Pawning NPCs to Crunch up Social Conflict

[J. Scott Timmerman]

Greetings, all.

Lately I've been working on a game where players:
i. Choose what drives their character into conflict
ii. Contribute to the conflict of other players by hitting these drives, helping other players earn points
iii. Have the ability to manipulate NPCs in a predictable fashion
iv. Work together and with the GM to frame the coming scene based on the actions they wish to take in-game

And the GM:
v. Generates, reveals, and operates locations and NPCs with inherent conflict, based on PC drives
vi. Creates complications and challenge with a limited amount of resources based on player/PC goals
vii. Ends a scene when exposition is finished and all characters have either made or deferred their important decisions

A major part of (iii) is making sure the personalities of the NPCs can be described in a very simple manner, so that a player will have an easier time knowing what will work and what won't.  I feel that Exalted Social Combat goes into far too much micromanagement of bonuses/penalties here to be worth the effort when in the end it comes down to how well you powergamed your character or the whim of the Storyteller.

I would like to reduce both the micromanagement here and the lack of significance.  To that end, the system I'm considering is set up with about 3 (maybe 4?) different degrees of incentive.  Whenever an NPC has to make an important decision, they choose the option with the most incentive.  PCs, however, would simply receive more points for going with that choice.

All incentives are modified by Drives, Issues, Apathies, and Non-Issues.  A Drive is a psychological area of discomfort for the character.  They feel inadequate in some aspect of their life, and so in situations where that aspect comes up, the degree of incentive rises by 1.  Drives are more or less permanent for a character.  Four of the major drives are: Comfort, Esteem, Inquiry, and Rectitude.  PCs should have around 2 of these.

If a drive is Comfort, it means that the character is uncomfortable - the character is not fulfilling their needs on a very basic level.  The character might not get enough food, drink, or sex; or perhaps even adequate shelter.  Drive: Comfort characters are usually easy to convince if you have enough resources.

Likewise, Drive: Esteem characters have low self-esteem, might deal with constant belittlement, and are easiest to convince with a little praise.  Drive: Inquiry characters suffer from never knowing enough about things and are easiest to please with information, whereas Drive: Rectitude characters are dissatisfied with the moral state of the world and seek aid in making things right.

Issues are more specific Drives.  They represent the subtypes of conflicts the character is about.  They don't have to be explained with backstory.  If both a Drive and an Issue apply to an incentive, the total effect is +2, raising the limit on potential incentives to 5 (or 6?).

Apathies and Non-issues are the opposite of Drives and Issues, and usually represent a character that has come to terms with the world or their own existence on some level.  Usually when a player takes these for a PC, they are indicating their own apathy toward certain issues.  Perhaps that player hates it when her character is seduced.  Well, with Apathy: Comfort, not only is her character less likely to be seduced if an attempt is made, but fewer attempts will be made by the other players to put her character in that position.  They subtract incentive; in effect also reducing points, and stack like Drives and Issues. 

An incentive reduced below 1 ceases to be an incentive.  There is no real Conflict for the character unless more than one option has an incentive, and so Apathies could negate a conflict entirely.  Potentially, a high incentive like "Avoiding Certain Death (3)" could be lowered to 1 by "Apathy: Comfort" and "Non-issue: Self-preservation" - keeping the conflict in existence, but encouraging a player to kill their character over anything somewhat important.  However, the system will discourage putting the character in such a situation in the first place (I don't have a precise mechanic for this yet).

The players act on the GM's location and NPCs like a game board with pieces.  In essence, Social conflict resolution amounts to taking actions to frame the options that NPCs have.  Most often, it will amount to deincentivising a negative behaviour and incentivising a positive behaviour.  If the NPC has a stacking Drive and Issue, as major NPCs will, this can be quite hard.  If they're lucky, the players will find another mutually exclusive option with the same Drive which is not problematic for the PCs. 

Like Exalted Social Combat, the players may attempt to convince the NPCs to believe or doubt something (changing the target's perception of her/his options and therefore their perceived incentive) or feel a certain way (adding a +/- 1 bonus or penalty; somewhat like a drive).  Since points are based upon perceived incentive, PCs can likewise be persuaded in the same manner.

I had considered using something like tSoY Keys for the Drives, but they aren't quite what I'm looking for.  Like tSoY, PCs are rewarded here for acting in-character.  However, certain things can be inferred here by counting upon correllations between certain personality traits and others built into the drives.  I think I'm satisfied with the level of thought and crunch I've developed here.

Of course, potential issues arise; most of which I'm not concerned about in relation to this game, but I thought I'd mention them.  First of all, GMs don't have much leeway in arbitrating NPC decisions.  Unless two options tie for the highest incentive, the GM really has no choice, except to spend points to alter NPC drives/issues/feelings.  I actually like this, but I'm worried that others might want more GM freedom.  Of course, the GM generates these NPCs in the first place {as I said earlier in point (v)}, but once they're in play, they're more like pawns.  Elements like NPCs are explicit, and their hidden agendas (issues) may be guessed at by determining their drives.

Hopefully this won't present a problem.  If the GM spends points ineffectively to create challenge for the PCs, it just means the PCs have an easier time accomplishing their goals.  If the players ever feel unchallenged, of course, another player can jump in and attempt to complicate one of their issues.  It will be to their advantage

Also, I was thinking that PCs would end up with somewhere between 4 and 7; and NPCs with around 2 or so traits relevant to incentives, but I want all of these to be easy to remember and keep track of by all players at the table.  At a table with 5 PCs and 5 to 12 or so relevant NPCs at any given time, this could quickly become over 30, even 50 traits.  It still seems like a lot to keep track of, though theoretically this should be a lot less info than you need to account for in Exalted.  What I could do is eliminate drives and just use Issues. 

Either way, I don't want players to be afraid of engaging in social maneuvering, either because there might be stupid repurcussions or because they think their actions are irrelevant to the outcome.  Acting at all is incentivised.  Players can even assert they don't want certain consequences via Apathies.  If they foul up another players' goals, they actually earn points for the other player, so they shouldn't be afraid of pissing other players off by interfering.  At the same time, if they're working together on goals, more characters can get points over the same thing, maximising gain over time. 

Lastly, any thoughts to get all the (or more!) crunch and variation here with even fewer rules?  I already mentioned eliminating Drives entirely, but I think they provide nice categories for Incentives, and I think the act of pigeonholing incentives into drives is actually an act of looking for (if oversimplifying) the deeper causes of characters' desires.

Peace,
-JT

[J. Scott Timmerman]

Hello again. ^^

Perhaps I should be a bit clearer about what I'm talking about here.  What I want: A Gamist social conflict system.  In my opinion, this requires that player moves have predictable results with very low fiat.  To that end, I have chosen a diceless decisionmaking mechanic.  Effectively:

1. During the Intention stage of IIEE, any player can come up with a potential move the character could make.

2. If there is a conflict, i.e. 2+ players think a character should make different moves, and the outcome is important to the game, then continue to step 3.  Otherwise, the owner of the character simply decides.

3. Each player involved states the primary motive behind their choice of move.  This motive is looked up on a simple chart, producing a number called incentive.  While any incentive has to be important by definition, the higher levels of incentive involve life-changing decisions.

4. Each incentive is modified by the character's Issues and other traits.

5. If the character is an NPC, the highest incentive wins, or in case of a tie, the decision goes to the NPC's owner.  If the character is a PC, the player chooses and gains a number of points equal to the incentive of the option.  Narration ensues.

The steps of this collaborative gamist decisionmaking mechanic work very similar to the Task Resolution mechanic, with the main difference that there is generally no Fortune involved.  In that sense, I don't see there being an inherent difficulty in learning this process to players already used to resolving tasks in my game.  Convincing and influencing characters emotionally still works according to the Task Resolution system.  This decisionmaking mechanic exists only to give that social Task-Res system weight, by removing most of the fiat and unpredictability.

The idea is that, with this system, if players know the motives of several NPCs, they can think several moves/scenes ahead, and plan a strategy of positioning each NPC to achieve their goals. 

In this game, there will also be explicit mechanics representing the condition of a character's reputation and abidance to laws and social norms.  So, rather than seeing the law coming down as this nebulous thing that never happens to PCs, it's right there, according to the rules.  PCs will have to weigh things that might damage their reputation or freedom versus their goals, encouraging them to engage with the Social Conflict mechanics in the first place, rather than kicking down the door.

I'm open to suggestions and criticism here.  If you're not interested in playing a game like this, please tell me why. 

Many thanks to those who've read this far,
-JT

[Callan S.]

Hi Jason,

Either way, I don't want players to be afraid of engaging in social maneuvering, either because there might be stupid repurcussions or because they think their actions are irrelevant to the outcome.

It sounds like your still giving the option of not engaging in social maneuvering, if you say you don't want them to be afraid of trying it and are incentivising it rather than forcing it.

That'd make not doing any social maneuvering a valid option in your system. But I'm guessing you don't really intend that as a valid/fun thing in the game.

Have you considered just having the mechanics force players into conflict with some other player (which players and over what don't matter yet - just the idea that the rules will somehow bring them into conflict)? Yeah, good old fashioned force! 'Cept it isn't really, because when it's hardcoded in the rules, the player is informed in advance of that. They can think 'Oh, that game where I will run into conflict with other players...yeah, I feel like that tonight'. Or they might not feel like it, but that's cool too if you play some other game or watch DVD's. Eventually one night they'll feel like it, or it's just not their sort of game.

[J. Scott Timmerman]

Hi, Callan.

Interesting idea.  No, I can't say I've considered that yet, certainly not in that way.  I've been trying to make campaign/character creation geared toward conflict, as well as encourage conflict in-game.  You can probably see in the design above that I've avoided trying to force a decision from any PC.

However, "System Forces Situation" is a concept I'd like to try, if I'm reading you right.  If I understand what you're saying, this would be the equivalent of a D&D mechanic where instead of the DM deciding when an encounter is appropriate, the mechanics force every other scene to be an encounter of a particular EL. 

I'm not sure yet how my conflict-creation-economy is going to work, so it wasn't a matter I had planned on bringing up in this thread.  I was thinking it would be a resource or set of resources that the GM draws on with other incentives for inter-player antagonism, but your idea changes my perspective somewhat on how that economy might work.  A hammer to break the turtle's shell, if built right into the rules, might be nice.  My main point with the economy is that while GM power to create conflict is fine, Unlimited GM-Force is not.  Therefore, like you said, this rule would have to be something in the text and not an option for the GM.

Back to the issue I was asking about, however, do you have any specific opinion on the collaborative decision mechanic?  The whole idea is that gamist player-decisions are based on predictable results, and failing that, gambling on chances.  This mechanic exists to tell the player what their options are and what their chances are in social conflict, so that they can maneuver the NPCs like pieces on a chessboard.

On another level, the same mechanic (I would hate to make them two separate mechanics) also rewards players for PC inner-conflict, meaning dishing out rewards when the PC has to make an important decision.

You make another good point at the end there.  This game design is going against a lot of typical advice someone might give to a game designer.  In that sense, it might not be for everyone.  I'm just trying to change the shape of the board the game is played on.  With any hope, people's minds will be open to a different sort of RPG: the type I want to play, where overbearing rules don't get in the way of hard-coded long-term strategy.

I'd like to note that inter-character conflict doesn't translate directly to inter-player conflict.  With the rules as I have them now, it is the PC that is being pushed into that inner conflict which earns its player points.  They'll be wanting that to happen.

Therefore, I don't think players will exactly see this game as "the game where I'm against the other players."  The conflict isn't zero-sum Me vs. You; it's "I took a trait during character creation that says I want to get into this type of conflict, and you created that conflict, so I get points" game.

Of course, they also get points for achieving set goals which fellow players, in particular the GM, are obliged to complicate.  In a way, then, the overarching system is kinda Us vs. GM.

-JT

[J. Scott Timmerman]

It would also be of help if anyone could mention other games you've heard of that have similar explicit mechanics.  In particular if you've played the system, I'd appreciate an attempt to mention pros and cons you've seen with this kind of decisionmaking structure.

-JT

[Vulpinoid]

It sounds like you're working on some concepts parallel to what I'm developing over on the "Rules as a Three Way Struggle Thread"

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=25591.0

V