Railroading With Dice, A Core Mechanic

[jburneko]

Sorry. Mike has a point. I'm not being very clear.  Let me clearify the core die mechanic a bit:

ALL dice the PLAYERS roll come from the relationship map links.  There are no dice for skills, traits whatever.  Minor exception: These things can factor into modfiers, but they are the exception not the rule.

Pursuading Character: Rolls green dice equal to green links shared with all characters being persuaded.  Rolls red dice equal to red links shared with all characters being persuaded.  Rolls an additional number of red dice for the stress level.

Characters Being Pursuaded: Rolls green dice equal to the number of green links they share with the persuading character only.  Rolls red dice equal to the number of red links they share with the persuading character only.

First Pass:

Pursuading Character: Each Green Even cancels out a Red Odd down to a minimum of Zero Red Odds.

Character Being Pursuaded: Each Red Odd cancles out a Green Even.  No Minimum.

Result: Compare pursuading character's remaining red odds with each character being pursauded's remaining green evens.  The result tells you which players are Hostile, Neutral or Friendly.

Second Pass:

Forget any canceling done.  It's fresh interpretation but no new rolling.

Pursuading Character: Contributes Green Dice.

Friendly Character: Contributes Green Dice.

Neutral Character: Contributes No Dice.

Hostile Character: Contributes Red Dice.

Total Pool: Red Odds Cancel Green Evens.  Minimum Zero Green Evens.

GM: Rolls Red Dice equal to Difficulty + Number of Players + Stress Level.  

Result: Compare Players' Green Evens vs. GM's Red Odds.  The result determines level of success.

This should be clearer.

Oh!  Rolls are open ended.  Every 6 rolled on a green die allows you to roll an additional green die.  Every 1 on a red die allows you to roll an additional red die.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

That is much more clear.

On 2001-11-19 18:17, jburneko wrote:
ALL dice the PLAYERS roll come from the relationship map links.  There are no dice for skills, traits whatever.  Minor exception: These things can factor into modfiers, but they are the exception not the rule.

My point was that it seemd to make sense to have a default number of dice. And if so, why not make them skill or trait based? If this really doesn't fit into your concept, I understand. But I think that you could make an interesting combination system. IMHO.

Pursuading Character: Rolls green dice equal to green links shared with all characters being persuaded.  Rolls red dice equal to red links shared with all characters being persuaded.  Rolls an additional number of red dice for the stress level.

Characters Being Pursuaded: Rolls green dice equal to the number of green links they share with the persuading character only.  Rolls red dice equal to the number of red links they share with the persuading character only.

First Pass:

Pursuading Character: Each Green Even cancels out a Red Odd down to a minimum of Zero Red Odds.

Character Being Pursuaded: Each Red Odd cancles out a Green Even.  No Minimum.

Result: Compare pursuading character's remaining red odds with each character being pursauded's remaining green evens.  The result tells you which players are Hostile, Neutral or Friendly.

Most important question. Are these relationship links one-way, or are they all two-way. That is, can I have a green link with you that you don't share with me? Or do all links go both ways. I would allow one-ways, but it would be more complicated (indicated by arrows on the map?).

I'm trying to conceptually get the idea. Red links represent bad blood between characters, and green links represent bonds? Something like that? So, if I read your system correctly, it seems that we're comparing the persuader's relationship with the group as a whole to each persuadee's relationship to the persuader.

So, for example, if A (the persuader) shouts at B (a persuadee) to get her to do something, C (another persuadee) might take offense at it? Represented by uncancelled red dice for A being higher than uncancelled green dice for C? Is that what we're looking at? Just trying to be sure that I understand.

Also, with the minimum rule for the persuader, that means that no matter how well the persuader rolls, no matter how level headed he is in his presentation, that the persuadees may still be hostile due to their relationship? Any uncancelled red odds for the persuadee result in a hostile reaction? Or am I reading that wrong?

It's a bit complicated to get the result, but I like complicated. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea.

Second Pass:

Forget any canceling done.  It's fresh interpretation but no new rolling.
-()Snip Resolution()-

Neat.

If you don't want to do traits or skills at all to get default dice (I still think you should consider it), you could allow characters to have a relationship with themselves. That is, allow green links from the character to themself, along with red links. The green would be self-esteem, positive self-image, and the like. The red would be self-doubt, self-hate, etc. Then the "default" dice are not an exception to the rule, but part of it.

If you wanted to get really tricky with the above, you could allow for the complete process to run. So in the first pass, you'd digure out if the character was friendly, neutral, or hostile to his own intentions (thus indicating the character's level of enthusiasm, and how likely sucess would therefore be). Treat the character exactly as though he were also a persuadee as well as the persuader.

This would be interesting as it would limit the player's ability, inherent in most games, to just declare that they are going to do something. Instead, before each action, you'd be rolling to see if the character was in fact really interrested in the action, or instead only doing it hesitantly. This sort of stress response is very realistic, and might fill a gap in player-character relations that has been missing for far too long, IMHO. Charatcers would have that duality of nature that all real people seem to posess.

What do you think?

Mike

[jburneko]

On 2001-11-20 11:21, Mike Holmes wrote:

Most important question. Are these relationship links one-way, or are they all two-way. That is, can I have a green link with you that you don't share with me? Or do all links go both ways. I would allow one-ways, but it would be more complicated (indicated by arrows on the map?).

That's a good question.  This is in fact something that I've been mulling over myself.  Right now, this is in the optional rules section along with more complicated and subjective guidelines for using the links as modifiers.  Example: If A is trying to persuade B and C doesn't like B then C might roll based on the red links with B instead of A.  Again, this is an optional "advanced" rule.

I'm trying to conceptually get the idea. Red links represent bad blood between characters, and green links represent bonds?

Absolutely correct with one minor quibble.  It represents PONTENTIAL hostility.  So even if characters are total strangers they will have these links because the links represent things that should they arrise would result in bonding or hostility.

So, if I read your system correctly, it seems that we're comparing the persuader's relationship with the group as a whole to each persuadee's relationship to the persuader.

Yes, this is also correct.

So, for example, if A (the persuader) shouts at B (a persuadee) to get her to do something, C (another persuadee) might take offense at it? Represented by uncancelled red dice for A being higher than uncancelled green dice for C? Is that what we're looking at? Just trying to be sure that I understand.

This, however, is not entirely correct.  The basic system I outlined assumes that A is trying to persuade BOTH B and C.  A can say I'm only trying to persuade B and declare that C defaults to Neutral.  C can voluntarily downgrade to Hostile.  This is where my two options for subset persuading comes in.  

Option A) Does A still roll ALL the links between both B and C?  This has two effects: 1) It increases A and B's odds of succeeding at the task because A is contributing not only the green dice he got from B but from C as well.  2) It down plays the impact of C voluntarily turning hostile because his red dice would would be chiping away at the green dice that already came from C.

Option B) Does A only roll the links he shares with B.  This decreases the overall chance for success because there are less green dice going into the resolution pool.  It ALSO makes C's decision to downgrade to Hostile FAR more important because his red dice are not being countered by any of his green dice.  It's "pure" hostility, so to speak.

Also, with the minimum rule for the persuader, that means that no matter how well the persuader rolls, no matter how level headed he is in his presentation, that the persuadees may still be hostile due to their relationship? Any uncancelled red odds for the persuadee result in a hostile reaction? Or am I reading that wrong?

Not necessarily ANY red odds.  There's a chart.  I think at the moment if the persuader has 2 or more remaining red odds than the persuadee has remaining green evens then the persuadee is hostile.  But to answer your question, yes, hostility is always possible.

I think these values will need to be play tested.  I don't know how wide the difference should be.

If you don't want to do traits or skills at all to get default dice (I still think you should consider it), you could allow characters to have a relationship with themselves.

Oooooooooooooooo....  I like this idea.  I'll have to think about it.  But I definitely like it.

Jesse

[greyorm]

I likes it.  I likes it alot.
But that's not surprising considering my long advocacy of character-based resolution of those conflicts which are traditionally handled solely through role-playing (player-based resolutions).

In fact, it is eerily similar in concept to what I'd written for "Orcs" a couple months back:

Rule One:

Always roll the dice.
No matter what.
The dice tell you what's happening...none of this "role-playing" garbage, at least not initially. You play out what the dice tell you to play out.

For example, if you're confronting the Orc King and attempting to convince him you deserve to be a royal guard, you roll your Nasty against his Nasty (or whatever) and then play it out, win or lose, whether you go in cowering and snivelling or boastful and proud (and which way you end up).

This gets past that whole "ego" concept in RPGs, the "character inviolability" concept, where 'your guy' is always the way you want them to be, always acts in a specific manner and never, ever does anything you don't want them to do.

I here-by christen this form of play to be "kybernetic" -- from the greek word "to steer", used to refer to "the communication and control theory that concerned with the comparative study of automatic control systems -- like the nervous system and brain, and mechanical-electrical communication systems."  Seems fitting.

I LIKE seeing the sacred cow of character inviolability to a specific player being slain, or at least having some dirt thrown on it.

(Course, this gives me an idea for Orcs...a successful oppositional roll gives the winner the ability to declare what someone else's character does.  Have to think some more on the exacts of that one...)

I wonder where such leaves a player, in certain instances...might this be meta-game play?  Is it a role-playing game anymore when one is dealing with metagame issues and your character's behaviors (not necessarily actions) are determined mechanically/statistically?

_________________
Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
   --http://www.daegmorgan.net

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-11-21 12:28 ]

[contracycle]

IMO, its just a conscious expression of something that IS going on in the game world at an unconscious level.  Forcing people to adopt physically subordinate positions like bowing or kneeling enforces or reinforces the authority figure; it imposes behavioral reponses.  Or at least, has a tendency to do so.  So, I don't think its a metagame thing necessarily, although may become one in that "just" mediation by mechanics may be less clear.  But the nasty vs. nasty example makes perfecft sense to me, from a simulationist perspective.