[Geomancer] Conflict Resolution as Negotiation

[Ben Lehman]

Jasper --  Have you read Polaris?

yrs--
--Ben

[Jasper]

Ben, yes I have. I haven't played yet though, which is probably why I didn't think of it. Duh! It's absolutely what I needed. I've been mulling this over the the past few days now. I think what I'm looking at is something a little like Polaris but with a linear sequence of actions, like in Dogs. It's also a bit less director-stancey, with more emphasis each player describing his own character's actions, and more resource-oriented than Polaris -- taking some of the energy-flow stuff others have suggested here. Here's an "algorithm" of play:


1. Initiating player makes a statement: this describes something he wants his character to do, along with the consequences of it.

2. The other player responds with one of the following.

a. Accept the statement and end the conflict.
b. Acccept it but then propose his own addition: a consecutiely occurring event consisting of an action by his character, with results. This proposition may add new obstacles for his opponent or create other costs for him, but it cannot negate what was said previously.
c. Request the other player change his last statement significantly, making it less potent or entirely different. The fist player can either agree to do this, or refuse, which is equivalent to action (d).
d. Outright reject the previous statement. After a roll (see below), and a win, he may describe his character interrupting and forestalling the fist player's action, negating it completely; or offer some other "in-game" explanation of its failure/futility (the rejected statement is not "taken back," it's countered).

3. The first player then gets same list of options, and play continues until one player simply accepts the other's last statement. This will eventually be forced because the players will run out of energy.


Each option above requires energy to be used. Making the opening statement, and options (b) and (c) both require 1 pt. Option (d) requires points to be spent during the roll resolution. Before the roll, each player puts forward a number of dice to use -- each die is 1pt of energy. The challenging player announces his energy use first, then the other player responds. At least 1 pt. must be spent. The roll consists of actually rolling these dice. Mechanics are up in the air, but more dice = better chance of winning. The result is binary win or lose; degree matters naught. If the challenger wins, he follows through with the latter-half of (d). If the defender wins, his statement stands. His opponent gets another chance to act, but only has (a) and (b) as options. [? Maybe the whole conflict should just end now. ?]

I have two different models for where this energy comes from and how it's used.

Model I. Characters spend energy from big pools. They have one pool for each of the four major areas of conflict (social, demonic, geomantic, physical). However, the maximum they can spend is determined by more specific skills and other traits.

Model II. As above, characters have both general areas of expertise and more specific skills. Here though, the skills give "free" dice that can be used in every conflict without a permanent expenditure. Players can, however, spend energy from their pools to get even more dice.

How pools will refresh beats me, but I'm sure there are plenty of options.


Thoughts? Especially on that embedded question and Model I vs. Model II? Does anyone see any kind of problem cropping up, especially in terms of IIEE? Barring that, I'll try to get some playtesting in as soon as I can.

[Jasper]

Examples are always good. Let's presumes Model I for energy.


GM: Samantha (local peasant girl) refuses to talk about her brother and rides into the woods on her father's horse.

Player: Well Gregory is going to ride after her and confront her about it, whether she likes it or not.

GM: All right. Conflict rules for this.

Player: Okay, so Gregory is right on her heels on his own horse.. [pays 1 pt.]

GM: Yes, but he doesn't know the woods and gets lost anyway. [pays 1pt.]

Player: Lost? How am I going to lose a girl on a horse? Why don't you change that? [pays 1pt.]

GM: Okay, I take it back. Instead, she rides really hard and leaves Gregory behind. [has already paid]

Player: I don't like that either. Objection.

GM: How many dice are you gonna back that up with?

Player: My physical is only 5, plus my horsemanship trait of 2, and I've already used 2 points. Heck, I'll spend all three.

GM: I'll spend two. Roll. [Player rolls and beats the GM.]

Player: Samantha tries riding hard, but Gregory's horse is way better. He corners her. [This is paid for with the 3 pts used for dice.]

GM: I get the last word. Gregory does confront her, but she's standing at a cliff edge, about to fling herself off.

Player: I have no points left.



Maybe that will help. One potential issue I see now is how exactly to end a conflict. Stakes aren't written in stone ahead of time, like in many games, so a conflict could easily go outside its original domain (the girl going to the cliff edge is a little beyond the simple matter of "does she escape" that we began with). Any ideas on how to keep things from getting out of hand there? Or is this not a problem?