Myth of Opposed Rolls in action

[taalyn]

This may be more appropriate for the design forum, since I'm talking about a specific manifestation, but I am open to discussing the relevance in other systems as well.

So, I don't think Mike's standard rant on opposed rolls applies in Crux. To refresh minds, here's what exists at the moment:

Draws are always in the hands of the Player. When faced with an opponent, the opponent's skill is turned into a difficulty through simple math, and that's the number the player has to beat. These numbers correspond with a similar scale for difficulty on "unopposed" rolls.

Now, I'm not sure whether I've done two systems or not above - I think I have, and they're combined into one single draw system (in other words, exactly backwards from what Mike suggested in his rant).

In Alpha playtesting, however, the players were dissatisfied. Particularly because I have these things called fates: the Boon, which puts the best possible spin on an action, whether they succeed or fail, the Bane, worst possible spin, and the Wyrd, which is just, well, weird and coincidental.

Because of fates, having the players draw for everything isn't quite right. The opponent never gets a Fate. there is never the opportunity for a player's Boon to go up against an opponent's Bane or Wyrd. So, I'm moving back to opposed draws as well as the unopposed.

Both, because the rope couldn't get a Fate when you're climbing it. The chasm you're about to jump can't have a god day, or a bad one for that matter. But the animate opponents - yep, they can.

generally, Mike's points are all good. I'm not disputing them. What I am wondering, though, is whether his points apply to my system. I don't think they do. Anyone else have insights, or other games/systems which may not be affected by the ideas of Rant #5?

[talysman]

I think Mike's point was that you shouldn't use two or more resolution systems in the same game without a good reason. using opposed rolls for (N)PCs and unopposed rolls when facing an inanimate obstacle doesn't make sense if you're just doing because one obstacle is a person. if, however, you have a specific need -- like assigning Boons, Banes, and Wyrds -- then you have a reason for two mechanics.

unless you decide to allow inanimate objects to acquire Boons, Banes and Wyrds, in which case you should switch to all opposed rolls.

[taalyn]

Yeah, I see that now. Unless Mike says otherwise, I'll say you're right, and his observations don't apply because I do have a reason for two systems.

Thanks,

[Halzebier]

Anyone else have insights, or other games/systems which may not be affected by the ideas of Rant #5?

Could you provide a link?

More importantly, could someone please explain how to find this sort of thing with the Forge's Search function? I have no trouble with Google and similar search engines, but the Forge has me stumped... I'm starting to feel real dumb here (not to mention frustrated).

When I enter ""Mike's Standard Rant #5"" in the keywords line and "Mike Holmes" as the author, I get 325 hits, most of which are not by Mike or have a topic name resembling the one I'm looking for. =/

Regards & TIA,

Hal

[taalyn]

Go here for Mike's Rant #5.

My search-fu is improving.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that given the metaphysics of the game that drawing for the animate things would be more than sufficient reason to have a separate system. Heck, I've even admitted that aesthetics alone could be good enough depending.

That said, this makes things more complicated again - more draws in play. Which is fine if it actually produces something. What I'd wonder is if you couldn't then leverage off of the combined draws to make even more of a statement.

For instance, could the colors of my draw say something about the colors of your draw? Forgive me, it's been a while, and this might not work, but could similar colors drawn "cancel" each other? Or maybe matches might have some other effect.

The point is that you're generating a lot of information from a draw, and it's not a quick process. So I'd look for some way to get more from the multiple draws than you'd get from just drawing against an object. Metaphysically, what does the clash of souls entail? How can the colors drawn represent that?

With a neat system like that, nobody could possibly question it because the answer to "why have two systems?" would be in order to examine the conflict of the two souls in question or something.

Mike

[taalyn]

For instance, could the colors of my draw say something about the colors of your draw? Forgive me, it's been a while, and this might not work, but could similar colors drawn "cancel" each other? Or maybe matches might have some other effect.

Generally, no. Because the colors of a draw are effectively reduced to a number of successes, it's simply a matter of comparison - better Power is the winner.

The point is that you're generating a lot of information from a draw, and it's not a quick process. So I'd look for some way to get more from the multiple draws than you'd get from just drawing against an object.

Actually, a draw is pretty quick. My playtesters have all been enthusiatic about the simplicity - you never have to add numbers bigger than 2 (i.e. determining the Power of a draw, the number of successes, works something like this: 2+1+1+2), and the colors are pretty intuitive after a session or two. As to information from a single draw - well, there actually is some input/effect, but it's not quantifiable. If I did use those colors in a more abstract way, you're right, it would be pretty slow. And complicated. That's why I went for simple quantifying. It's dicelike in that sense.

If you're swinging at me and hit, the colors in your draw might give the Guide ideas about how the exchange plays out. More red - a mighty wallop, but more green, excellent placement of the hit. Say you got lots of green (int, basically), but I drew a couple amber (dex), and still failed - you knew exactly where to hit, and in the attempt to dodge away from you, I exposed that spot and you took advantage.

Metaphysically, what does the clash of souls entail? How can the colors drawn represent that?

Again, doable, but not quantifiable. Generally, souls don't clash, per se, but I think I'm not getting what you mean. If you mean something like 2 souls trying to inhabit one body, then the color of the conflict (blue, in this case) simply does blue damage, and once you've taken enough blue, you are possessed.

These multiple colors of conflict provide all the system needed for slam wars and social conflicts, magical and spiritual conflicts, and even the conflicts embodied in poitical wrangling and maneuvering.

With a neat system like that, nobody could possibly question it because the answer to "why have two systems?" would be in order to examine the conflict of the two souls in question or something.

Well, the Fates provide that, I think. The Fates are something of an extension of souls; at least, I don't think rope or cars would have fates in the same way that animate living creatures do. So, there is a reason for two systems right there.

How it plays out - I can't think of any way that my draw would affect yours, except when a Fate would show up. I can see identical Fates cancelling out, but that's about it. The conflict of two souls would really just be conflict in several colors, shifting as the souls seek leverage.

Keep in mind that the colors represent different kinds of Quiddity, and certain actions require certain kinds of that energy. The draw is a symbol of drawing Quiddity from within to Power the action - ropes and cars are simple difficulties because ropes don't draw on quiddity to do anything. Ropes "do"  stuff only because someone has performed an action on/with them. Cars are the same way - though the engine has moving parts, they move only because someone has done something to make it happen - sort of a Quiddity chain-reaction. I put red Quiddity into pushing the gas pedal, which releases more gas, which reacts with the spark, and so on.

All that said, I don't think I'm getting what you mean. I feel like I've missed a point, anyway.

Aidan

[Mike Holmes]

Generally, no. Because the colors of a draw are effectively reduced to a number of successes, it's simply a matter of comparison - better Power is the winner.

But that's sorta what I'm getting at. Each side draws, right, and then the power is compared to see who wins? Well, in a way, the drawn beads are cancelling each other, already. What would happen in this situation would be that non-cancelling beads would count on each side, or something like that. Maybe matching colors don't cancel.

Let me explain. The margin of success by which the difference occurs has some effect, right? So, if I draw 4 and you draw 6, you win by 2, right? Well, in the cases of matches, perhaps these are retained separately. So, if we both drew two matching beads, then it might be 2 vs 4 meaning I get a 2 result for margin, but then we both add the matches. So in this case I'd get 2 and you'd get 4. Meaning we both succeeded to some extent. Again, I can't remember the system perfectly, but I don't remember anything that would prevent this from working.

That said, I'm not proposing this mechanic as suitable. I'm just trying to show the sort of things that are possible.

Actually, a draw is pretty quick.

These things are relative. I'm not saying that each draw is a drag or anything, just that two takes longer than one. Yes, they can be done simultaneously, but that's in a perfect world. In practice we know that it means the GM setting down his notes, grabbing his bag and drawing.

The point is moot, however. It's still a good idea to leverage the combinations if there's some sensible reason to do it.

Metaphysically, what does the clash of souls entail? How can the colors drawn represent that?

Again, doable, but not quantifiable. Generally, souls don't clash, per se, but I think I'm not getting what you mean. If you mean something like 2 souls trying to inhabit one body, then the color of the conflict (blue, in this case) simply does blue damage, and once you've taken enough blue, you are possessed.[/quote]I mean "soul" in a much more abstract way, as in the colors representing the character. What I'm saying is that, when I think of Crux, very much I think of the characters as the sum of their colors as energy blobs. The blobs collide, and there's some sort of effect of the collision. This effect is then described in terms of the "mask" that the blob wears in the material world. The point is, that on the metaphysical level, you can say a lot about the interactions of the colors that you're not saying right now.

Well, the Fates provide that, I think. The Fates are something of an extension of souls; at least, I don't think rope or cars would have fates in the same way that animate living creatures do. So, there is a reason for two systems right there.

Again, I'm agreeing with the two system thing. Even if we don't find something else to add. I just think that there's an opportunity here. It's like using playing cards, and ignoring suit - it's a waste of generated information. If you're going to generate the information it makes sense to find a way to employ it.

A really bad idea, but an interesting one, would he to have a sort of RPS to the colors so that they'd cancel each other out in opposition. Didn't you have something like this at one point (I probably dissuaded you from using it). Well, maybe certain pairs have some particular value or result when they occur. Maybe when you draw 4 or more of the same color from both pools, you get an "explosion" of some event related to that color - this being more likely with opposing draws as more are drawn. Lot's of things you could do. Like I said, figure out some metaphysical (or hell, physical) statement that you want the system to say, and have the combinations drawn say it.  

Mike

[taalyn]

Mike,

 Okay, I see what you're getting at. After thinking about it all day, I finally have a handle on a reply.

 Regarding draws affecting each other:
 What you're saying makes sense, but essentially no different than dice rolls, simply more obvious. For example, in the WW system, every success I get that is countered (or "matched") by one of yours is effectively a cancelling. So, there isn't any more detail in this system here than is normally available (with the right design) in a diced game as well. It's just obvious in crux because we're so used to looking at pips and numbers.
 At one point, considering a diced form of the game (which I'm starting to think is probably a bad idea), we were going to assign numbers to each color. If I did something like that, it wouldn't be so obvious to have the numbers cancel each other, or otherwise provide information, but it would be possible nonetheless.

 On blobby souls interacting through masks:
 I really really like this explanation. And you're right - there is a lot that can be said about color interaction that I'm not taking advantage of.
 But that isn't to say that I haven't considered it. Magic once owed a lot to color interaction, and so did hit locations in physical combat. Eventually, I dropped them because they polluted the sleekness of the system.
 I'd like to put something about the metaphysical interactions, but other than the obvious bits I posted above, I'm not sure what I can say. I'll put it to you, then:
 I've got Frater Mixelaus, a priest in the Church of R'lyeh, a Caesurite cult. He's very much a green (intelligence, perception) and magenta (willpower, spiritual skills) kind of man. Then you've got Santha, a preformance artist, who's mostly amber (dexterity, precision) and blue (charisma, social skills). Can you give me an example of what you mean when these two would interact? How do their colors interact, and how can it be defined in game? Do the two of them meeting automatically imply certain kinds of relationships will develop? Will their proximity affect the flows of energy in a particular way? Which metaphysical consequences can we talk about, and would they pull "control" away from their players?

 On combinations and "explosions":
 This is a really good idea. I'm incorporating it into the description of the Wyrd. It's going to have to be very generic - I can't explain every possible combination of colors in a hand (and there are usually at least 3 colors). But I can explain that certain colors imply certain kinds of consequences...

 Overall, I think this could be a really powerful tool in game. The problem I've had, though, is that I can't figure out how to apply it without getting very complicated and messing up the simplicity. And yes, I think you dissuaded me from the pieces that did exactly what you're talking about! =)

Aidan

[Mike Holmes]

How do their colors interact, and how can it be defined in game?

Well, it's your game? :-)

How it could be defined. Well, how about if motes got "locked" sometimes. That is, what if some motes didn't go back into the bag, but were considered tied up for the moment. Matching motes could be left out next to each other to represent a link between the characters of some sort. For example, if the characters are fighting, then a Green Link between the two could represent them trying to outwit each other with clever maneuvers. In an attempt to persuade, linked purple could represent the characters liking each other.

Do the two of them meeting automatically imply certain kinds of relationships will develop?

Maybe. How about for a "reaction roll" you draw motes, and look for matches. Matching motes mean that the characters feel a bond. If a big draw matched on all motes, that might indicate that the characters were like blood brothers or soul mates or something. Maybe you can donate matching motes to another players bag under certain circumstances.

Will their proximity affect the flows of energy in a particular way? Which metaphysical consequences can we talk about, and would they pull "control" away from their players?

Uh, sure. If you're thinking it, there has to be a way to make it work.

On combinations and "explosions":
 This is a really good idea. I'm incorporating it into the description of the Wyrd. It's going to have to be very generic - I can't explain every possible combination of colors in a hand (and there are usually at least 3 colors). But I can explain that certain colors imply certain kinds of consequences...

Make it simple, like I said, and maybe have only "undiluted" draws have special meaning. Like if we draw nothing but yellow, that has some special meaning in terms of the outcome.

And yes, I think you dissuaded me from the pieces that did exactly what you're talking about! =)

I think my comments were to ask if these things had an actual game effect, and hearing not, I suggested that they be elmininated. The point is, as usual, to have the amount of "work" be parallel with the amount of output. Players don't mind complicated systems if the output really enhances the play.

For example, I really liked the idea of having motes be "locked" up by any permenant magic that the caster had in play. It mechanically represents the investment that the character makes.

In fact, one thing that I envisioned is drawing circles on a sheet, and putting motes into them. These circles could be permenant magic, relationships, crafts, anything that the player wanted to invest in. The disadvantage is that the motes in question could only be used when the thing that the circle represented came into play. The incentive might be a matching of motes - that is for each one you put in, you get another that matches. Or perhaps after investing X amount, you get another to go into your bag. Basically this would cover character advancement as well. All a matter of what the character became invested in.

Then, if you're Sauron, and you've but all your eggs into the one ring, and it gets destroyed, well, you can see what a deleterious effect that would have, no?

Note that these are just wild and random ideas. They're really intended to get you thinking, more than anything else. If any of them were to be adopted (and maybe none of them should be), then they'd require much more extensive work to be good for play. This is still very much brainstorming.

Mike

Mike

[taalyn]

See, Mike, you're either reading my mind, or great minds think alike. =)


Locked motes

 The most obvious way that motes can be locked is with magic. Ongoing spells, that last for a while (shields, seemings, various enchantments) require that the motes used to cast them are held until the spell is dispelled. At one time, I had a whole system of colors and requirements, but it was too complicated for the system. Now, when you draw to cast the spell, the motes are not returned to the Caern right away. How quickly those motes return to the caern depends on the kind of spell, whether the draw succeeded or not, and how long the spell is maintained. At any rate, I'd gone there long ago, and had decided in the 6 month hiatus to return it.
 The only other use I can think of at the moment would be obsessions (the links between players and characters, places, etc.), though I'm not sure just yet how that could work.
 The issue is that holding out motes effectively penalizes characters by changing the probabilities held in their caerns. So I can only see it useful for "negative" effects. Also, it does add complexity to the system, something that I'm avoiding in general if possible.

Reactions
  Comparing draws for determining reactions is an excellent use. I've noted to explain it. I've use dthe same technique for determining situations and circumstances in general as well (which PC does the goon go for? I made everyone draw 3 motes, and the goon went after the PC with the most matching colors).

Affecting Quiddity
 I brought this up, but it seems like a very good idea. I'll have to think about it some more, but I have this idea tickling the back of my head - perhaps the colors in a magical draw deplete the Quiddity nearby, making certain colors of actions more difficult.

 I appreciate the brainstorming - it's been very helpful (and when have you not? =). I hope you'll continue to throw ideas at me.

 Just a note, I'm going to ask Ron to move this thread into game design, since it really hasn't gone anywhere but in discussion of Crux.

 Aidan