in exchange for this shortcut. I think this option is worth formalising; it wouldn't be compulsory and letting the players find out themselves can lead to more roleplaying if that's their thing.

And on we go from there.

GW,

I think it's a neat idea and if you need any playtest help, my group would probably be happy to tackle something like this.  You mentioned being inspired by Danger Patrol, and this subsystem may be something that would add alot to interlude scenes, so I could the players the option of extending interlude play to a) tick off additional danger, b) refresh additional special abilities, or c) shrugging off additional damage, all while additional scenes to it.  Whatever threat points gained by the GM could be used to add "oomph!" to the action or suspense scenes.

Thank you.

But i'm not sure i'm going to go with this. I've changed the idea around somewhat and it's probably for the best. This is a bit too boardgamey I think.