[Shock:] Livening up resolution

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

In a discussion with Vincent last weekend about resolution in Shock:, and we identified some problems, but not really any solutions. So I'd like some assistance.

First off, if you need to download the rules, do so. Please read them before commenting, as this is a technical issue and I want to get straight to the heart of the matter.

If you've actually played, I really want your input.

Here's the problem: when engaged in a Conflict, the dice are rolled, coins are spent on Traits, and success and failure are determined.

The big problem seems to be that there's not enough room for narration between those coins being spent: it resolves with Conflict just fine, resource management happens in a good way, you trade Stakes for potential wins later, but! you don't generate enough fiction in the process. Or the coins don't result in or require narration to happen with your Traits. Or some such thing.

One possible solution is to use IIEE as a direct model: when Alice spends one coin, to, say, shoot Bob, a coin from Bob's character stops the Intent: Bob's player gets to say something like "Bob's quills stand up on end and you rethink it," or "You have a flashback to Bob saying 'if you move against us, your family is no longer safe."

Two coins means that it can only be stopped at Initiation: "Bob gently puts his hand on your wrist, keeping you from drawing your pistol."

Three means that it can only be stopped at Execution: "You fire, but the bullet misses."

Four means that it can only be stopped at Effect: "Bob looks at you scornfully and says 'Alice, you stupid fool.' and dies. When you get home, your family is missing."

... this puts a place for narration in and requires it, but I'd like other ideas, too. There's something about this that I feel like is being ... I dunno, it feels like I'm squeezing the life out of the story here.

Now, I don't know if this is true. I could be overthinking it, or maybe you're implementing the rules better than I have been, or some such. So please let me know what your experiences, ideas, and critiques are about CR.

[Jon Hastings]

I'm not sure if this relates directly to what you're asking about, but...

I had the idea that a relationship should be linked specifically to one of the four ends of the praxis scales.

For example, my character's bodyguard might be linked to the Violence end of the Violence<-->Mediation scale.  If my die for that scale favors violence, then I can bring my bodyguard in to help me solve my problem that way.

This adds a twist to the tactics of conflict resolution, but it also forces another "story element" into the SIS--i.e., "Maybe I can win this conflict if I get my bodyguard to come in and break that guy's legs--but do I want to do that?"

[Tim Alexander]

Hey Josh,

I'm still somewhat unclear on how your coin spending is structured, but the way I've been reading it looks just like Dogs. All the coin bids are additive traits and don't interrupt or countermand anything that's come before. In order to move the scale you need to:

a) Created the fiction that allows you to bring in the trait
b) Spend the necessary coinage to beat the last bid

Maybe I'm totally misreading that, but if I'm not is the issue then that there aren't enough traits involved to produce adequate fiction? That the permutations in practice are simple enough that every conflict is resolved one of a handful of ways? If not, can you give a little clarification of what the breakdown has been that you're seeing?

-Tim, who's itching to play this game

[TonyLB]

So let me see if I understand this:  Is it directly that there's not enough fiction?  Because it looks (to me) like bringing the Traits to bear would generate fiction.

Or is it that the fiction doesn't proceed?  Like, a bunch of people get around, and they posture, and they do the whole "Yeah, but I have this trait," "Oh, but I have that trait" thing, but there's no sense of rising action?

Because I think the linking to IIEE would do a terrific job of creating rising action.  So if that's what you're aiming for then I think it's a very worthy attempt.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Jon, that's not right. Relationships don't give you any boost. They just let you change the die you're using. As in "I care about this person enough, I'll do anything for him." Your bodyguard isn't necessarily a relationship. If your bodyguard is there to kick ass in your name, she's a Trait. Relationships are what you'll fight over not with.

Tim, what you say you see is how it's supposed to work. In action, it's drier than I'd hoped.

Tony, what you say is a little bit worse than what actually happens, but not much.

Another possible thing to do here is to have escalation, which is what Relationships are only kind of about. If you had a burnable, meaningful resource that, when you drew on it, it was the big guns, but it effected your character. Like, it moves you Scales instead of your dice, so it has a permanent effect.

I'd really love it if someone who wasn't too intimately involved with the writing would run a game of Shock: and throw some AP up that talks about how CR works for them. Hint hint.

[Jon Hastings]

Hi, Josh, you misunderstood me.

I was saying that relationships shouldn't simply be about switching the dice.  They should be about switching the end of the scale that is being used for success.  I realize that this does change things, but, since you were asking for changes, I thought I should suggest it.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Oh, I see. Actually, that was, at one point, their use. It still might be: as in you can call in a Relationship to either switch Scales or the side of the Scale you're on. Nonetheless, that's a separate issue. If you like, you can bring that up over the the glyphpress forum and we'll talk about it there. Resolution, as a whole, is a much bigger issue.

[lumpley]

Been thinking.

What you've got now is two causes per effect. To get the +1 to my violence roll, I narrate my "I have a gun" trait AND I bid coins. I suggest: the two causes interfere with one another, and the easier one tends to win.

If you're not willing to do away with one or the other cause, you could maybe do 'em in a chain instead. For example, bidding coins lets me talk. When I talk, I can pull in my traits. It's my traits give me the modifier to my roll. For another example, bringing my traits in gives me coins to bid. I bid coins to modify my roll. For yet another example, bidding coins modifies my roll. Whenever I modify my roll, I get to bring a trait into my narration - with attendant consequences upon you.

-Vincent

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Hi, Josh, you misunderstood me.

Oh! Now I understand you better!

Huh. So, your Bodyguard helps you use Violence when your rolls came up otherwise?

Hmmmm... I don't think this would be sufficiently easy in play. I mean, at what point on the Scale do you put your roll?

[Jon Hastings]

Hi, Josh:

So, let's say that the two praxis scales are Violence<---->Mediation and Honesty<----->Kindness.  My protag's V<--->M number is 4 (Violence 1-3, Mediation 5-10) and his H<--->K number is 6 (Honesty 1-5, Kindness 7-10).  Now, I get in a conflict that, for story reasons, I want to face with Honesty.  So I roll my two d10s: the V<--->M die comes up 2 (but we ignore that for now because we're on the other scale) and the H<--->K die comes up 8.  The 8 is the active die, and that means that I am going to fail the conflict, because my "action type" was Honesty.  At this point, I could try to shift that 8 by bidding traits, but, let's say my antag has lots of traits that would move it right back.  So, I use my Bodyguard (Violence) relationship to switch the action type to Violence: we switch to the other die (the 2), which means I am now succeeding at the conflict--but instead of succeeding by speaking truth to power, I succeed by breaking power's legs.

That was my basic idea.  However, you're original point was right: this turns relationships into a different way to win conflicts and takes away their property as "what the conflicts are about".

One of the reasons I started thinking along these lines is that, right now, in the current rules text, I think how relationships fit into conflict resolution isn't tied to the SIS as strongly as it could be.  It seems more like a case of: "Hmm, I want to switch scales--Okay, I'm doing this for you, Ma!"--with no real "in-game" effect.

I'm not sure if that is clear or helps you with the bigger resolution issues at all.

Cheers,
Jon

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Jon, can we talk about this over at the glyphpress forum? This isn't a general CR issue, this is an issue with Relationships, which I'm not really confronting right now. I don't mind talking about it, but I'd really like to talk about the issues at hand here.

It seems like I might get some AP posts after Thanksgiving that will give me stuff to chew on.