Polaris: Trait Bidding

[Ben Lehman]

Yet another "Iron Game Chef" follow-up thread.

I'm almost reluctant to post this, because I don't want to point out flaws in my game before the judging, but I really want to keep working on this while it's hot in my head.

Relevant Links:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=115105#115105">Conflict Mechanics  What I am actually discussing.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=115017#115017">The AttributesIn which you can see how the attributes are derived, and why mix-maxing doesn't matter.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=115019#115019">How To Play Which should shed a little light on the character roles.
And, for those of you who want to read more sections, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10885">Walt's Index  I am about halfway down.

Shorthand for the characters roles:  These are strong approximations, but...
The Heart is roughly equivalent to a character's player in a standard RPG.
The Snow Man / Frost Maiden is roughly equivalent to a GM / antagonist figure.
The Moons are sort of NPCs, sort of spectators, but also sometimes function as the GM for the purposes of "buck-stopping."

So, I don't like the way that trait bidding works right now.

Why I don't like is a bit of a complicated question, but I think that the flat equality in expended traits makes the outcome pretty boring -- it's reasonably predictable that the Snow Man will win if he wins the last one, and that the Heart will win if she bids the last one, and so it's a game of chicken.  This isn't terrible, but it means that you'll never be able to look at a situation and say "the Frosty has an advantage, here comes tragedy" or "oh, the Heart has a big advantage, here comes triumph."

Also, there is no place in this system now for "victory, at a cost" or "loss, but with advantages."  I want both of these things to be possibilities.

So here's my thoughts on changing it:

Strip out the "initial trait" nonsense, reduce Ice and Light to attributes that function only for deriving other attributes, and say that whomever declares the challenge must lead the trait bidding with one trait.  As a flipside of this, kick up the "stakes" meter one notch, so it looks like 1, 2, 3-4, 5-7, 8+ for traits bid.  This is probably a good idea no matter what else I do.

After each trait is bid, roll for it.  If you win, the other side has an option to bid a trait to cancel the roll and reroll with a new attribute.  If you lose, you have the option to bid a trait and reroll with a new attribute and, if you decline this, the other side may bid and reroll (why would they do this?  See below.)

Support changes into a "bonus trait" that allows a reroll without changing attributes.  Or, possibily, moves the attribute to "snow" or "glacier" depending on the type of support.  Still considering this.  This may actually be a place to stick "Ice" and "Light" back in, with the New Moon giving "Ice" rolls and the Full Moon giving "Light" rolls.  This actually puts support into a category of "free traits--" one use bonuses, which I was thinking of implementing anyway.

If the Frost Maiden fails a roll *and then stops rolling* this is a "victory with a price" or "victory with complications" for the knight.  If the Heart fails a roll and then stops rolling, this is a "failure with a light at the end of the tunnel" or "failure with unexpected benefit."  I need to think more about the consequences of this with respect to narration of results, particularly with the Veteran's ability to narrate their own deaths.

My main worry here is
1) Making a clear flowchart explanation of this challenge procedure is difficult enough as it is.
2) All the rolling will result in unpleasantly long search and handling time.
3) Remembering all the traits thrown (and the number) will be more difficult.
4) The introduction of increased randomness is trait expenditure may have some unanticipated impact in conjuction with the experience system, particularly the Heart's ability to call for refreshes.
5) It makes minimaxing possible -- if you have a high attribute, its best to stock it full of traits, which will help you win significantly more challenges.  I'm not sure that this is too big of a problem, because it's a pretty minor effect to begin with, and only plays out significantly in Zeal 1 and Weariness 1 knights.

yrs--
--Ben

[Eero Tuovinen]

I don't actually much like what you propose. Seems to add too much dice rolling and strip all kinds of nice ideas, like the support dice, and zero-trait conflicts. How about this:

Item: you want to be able to have mixed results. Solution: have both players roll for the conflict. During the bid give the players the option of either changing the base attribute for themselves or the other side. Correlate the rolls individually with a stake chart (smaller one, as there's less attributes firing on both sides?) and institute both results. The combinations are the mixed results in question, and it's reasonably probable that only one side will be successful; the side who cares more will have jinxed the other with a bad attribute for him.

Item: you want to have dramatic edges, which give either side better chances in the conflict. Solution: make trait bid concurrent (with a number of stones, each signifying an attribute; player bids the attribute and selects one of it's traits after revealing the bid) and include a couple of additional effects based on the combinations of single (when the other played bids nothing) and double traits. So, for example, give a Veteran who correctly guesses the the other's attribute and plays the same one (or just one of the same light/ice-type) an additional die or something, to represent his acumen in predicting the opposition. Give the same chance for the Snow Man if the knight is Novice. Give both Veterans and Novices a couple of edge possibilities of this kind representing general dramatic conditions (like sacrifices, alliances, foresight, etc.) and always duplicate them backwards for the other type. So any condition a Novice can use is usable by the Snow Man for the Veteran, and so on.

Just some random ideas, what first jumped me.

[Ben Lehman]

Thanks for the response.

I don't actually much like what you propose. Seems to add too much dice rolling and strip all kinds of nice ideas, like the support dice, and zero-trait conflicts. How about this:

BL>  Can you take a moment to talk about why you think these are good things?  Because they look awful from my chair.
Zero-trait conflicts don't matter very much to the player, and use attributes that are used *nowhere else* in the system.
Support Dice screw up the otherwise very very pretty probabilities.  Albeit, giving the Moons a little more force in the game is a good thing...  But still.

Item: you want to be able to have mixed results. Solution: have both players roll for the conflict. During the bid give the players the option of either changing the base attribute for themselves or the other side. Correlate the rolls individually with a stake chart (smaller one, as there's less attributes firing on both sides?) and institute both results. The combinations are the mixed results in question, and it's reasonably probable that only one side will be successful; the side who cares more will have jinxed the other with a bad attribute for him.

BL>  This is a very good suggestion, and also ends up including a "dramatic edge" that can develop -- if you want total dominance in a conflict, you need to bid strong on both sides, which is a 2-edge instead of a 1-edge, and makes all the difference in the world.

At the same time, this significantly reduces the randomness of the system -- if the Snow Man has won both bids, he will most likely get some result his way, if the Heart has won both bids, he will most likely get some result his way.  Generally speaking, two rolls will do this no matter what.  I'm trying to decide whether or not I care about this.

Item: you want to have dramatic edges, which give either side better chances in the conflict. Solution: make trait bid concurrent (with a number of stones, each signifying an attribute; player bids the attribute and selects one of it's traits after revealing the bid)

BL> Cool suggestion!  But it seems very complicated, I'm really not willing to stack hidding declaration (effectively a form of randomness) on top of my dice rolls, for assorted reasons.

Just some random ideas, what first jumped me.

BL>  Thanks!

[Eero Tuovinen]

BL>  Can you take a moment to talk about why you think these are good things?  Because they look awful from my chair.
Zero-trait conflicts don't matter very much to the player, and use attributes that are used *nowhere else* in the system.
Support Dice screw up the otherwise very very pretty probabilities.  Albeit, giving the Moons a little more force in the game is a good thing...  But still.

Zero conflicts are useful in providing color; you don't always want to have great stakes, but you do want to register disagreement or simply let the dice give indication of direction. This could be done via narration, but that is the weak route: by using the normal conflict mechanics the situation is clearly cast as a conflict, albeit a small one. Example: the newcomer meets the strong man of the order for the first time in the doorway. Which gives way can be resolved with a honest-to-god conflict, and it can give indication about the relationship of the two. No player will likely squander traits, but the situation would be weaker if there was no conflict.

As to using the root attributes, that's not a problem, it's a bonus. Those traits should have a very general role all in all. I'm sure they'll take their role in every aspect of the game.

As to the support dice, they only skew probability if the moon in questions wants to use it, and then it very well should. The dice also help in moving the system from the realm of countable to the realm of strategy, which is a good thing. By giving options that complicate the strategy over trivial calculation you add surprise; this is really an old game design question from strategy games pertaining to simple vs. complex. The standard wisdom is that for a "game" to be a game in the strategic sense it has to rely on player intuition. Chess stops being a game when the whole move tree is calculated and used. You'll want to have that unpredictability to give the players various situations.

All in all, I confess to being a very particular kind of system junkie. Everything having fun repercussions in the game is good in my book. General die rolling without much significance (like you'd have if dice were rolled for every trait) doesn't have fun repercussions. The rules should all mean something.

Read the Battle of the Frozen Waste with attention, if you can stand it. I have there a pretty complex bidding mechanic, which demonstrates certain general techniques that might help in deciding where you're going. Especially the "dramatic effort" and "sacrifice" are things adding tactical and strategic choices, all the while enforcing the genre.

At the same time, this significantly reduces the randomness of the system -- if the Snow Man has won both bids, he will most likely get some result his way, if the Heart has won both bids, he will most likely get some result his way.  Generally speaking, two rolls will do this no matter what.  I'm trying to decide whether or not I care about this.

It's relatively easy to add some randomness in the form of tactics, I should think. How about this:

Item: you want to have dramatic edges, which give either side better chances in the conflict. Solution: make trait bid concurrent (with a number of stones, each signifying an attribute; player bids the attribute and selects one of it's traits after revealing the bid)

BL> Cool suggestion!  But it seems very complicated, I'm really not willing to stack hidding declaration (effectively a form of randomness) on top of my dice rolls, for assorted reasons.

Can you describe your reasons? After all, just now you were unsure if the twofold bid would make the results too predetermined ;)

The central problem, it seems to me, is the binary nature of the bidding. You either have dominance, or you don't, and you can always bid the minimum to gain dominion. The moon dice, stakes and trait refill are things that save this from being a zero-sum exercise, but you'll have to decide how much and what kind of options the players should have in the matter. Obviously there has to be some reason to not bid (stakes and trait management) and some decisions to be made in the conflict.

The binariness can be helped in some different ways, one of which is the attribute comparison I suggested earlier. If there is an added bonus in confronting Snow with Dimness or whatever, there is more options overall.

Think about it; the conflict system is the heart of the system overall.