Skip to main content

Mechanic Monday: Tension Within the Narative of BURN

So the other night I was lying a-bed and trying to give my eyes a break from digital screens.  I got to thinking about this week’s Mechanic Monday, and about BURN.  Something that had gnawed at the corners of my vision for how the game should be experienced, had been a question that wavered between replayability and variability.  As I mentioned in my previous post, the game was inspired by a particular film, with a specific narrative.  I could envision one great way the game could be played; but how many different ways were there? How could I give the play direction without giving it rails?
Having identified this concern, I confronted it and examined it.  I asked myself: What are the choices, and how will they be enjoyable? And what are the ludological tensions - i.e. what will create stakes in the space between options?
So I re-examined the narrative.  Something my teen self enjoyed about Spy Game was how Robert Redford’s character masterminded a perfect plan that anticipated every obstacle and overcame or subverted it.  But then I thought of something that my WWII-buff wife says a lot: “We shouldn’t have won”.  Meaning that the odds against the Allies were stacked so cataclysmically high, and so many crucial victories came down to impossibly narrow strokes of fortune and extraordinary efforts by individuals who found themselves in the right place and time to make them, that the Allied win of WWII feels like it must have happened in vanishingly few timelines in all the multiverse.  And if I take that lens towards the same character in the narrative, I see a plan that worked because guesses were correct, and improvisations were made on the spot, and sacrifices were made.  The film has a happy and tidy ending, but that doesn’t mean that the beginning and middle weren’t fraught for the characters within it.
The sacrifices part, especially, stuck out to me.  And the sense of running out of options.  So I looked at the two roles, and thought about what danger meant to each one.  For the Asset/Agent, this was more straightforward; the danger was the surroundings, the threat was immediate, and the penalty was injury and eventually death.  For the Handler, I realized, the danger was that the establishment would give up, the threat was somewhere between long-term and [whatever the threat to the Agent is/was], and the penalty was a decreased ability to help the Agent.

So here’s what I to try for the two roles:
Agent: Every turn is a Push Your Luck.  You can use your items to heal yourself or hurt your opponents, or you can stockpile them to try and meet a number of difficult possible victory conditions.  You can heal yourself now suboptimally or you can hope to survive another fight to maximize the damage healed.  Try to cross the border or hunker down for extraction.
Handler: You have eyes on two game clocks - the Agent’s health, and your bureau’s investment in the Agent.  You have a fair amount of action points to spend per turn at the start of the game, but never enough to guarantee the Agent’s safety.  And you can borrow more against future turns, but that will hasten the point where the bureau deems the extraction unworth the risk.  The tension is between spending your power to help vs conserving it to buy time.

Not your usual Mechanic Monday, is it? A bit more vague? Too vague maybe? Don’t care.  It seized my brain until I got it down, and now I can move on.  Plus the oven’s just heated, time to bake some bread.  Til next week!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

TTRPG Tuesday: Three Means Of Resolving

Hi it’s another TTRPG Tuesday! First of the year.  Let’s get right into it. Saw a challenge on Twitter to make some resolution mechanics.  I can do those! Here we go: Hand to Hand The player performing the action and the person running the game or otherwise opposing the action both put their dominant fists toward one another, bounce them three times to get a rhythm, and reveal a number with their fingers, 0-5.  Sum the two numbers, and if the number is greater than 5, subtract six, so that the final number is always between 0 and 5.  On a 0, the action fails catastrophically, on a 1-2 it fails, 3-4 it succeeds, on a 5 it succeeds spectacularly.  The player taking the action starts the game with all five fingers up on their non-dominant hand; after an attempt, they may lower fingers on that hand to add to the sum of the attempt. Ex. Alice attempts to seduce Cat’s character over to the coup conspirators.  They put their dominant hands together (right for Alice, left for Cat) and thro

TTRPG Tuesday: Minimum Viable Product for WWDW?

Hello and welcome back to TTRPG Tuesday! I’ve put together a barebones introductory document for We Won, Didn’t We? and, well, I think it speaks for itself.  Check it out HERE ! This introduces the skeleton of the game, as well as walking through the steps; I’d say next up is a rudimentary character sheet, and maybe I can bring this to a Playtest Zero session and see what folks think of character creation within one of the starting Bulbs.  I’ve opened the doc up for comments, so if you have thoughts dear reader, fire away.  Brain fried, go read the doc, til next time!

TTRPG Tuesday: Beliefs as Roles

  Hello from high above the Rockies, as I make my way back to Chicago from Big Bad Con 2023.     This was my first con in five years, and only my second ever.     I had a better time at it than I did at GenCon, which I understand derives largely from this being an industry con vs a consumer show.     I made a modest number of purchases but it was easy to stick to the constraints of my limited luggage space, which was fine; shopping and new releases were not the attraction here.     Gaming, panels, and (as I soon learned) networking were. This con was certainly less overwhelming and I think my expectations were clearer and my FOMO much lighter, but I’ll readily admit that I had a lot to learn.    I misunderstood or made mistakes regarding almost every event I signed up for, including happy accidents like sitting in on the wrong panel only to learn a ton, or expecting a mending workshop to be about fixing one’s writing when the application was rather more literal, which was a fascinat