[Dishonor!] "Canceling Out" Mechanic - I need your suggestions

[Abkajud]

Hello, all!

My name is Zac, and I haven't posted about this particular game for a long time. It previously appeared under the heading of "Trial by Combat/The Honor system", back in September, and I got some very helpful feedback for fleshing out my ideas. Thanks to everyone!

I just recently started posting at the Forge again, and looking over the Trial by Combat thread was very inspiring. My game looks a lot different now, it has mechanics that really mesh with the setting (very honor-centered warrior culture, akin to feudal Japan), and I'm quite pleased with how it's going. However, I have a question: seeing as Honor is an element of the game that provides Honorable characters (sages, bushi, and courtiers) with extra dice, I decided to have characters that are Aloof - they cannot gain or lose Honor, and they cancel out the Honor dice of their opponents in contested rolls. That part, I'm happy with - I really like the idea that a monk or a sorcerer (the Aloof classes) can speak plainly to even the proudest of lords without suffering any loss of face.

What I'm questioning is this: I wanted to make certain character skills "penetrative", that is, they go *poof* when used in a dice pool, reducing their own value to zero but taking dice away from the opponent's dice pool equal to the value of the penetrative skill. The penetrative skills, available to monks only, have this "canceling" effect on any skill of the same general category, be it physical or social. The idea is that this lowers the stakes of the exchange, but it also represents the monk's ability to sidestep people's egotism and bluster, moving the contest closer to simply Might v. Might, or Cunning v. Cunning, based on whether the contest is physical or social in nature.

The core mechanic for resolution is this: both parties add stat+skill+Honor (which can have a value of positive, zero, or N/A), roll that many d6's, and count their 4's, 5's, and 6's as successful. According to a "dial" section in Donjon, entitled "Die size", With a smaller-size die, there is a slightly greater chance that a player rolling a smaller number of dice than another player will win anyway. With twenty-sided dice, the outcomes are more predictable. The increased frequency of ties that comes with smaller-sized dice causes the number of successes in any Test to be higher. (p. 7)

So, even though the Donjon core mechanic is highest-wins, then-count-down, while mine is the more common count-up-successes, I think the principle sounds similar: by reducing the total number of dice, the chance of winning with a smaller dice pool increases. Does this sound right to folks, or do I need to go back and tinker with it again? Also, it occurs to me that monks would then have a somewhat tougher time going up against foes that are weaker than themselves. I think I'll keep it optional.

[imago]

The core mechanic for resolution is this: both parties add stat+skill+Honor (which can have a value of positive, zero, or N/A), roll that many d6's, and count their 4's, 5's, and 6's as successful. According to a "dial" section in Donjon, entitled "Die size", With a smaller-size die, there is a slightly greater chance that a player rolling a smaller number of dice than another player will win anyway. With twenty-sided dice, the outcomes are more predictable. The increased frequency of ties that comes with smaller-sized dice causes the number of successes in any Test to be higher. (p. 7)

So, even though the Donjon core mechanic is highest-wins, then-count-down, while mine is the more common count-up-successes, I think the principle sounds similar: by reducing the total number of dice, the chance of winning with a smaller dice pool increases.

No, the principle is not the same, mainly because a smaller die size is not equal to a smaller dicepool.

A smaller dicepool narrows the possible outcomes, making ties more likely, which is why the next non-tied highest die on the smaller dicepool is more likely to beat the next non-tied highest die on the higher dicepool. Odds are still better for the higher dicepool both on Donjon and your system. Your system probabilities are not affected by die size (you're actually flipping coins - 50% chance for success per die).

[Abkajud]

Okay, fair point. I suppose it could already count for a lot that monks cancel out aristocrats' Honor dice, but that, then, begs the question: if Honorable characters (monks are Aloof, so they have different expectations set for them) can gain so many dice in this way, would people be all that interested in playing a character that doesn't have such power?

The class breakdown has roughly three categories: Honorable (they have a chance to gain an Honor die every session), Dishonorable (level zero, essentially, only advancing through skill-ups), and Aloof (level zero, but they reduce their opponent's level to zero whenever they conflict). Just from talking to a player I know, a D&D enthusiast, I got the sense that some players would be totally up for playing a Dishonorable character, both for thematic reasons and for the chance to be less scrutinized by the Emperor's Court - Dishonorable characters (and Aloof ones) have the advantage of holding onto whatever gains they make a lot more securely, as opposed to having their reputations ruined by scandal.

Well, Aloof characters (monks and sorcerers)still have to abide by the laws of their Order, but they don't have to participate in Imperial politics to hang onto their dice pools.

Dishonorable characters might seem weak by comparison (they suffer against Honorable characters, and can't advance very quickly), but any time an Honorable character (Hc) is caught by another Hc performing some wicked or shameful deed, the observing Hc can issue a Dishonor Challenge. This differs from standard roll dice pool v. dice pool in that, instead of winning or losing a particular, stated conflict, the accused runs the risk of losing an Honor die if he loses the Challenge.
In addition, there are "no-Honor" areas, far from Court and far from the rich and powerful, where Honor dice simply don't function due to very high levels of criminal activity and/or a heavy presence of Hairy Barbarians, foreign folk who don't uphold the same values as the Glorious Empire.
My question is this: do you think this provides a sufficient risk element to being Honorable, enough that a Dishonorable character is really dodging a bullet by staying away from Court?

Of course, I am definitely going for a mechanical motif - Honorable characters, being empowered by the status quo in quite literal ways, are supposed to be the most powerful, at least within their element. Being Dishonorable is absolutely supposed to be a disadvantage, at least in terms of raw dice available to the player.

[Vulpinoid]

How would you resolve the differences between a game regularly occurring in the imperial court versus a game on the outland borders of the empire?

In court, I'd imagine the honourable characters are going to be favoured far more heavily, while on the borders and away from the eyes of courtiers it will be far less of a benefit to remain honourable.

Setting for the game might be a quicker way to resolve differences between these play styles, rather than getting caught up in mechanics.

V

[Abkajud]

Hm. Do you mean the *official* setting that I choose for the game, or the setting a play group agrees upon when they start making characters?

[Vulpinoid]

Hm. Do you mean the *official* setting that I choose for the game, or the setting a play group agrees upon when they start making characters?

My gut response here is to say both.

Is the game focused on courtly intrigue? Is it based on defending the empire from hostile outside forces? Is it based on ferreting out heretics and dishonourable swine within the empire? Each of these has a very different twist on the concept of honour.

First glances would indicate that a game of courtly intrigue would have honour play the strongest role, but there are certainly dishonourable courtiers throughout history (it's usually just that their shady dealing aren't revealed until they die).   

Those defending the empire from outside forces might seem to have the least concern for honour, but even these individuals need to consider how much honour they are willing to sacrifice in order to stay true to their ideals. Is it better to ally with a lesser enemy to build a temporary alliance against a stronger threat? Is it better to keep all enemy's of the empire at an arms length to avoid the corruption they might bring? If power comes from honour, then you might also consider the notion that other forms of power come from different societal structures...

Those working as Inquisitors within the empire, seeking out the dishonourable and punishing the unjust would probably benefit best from a hard and fast honour distinction.

Inquisitor: I'm good, you're evil...in the name of the Empire's honour I have to slay you.
Persecuted Target: But I'm not as evil as him.
Inquisitor: I'll get to him later, I've got you now...time to die.

Even if you've only got a specific "official" setting in mind, consider the possible play options for the game. Consider where people might be interested in taking the game, and how the rules can be adapted to reflect different styles of play.

Just my 2 cents...

V

[imago]

Okay, fair point. I suppose it could already count for a lot that monks cancel out aristocrats' Honor dice, but that, then, begs the question: if Honorable characters (monks are Aloof, so they have different expectations set for them) can gain so many dice in this way, would people be all that interested in playing a character that doesn't have such power?

I would, unless Honor really gave me a distinct advantage that being Aloof just can't match.

Well, Aloof characters (monks and sorcerers)still have to abide by the laws of their Order, but they don't have to participate in Imperial politics to hang onto their dice pools.

What if a player whose character is Aloof wants to participate in those politics? How would that player's character choice become meaningful?

In addition, there are "no-Honor" areas, far from Court and far from the rich and powerful, where Honor dice simply don't function due to very high levels of criminal activity and/or a heavy presence of Hairy Barbarians, foreign folk who don't uphold the same values as the Glorious Empire.
My question is this: do you think this provides a sufficient risk element to being Honorable, enough that a Dishonorable character is really dodging a bullet by staying away from Court?

Yes, but it seems to me that there should be "Honor-only" areas, if only to make me think twice about choosing an Aloof character. (I know I am starting to repeat mysef...)

Of course, I am definitely going for a mechanical motif - Honorable characters, being empowered by the status quo in quite literal ways, are supposed to be the most powerful, at least within their element. Being Dishonorable is absolutely supposed to be a disadvantage, at least in terms of raw dice available to the player.

Emphasis mine.