[Sudden Light] Basic Conflict Resolution Mechanics

[Paul S]

I've waited until the last possible moment to outline the general conflict mechanic for Sudden Light.  I've done so guided by the desire to see as many improv. performances as possible how group members have managed tensions through scenes before outlining system mechanics.  In short, I've been looking for conflict mechanics which would enhance dramatic conflict, allow for improvisational influence, and stress evocative symbolism rather than reducing it to a die roll or "color" which would overwhelm it with resolution mechanics.  The mechanics should be driven by the Protagonist's Aspects (those things which influence her the most or have the most impact in her life), but should also bring to bear the competitive spirit between the two opposing guides.

My improv. class has had a few more interesting exercises concerning time and place.  One exercise, named "The Part for the Whole" seems a particularly interesting instance of harnessing improvisation and conflicting perspectives to give texture to the scene as a whole.  During this exercise, writers read or improvised a passage from their work.  In turn, each actor improvised a monologue, giving reasons why a mentioned detail was the most important for the scene.  This exercise evokes conflicting perspectives as well as drawing out the symbolic significance that many items or places in the scene had for the characters involved.  Everyone has different perspectives as to why a given detail is most important to a scene and this exercise allows for these differing perspectives to fruitfully collide with other interpretations of the scene.

This exercise seems ripe for the addition of mechanics for use in Sudden Light, as one of the primary themes in the game is the extent to which the many details that fill our lives can free us to see the Truth or blind us to its presence.  That this exercise formally allows for conflicting perspectives concerning why particular details would have the most importance gives itself over to implementation into a conflict system. 

Here's my first stab at this conflict mechanic:

Mechanics:

If the Passive Guide wishes to challenge something going on in the scene between the Protagonist and the Active Guide, the Passive Guide must announce her intentions to Challenge.  The challenging Guide states which Aspect she is using to challenge and why this particular Aspect would have the most importance to the Protagonist at this juncture in the story.  If none of the Guide's Aspects are involved in the scene, the Guide may only bid one Influence Token and must give a reason why the Protagonist would lose interest in the Aspect used by the opposing Guide.  If the Guide challenges with an Aspect already In Play in the scene, the Guide may bid a Number of Influence Tokens up to twice the value of the Aspect.  In response, the opposing Guide declares what Aspect he will be using in the conflict and the stakes if he wins the conflict.  No Guide may challenge or respond with more than one Aspect. 

Each guide should make an improvised argument to the Protagonist player as to why their bid Aspect would be most influential over the Protagonist in the given scene and at that particular narrative juncture.  If a Guide is having difficultly articulating this argument, they should attempt to finish the following sentence: "The one reason why [their bid Aspect] would be most important to [the Protagonist's name] is because..."

The Protagonist player then declares the draw limit for the conflict.  This number is automatically 1 by default.  The Protagonist player has the option to raise the draw number as high as her Will score.  To do so, the Protagonist player must spend a number of Influence Tokens equal to the amended draw limit.  For example, it would cost a Protagonist player 2 Influence Tokens to raise the Draw Limit to 2.  Any Influence Tokens spent by the Protagonist player in this way are immediately added to the Passive Guide's Improvement Pool.

Conversely, the Protagonist player has the option of declaring the draw limit until after the Guides have made their bids.  Like a normal Draw Limit declaration, the Protagonist player must spend a number of Influence Tokens equal to the amended draw limit and immediately puts these Influence Tokens into the Improvement Pool of the challenging Guide. However, if the Protagonist player declares the draw limit after the Guides have bid Influence Tokens, she should immediately roll a six-sided die.  If the player rolls a number less then her declared draw number, her Will rating immediately drops by one.

Each Guide may bid up to twice the rating of her challenged or challenging Aspect.  This bid is made in secret by depositing available Influence Tokens into a covered container, such as a dice bag or hat.  The Protagonist Player then randomly removes a number of Influence Tokens equal to her declared draw limit.  The Protagonist Player then chooses any one Influence Token from her draw.  This token represents the winner of the challenge.  The winner of the challenge claims back her Influence Tokens from the bid and sets aside the Oppositional Guide's tokens into an Improvement Pool.  The victor of the conflict also has narrative authority for resolving the conflict in any way he or she chooses, so long as the other Guide's Aspects are not undermined in a narrative sense.  The victorious Guide must narrate how the their bid Aspect of the Protagonist's being overcame it's opposing Aspect bid by the other Guide.  Did the influence of the Protagonist's supportive lover overcome the influence of the Protagonist's corruptive best friend?  Did the fear of the government agents overcome the Protagonist's inquisitive nature?  The winning Guide must narrate how this challenge resolved itself in the Protagonist's life and how the Protagonist was brought a tiny bit closer to the Truth or ensnared even more tightly in the webs of the Lie.

The losing Guide in the conflict forfeits any bid wagered tokens and immediately reduces the rating of defeated Aspect in question by 1. 

A Guide may, in any challenge after an opposing Aspect has been declared, choose to go "all in."  The Guide must then bid all of her Influence Tokens, regardless of her challenging or challenged Aspect.  If the Guide looses the challenge on an "all in," she forfeits all her Influence Tokens and immediately looses all ratings in the Aspect in question.  If the Guide wins in an "all in," the rating of the bid Aspect by be increased normally; however any won Tokens from the oppositional Guide are immediately discarded.

[matthijs]

Hey Zach,

I'm not sure how useful this seems to you, but it might be good advice: Your presentation is a little hard to read. Is it possible to make it more accessible? You might get more comments on the design that way.

Three things I would suggest:

1. Minimize the number of capitalised terms (Protagonist, Passive Guide)
2. See if any terms already have existing counterparts that people know of (is an Aspect like a trait/skill/attribute? is the Protagonist the character, while the Guides are like GMs?)
3. Provide examples of play interspersed with the text - so that for every paragraph or two, you have a line or two with an example. "Fred says 'blablabla' and puts 2 points into this and this".