Diceless Complications

[Bankuei]

On the note of dice pools vs. diceless... I've kinda had that sitting on the back burner, just because I could see this game working great as a travel game(stuck in the hotel at night, at the airport), and I've been trying to figure out for the life of me how to cut out dice pools and still keep the fun gamble mechanic.  Here's an idea of what I got so far(feel free to take it, manipulate it, etc as you will)

Complications(A)
 Whenever someone wants to make a addition to a Complication Pool or a Target Pool, they bid a number of Coins and calls even or odds.  The coins are hidden under the bidder's hand, and the other players can make counter bids or not.  All bids are totaled and put together into the Pool of the winner's choice(based on evens or odd total).

Highest Pool at the end of the Complication wins the "scenario", Coins used for resolution come straight from the pools.  1 coin must be dropped into the Bonus pot for each bid.  Lowest Pool gets added to the Pot after being spent(so you want to bid a lot of coins, but you want the other players to do it too, for a close call).

People can choose not to bid at all, this means that the originator really has a 50% odds of success(guessing as to whether someone else will bid you or not).

What do you think?  I might get a chance to playtest this weekend, so I thought I'd share this idea.

[Valamir]

Using my mad moderating powers I've split your idea off to a new thread so it won't get lost in there.

I'm not entirely clear on what you mean.  Let me see if I follow:

1) There are two piles of Coins, one for the Target and one for the Complication.

2) I chose a number of Coins I want to add to given side in secret and select even or odd, meaning a prediction of the total number of Coins that will eventually be bid.  One or more other players then chose to bid a number of coins.

3) If I'm right about the total bid being an even or odd number of Coins, all of the Coins bid go into my chosen pile.  If I'm wrong all of the Coins bid go into the other pile.


Is that correct so far?

Couple of questions come up.  Currently the number of dice in a die pool are tied to Traits that are Activated.  I'm in a fight I activate my gun's "large calibre +2" Trait to get 2 dice.  Or dice can be bought directly "I maneuver so the sun's in his eyes +1 die".  As the Complication goes around the action unfolds as players alternate Activating Traits and explaining how they use that Trait to help oneside or hinder the other.  I'm not seeing a similiar element present here.

Secondly, while each individual die roll is essentially a 50% chance of success, having more dice in your pool when the roll is made is a key advantage.  I'm not seeing how bidding additional Coins in this idea is of benefit.

What am I missing?

[Bankuei]

Well, I was unaware that traits are directly added into dice pools(perhaps further coins could be poured into the pools via the bank for traits)...

On the note of WHY would anyone pour extra coins into a bid?  Well, if you know that the Target Pool is lower, and you want to win, isn't it worth the gamble of extra coin that might just bring you over the top?  Also, if the Complication Pot is empty, any other player can choose to bid for the Target Pool, and the Originator of the complication would have to either pull straight out of their own coin or accept that the other players might play directly into the Target Pool(good time to bid high).  Lots of room for fake out and bluffing as to whether you're dropping evens or odds to begin with.  It gets even messier the more people who bid.

Also, remember, it's the lesser of the two Pools that gets added to the Bonus Pot.  The originator has some incentive to try to keep the pools close in number, whether intentionally or unintentionally.  Gambling high might just be a hope to bring the Target Pool to just under the Complication Pool.

Basically, the goal of 1) Random outcome, 2)Bonus Pot increases with participation on both sides, 3)Suspense of Pool build up are all fufilled.  Of course, if its simply the coolness of rolling a handful of dice, then I could see that.

Of course, this was just an idea I had.  Perhaps I've totally misread into the design ideas behind Dice Pools.  Could you guys enlighten me?

Chris

[Valamir]

Basically, the goal of 1) Random outcome, 2)Bonus Pot increases with participation on both sides, 3)Suspense of Pool build up are all fufilled.  Of course, if its simply the coolness of rolling a handful of dice, then I could see that.

Of course, this was just an idea I had.  Perhaps I've totally misread into the design ideas behind Dice Pools.  Could you guys enlighten me?

Thats a pretty good summary with a couple of additions.

1) Its not so much the outcome that random but rather who gets to determine the outcome and how much Story Power the roll provides for them to do it.  The result of the die roll will determine two things.  A Winner, and an amount of Story Power won.  The Winner then uses this "prize" to narrate the outcome of the Complication (generally thinking in lines of what Traits were Activated etc...If I Activated a characters Gun, then part of the narration might include somebody getting shot).
Note: there is also a means for the Loser to get a lesser amount of Story Power to spend as well.

2) The bonus pot you hit right on the head.  If the Originator can make the complication engageing enough that his fellow players are into it and spending lots of Coins, than he stands to make a bundle.


Basically if one really just wanted to eliminate dice, either from a "I'd rather not roll dice", or a "I don't have any available and still want to play", or to make it a "travel game" one could use the Complication rules just substituting coins (small c) instead of dice in the pools.  Then in stead of rolling the dice and counting successes the coins could be flipped or randomized in some way to determine successes and a winner.  The only modification that would have to be made, is that the numbers on the dice are then used to determine Story Points won...some other means would have to be used if flipping coins.

Bottom line for me is largely that I REALLY REALLY dislike flipping coins as a randomizer.  If I ever get to play Underworld I'll be rolling dice and useing even odd results instead of flipping coins for heads or tails.  

That said, I'm certainly not against including some fashion of diceless option.  So please feel free to test it out and let me know how it goes.

[Bankuei]

I'm pretty against flipping coins myself, its just not tactile-y satisfying.  That's why I was going with the even/odds idea.  Of course, I intend to test out v. 4.01 as it stands and then later with diceless rules.  Right now I'm drumming up interest with my friends for a possible weekend game.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Well, I was unaware that traits are directly added into dice pools(perhaps further coins could be poured into the pools via the bank for traits)...

That last idea would work, more or less. Essentially, you pay one coin to activate a trait, and the bank makes up the difference so that a number of coins equal to the level of the trait are added to the pool. That's easy enough.

I'm still a little confused as to how this would all work exactly, and some of it still seems counter to the design principles. How about the following version (a long explanation, so bear with me):

Each player places coins in whatever pot they prefer for whatever activations they make (including the coins added on a one-for-one ratio for "temporary traits" like a slippery floor). There is no bonus pot. The first player to add to any target's pool is that target's Champion*. Other players may add to a Target's pool, if they like, but do not recieve any recompense if they do.

After all additions have been made to the pots, start resolution with the lowest Target pot**. The Champion of that Target places as many coins as he likes under his hand, up to twice as many as are in his own pot (he may place zero). The Originator does the same (up to twice his pot) simultaneously. Then each player guesses a number that they think is the total of all the coins under the hands of all participants, starting with either the Originator if his pot is smaller, or with the Champion's if his is smaller. After they both guess, they reveal the number of coins. Subtract the difference between the player's guess and the actual number of hidden coins from the number of coins in the players pool. The remaining amount is how much that player gets to spend on resolution starting with the player with the higher remaining pool.***

Note, the original Pools are not discarded.

After the player is done resolving, go to the next Target and repeat. After all Targets have been resolved, the player gets his pot back unless there is a suitability fine assessed (player challenges and the voting proportion system is used to find out what part he gets).

OK, here's the Complication Cycle in numbered steps:

1. Originate Complication by starting a pot and putting at least one coin in it, and defining parameters (what the threat is, Targets, etc).
2. Play continues with other players Championing Targets by creating Target pots.
3. This continues until all players pass.
4. Start with smallest Target pot (ties broken by the pot closest to the Originators left and then by choice of the player if he has more than one):
   
a. The Champion and originator each hide a number of coins under their hand equal to up to twice the number in their own pots.
    b. Starting with the owner of the smallest pot, each guesses at the total number of hidden Coins.
    c. Reveal the hidden Coins and total them.
    d. Calculate the difference between each players guess, and the actual total of hidden Coins.
    e. Subtract each players' difference from the total number of coins in the pot.
    f. Starting with the player with the largest remaining total, each player resolves that number of points as normal.[/list:u]5. Repeat 4 for each successively larger Target pot, using the tiebreakers above.
6. Players collect their pots back unless challenged.[/list:u]
Example: Abe, Beth, and Chuck are playing and Abe decides to start a Complication in the current scene with about a Giant Sausage Man attacking a the main charcters, a group of heroic Burmese cattle rustlers.

Abe starts off by putting coins into the complication pool to activate the Sausage Man's Magical Rainstorm trait +2. This costs him one coin which is placed in the pot along with another from the bank to acount for the trait's level. He declares that the Sausage Man is trying to drown all three of the rustlers. Beth next champions Phladone, the cook for the rustlers, putting two coins in the pot which are explained as representing the fact that Phladone had good omens when he woke up that day. Chuck champions Khala the group's laundrymistress and erstwhile leader, and Ningo, the half-ape brute. He spends one coin to activate Khala's Aquamonk +3 package putting (three in the pot), another coin to activate Ningo's Really Fat +3 (which will help him float). He also spends a coin to activate dry Mojave landscape (+2, esatablished earlier in a complication about finding water) which they are currently traveling through, and removes both coins from the Complication pot. Play comes around to Abe again who (needing Coins a lot) activates the Sausage Man's Nerves of Pork +4 explaining that the Big Brat is really concentrating and whipping up a bigun'.

Shocked at each other's failure to challenge any of this sillyness, each player quickly passes so that they can get this complicaiton over with.

Looking at the available Target pots, Beth's pool for Phladone is the smallest, so she goes first. She places four coins under her hand secretly, and Abe places seven. Beth guesses first as her Target Pool is smaller than the complication pool. She guesses six. Abe guesses ten coins total. They reveal the total of eleven coins. Abe's difference is (11 actual - 10 guessed) 1 which is subtracted from his pool of four for a result of three. Beth's difference is (11 actual - 6 guessed) five, and this eliminates her pool. Abe Narrates his three story points describing how Phladone is washed down a gully and partly drowned by the downpour.

Next Targets are Chuck's. Since their pools are the same size, he chooses to do Ningo's first. The result of the guessing is that Abe gets two remaining SP, and Chuck get's none. Ningo follows Phladone down the gully (but is less drowned).

The last Target is Khala who guesses really well and gets all three SP. But Abe's guess leaves him with two as well. Khala Narrates first because her result is higher. Chuck narrates Khala springing to the top of a rock, and using her Aquamonk super-slice chop to turn the Sausage Man into a meat blizzard (reducing his three Importance to zero). Chuck describes how Khala slips thereafter in the fatty remains of the sausage man sending her spilling into the water and after the others.

Afterwards, each player considers challenging the others , but consisdering that they all were playing strangely, decide to let it slide.

How's that? If you have a suggested modification, consider cutting and pasting any of the above explanations.

Mike

*Perhaps a player might be allowed to declare that they are Champion a character at any time during a scene for one coin, which also allows dialog for that character, etc., and means only they can champion the character during any Complications that scene. Using the PC add-on, the player is always the character's Champion for no cost.
**Arguably the smallest target pot is most likely to be the least important dramatically. So as you go to larger pots the tension should build.
***I like the idea of both sides possibly getting to narrate the outcome. The winner goes first, however, and so can narrate things that the second player cannot change (without a challenge).

[Valamir]

well, this post was way to long to digest in the middle of a busy day, and once I got a chance to look at it I had to read through it a couple times to follow along...

But ultimately its not bad.  It pretty much accomplishes most of the key points of the Dice based one.  With some polish it might make an effective option.

I'll note here that you did do one thing different from the current "standard" and thats that you had each Target track their own pool and narrate and independent outcome, plus the Complication got a fresh set of Story Power against each of them.  

This is actually an optional Add-on for the "standard", but currently the standard is 1 pool for the Targets as a whole with the player who contributed them most to the Target pool getting the bulk of the say in the resolution.

I haven't yet arrived at reworking the Complication section (both to address its apparent confusing nature and modify it to work with the Scene Framing idea I'm going to try) so there is room yet for additional change.

Is the seperate pool per Target a "better" choice as a standard for complications (even the normal dice based ones) or is the single pool resolution the better choice as a base rule.

Also I note that you opened by saying there is no bonus pot but then did not return to the idea.  Is there no additional reward for Originating in this idea?

[Mike Holmes]

I'll note here that you did do one thing different from the current "standard" and thats that you had each Target track their own pool and narrate and independent outcome,  

Yeah, there are a few non-standard things in there, butI was just trying to get a total set that would work. Some of that just made sense to me as I wrote it. Certainly needs to be tweaked before putting any of it down. As for the Multiple Target Pools, I'm not sure that's necessary at all (just a throwback), and can probably be changed.

plus the Complication got a fresh set of Story Power against each of them.

This is actually an optional Add-on for the "standard", but currently the standard is 1 pool for the Targets as a whole with the player who contributed them most to the Target pool getting the bulk of the say in the resolution.

That last part has always struck me as awkward, which is why I went back to multi-targets. Another possibility would be to have just one Champion for all targets. A potential problem that I just realized with the "one target pool" method, however, is that targeting more than one target is asking for trouble, as it becomes more likely that there are more traits activatable against the Complication. Just seems unbalanced.

In any case where you had just one Target pool and one Complication pot, you'd have to increase the potential SP output of my method somehow to make Complications have a potential to be resolved for the multiple numbers of Tartgets. As it stands I tried to gear it to produce only enough power to affect one target.

Is the seperate pool per Target a "better" choice as a standard for complications (even the normal dice based ones) or is the single pool resolution the better choice as a base rule.

Tough to say. One is simpler, the other seems to make more intuitive sense (to me at least) in terms of breaking a Conflict down into pairs. It might just be my attachment to the old rules, though. Hm.

Also I note that you opened by saying there is no bonus pot but then did not return to the idea.  Is there no additional reward for Originating in this idea?

No, that's the other loop I threw in. Probably shoulda left that for another discussion. It's just sort of an extension of Moose's concept for simplifying the Complicaion reward. In this version, the reward is gotten by each participating player in the form of free SP related to the conflict. If they win. If they loose, they probably loose nothing. So there is no reason not to participate.

That last part could be a problem. There probably should be at least a minor stake involved. Perhaps a player has to pay one coin to Champion, just as I suggested they would in scene framing. This makes the rule more universal, and hopefully prevents people from joining in Complications frivolously.

Anyhow, I'm beginning to like the diceless idea enough to propose making it a part of the regular rules. Assuming we can work the bugs out. One less thing needed to play. And piles of coins are just as nifty as piles of dice, IMO.

Mike

[Valamir]

As for the Multiple Target Pools, I'm not sure that's necessary at all (just a throwback), and can probably be changed.
[snip]
That last part has always struck me as awkward, which is why I went back to multi-targets.
[snip]
It might just be my attachment to the old rules, though. Hm.

Mike, my friend.  I think you're working on too many projects.  Multiple Target Pools have never been standard for the game...so I'm not sure what you "old rule" you think you're "throwing back" too :-)

It has always (at least since V2) been a single target pot with a set of Addons to provide variations (including a couple different ways to do multiple targets).

A potential problem that I just realized with the "one target pool" method, however, is that targeting more than one target is asking for trouble, as it becomes more likely that there are more traits activatable against the Complication.  Just seems unbalanced.

Un-what?

I'm not seeing a problem  It makes perfect sense to me that if the Originator only spends X Coins and then selects multiple Targets that his Story Power be spread out more (thus accomplishing less per Target).  After all thats Identical to how it works outside of Complications.  If I want to give 3 different people a "battered and bruised +2" Trait I have to pay for it 3 seperate times...I can't simply say "they're all in the same car together so they all get the Trait for 1 price.  Why should a Complication be any different.

Further, Complications are fueled by the Complication Pot which grows as player turns continue.  If the Player thinking of the Complication really wants to effect alot of targets without coughing up a lot of Coins, he has only to wait for the Complication Pot to grow large enough.

No, that's the other loop I threw in. Probably shoulda left that for another discussion. It's just sort of an extension of Moose's concept for simplifying the Complicaion reward. In this version, the reward is gotten by each participating player in the form of free SP related to the conflict. If they win. If they lose, they probably lose nothing. So there is no reason not to participate.

I missed the part about participants getting their pots back at the end.  What is the point of that.  I do a bunch of stuff paid for by putting a bunch of Coins in my pot...but I automatically get it all back at the end?  I'm not seeing where thats going.

Anyhow, I'm beginning to like the diceless idea enough to propose making it a part of the regular rules. Assuming we can work the bugs out. One less thing needed to play. And piles of coins are just as nifty as piles of dice, IMO.

I think you're just enamored of a clever new mechanic you came up with you systems monkey you :-)

But I'm thinking that while piles of coins are certainly nifty that this may be way too many piles of coins to keep track of conveniently.

[Mike Holmes]

Mike, my friend.  I think you're working on too many projects.  Multiple Target Pools have never been standard for the game...so I'm not sure what you "old rule" you think you're "throwing back" too :-)

I am probably hearkening back to version one or something. But in playtests, I've always had each player have a pool for their own character (assuming they were targeted, or just felt like jumping in and opposing the complication). Each is resolved separately against the Complication pool. I think that my confusion may have come in after you decided to simplify the Complication rules making all the add-on stuff add-ons. I just assumed that referred to the "timed" options and whatnot. I never noticed that there was just one target pool. Or my brain did not register it. I do remember discussing the option. I just thought it was new for ver 4.

And, of course I'm working on too many projects.  

Un-what?

I'm not seeing a problem  It makes perfect sense to me that if the Originator only spends X Coins and then selects multiple Targets that his Story Power be spread out more (thus accomplishing less per Target).  After all thats Identical to how it works outside of Complications. Why should a Complication be any different.

Because it's a complication and is different. Complications as written produce more story power than just spending coins on the average, which is the incentive to participate. This would just be further incentive to Originate, the possiblity of more reward (though no guarantee). I'm not wedded to the idea; just a thought.

Further, Complications are fueled by the Complication Pot which grows as player turns continue.  If the Player thinking of the Complication really wants to effect alot of targets without coughing up a lot of Coins, he has only to wait for the Complication Pot to grow large enough.

Right, but what I propose would not have this feature. The Complication Pot in this case is just what the player stands to lose if he does a crummy job.

I missed the part about participants getting their pots back at the end.  What is the point of that.  I do a bunch of stuff paid for by putting a bunch of Coins in my pot...but I automatically get it all back at the end?  I'm not seeing where thats going.

First, you may not get any SP out of this form of complicaion, like in the example. But in order to give incentive to participate, I proposed that there was essentially nothing to lose. Unless you played badly. This was too many additions at once tto propose, I see. The idea behind getting everything back barring challenge is really just a matter of perspective. That's what happens anyway in a normal ver 3 pot if eveyone gives a thumbs up. I just took an idea from the discussion with Moose and kinda turned it upside down (his idea was to drop the voting altogether). Essentially there is no vote unless someone wants to. And if they do, the potential loss is equal to the players "investment" in the Complication. Same thing, really, it just makes the votes optional, and puts the onus on the players to call for them when necessary.

As I said, that idea can be discussed separately. For the purposes of the system above, I should have said that the players vote for distribution of each player's pot. That means that you stand to lose all the Coins you invest with potentially no return, either. (But that seemed like a lot of voting.)

I think you're just enamored of a clever new mechanic you came up with you systems monkey you :-)

Well, actually I  was just working off Chris's idea, let's not forget. I'm just trying to make it work because I buy the arguments of the posters here who say it might be a good idea. At the very least it makes for a nifty add-on. But the hiding mechanic (Credit Chris) is the really fun sounding part, to me.

But I'm thinking that while piles of coins are certainly nifty that this may be way too many piles of coins to keep track of conveniently.

As I said, I playtest with this many piles of dice. Remember that often it will just be two, anyhow. Only when the Originator targets more than one target will there be more than two pools.

Anyway, if we were to do this, we'd want to have a rule that made the player put a coin in for each additional target (this is starting to sound like the add-ons). This because otherwise he can target the whole wide world. If he must put a coin in for each extra target, then he stands to lose more if he does declare the everything but the kitchen sink a target. Or, for more balance, perhaps he has to double or tripple, etc the pot depending on the number of Targets. That would prevent abuse.

The potential for abuse is unchampioned targets. I was thinking that the player would just automatically get to apply the number of coins in their pot to resolving a victory. But there's a lot of problems with that. I'd think that, instead, Unchampioned targets would just not be resolved (which means that if there is a surcharge you're really only be motivated to target things that are likely to be championed), or that they would get a stand-in pool equal to the Compicaion Pot, or something like that.

That's a lot of rigamarole, however. I'd be just as satisfied using the current one target pool, and keep this only potentially as an add on. Anyhow, if we did that, got rid of Champions and just had the highest depositor get the single pot (actually there might still be something to Champions now that I think of it), and then voted on the proportion of pot that each player in question got as a reward, would that work as a "Diceless" solution?

Mike

[Bankuei]

I don't have a lot of time right now to put in a proper amount of input, but I will later.  For now, let me chip into the Complication/Bonus pot idea for the game.

Two options to increase coins for the originator:

1)Voting style
Each target has its pot, the champion of each pot decides how much of their pot goes to the originator if any.  Tadaa! entertain the champion, get coins, simple enough, esp. if there's multiple target pots.

2)Gamist style
Lowest of the target pots goes to the originator(therefore, less targets easier to deal with, more spending, more profit).


Chris

[Bankuei]

Ok, I just got a chance to reread everything.  Here's the primary issues(I think)...  1)Incentive for complications(primarily through additional coins) 2) Simplicity 3)Some form of randomization as to who gets how much sp from the complication(and hence, the player with the most influence over the story).

I like the idea of the hidden bid.  It makes things fun and strategic.  The even odds always reduces things to 50% chances(which could be a great add on for totally random thing).  The idea of "price is right" guessing the total leaves alot more room for strategy, and that's great too.  The big difference between Mike's idea and the rules in 4.01 is that 4.01 seems that it would give a lot of sp(2.5 per successful die) to the winner as opposed to the diceless resolution.

Perhaps, instead of it being everyone loses from their pot their "off by" mark, maybe if the winner(closest to the mark) gets all of their pot(to use as sp) and the loser only gets their pot minus the difference.  This gives the winner a bigger advantage.  

I do like the idea of each player who bids being able to choose how much of their bid goes to the originator.  This means the more they bid, the more you could get, and it also gives them plenty of incentive to please the audience.  I'm also a big fan of the gamist idea where you get a set number based somehow on how much the Target(s) bid.  Either way could be real fun.

I hope to get some friends together and play it vanilla this sunday.

I'll let you know the results.

:)

Chris

[Valamir]

Really appreciate it Chris.

I'm furiously working away at cleaning up the text and addressing some of the organization and clarity issues that have been brought up on other threads.  A solid playtest report from experienced gamers who can articulate what worked and what didn't will really help me with identifying things I need to work on in the text.

Feel free to record the session and send me the tape if that would be easier than doing a transcript or something.

Here's hoping you manage to get the game off.