Flux

[Daredevil]

Well, I've decided to come out of the closet with my own system as it is finally getting enough shape to be somewhat presentable. Flux is the tentative name for this home-brew system I am developing. The Flux basics will be used as a skeleton for game development exploring different premises and settings, but this is primarily a discussion of game mechanics as independent from those. There are several design goals behind the Flux system.

One of them is to put power over the characters in the players' hands and to retain a character-driven perspective. Mechanically this means a form of Fortune-in-the-Middle: you state general intent, roll the dice and all the options available to your character are revealed by the results so that you can make a decision immersed in the character's awareness. Conceptually it means that no longer will players have suffer from their character concepts being hosed by the system. Players will create their own solutions to the characters' successes and failures, according to their understanding of the character.

Another design goal is scalability and interconnectedness. To use combat based conflicts as an example ; I want battles, skimishes and the actions of the individual on the battlefield to flow and meld seamlessly together. The different states must influence each other, be able to be generated from each other and the transitions between them are to be made with ease. The concept extends beyond the needs of combat situations in practise.

One roll to rule them and in the game flow bind them. I want the system to be simple, yet elegant. There should be a lot of oomph in just a little game mechanical action. The mechanic for the entire system is roughly the same, a negotiation or a stealth operation is mechanically similar to combat, the magic is in the application and narration.

As a last design goal, the system itself must be a dramatic device so that whenever the system is invoked it immediately generates dramatic tension to the scene.

The philosophy behind this approach is that traditional (used vaguely here) systems have the setting or the premise of the game too far removed from the game system that they feel like two separate entities, inadequately trying to reflect each other. This creates a toll on the game that is felt by the players and the gamemaster. I believe a good system reduces this gap between the worlds. This game system seek to do it via the characters. This system attempts to smooth out the relationship between the player and the character, and supports the character as the initializing force and the player as the interpretative.

In traditional gaming, I see a lot of stuff being done in a relatively backwards manner when viewed from this perspective. The use of character skills is one. Skills are typically used so that a result is rolled and then the character is forced into the mold set by the results (as players and gamemasters try to reconcile the gap between the system and the setting), instead of the character's skill opening up avenues and possibilities for the character and player to explore. In this system, this functions similarly if a character fails to do something. The player's authority over the character is maintained whether she succeeds or not.

The system supports a style of play different from the typical player vs. GM bouts of "20 questions" sometimes seen in games. Here, an attribute details a character's ability to use circumstances to his advantage. It is NOT the PLAYER's responsibility to ask the GM if his character is in cover, how much cover he is in, etc, but it is the player's responsibility to CREATE FOR the CHARACTER the appropiate circumstances, using the character's attributes as guidelines.

Also, while generally it is recognized that players have out-of-character (OOC) knowledge of the game above what the characters would know, it is rarely recognized (or systemized, as in this system) that characters have IC knowledge not immediately known or apparent to the player.

Please note that the terminology of the game is still, pardon the pun, in Flux. Also, at many points of the design, I am still at a crossroads where several possibilities are likely. One of these is the game system's treatise of attributes/skills/traits. Another is the actual use of dice. They're not wholly relevant to this discussion, however.

The basic use of the game system is based around engagements between various elements. If things are idle or there is no contest, conflict or interaction between these elements, there is no need for an engagement and no need to summon up the game system.

Frex. A duel is a combat engagement between two characters. A negotiation is a social engagement. A skirmish is a combat engagement between several characters. A war is an engagement between two factions. A character minding his own business at home is rarely an engagement in itself. A character walking on a street is usually not one, but can be if the destination is hidden, obscured or access is otherwise restricted. An engagement requires some measure of strife, interaction, a conflict of interests between two forces, or any such state of flux.

Each engagement contains a fluctuating value for every character called initiative. One of the things it does is that it sets the turn order. Initiative points must be spent to initialize actions and to actually do something with the system. A die roll follows the spending of initiative and these then produce a margin of success or failure. More initiative points can be used in a single action to create a better chance of success. An acquired margin of success can be spent to buy positive game effects and a margin of failure must be spent to buy negative game effects. The increasing or decreasing of the initiative are positive and negative effects respectatively. In effect, each roll of the dice is a gamble of initiative, with various possible results : your initiative level may be effected as well as other game effects being created.

The meat of the system is in the other game effects, of course. Frex. to cause damage, you have to spend points from your margin of success. To cover up for a failed combat roll, you can accept various complications such as falling down or losing one's weapon.

A player can also create engagements with various setting elements, with appropiate skills. The results are then spent as usual, but to create setting-based effects. Positive effects allow the player to create elements to his favor, but negative effects obligate the player to create problematic setting elements. Frex. a character running away from mafia hitmen decides to use her streetwise skill and depending on the results various things can happen. If the roll is a success, the character heads off into th turf of a friendly gang that may help her. If the roll is a failure, the gang is unfriendly and more trouble ensues.

That's all for now, I'll post some examples of the system in use some time later. Or if you have specific questions, fire away. All comments, suggestions and queries welcome!

- Joachim Buchert -

[Daredevil]

The following examples attempt to outline the system, so they have the minimum of narrated material within. In actual gameplay, each action and game mechanical effect is narrated by the players. Examples of this may follow later on.

Frex (1). two combatants face off, after the attacker (Person A) sneaks up on the defender (Person B). The attacker uses his "stealth" score to set his initial initiative, getting a value of 4. The defender takes his initiative from either his "melee" or "perception" scores, but as his "melee" is better -- a 3 -- he decides to use that.

The first round is initiated and person A goes first. He decides to make an attack, using just the one point necessary to initiatie an action from his initiative. He rolls a margin of success of three! One is used to reinforce the initiative, taking it back to 4, and two points are used to cause damage.

Now it's person B's turn. He uses 2 points from his initiative -- gambling what little he has in hopes of getting a better result -- and gets a miraculous 5 point margin of success. He uses four to boost his initiative and gives only 1 margin of damage.

The next round begins with the initial attacker/person A with initiative 4 and the initial defender/person B with an advantage of 5. Person A has 1 damage and Person B has 2 damage. This time, person B acts first, repeating what he did last turn : initiating the attack with 1 point and using 1 additional point to boost his attack. This time, the opponent uses a point of his own initiative to negate the bonus and then one additional point to buy off the attack entirely.

Person A now resumes the offensive, attacking with a standard 1 initiative point action. Person B uses 1 point to negate the bought advantage, but the attack is still coming his way. The attacker rolls poorly -- getting a margin of failure of 1. The attacker accepts a combat complication as an effect -- such as fall prone or disarmed -- and the round is completed.

The initiatives are now 3 for person B and 1 for person A. Both characters still have the same levels of damage as on the previous round.

This time person B makes a 3 point attack, which the opponent lessens with his one remaining point. The roll results in a margin of success of 1. It is used to inflict 1 damage to the attacker.

As both characters now have an initiative of 0, a brief pause takes over the scene as the two fighters eye each other from a distance, wary of each other as their initial resolve is spent. Each time initiative is reduced to 0, this forced pause takes place, representing the typical stalemates, standoffs and natural pauses in conflicts.

Person A has 1 point of damage and person B has 2 points of damage.

After a while, and maybe a few succesful morale rolls, the characters decide to resume the fight.

This time both take their initiative from their melee combat, which negates the initial advantage of the attacker (as his melee is only 3), but this time the initiative is also modified by damage. So, person A has an initiative of 2 and person B has an initiative of 1. Both combatants are tired and worn, hence their low initiative scores.

What would have happened if only one of the characters succeeded at their morale check? Well, that character's will to fight would have been broken and he would have to have been RPd accordingly. It doesn't mean he has to run away immediately, especially if the other one isn't immediately attacking either. It just means you have to avoid combat and that if you don't, you get 0 initiative points for the fight. Tough.

What if both failed? Then both would have to RP accordingly. They could cajole and insult each other as much as they want, perhaps resulting in humorous RP as neither of them really has the guts to face the other anymore.

Anyway, that didn't happen, so the battle resumes ... but this example ends.

There can be other examples, and they can be non combat engagements or a mixture of the two:

Frex (2). Car A chases car B, while Car B tries to drop the tail. The starting initiative is set by the "driving" skills of the two drivers, but the two then make driving tests to see how the chase goes. The target number varies from round to round, determined by the terrain. To drop the tail, Car B needs to create a difference in initiative equal to the opponent's "driving" skill. If that happens, Car A has lost contact. If either car hits initiative 0, they crash and the chase is lost. If either car receives a margin of failure, it is substracted from the advantage, unless either player wants to take other complications : damage from minor collisions, running over pedestriants, etc.

Engagements can also be layered on each other in a way depicted by the following example.

Frex (3). Spaceship A is chasing Spaceship B while the two are also engaged in battle. Again, the same stuff factors in as above: initiative 0 is a crash or critical failure. A larger advantage than the "piloting" skill of the other gives the one who holds the advantage the possibility of escape. However, since the two are battling each other, the initiative gained by piloting is used for combat as well. Margin of failures in piloting can be bought off by either initiative or taking complications.

That's all for examples at this time.

[Daredevil]

The engagements are layered upon each other in other ways as well, as seen below. Also, in the example to follow, I'll use a little more of narration to put a little color into the text and to describe how things are supposed to work, but I'm still working with a minimum level here.

Frex. a city of the future is under siege! The forces of General A are attacking the city which is defended by the forces commanded by General B. General A has a Strategy value of 5 and General B has a Strategy value of 4 -- those set the starting initiative levels.

General A commands his orbital forces to begin bombarding the city's transportation network, striking at the mag-lev stations, roads and spaceports within the city. He rolls his dice, using only the one necessary initiative point to initiate the action, and gains a margin of failure of one. Cursing, he lets his initiative be taken down one point (further, as he lost one point initially). The bombardment is a failure due to geo-stationary defense satellites deployed over the city, driving the orbital forces from the orbit above the targets.

General B concentrates his forces on the key areas of the city, but sends his anti-grav tank division to meet the forces of General A head on. He uses two initiative points in his effort, committing a sizable force to the attack. General A responds by using one point of his own to negate one point from the attack. Power-armored advance scouts meet the anti-grav tanks, trying to delay their arrival on the city streets. The dice are rolled .. and General B gains a margin of success of two. He takes one point into his advantage and causes one die worth of damage to the attackers. The anti-grav tanks break through the power-armor troops and hit the main column of the attacking force.

The initiatives are now 2 for General A and 3 for General B. The attackers have sustained one point of damage, and the defenders nil.

General B goes first. He presses his vanguard force onward, trying to hit the attackers where they faltered. He puts only one initiative point into it, though, not committing more troops or effort into it. He rolls and gains a success of 3. Hah! The tanks fall through the enemy's ranks and cause substantial damage to the lead elements of the attacking force. 2 points into damage and one to keep the initiative advantage.

General A gambles all his initiative for the next action. General B still holds onto his advantage, but buys off one point out hoping for a bad roll. The attackers roll well though, getting a margin of success of four! One point is used to buy initiative (to keep the attackers within the city), one point is used to buy damage (the main forces slams itself onto the vanguard) and two points are used to initiate a new engagement.

So, before moving onto the smaller scale, the situation for the battle at large is as following:
General A -- Init. 1 Dam. 3
General B -- Init. 2 Dam. 1

Now a stealth unit of covert operatives slips into the city and attempts to strike at the General's mansion. General B could buy off the attempt -- by using all his initiative -- but decides against it, trusting the General's bodyguard unit and the mansion's defenses, because he wants to keep his initiative. The skirmish at the mansion is the second, smaller scale engagement that will be played now.

The fighting between the stealth assassins and the General's bodyguard is played out in the same fashion as any engagement, but we'll not look into that with any depth now though (as we already have seen how engagements play out) and so we decide that it goes badly for the attackers, turning into a running chase on the city's streets. However, before the stealth troops escape the grasp of their opponents they use a number of their initiative (which makes their getting away more difficult -- so it's a gamble) to initiate another even smaller scale engagement -- this time they slip one of their number into the city undetected to attempt an assassination of the opposing General.

This is enough of this example as we have now seen the way engagements naturally flow into each other and are interconnected. When smaller scale engagements are done, the focus of play returns to the larger scale again.

[Laurel]

I'll need a few days for my new printer to arrive to print that all out and follow along offline- which I've decided is ultimately the best way for me to personally look at system mechanics, especially long pieces.  

Having skimmed everything, I can say that I like the ideas behind the system tremendously and I'm a big fan of well-constructed systems that offer narrative and directorial power to the players.  I'm curious what reward system you are thinking of to enhance this practice as well.  If I missed it in what you've already posted, I apologize.

Laurel

[Mike Holmes]

Any chance that you could post this as rules instead of examples? Unlike some, I learn much better from a systematic layout of the elements than from examples.

Mike

[Daredevil]

In all simplicity, without any of my rules variants or details such as actual dice rolled attached, the crux of the system is the following:

First, general intent and initial situation is established -- in addition to being a chance for narration, this details what attributes will be used in the roll. Rolls are then made against a target a number and the number by which the target is beat (or by which it falls short) becomes the margin of success or failure. Those margins become representative of the options available to the character in her situation and are then spent to create actual game effects, both positive and negative, which are also narrated by the acting player.

Furthermore, each extended conflict or interaction of characters (currently usually called an engagement) contains for each participant a fluctuating initiative score. This initiative score establishes turn order, but it is also spent to initiate any actions during the extended conflict. More points than is necessary can be spent to empower the roll, that is to increase the likelihood of a good result. Margins of success and failure are then used -- not only to create game effects -- but to also change the current initiative level. Points from a margin of success can be placed to increase one's initiative, while margins of failure can be bought off by lowering one's initiative. The effect of this mechanic is that each expenditure of initiative, that is each action during an engagement, becomes effectively a gamble and the results are used to create game effects and maintain initiative.

Furthermore, you can use your own initiative score to buy off the opponents actions or the initiative they have spent to empower their action. The cost of doing this is 1 for 1 point of cancelled augmenting, plus one additional for cancelling the entire action. This is representative of interceptions, anticipated actions and other similar reactions.

If a character ends up with an initiative of 0, she can take no further actions. If both characters end up with 0 initiative, neither one can continue with actions immediately. These situations represent stalemates, stand-offs and natural pauses during action.  

The whole system is supposed to provide a dramatic vehicle for resolution and to simulate the not entirely random ebb and flow of situations of conflict.

The system is also scalable so that an engagement can reflect a small duel or an entire war. The participants need not be individual characters, but can be small units or larger factions. Likewise, Flux considers engagements often intertwined together. A larger war can contain several smaller level engagements. A character can create a smaller level conflict by expending her initiative. This can be countered by the opposition by an expenditure of similar amount. The initiatives of smaller scale engagements within a larger one are effected (but not entirely set) by their parent engagements.

That is the bare bones of it. My apologies if something is too repetative and rebundant with the earlier texts.

[Mike Holmes]

That is the bare bones of it. My apologies if something is too repetative and rebundant with the earlier texts.

Your method of enumerating the rules is very conceptual and stated in terms of your goals. But it only implies the specifics. For example, I don't know what the die mechanics are. Is that intentional? Are you hiding some super-rolling convention.

In any case, there isn't much to comment on. It sounds like you have a system that meets your needs. Do you have any specific questions?

Mike

[Daredevil]

It's not a case of hiding any super conventions, no. It's rather a case of me considering the actual dice rolled; and whether they're added, kept, thrown on the floor, put in a bag; irrelevant to the actual point of the mechanics. Currently I have a set of different options to operate the system with, but the actual workings of the system are outlined above.

[Walt Freitag]

Hi Joachim,

I gotta say I was thinking "so what?"... until I got to the example in your third post.

I can't resist mechanisms that are recursive, self-similar at different levels of detail. In delineating one, however sketchily, you've piqued my interest. This is on the verge of some really powerful stuff. But you also have a lot of issues to address to reach that potential.

The key to the whole thing is what happens right here:

When smaller scale engagements are done, the focus of play returns to the larger scale again.

With what effects? That is, I can see how the larger scale situation gives rise to the smaller-scale one and feeds information downward (specifically, in the form of rules not specified but clearly implied by which the party initiating the new engagement commits a certain amount of initiative from the current engagement into it). But what returns back up the chain? Is there a system for it, or must it be adjudicated in every individual case? Are the stakes of the sub-engagement determined at the time a player initiates it? Does the other side have to agree to those stakes, and if not, from what initiative pool does the other side draw the initiative used to fight the sub-engagement? How is the success threshold (I'd much prefer to think in terms of "success quanta" rather than "damage") for the new engagement determined? How does the result of the sub-engagement affect the status of the main engagement?

I ask because I see a lot broader potential use of this type of recursion mechanism than your one example showed. It could be used not just to transition into actions on a smaller scale, but also for the same action on a smaller time scale. For example, A armd with a dagger is fighting B armed with a pike. As the combat begins, A is at an initiative disadvantage because of the dagger's shorter reach. Through happenstance A could gain the initiative advantage which can then be retroactively narrated as meaning A has gotten inside B's guard. But alternatively, A could declare an attempt to get inside B's guard as a new engagement within the engagement. If A succeeds, he loses the initiative penalty from weapon reach. If A fails, he takes damage. Either way the main engagement continues.

This doesn't sound like any big difference, but what it's really doing is slicing time (and more importantly, goals) into smaller units in a very flexible way. When an engement is important enough to warrant it, A's main goal of "beating B" can be broken down into subgoals such as "getting inside B's guard" that are resolved separately. Time is subdivided exactly as appropriate for the situation without any need to standardize on any particular time unit per "round."

Fleshed out and generalized, such a system could kick butt. AFAIK it's an entirely new form of resolution time handling. The standard RPG system is "We keep bashing at each other until somebody wins." Modern one-roll resolution systems avoid the repetition by leaving the detail out of the resolution mechanism and generating it by narration instead. This form of recursive system could actually play out realstic and very cinematic strategies based on hieararchies of goals, such as "Parry cautiously until I have a feel for his fighting style, then force him back against the wall, then use that positional advantage to bind his weapon and kick him in the nads." Yet it's carried out step by step, and the plan is formed not all at once in advance as I just stated it, but by decisions and happenstance that can change at any point.

- Walt

[Daredevil]

Thanks for the comments so far .. and wreitag, excellent, you seemed to catch onto the carrying idea of the system.

Now, onto the issues that have come up:

I gotta say I was thinking "so what?"...

This is perhaps my bad -- I should've integrated some questions or at least specific areas of interest to discuss. From my perspective, though, I'm pretty much interested in any and all comments to hence the lack of initial specific questions.

I can't resist mechanisms that are recursive, self-similar at different levels of detail. In delineating one, however sketchily, you've piqued my interest. This is on the verge of some really powerful stuff. But you also have a lot of issues to address to reach that potential.

Recursiveness is as a phenomenan very interesting to me and this definately reflects on the design. There is a lot of power in this natural form as evidenced in a lot of different structures, in fugues (in music) and in DNA. Before we go out of topic, though ...

But what returns back up the chain?

This is very good question and something I left out of the initial foray into the system, basically because it is a subject which I'm working on currently. However, the simplistic assumption I've been working from, is that a certain amount of initiative gain can be carried over from the smaller engagement to the larger scale.

Are the stakes of the sub-engagement determined at the time a player initiates it? Does the other side have to agree to those stakes, and if not, from what initiative pool does the other side draw the initiative used to fight the sub-engagement? How is the success threshold (I'd much prefer to think in terms of "success quanta" rather than "damage") for the new engagement determined?

Because the (using your terms:) stakes and success threshold will vary dramatically from situation to situation, I believe the initiative gain approach is the best one that presents itself immediately. The initiative gain is the rather generic game mechanical representative and the narration of the players is the devil in the details.

I've yet to take a more in-depth look at what're the options for this. What're the common denominators in every setting of stakes and resolving of the conflict? If such can be found, and they possess enough power, they can be used to elaborate the system beyond its current form.

There is something that I like in the idea of the specific stakes being offered by the initiating player and then being accepted by the other -- but I'm not sure if this is an area where the system should become more complicated.

The example in your post is what can happen in the system as it is, but it gives me a new idea though. Perhaps the stakes could be set to contest a game mechanical advantage/trait -- not one gained by the actions of the characters, but one already held by either from the beginning. In effect, you could challenge the other character's very traits, removing them from the equation. In practise, it would be one character removing the reach advantage from the other -- if said reach advantage would give the character (say) "+1 initiative for melee combat".

The standard RPG system is "We keep bashing at each other until somebody wins." Modern one-roll resolution systems avoid the repetition by leaving the detail out of the resolution mechanism and generating it by narration instead. This form of recursive system could actually play out realstic and very cinematic strategies based on hieararchies of goals, such as "Parry cautiously until I have a feel for his fighting style, then force him back against the wall, then use that positional advantage to bind his weapon and kick him in the nads." Yet it's carried out step by step, and the plan is formed not all at once in advance as I just stated it, but by decisions and happenstance that can change at any point.

Yes, yes and yes. That's putting it very elegantly, thank you, and sums up a lot of what is intended by the system. Bring some simplicity from the "one die roll" systems and incorporate it into a system which has the potential to elaborate on just the details that are important -- dramatically, or otherwise. And keep it all interesting, by being constantly shifting and polymorphic.

- Joachim -

[Walt Freitag]

All right, thanks for letting me know I'm on the right wavelength here. (I have been known to go off on wild tangents reading way different things into an idea than the author meant.)

Also just to be clear on one thing... I like recursive mechanisms because they can work well. Recursion is a tool, one I use every day to earn my bread. I mention this because sometimes when people read Godel Escher Bach they start treating it more like a religion. :)

So: the prize here is a system that could not only play out and resolve, but help to create on the fly, the entire duel between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader at the end of The Empire Strikes Back, with all its twists and turns and struggles within struggles. Between you and that shining jewel: some really interesting design problems.

1. Situational detail keeps breaking into the abstraction. RPG resolution systems usually works like this: convert situation into abstraction; resolve within the abstraction; project the abstract resolution back into the situation. But when spawning a new sub-engagement within an engagement, the situational details have to come back into play again. A sub-engagement defined only on the level of how many initiative points committed, new success threshold, and initiative points to be won adds nothing except a little dice tactics (akin to stakes-raising rerolls in certain dice pool systems). The interest of a sub-engagement is that something different is happening on the situational level that temporarily overrides the previous abstraction. When Darth Vader stops fighting Luke with his light saber and starts using the Force to throw debris at him to knock him into the abyss, it sets up a duel within the duel that involves new skills and tactics. The only way to create a new abstraction that fits is to bring the situation back in -- in other words, the stakes, new initial scores, and other elements of the new sub-engagement have to be decided from outside the system (unless the system also includes many tactical details, on the detail level of a +1 advantage for weapon reach, which presents a whole truckload of downsides of its own). Frequently re-referencing the situation is what gives this mechanism some of its dramatic power, but it also breaks the abstraction, which could present problems. Without some measure of sustained abstraction it's not really a system at all. That is, if you have to keep going back to analyzing the situation to determine what happens next, it subverts the reason for using a system in the first place.

2. Tempo (in the chess, not the musical, sense) and simulateneous extended actions get tricky. It's all well and good for the dagger fighter to initiate a new sub-engagement to try to get inside the pikeman's guard, but how do you take into account that at the same time the pikeman is trying to tire his opponent out as part of his plan? The system should allow for this, otherwise whoever didn't have the initiative for the sub-engagement would be reduced to "I try to stop what the other guy's doing" for the whole sub-engagement. It would appear that success for both parties in the sub-engagement is therefore not necessarily mutually exclusive. Should the resolution system should reflect this and allow the sub-engagement to return possible results of both succeed and both fail? The added complexity (especially in light of #1) is worrisome. (When Vader fights Luke, even their main goals of the main engagement are different! Luke is trying to kill Vader, but Vader is trying to turn Luke.)

3. What negative feedback mechanism prevents the recursion from going more levels deep than the situation warrants?

4. There's the matter of balancing cumulative success within an engagement with the sudden-reversal or dramatic-development effects of resolved sub-engagements within it. The more predominant the latter, the more cinematic the engagement, but encouraging overuse could make it tedious.

5. Gamemaster and player skills to operate the system well don't exist yet. Sure, GMs are used to learning new systems but this one could be more like learning to GM when you've never done it before. One problem with being the first to invent the airplane is that no one in the world knows how to pilot it yet.

I don't mean to imply (in fact, I don't believe) that these problems are unsolveable. I just mean there's a long way to go before this revolution is ready to be televised.

- Walt

[Lance D. Allen]

Okay, your section on the macro applications of the system are what caught me most. *Personally* I feel it's over simplistic, but considering that you're going for a cinematic feel, I suppose that's okay. My issue, however is this: I am ex-military, and thus have been in some rather hairy combat simulations (real tanks, real guns, just not real bullets). It doesn't seem right to me that even power-armored infantry should be on equal footing with anti-grav tanks. (call it an Armor Bias) I think that situation ought to imply some initiative modifiers, whether it be longer weapon (as in Wfreitag's example) superior position, (defender -vs- attacker) or superior weapon systems. As the engagement is nominally between the two generals, this can and should (in a cinematic system as opposed to a realistic one) be all considered into a single bonus/penalty (however you'd prefer to do it). The only exception I'd say to this is when the general spent the two points to begin a smaller engagement when he sent his assassins in to attack the opponent's mansion. That ought to have it's own situational modifiers.
 Another question is the system of "damage" or cumulative success margin (as in the car chase example.) I'm assuming they're just different ways of saying the same thing in different situations. You might want, even in combat, to actually loosen up and not even consider it damage as "advantage". When enough advantage is accumulated, the scene is resolved. An example of this might be something like, as you accumulate 5 damage or advantage on your opponent, the scene plays out with you knocking him off-guard, entangling his weapon, disarming him, knocking him to the ground, and cleaving his skull. Only one of the actions therein did real "damage" though the system would handle all of the previous actions as accumulating damage or advantage. (Did that make sense? I hope so...)
 An interesting system overall, methinks. One additional comment, though.. In any combat where guns are involved, there is no "natural" pauses until the enemy is dead, you're dead, or there's just no one to be seen. ::grins::

[Daredevil]

I'll look into the concerns raised by Walt first.

Also just to be clear on one thing... I like recursive mechanisms because they can work well. Recursion is a tool, one I use every day to earn my bread. I mention this because sometimes when people read Godel Escher Bach they start treating it more like a religion. :)

Heh, that's an interesting side comment. I believe the reason the book causes this is the inherent recursiveness of the human mind, so it resonates strongly with every one. There is something very magnetic about the topic. (Yes, I've read the book -- and only narrowly avoided making it my bible). :)

(unless the system also includes many tactical details, on the detail level of a +1 advantage for weapon reach, which presents a whole truckload of downsides of its own)

While I am leery of this option -- going too rules-intense -- I have kept the possibility open. Just out of curiosity, what do you see as this truckload of downsides? I'm interested as I am exploring the possibilities of exactly that type of modifers.

What negative feedback mechanism prevents the recursion from going more levels deep than the situation warrants?

So far, the simple cost in initiative has seemed to be enough. The exact cost can be varied (increased) to produce the desired effect. So, in practise, initiating more and more sub-engagement is potentially not very cost-efficient. This area needs some additional thought.

I believe the following rules additions/clarifications answer some of the other questions raised, though.

Now I think I'm settling on the following variant on the sub-engagement rules :

Sub-engagements are initiated to shift the target numbers of their parent engagements. However, in initiating the conflict, the initiator gambles with the chance that his opponent will succeed and win the advantage for herself. To succesfully create the advantage -- the change in TN -- the difference in initiatives must be equal to the needed success threshold.

If all characters in the sub-engagement reach initiative 0, the attention is shifted to the larger scale engagement. Initiative can be transferred from a sub-engagement to the larger scale engagement, at a rate of 2-to-1. This is often done when your opponents are at initiative 0 and you still have a little initiative left.

Note that this means that a sub-engagement can result in both failing, but not with both succeeding. Even in those instances however, there is likely to be some effect to the large scale engagement (through initiative gains).

Also, this is not the only reason to begin sub-engagements. They can also be played out to achieve certain in-game goals not directly related to efficiency issues. One side states intent to achieve something, which the opponent can then either contest, completely negate the possibility of or merely allow. Frex. the invading general wants to loot the local Fort Knox, purely out of personal greed. The defenders could either just let him (unlikely), prevent it entirely (by paying off enough initiative -- and narrating something to the effect that the current strategic situation disallows the option) or play it as an engagement. A member of the assassin group fleeing through the city could state intent to go hide at the apartment of an old childhood friend who happens to live in the city. Anyway, you see the point.

I think now is also time to consider the following :

Character can not only create smaller scale sub-engagements, but can also create larger scale engagements or parallel engagements. If a larger scale engagement is created, the current engagement becomes a sub-engagement of the larger scale one (with all associated effects). Parallel engagements do not become thus tied, but initiative from one can be transferred to the other at the rate of 2-for-1.

In practise, this means that the siege of the city can spark an entire war or indeed diplomatic negotiations between two nations. Parallel engagements are different and the fight between Luke and Vader can be used to illustrate the point. At first, the fight is just a duel between the two, but towards the end (with Luke at 0 initiative, mind you) Vader begins a parallel engagement in an attempt to turn Luke to the Dark Side. The benefit is that Vader can transfer all the initiative advantage into the "join me" engagement. The downside is that Luke can gain enough advantage to transfer initiative to the combat engagement and resume the battle. Of course, that didn't happen, but you can envision Luke flying into a berserk rage and screaming "I'll never join you - now die!"


I'll address some of Lance's issues now.

I feel it's over simplistic, but considering that you're going for a cinematic feel, I suppose that's okay.

It is simplistic currently. There exist (in my notes) variants on more rules-intense (or rather, more detailed) versions, to which there has been some allusion in the above text (the +1 reach modifier).

There could exist a whole host of modifiers that effect the resolution and bring desired levels of detail.

My issue, however is this: I am ex-military, and thus have been in some rather hairy combat simulations (real tanks, real guns, just not real bullets). It doesn't seem right to me that even power-armored infantry should be on equal footing with anti-grav tanks.

There's three possible answers to this. The first one is explained above and is just a result of me using the simplest variant for presentation here.

The second answer is that your critique certainly rings true, but that the fault lies not in the system, but in the narration. I'll quote my own text (from my first post on this thread) here:

"The system supports a style of play different from the typical player vs. GM bouts of "20 questions" sometimes seen in games. Here, an attribute details a character's ability to use circumstances to his advantage. It is NOT the PLAYER's responsibility to ask the GM if his character is in cover, how much cover he is in, etc, but it is the player's responsibility to CREATE FOR the CHARACTER the appropiate circumstances, using the character's attributes as guidelines."

Hope that makes sense (?).

The third answer (partly concurrent with the above -- when accepted just as a clarification of the narration in which I was perhaps overly hasty) is that the armored column is met on the narrow, cramped streets of the city. Tanks are at a disadvantage there, with little room to manuever and plenty of cover for the infantry. Especially, if you consider the possibility of an ambush on the tanks, from the rooftops, alleys and so forth of the city, I don't see the situation as that clear cut anymore.

In any combat where guns are involved, there is no "natural" pauses until the enemy is dead, you're dead, or there's just no one to be seen.

Here I'll just respectfully disagree unless a clarification of the issue of reaching 0 initiative will clear the disagreement. It is a standoff or stalemate, but it does not mean there are no bullets flying or small movements being made. Of course, on the individual level it is two duellists pacing around each other out of reach, but on the larger, strategic level it is the battle for the city becoming a siege which remains currently unbreakable for the participants. Does this better explain the situation?

As for the suggestion concerning damage -- it is a very good one and I'll think about that.

- Joachim -

[Walt Freitag]

Just out of curiosity, what do you see as this truckload of downsides? I'm interested as I am exploring the possibilities of exactly that type of modifers.

The downside is that no conceivable enumeration of modifiers can possibly cover all the possibilities in a system this flexible. The question isn't whether or not situational details such as who has the longer weapon and how far apart the combatants are standing should be taken into account. I believe they should -- and for once, I can give a reason for that belief other than personal "simulationist" taste. In this system, the situational details don't just modify the fortune of the overall engagement; they can themselves become the issues fought over in sub-engagements.

The question is how to go about doing it. In any given engagement, some situational factors are going to be important enough to represent in the abstraction, and some are not. I believe that any players who need long lists of modifiers to tell them which is which aren't going to be able to operate this system to anywhere near its potential.

That said, I see little harm in providing such lists as suggestions. The use of modifiers in this system is subtly but profoundly different from conventional rules-intensive systems in which every possible modifier must be checked for applicability to every action attempted. That's not the case here; once the initial situation is characterized and rendered into starting initiative points and/or target numbers and/or whatever else applies, the engagement can proceed without further checking, until the result of a sub-engagement changes some aspect of the situation that can affect target numbers.

What needs further development is which situational factors affect starting initiative, which (if any) affect initiative in some ongoing way, and which affect target numbers or progress toward reaching target numbers.

I still see tremendous potential here. I'm thinking about one of those movie fistfights in which two guys are grappling hand to hand while kicking a gun around on the floor and trying to grab it. In a conventional RPG system the first guy with an available action would grab the gun and that would be it. In Flux, grabbing the gun could be the goal of the engagement but each time a combattant tries do do it, the opponent starts a new sub-engagement by attacking hand to hand. Or it could be the other way around: both combattants are attempting sub-engagements to change the situation by grabbing the gun, but the other is either preventing the sub-engagement from happening by spending initiative, or fighting the sub-engagaments to inconclusiveness (mutual initiative zero) thus returning the action to the main fistfight.

However, I can't go on discussing this in such nonspecific terms. It's past time to boil this down into a specific system delineated step by step. For one thing, the current lack of specificity is keeping some people out of the discussion, which is a waste of this great venue. I'd like to post my own variation, but I won't do it on this thread without your permission.

- Walt

PS Today in the Profiling thread in Actual Play, a poster named Aki (Lofwyr) has listed Flux as one of the "want to try" games... if that refers to the same game, you've already attracted some real interest.

[Mike Holmes]

A quick point.

Lance, you have just discovered the difference between a system that supports Narrativism versus a system that supports Simulationism. DD's system here is meant to prioritize story, not an accurate simulation of anything. Your comment is eqivalent to saying that he should make his Narrativst game more Simulationist. Something that I would highly suggest against.

Mike