Speed vs. Realism ... revisited

[lumpley]

Hey Drew.  Here's my advice.

a) Don't sweat the GNS.  What you've presented here is quite utterly GNS-neutral.  If you're going to worry about GNS, worry about your reward rules, not your conflict rules - and don't worry about G, N or S, worry about what Premise or Challenge your reward rules set up.  Long way to go before that.

b) Be extremely clear about who gets to set the stakes under what circumstances.  That's a big, big deal.  You'll need rules for setting stakes when there's a clear attacker and defender vs. there's not; when the attacker wants to up the stakes and the defender doesn't vs. vice versa vs. both do; when the attacker sets the stakes but loses (what are the defender's options?).

Consider: I'm the attacker, I set high stakes, I lose - can I adjust the stakes downward after the roll to a level where I win?  If I wanted to drop a sack over your head and drag you off silently, but I lose by 1, can I fall back to "capture with injury"?

c) Find something really interesting to happen in case of ties.  Stakes automatically up?

d) Think about resolution on two different levels: the in-game level and the representational level, meaning the dice and stats and numbers and modifiers and so on.  Right now, your rule resolves one Situation ("I'm creeping up behind you") into the next ("you have a sack over your head and I'm dragging you off") at the in-game level, but what does it do at the representational level?  The modifiers on the roll reflect certain bits of the in-game initial Situation, but after the roll you drop the representational level cold.  Think about how this resolution might set up the next, at the representational level.  In short: do I get a plus for the next conflict for winning this one?  For losing this one?  For going along with my opponent's stakes this time?  For contesting them?

e) When you have multiple players in conflict, you're going to have to be especially cunning and articulate about who gets to set the stakes for whom.

f) And most importantly, play the thing.  Grab a friend and play out a fight, it's not game design until you start testing.

I think it's a wicked cool start - get it humming and it'll be right there for your game.  Whatever your game turns out to be about.

-Vincent

[Andrew Morris]

Be extremely clear about who gets to set the stakes under what circumstances.  That's a big, big deal.

Okay. It's pretty clear in my mind, but I guess I haven't made it clear in this post. Either party can raise the stakes (before the roll is made), attacker or defender. This can be done in any circumstances, as far as I can imagine. If you have a specific example of where this would be problematical, let me know.

You'll need rules for setting stakes when there's a clear attacker and defender vs. there's not; when the attacker wants to up the stakes and the defender doesn't vs. vice versa vs. both do; when the attacker sets the stakes but loses (what are the defender's options?).

As I mentioned, anyone can raise the stakes at any point before the roll is made. Whether there's a clear attacker and defender or not doesn't make any difference. When one person raises the stakes and the other doesn't, that's fine. The person going for the higher stakes is less likely to succeed, and the person who didn't raise the stakes is more likely to succeed. If they both raise the stakes, they both have a penalty to their rolls. When the attacker raises the stakes and loses, the defender can choose to retroactively raise his stakes at the cost of 2 levels of success per level of stakes. They may not spend so many levels that their result drops below the attacker's result.

Consider: I'm the attacker, I set high stakes, I lose - can I adjust the stakes downward after the roll to a level where I win?  If I wanted to drop a sack over your head and drag you off silently, but I lose by 1, can I fall back to "capture with injury"?

No. It's easier to succeed with raised stakes if you declare them before the roll, rather than adjust them retroactively. But if you lose, you cannot modify your stakes.

Find something really interesting to happen in case of ties.  Stakes automatically up?

Good suggestion...I'm open to ideas. My initial thoughts are either to do something with stakes, as you suggest, or to say that both parties are injured (though in some way that has no numerical effect on combat) and another challenge roll must be made.

Think about resolution on two different levels: the in-game level and the representational level, meaning the dice and stats and numbers and modifiers and so on.  Right now, your rule resolves one Situation ("I'm creeping up behind you") into the next ("you have a sack over your head and I'm dragging you off") at the in-game level, but what does it do at the representational level?  The modifiers on the roll reflect certain bits of the in-game initial Situation, but after the roll you drop the representational level cold.  Think about how this resolution might set up the next, at the representational level.  In short: do I get a plus for the next conflict for winning this one?  For losing this one?  For going along with my opponent's stakes this time?  For contesting them?

Uhm...what? Not sure what you're saying here, but I'll address the questions. No, you wouldn't get a modifier for the next combat based on the results of the current one. Why would you? What does it add? How does it make sense? I could see giving a bonus to say, an attempt to put heart back in your troops if you've just defeated an enemy, or something like that. Is that what you're talking about? No, you don't get a bonus for either going along with the opponent's stakes or for contesting them.

When you have multiple players in conflict, you're going to have to be especially cunning and articulate about who gets to set the stakes for whom.

Yes, I agree. I don't have this part worked out yet, so all suggestions are welcome. I've got two ideas for how to handle mass combat. First, the pools of each faction could be combined and added to a single die roll. Whichever side gets higher wins in the same way as in a one-on-one combat. My second idea is that each player decides who to attack, and all combats are handled individually. The problem with this is when, say, three characters attack one. The easy solution is to say that the roll applies to any challenge in the same combat, or that a character facing multiple opponents can use his full score plus roll against one of his attackers, and must use only his score (without adding a die roll) against everyone else.

And most importantly, play the thing.  Grab a friend and play out a fight, it's not game design until you start testing.

Yeah, I'm thinking that it's about time for just that.

I think it's a wicked cool start - get it humming and it'll be right there for your game.  Whatever your game turns out to be about.

Thanks.

[lumpley]

Hey Drew.

Either party can raise the stakes (before the roll is made), attacker or defender. This can be done in any circumstances, as far as I can imagine. If you have a specific example of where this would be problematical, let me know.

Ah, I see.

In what order do we choose whether we're going to raise the stakes?  Can I wait until I know whether you're going to raise before I do?  What if we both wait?  What if you're like "if you raise I'm gonna" and I'm like "if you raise I'm gonna"?  If I raise and then you do, can I raise again?  Can I take my raise back?

When do we switch from "now we're raising" to "now we're rolling dice"?

I want you to raise your stakes beyond your skill to achieve - you losing a high-stakes roll gives me the most options.  I hope that the who-raises-when rules channel that constructively.

Uhm...what? Not sure what you're saying here, but I'll address the questions. No, you wouldn't get a modifier for the next combat based on the results of the current one. Why would you? What does it add? How does it make sense? I could see giving a bonus to say, an attempt to put heart back in your troops if you've just defeated an enemy, or something like that. Is that what you're talking about? No, you don't get a bonus for either going along with the opponent's stakes or for contesting them.

Do you get me about the difference between the in-game Situation and the representational level?

I'll back up and ask: where do the situational modifiers (-4 to +4, as you say) come from?  Who assigns them, and do I know what they're going to be before I choose whether to raise, or do I have to raise before I get my situational mods?

I think it's very sound rpg practice to have one conflict's results contribute to the next conflict.  Even if it's as clear-cut as "I just lost a fight = -1" and "I just won a fight = +1" on the sitch mods list.

I've got two ideas for how to handle mass combat...

How the stakes-raising works and what order you resolve in are way more important than what dice and mods people get.  Either of your ideas could work, within the right framework of decision-making.

-Vincent

[Andrew Morris]

Vincent,

Everyone states what stakes they are going for, and anyone can revise it until all parties are satisfied. Then the dice are rolled. Maybe there should be a defined order in which declaration must proceed (lowest to highest score perhaps). This could resolve the potential problem of players waiting to hear what everyone else is doing before they declare their stakes. I don't know that it would be a severe problem, though, given that the dice aren't rolled until everyone is satisfied with their stakes.

I want you to raise your stakes beyond your skill to achieve - you losing a high-stakes roll gives me the most options.  I hope that the who-raises-when rules channel that constructively.

That's a good point I hadn't considered. Anyone have any suggestions on how to do this? Does the method I stated above accomplish it?

Do you get me about the difference between the in-game Situation and the representational level?

I think so. If I do understand correctly, you mean slipping on a banna peel is the situational level and a 4-point penalty on the attack is the representational level. Let me know if I'm still not getting it.

I'll back up and ask: where do the situational modifiers (-4 to +4, as you say) come from?  Who assigns them, and do I know what they're going to be before I choose whether to raise, or do I have to raise before I get my situational mods?

The situational modifiers are assigned by the GM, based on what's happening in the game. For example, fighting in poor lighting could be a 1-point penalty. Yes, players will know what the situational modifiers are going to be before they set the stakes.

I think it's very sound rpg practice to have one conflict's results contribute to the next conflict.  Even if it's as clear-cut as "I just lost a fight = -1" and "I just won a fight = +1" on the sitch mods list.

I think that would have to vary by situation. Sure, winning a fight might give you a bonus on a subsequent intimitation attempt. But I don't think it would ever be so clear-cut as to have a list made in advance. Unless you are suggesting something along the lines that winning challenges improves the character's morale, giving them bonus on future challenges due to their level of confidence?

[lumpley]

Hey Drew.

The situational modifiers are assigned by the GM, based on what's happening in the game. For example, fighting in poor lighting could be a 1-point penalty. Yes, players will know what the situational modifiers are going to be before they set the stakes.

How will the GM know what to take into account when setting mods without knowing what the characters are going to do (in the form of stakes)?  Your character's in the bell-merchant's shop.  I want my character to kill your character.  The bells are a liability if I want my character to kill yours silently, but not one if I don't care how noisy it is.

Here's the answer I prefer: if I'm going for silence, we play out a conflict between my guy and the bells, and how that conflict goes determines my mods for the subsequent conflict between my guy and yours.  All of your situational modifiers could work this way: fighting in the dark, we both have to do a "my guy vs. the dark" conflict, the results of which become bonuses and penalties in the "my guy vs. your guy" conflict.  If you ask me, any circumstance worth assigning a bonus/penalty for is worth rolling dice for instead.

...Which explains why I'm into resolution producing an outcome in both Situation and representation.

Imagine me pouring you a shot: this is the hard stuff.  Ready?  The purpose of resolution rules in RPGs is not, mostly, to resolve.  It's mostly to escalate.  You want resolution rules for your game where each resolution sets up a more charged subsequent conflict.  You can accomplish it at only the Situation level if you want to - if you're confident that your rules will - but it won't do any harm to enlist the representation level as well.

Hey, you aren't planning to make this resolution mechanic be just for physcial fighting, and thus play second to some other mechanic, are you?

-Vincent

[Andrew Morris]

Vincent,

This is some good stuff that I hadn't thought about. I assumed it would just be the responsibility of the GM to assign appropriate modifiers. In the bell shop example, using the rules as they currently exist in my head, I would say that the character looking to kill silently would have a penalty for the environment in addition to the penalty for the raised stakes. Of course, the character who didn't care about the noise would only have the penalty for the raised stakes. However, I can see how using one challenge to modify a subsequent challenge could add excitement. I'd have to see it in action, though, since my gut tells me this will most likely lead to extreme modifiers.

Let's see an example of how this would work, in extremes. Following the bell shop example, Albert has Armed Combat 7 and Physical Skill 6. He wants to kill the shopkeeper silently. First, he rolls against the environment which has, say, 6 dice to oppose his efforts at silence. Albert rolls an 8, getting a total of 14. The GM rolls a 2 for the environment, getting a total of 8. Albert now has a 6-point bonus to the attack. Considering that my original range for modifiers was -4 to +4, this seems pretty high to me. Also, in the end, this means that Albert is getting a bonus for trying to kill someone silently in a bell shop. This seems pretty quirky to me. Yes, I understand that the bonus is actually coming from his ability to successfully navigate the shop, but why should he get more of an advantage than if he was just trying to kill the shopkeeper without caring about making noise?

If you ask me, any circumstance worth assigning a bonus/penalty for is worth rolling dice for instead.

So, yeah, I agree with the theory, but look at the previous example to see my concerns about putting it into practice. In addition, rolling a challenge to determine the modifiers adds time, which is something I am specifically trying to avoid with this system.

And another point is that rolling for the modifiers sets up a situation where we can go into an endless loop. "Hmm. I want to kill silently, but there are bells all over the place. Better roll that as a challenge to find the modifier for the kill. But wait, I have skill as a bellmaker, and my knowledge of the craft will affect how likely I am to accidentaly make noise. So I'd better roll for my bellmaking ability. But wait, these bells are made out of a metal I've never seen before, so I'd better roll my Metallurgy to see if that will affect my Bellmaking roll." And so on, and so on. Pretty soon you can get to the point where the actual roll has no chance of affecting the outcome. "Hmm. So now I've got a 20-point bonus to my roll of 2d4+7? Huh. I can't lose...do you want me to bother rolling the dice?"

The purpose of resolution rules in RPGs is not, mostly, to resolve.  It's mostly to escalate.  You want resolution rules for your game where each resolution sets up a more charged subsequent conflict.

I agree. I think this is true most of the time, but not all. At some point, though, resolution should mean...well, resolution.

Hey, you aren't planning to make this resolution mechanic be just for physcial fighting, and thus play second to some other mechanic, are you?

Absolutely not. Challenge resolution is the same throughout the game. Combat is handled like any other challenge, except for the addition of stakes. Though come to think of it, stakes might not be a bad thing to add to the other challenges. I'd just have to find a good way to quantify it, since players are encouraged to create new abilities.

[lumpley]

Oopsie!  I didn't mean to imply that my margin on one conflict should become my mod on the next.  Winning the conflict with the bells should give me a bonus - but it could be just a standard +1 or +2 or whatever, regardless how many points I beat the bells by.

That way I'm not rewarded for too many setup conflicts: winning Metallurgy = +2 to Bellmaking, winning Bellmaking = +2 to navigating the shop, winning navigating the shop = +2 to kill you.  Might as well skip straight to navigating the shop - and if it's going to be a problem, have the GM be in charge of setup conflicts!  Just have the GM say "first, roll for the bells" instead of "take -2 for the bells."

If you like, you could have three kinds of setup conflicts: 1) the kind where losing doesn't matter but winning gives you a bonus; 2) the kind where winning doesn't give you a bonus, but losing gives you a penalty; 3) the kind where winning gives you a bonus and losing gives you a penalty.  But that seems kind of fiddly to me.  How about this: I get the +2 for navigating the bells if and only if we can justify it.  We almost always can, I'm positive.

About time: Let's consider some given situation where playing out a setup conflict will take more time than it's worth.  My contention is: in that situation, GM-set sitch mods aren't worth it either.  Any circumstance worth a modifier is worth a roll; any circumstance not worth a roll isn't worth a modifier.  What's the point of the modifiers anyway?

In fact, let me repeat that: What's the point of the modifiers anyway?  If they're there to increase tension and suspense, then a setup roll will work better.  If they're there to give the GM some arbitrary say in how conflicts work out, you're better off without them.

Though come to think of it, stakes might not be a bad thing to add to the other challenges.

Woot!  I hoped you were gonna say that.

-Vincent

[Andrew Morris]

Oopsie!  I didn't mean to imply that my margin on one conflict should become my mod on the next.  Winning the conflict with the bells should give me a bonus - but it could be just a standard +1 or +2 or whatever, regardless how many points I beat the bells by.

Ahh, that makes so much more sense! Now my only question is what's the real functional difference between the two methods (GM-assigned situational modifiers and challenge-based modifiers)? The GM still has to assign the difficulty of the challenge that will set the modifier, after all. What does the challenge add, other than handling time? Tension? Exitement?

If you like, you could have three kinds of setup conflicts: 1) the kind where losing doesn't matter but winning gives you a bonus; 2) the kind where winning doesn't give you a bonus, but losing gives you a penalty; 3) the kind where winning gives you a bonus and losing gives you a penalty.  But that seems kind of fiddly to me.

To be honest, that seems more appropriate to me. I still can't get my mind around the concept of giving someone an advantage for being in a disadvantageous situation, no matter how good they are.

How about this: I get the +2 for navigating the bells if and only if we can justify it.  We almost always can, I'm positive.

Well, as I mentioned, I can't see how, but maybe I'm just suffering from a lack of creativity at the moment. So, how would you justify the example of the bells?

What's the point of the modifiers anyway?

Well, I can't say what the point of the modifiers is for every game, but for this one, there are two purposes. First, they add a little "in-game reality," in my opinion. Second, they encourage players to plan their actions as much as possible. Sure you could just haul off and try to beat someone to death, but you've got a better chance of succeeding and getting away with it if you make sure the situation works to your advantage.

And, uhm...are we the only ones interested in this topic? It's pretty much been a back and forth between the two of us for a while now. Perhaps it's time for this thread to end? Not that I don't want to get your feedback -- in fact, it's been very helpful so far. I just don't want to go on beating a dead horse if no one is interested.

[lumpley]

Your call.

-Vincent

[Andrew Morris]

Yeah, if anyone has any other ideas or suggestions, post now. Otherwise, I'll just let this die out.