[Capes] Social resolution mechanics

[TonyLB]

Thomas, I get what you're saying about putting an internal Victory Target on Issues.  But that assumes, pretty much absolutely, that these Issues are going to be chosen by the players because they have A Plan for the Issue.  You're saying that they know how important it is going to be, before they play it through.  In short, they figure out what they want their important Issues to be, and then they play it in the game.

Which is a stylistic difference we've already discussed.  I'm aiming for a game where people explore many Complications and the system makes Issues out of the ones that actually hold their interest in the game, as opposed to just having people choose the ones that look good on paper without having tried them.

Anyway, on to your questions:

#1:  Inspirations count on the fact that Drives rise during a Session, and are then reset to their original levels at the beginning of the next session.  So a person might have had a Stake of 8 in Love at the end of last Session, even though they only have a permanent Drive score of 4.  An Inspiration would let them make one Complication at this Stake of 8... the rest would still have to be at 4 or less.

Does it upset the Debt and Drive system?  I don't know yet.  It might.  I haven't thought about it deeply.  But it certainly doesn't strike me as being exactly the same thing as Drives.  I could certainly be persuaded to do it another way... I just want something that will give some sense of continuity to Issues, while avoiding the problems of actually carrying them over from one session to the next.


#2:  The main reason for 2 dice for N turns was because I was enamored of the notion (earlier) that the size of the Advantage should have some bearing on how long the Scene should be.  But I have this bad habit of trying to time scenes in Number of Turns.  I should be timing them by Victory Point Target... I keep forgetting.  So you're right, there's no real reason not to do it as lump sum, and it's much easier on the accounting.

When my head is screwed on a bit more firmly, I'll make an attempt at writing up a discussion of how all the players (Editor included) get together to frame a new scene... and how they derive a Victory Target (and therefore the length of the scene) from the following factors:

[*]What heroes and villains are involved[*]What Issues are involved (both able to be modified and applying Assist/Hindrance)[*]What Advantages are being applied[/list:u]
#3:  We've had quite a few discussions about how to balance Closure of Scenes with the need to have actions and choices matter right up to the last round of the scene (or the last scene of a session).  Advantages and Issues (IMHO) handle that problem:  They give consequences that are more than merely story color to choices like letting a bad guy get away to save the bystanders, or choosing to fight rather than search for information.


On "Who decides what the Burning Building turns into?", let me refer you back to this post, since I still think it's my most cogent statement on the subject.

[Marhault]

Thomas, I get what you're saying about putting an internal Victory Target on Issues. But that assumes, pretty much absolutely, that these Issues are going to be chosen by the players because they have A Plan for the Issue. You're saying that they know how important it is going to be, before they play it through. In short, they figure out what they want their important Issues to be, and then they play it in the game.

Which is a stylistic difference we've already discussed. I'm aiming for a game where people explore many Complications and the system makes Issues out of the ones that actually hold their interest in the game, as opposed to just having people choose the ones that look good on paper without having tried them.

I don't see any reason why there has to be a cap on Issues.  Actually, I was thinking that they would work better if they were of indefinite length.  They could be resolved much like a standard complication, without the end of scene limit.  In other words, control goes back and forth between player and editor, one or the other must have control for a certain length of time before they can attempt to resolve it in their favor (I would think you could simply replace a "turn" for complications with a "scene" for Issues), which allows the other person to try to rest control of it, and prevent the resolution.  This way, the Player and the Editor both get to decide if an Issue is interesting enough to continue with, by deciding whether to spend points on it.  Any Issue that is deemed dull by either party simply gets ignored, and resolves quickly.
Examples from comics:
1)  Spidey's Girlfriend: Gwen Stacey - Hotly contested, eventually resolved in the Editor's favor.  Gwen dies.
2)  Spidey's Girlfriend:  Mary Jane Watson - Hotly contested, eventually resolved in the Player's favor.  Peter and MJ get married.  (a related issue comes up later, and she leaves him to pursue a movie career, although he eventually wins her back.)

There is no explicit connection between Issues and Moral, or Complications and Adventure. "Need a birthday present for Peggy Jean" could play out in a single scene and be just a Complication. "Clobbering" could easily turn into an Issue, as two titans of testosterone go through a series of battles that are connected only by their desire to prove which of them is, in the end, the strongest.

I hear what you're saying, Tony.

The things is that I don't see what benefits the game gets from having the fight between the two "titans of testosterone" (nice Stan Lee-ism, by the way) be an Issue, that is, aside from lots of bookkeeping.  Especially when you consider that "issues" like this are often left dormant for long periods of time between meetings.  I can see using the "Advantage" or "Inspiration" mechanics for this, ie "Defeated Hulk during last battle, +2 to next battle" or whatever.

By the same token, getting Peggy Jean a birthday present smacks of a small part of a much larger issue (10 will get you 20 that Peggy Jean is this characters Love or Hope Exemplar!), and this event would therefore be better represented by a change in an ongoing Issue than by a single Complication.

The other big thing is that you don't get your kid sister (or girlfriend, or gorgeous student teacher, or whatever) a birthday present by firing energy blasts from your hands or throwing cars after super villains.  In other words, performing wonders doesn't help you resolve conflicts (whether we call them Complications, Issues, or Shenanigans) related to interpersonal or Moral problems.  At least, not in the same way they help you when you're beating on supervillains.  Yeah, I know you can impress the girls and that sort of thing if you use your power subtlly, but we really don't need to resort to the Complications and Wonders mechanic, which is better suited to complex super battles than it is to emotional relationships.

Basically, what I'm saying is that, while there isn't an explicit relationship between moral and "Issues" there is an implicit one, because the Complications mechanic doesn't work well for Moral problems the way it is currently written.  Also, I don't think I've seen a good example of an "Issue" that I didn't think was more tied in to the Moral story than to the Adventure.

I say again:  Moral problems (whatever you want to call them) need to be handled differently from Adventure problems (which are currently Complications and the overall VP goal for the session) in that the playerneeds to draw power in the Moral conflict from debt accrual in order to address the game's premise.

[TonyLB]

Marhault:  Double-checking that I understand what you're saying.  Are you saying that the more endebted a hero is, the more power they should have to deal with their personal conflicts?  If so, that's an interesting concept, but I'm not quite wrapping my head around it.

The things is that I don't see what benefits the game gets from having the fight between the two "titans of testosterone" (nice Stan Lee-ism, by the way) be an Issue, that is, aside from lots of bookkeeping.

And, until it is put into moral context by what particular Drives people Stake Debt out of, I don't know how it creates a moral story either.

But, to posit an example, if you have a hero Staking Hope and a Villain Staking Power, and the question is which of them can beat the other to a pulp, then suddenly you've got a super-battle which is about the question of whether it's important to defend the powerless, or whether the common crowd are sheep and the only important people are those with the power to impose their will upon the world.

[TonyLB]

Okay, two thoughts that I wanted to contribute to the mix, both concerning the general question "Why do you want to resolve Conflicts/Issues?"

First:  What happens if, as Thomas has been recommending, Issues do not feed back into the Victory Target, and they don't carry over Inspirations, but resolved Issues are the Reward Mechanic for the game?

Specifically:

[*]Issues are never auto-resolved.  They can float around for a thousand sessions if you want.[*]Control points in Issues never effect the Victory Targets for a game.[*]If a hero successfully Resolves an Issue then they get Development Points equal to the lesser of:

[*]How much they staked[*]The Control value of the losing side, divided by ten[/list:u]  EDIT:  Better idea, part 1:  They get a Development equal to that number of points.[*]To increase a Drive from N to N+1 costs 2xN Development Points.
EDIT:  Better idea, part 2:  To increase a Drive from N to N+1 requires N+1 Developments, counting up from 1 to N+1.  So to raise a Drive from 3 to 4 requires Developments of points 1, 2, 3 and 4.[*]Development Points might do some other stuff (though still on the Moral side of the fence).[/list:u]
Second:  In terms of why you would resolve boring Complications, rather than just leave them lying around.  What if there are a fixed number of Complications in a Scene (until the Victory Target is met)?  The person who Resolves one Complication gets to define the Complication that replaces it, and that's the only way to create new Complications?

EDIT:  Had a realization about the way Resolution could work, absent a Wonder to do it.

You may declare a Complication that you do not Control to be Resolved at any time.  It resolves instantly for the other side.  In exchange for this surrender you get to define what Complication replaces it.

You may move a Complication that you do control to be Resolving.  If, at any successive Monologue Phase, that Complication is controlled by the same side that controlled it last turn then it Resolves.  Note particularly the following scenario:  

[*]A hero controls "Clobbering" in Round 7[*]She declares it to be Resolving[*]During the Wonder Phase a villain gains Control[*]Villain controls "Clobbering" in Round 8.[*]During the Wonder Phase the hero tries to get control back, and fails.[*]Villain controls "Clobbering" in Round 9.  Therefore (since it's Resolving) it resolves.[/list:u]

[LordSmerf]

Which is a stylistic difference we've already discussed.  I'm aiming for a game where people explore many Complications and the system makes Issues out of the ones that actually hold their interest in the game, as opposed to just having people choose the ones that look good on paper without having tried them.

Ok, you are right about this.  I will try to stay on focus.  With that in mind...  It seems that the last proposal you made (Complications with Stakes that are not Resolved when a scene ends become Issues) does not do what you want it to.  Example: Let us assume that the Villain has thrown a complication "Entangling wires" at the Hero.  In order to shrug off that -1 Wonder Level the Hero Stakes 1 Duty "I have to escape and save those people!"  The scene eventually ends, but no one really cares about the entangling wires so they never Resolved it.  Now you have an Issue forming from a Complication that was really just a tactical throw away.

I am not opposed to Complications becoming Issues, and i see the advantages of doing things this way.  However, it seems to me that generating an Issue will need to be a positive choice ("I want this to be an Issue") instead of an absence of choice ("We did not deal with that during the scene, so now it is an Issue").

#1:  Inspirations count on the fact that Drives rise during a Session, and are then reset to their original levels at the beginning of the next session.  So a person might have had a Stake of 8 in Love at the end of last Session, even though they only have a permanent Drive score of 4.  An Inspiration would let them make one Complication at this Stake of 8... the rest would still have to be at 4 or less.

My initial reaction is: "Meh."  Basically i find this to be pretty uninteresting.  Now, i have not played with Inspirations like this, so it is possible that this is great.  But i want feel that each piece of the system is exciting and engaging on its own.  I would suggest that something different be used for Inpirations...

#2:  The main reason for 2 dice for N turns was because I was enamored of the notion (earlier) that the size of the Advantage should have some bearing on how long the Scene should be.  But I have this bad habit of trying to time scenes in Number of Turns.  I should be timing them by Victory Point Target... I keep forgetting. [...snip...]  I'll make an attempt at writing up a discussion of how all the players (Editor included) get together to frame a new scene... and how they derive a Victory Target (and therefore the length of the scene) from the following factors:

[*]What heroes and villains are involved[*]What Issues are involved (both able to be modified and applying Assist/Hindrance)[*]What Advantages are being applied[/list:u]

Great point.  I guess i had never really conciously acknowledged that scene length is directly controlled by Victory Targets.  If i have any brillian idea regarding this i am sure that you will hear about them.

#3:  We've had quite a few discussions about how to balance Closure of Scenes with the need to have actions and choices matter right up to the last round of the scene (or the last scene of a session).  Advantages and Issues (IMHO) handle that problem:  They give consequences that are more than merely story color to choices like letting a bad guy get away to save the bystanders, or choosing to fight rather than search for information.

Excellent articulation of what you want to happen.  I feel that Advantages have a lot of potential (though my impression is that getting N dice instead of 2N dice would be better), but that Issues need a lot of work (see above).

On "Who decides what the Burning Building turns into?", let me refer you back to this post, since I still think it's my most cogent statement on the subject.

In which you essentially say: Whoever controls the Complication defines the Issue.  That is fine, but again more work should be done regarding Issues.

You also have some interesting stuff regarding Advancement and Resolution:

First: What happens if, as Thomas has been recommending, Issues do not feed back into the Victory Target, and they don't carry over Inspirations, but resolved Issues are the Reward Mechanic for the game?

This seems to have a lot of potential.  With some work on Issue generation and resolution this could really give Issue Resolution a sense of urgency.  Of course you also (i think anyway) want to encourage Issues that you spend a lot of time on, so maybe you get Development points based on Total Stakes or Total Control (from both sides) divided by 10.

I am not exacly clear on what you are proposing for increasing Drives in terms of cost.  Also you probably want to at least consider ways o gaining new Powers, Attitudes, and Tropes (or of changing/moving around existing ones).

Second: In terms of why you would resolve boring Complications, rather than just leave them lying around.

Your suggestions for this got me thinking about something: currently spending dice on a Wonder generates Control for some Complication for every Wonder except Resolving a Complication.  With that in mind i would suggest that if you control a Complication you may declare it to be Resolving without a special Wonder to do it.  Then use your suggestion: Once a Complication begins Resolving it automatically Resolves if the same side controls it during to successive Monologue phases.  If Control is tied then it is treated as if no one controls the Complication (meaning that if you are in Control, then are Tied, and then Control again the Complication does not resolve).

This would leave you with the "Resolve Complication" Wonder which i would change so that it can be used to:

1. Make a Complication that you do not control start Resolving.
2. Stop a Complication that you do control from Resolving.

Without playing this it is hard to know for sure, but it seems to me that if you leave a Complication unresolved until the scene ends you just end up handing whoever controls it an Advantage...  Making Resolution free for the Controller and making it cost something to stop it from Resolving even if you do Control it should make it easier to get things Resolved.

Oh, and am i right in thinking that you are only Hindered or Assisted by a Complication that has been Staked by just your oppponent or just you respectively?

Thomas

[Sydney Freedberg]

{low-substance post}

Wow. My head hurts a little now. I go on deadline for a few days and the thread just continues to... err... what do threads do? "Unspool"? Not very dramatic imagery but you get the idea.

Maybe it's just me, but I wonder if we're tangling ourselves up in, well, complications about Complications (and Issues) here. Didn't Einstein say "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler"?

Lacking further substantive comment, I will now retreat, but I'd suggest to Tony it might be time to write up new rules incorporating or rejecting all these myriad suggestions so we have a new foundation (and possibly a new thread) to work from.

[TonyLB]

Sydney, that's a really terrific idea which, unfortunately, I may not prove able to do.  I'm heading off on vacation for more than a week in... oh, twenty minutes.

Though I will have internet access and will also have the computer that has all my files, I will not have internet access from the computer that has all my files.

I tried to get a rewrite up in time to discuss it, but travel plans have swamped me.  I'll try to figure out some jury-rigged fix at the far end, probably involving substantial ludicrous fiddling, because you're quite right that a revised set of rules would be very helpful.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Sydney, that's a really terrific idea which, unfortunately, I may not prove able to do.  I'm heading off on vacation for more than a week in... oh, twenty minutes...

Always glad to make impractical suggestions for other people to do the work on. I'm going on vacation myself next week. Have fun, and dream of superheroes in emotional Debt over Complicated Issues -- at this point, I know I will.

[LordSmerf]

This struck me as an interesting compromise type of thingy...

I think Issues should be declared up front, Tony wants them to be an outgrowth of play.  Why not do both?  Here is the idea as concisely as i can put it:

When you create a new hero you have to develop an Issue for each of his Drives which starts with no Stakes and no Control.  You may only have one Issue tied to each Drive.  At the end of each Scene a player may Resolve any of his Issues regardless of who controls them.  Whenever you Resolve an Issue you must replace it.

Basically you start the game with 5 Issues, whenever you find something you think is more important to your character you Resolve an Issue, sometimes at a loss, in order to make space for the new thing.  On the down side we do not get the interesting Complications -> Issues thing, and that may be a deal breaker.

Well, i think it has merit.  Of course i am not totally sure that it is a good idea either...  Besides, this is not my game :)

Thomas

[Sydney Freedberg]

I think Issues should be declared up front, Tony wants them to be an outgrowth of play.  Why not do both?

I'd agree that players should be able to consciously choose a couple of Issues before the game starts, as well as have them arise naturally out of reactions to Complications. I suspect the easiest way to do this is just give every player a few VPs, and give the Editor a few VPs on every player, to define things up front -- i.e. treat game-start as if some Complications had just generated issues, said Complications being things in the characters' backstories.

EDIT: Argh! Crossposted again! Tony, aren't you supposed to be on vacation?

[TonyLB]

Hrm... this has the benefit that it makes a clear connection between Complications that you Stake Love on (for instance) and your Love Issue.  I'm not sure what, mechanically, to do with that connection, but I'll think about it.

I do like the idea that you have (at most) one Issue per Drive.  That seems a useful constraint to place on a player... the type that will foster creativity.

[LordSmerf]

Hrm... this has the benefit that it makes a clear connection between Complications that you Stake Love on (for instance) and your Love Issue.  I'm not sure what, mechanically, to do with that connection, but I'll think about it.

I see Issues, if used in this way, as being similar to Exemplars.  Mechanically they do not necessarily do something, but there are some suggestions to the effect of bringing those Issues into play whenever a Player asks for a scene regarding that Drive...

I do like the idea that you have (at most) one Issue per Drive.  That seems a useful constraint to place on a player... the type that will foster creativity.

I agree.  I also, personally, really like the idea of making Issues only Resolvable by the player.  This means that as long as the player still considers this to be the most important thing to their character in relation to the Drive the Issue is tied to, that Issue will stay in place...  If some new Issue comes up that they find more compelling they are free to pursue that instead, but they may have to sacrifice the issue they were working on...

Thomas

[Sydney Freedberg]

One Issue per drive has a certain elegance to it and will force players to focus in a useful way, I agree.

But let me put a good word in for Exemplars, especially considering how important they were to Tony's first playtest run. Perhaps every Issue (regardless of whether you tie them to Drives or not) needs an Exemplar to give it a "human face" -- even if the heroes never meet them and the players only see them in "cut scenes" away from the main storyline? E.g. the harassed waitress mom who works in a dangerous neighborhood downtown for "is the city safe?" (Hope) or the impoverished family of five who live in a shabby tenement at the mercy of a cruel landlord for "who will protect the weak?" (Justice).

[LordSmerf]

While i think that Exemplars are great and that people should be encouraged to tie them into at least some of their Issues, i feel that requiring an Exemplar for every Issue has the potential of taking some of the "umph" from some Issues.  Some seem that they would be better as completely internal struggles...  Maybe not though...

Thomas