Three-sided stakes are hurting my head ... [design help]

[Paul T]

Hello,

I'm posting here in hopes of receiving some help with a design problem I'm facing. I designed and wrote a game I feel quite happy with (although I have not yet thoroughly playtested it) when I realized that I had not made any provisions for it to handle complicated conflicts. By "complicated conflict", I mean any conflict that has more than just two sides. Indeed, this is a problem I've seen in quite a few new games: people get excited about an interesting new way to handle conflicts, then forget to tell you what happens if three or more people pursuing independent agendas are involved.

The games I've seen that handle this kind of situation well tend to be more or less task resolution-based or have some kind of "hit point" type mechanic that keeps track of characters' ability to "stay in the fight". Often, these two go together:

For instance, one solution is to give each character some kind of "hit point" type tally that the others try to wear down. This is how it works in D&D as well as games like TSoY--you try to knock the other characters out of the fight so you can achieve your goals in the conflict.

Another cool solution I've seen is used in the games Capes and Beast Hunters: each "goal" is essentially given some kind of "hit point" type tally that the characters then take turns building up or tearing down.

Both solutions are great in that they allow you to break a conflict of any complexity into small, discrete actions taken by the characters, in whatever order. The "hit points" (or something similar) tell you when someone has been knocked out of the fight or when a specific goal has been achieved.

(In a Wicked Age... is an interesting hybrid in that it kind of has "hit points", but they are not about the current conflict but about the character's ability to participate in the entire chapter.)

Anyway, what I'm kind of missing is an elegant way to handle a complex conflict without all those actions and counter-actions and without tracking "hit points" or some other reference. Sometimes, I want the simplicity of setting stakes and making one roll, like you might do in a game like The Pool. But I'm at a bit of a loss in figuring out clever and easy ways to do that with complex conflicts (i.e. more than two competing sides).

Is there a way to use a simple "stakes setting" approach in complex conflicts? I'm not married to setting stakes up-front, but I do want the outcome of the conflict to be about the fiction (e.g. "I steal the ring") and not about bits of character Effectiveness, or damage/Harm, or some other mechanical incentive.

(The only game I'm aware of that does this is Primetime Adventures, where every character draws against the Producer. However, that limits the kinds of stakes that can be set and makes it difficult to base opposition on the ability of the opponent. I can see why that works well in that particular game, but I don't see it as a solution to my question--at least, not so far.)

I'd like to appeal to the collective wisdom of the Forge for help.

What are cool or easy solutions other games use?

What kinds of solutions have not been tried? What kinds would you like to see implemented?

Please help!

Thank you in advance,


Paul T.

[Anders Larsen]

I may miss something, but for me the solution seems to be very simple.

I will here use playing card as randomizer, because then you can prevent that two player gets the same result. The procedure goes as following:

* All the involved parties set their stakes.
* Each of the parties get a card from the deck (Maybe they get more if they have the right trait/ability)
* The player with the highest card narrate how he achieve his stake.
* If the player with the second highest card has not resolved his stake at this point (his stake is not related to the first player success), then he narrates his success. If his stake was resolved by the first player, he do not get to narrate (other than maybe his failure).
* And then the turn comes to the player with the third highest card. Here again, if his stake has not been resolved by the first and the second player, he get to narrate how he achieves his stake.
* and so on, in the order of the card values, until all have had their turn.

But I can not remember I have seen such a mechanic in any game, so it may not work.

- Anders

[Paul T]

Anders,

Thanks! That is actually pretty much exactly the method I've been thinking about. I was brainstorming possible solutions, and this is the one that jumped out at me. It's reassuring to see that someone else thinks the idea has merit, so thanks for bringing it up.

My game has a slight complication: losers can choose to "Push On", forcing the conflict into another round, but that fits into this model. It's a tiny bit more on the clunky side, but is still functional.

I'd still like to hear if there are other alternatives, however, whether in existing games or in designs that have yet to see the light.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Yeah, that's basically how Nine Worlds handles this. Pretty non-problematic.

[monkey]

What Anders describes sounds exactly like I remember Shab-al-hiri Roach (spelling?) working (unless I'm thinking of another game).  Whoever 'wins' with the rules mechanics gets what they want and narrate as such, then you go down the list, narrating as you like, as long as you don't contradict something narrated by someone who went before.

Something I've been thinking about recently is that you might want to think about, is to implement something similar to Choice Voting, or Instant Runoff Voting in determining who gets his stakes.  This would come into play when you have three or more vying for what they want, but two both want some of the same.  In other words, player 1 might want A, but he'd prefer B to C.  Then implement this into the mechanics somehow, so if player 1 can get A by himself, then he gets it, but if not, then instead his roll/result/whatever mechanic contributes to helping B somehow.

[Paul T]

The "announce actions in order" model is also used in Sorcerer and In a Wicked Age.... And that is something I have a question about!

The system I'm currently considering is basically:

Everyone rolls. Announce actions in order of the roll results. People who don't like losing can "push on" to stay in the conflict.

What I'm wondering is:

How important is the "reroll to answer" part of the Sorcerer and In a Wicked Age... rules? Will taking it out--just letting everyone's rolls stand--break the system somehow?

As far as I can see, it should work just fine, but I wonder if there's some reason both Ron and Vincent chose to include the reroll.

I was concerned that starting with the successful actions and leaving all the unsuccessful actions to the end might be anticlimactic or boring in some way, but I'm going to assume that since it's used in Nine Worlds it is fully functional.

I am also hoping to hear about some other approaches to this, though!

The real-time vote idea, for instance, has merit. Any others?

[Vulpinoid]

If you wanted a twist on this system of actions announced in order, you reverse the order.

This would work best with a game based on treachery and double-crosses.

Everyone declares their action results, starting with the player who scored worst.

Other players may then choose to declare their own successful actions, or may add a twist which makes turns the result of a lesser scoring player into a borderline result (partial good, partial bad), or turns a borderline result into a failure.

For example:
Player 1: I get the jewels.
Player 2: Only to realise the jewels are fake.
Player 3: I find the real jewels.


Things could get complicated, but that would be a part of this game style. You'd probably have to include a series of guidelines about how far a twist can go, or include some other details about maintaining consistency with other parts of the developing plot. But it would certainly keep players on their toes as the descriptions are gradually revealed and the hidden machinations of the group unfold.

V

[monkey]

The problem with reversing the order is then you have to make sure that everyone's stakes are very clear and explicit up front before rolling in terms of how they interact.  If you have the loser go last, and part of what he wants no one cares about (or has forgotten to narrate) then he still gets it.  I think this is good, both because more people get what they want and it seems realistic.

If you start with the loser, the loser basically has to know what everyone else is going to say, otherwise you're going to end up with revisionist narration like the example with the jewels but more problematic, like:

Player 1: I cut off his head.
Player 2: No you don't, you miss and your sword flies across the room.
Player 3: No, he misses and cuts off [Player 2's character]'s head!

[Tom Garnett]

Looks to me like you have two separate classes of problem here:

1) There are three or more mutually exclusive ways a particular points could be resolved, and characters acting in favour of each of them.
2) There are multiple points of contention, and you are trying to resolve them all together because they are somewhat linked.

(Obviously, there's 3) There are multiple, independent points of contention. But you can obviously resolve them separately, so that's easy.)

An example of 1) would be "I want to steal the jewel." "I want the jewel to fall into the lava and be destroyed" "I want the jewel to remain in the God-King's crown, undisturbed." - that can probably be resolved as 'highest wins', although that *could* lead to some counterintuitive results. Example to follow.

An example of 2) might be "I want to disarm him" "I want to run across the room and cut the rope [and not be disarmed first]" "I want to stop the two of them from doing anything" - in which case, it might be more sensible to break it down into two conflicts, and ask people to rephrase their goals in terms of each.

Basically, I think that most of these problems go away if you are careful to allow only 'winner takes all'/'there can be only one' type stakes.

Example in which this can fail: Four characters are all absolutely determined that a fifth shouldn't get the jewel, and would ideally prefer that they got it. The fifth just wants the jewel. If each sets the objective 'I get the jewel' then whatever cooperation mechanic you might have will completely fail to register their cooperation at excluding the fifth. Of course, rephrasing it as a 4:1 challenge 'fifth doesn't get the jewel' versus 'fifth gets the jewel', and following it up with a four-way 'I get the jewel' might deal with this.

But yes, you risk having to use your resolution mechanic a lot more, and the possibility of clever groups attempting to abuse this to give them two or more chances when they 'should' have only one.

[Vulpinoid]

Both valid points I hadn't really considered.

I was just trying to suggest other ways to play with the dynamic. I've thought about this sort of thing in passing a few times in the past.

My original suggestion wasn't to allow players to veto an earlier player's description, but to twist it in a new way.

Player 2 can't say "No, you don't", instead, player two says "Yes, you do...but the head regenerates" (or something similar). Under the suggestion I was offering, a player can only add things to the previous players descriptions, or create new threads of dialogue that further their own characters objectives. Each description adds a bit more depth to the scene.

Conversely, when it comes to the gem. One player could claim to get the gem, a second player could claim that it is a fake, the third player claims that they steal the real gem, while a fourth player uses his action to steal the gem from the third.

The player with the highest die roll still gets their intended action, while the other players are busy trying to work out which is the real gem and whose got it...

If there are two (or more) sets of actions happening at the same time, then players are stuck with a decision of interacting with one stream of actions, or starting their own.

As long as their description doesn't change something that they know about the scene, they can keep adding complexity to the scene...or spend their description to resolve some of the chaos.

This is still most definitely a work in progress though.

V

[Guy Srinivasan]

If each sets the objective 'I get the jewel' then whatever cooperation mechanic you might have will completely fail to register their cooperation at excluding the fifth.

Actually, the first way I thought of to deal with non-binary resolution (3+ mutually exclusive outcomes of a single question) works fine in that regard. Deal cards to each participant. Players can spend a resource to get more cards for themselves and take cards away from others. High card wins.

Your third class of problem, Tom, brings up something fairly interesting... in PTA, when there are multiple independent points of contention, they are resolved simultaneously instead of separately. This has the effect of correlating player successes - as opposed to independent binary resolution, in PTA it's more likely that the Producer wins all of the conflicts or loses all of the conflicts.

[lumpley]

How important is the "reroll to answer" part of the Sorcerer and In a Wicked Age... rules? Will taking it out--just letting everyone's rolls stand--break the system somehow?

It will.

To get a player to say what their character does, you have to make its outcome unknown. If you already know whether your character will succeed, you don't bother saying what she does.

I don't know why for sure, but it's reliable.

-Vincent

[monkey]

Player 2 can't say "No, you don't", instead, player two says "Yes, you do...but the head regenerates" (or something similar). Under the suggestion I was offering, a player can only add things to the previous players descriptions, or create new threads of dialogue that further their own characters objectives. Each description adds a bit more depth to the scene.

I think this will generate a lot of depth to the scene, but it doesn't guarantee that the winner gets what he wants.  If everyone is racing to grab something, and the loser says that he grabs it, then the winner has lost.  He can narrate how this is good for him somehow when it's his turn, but he can't get what he wanted: which was to grab the object first and have it to himself.

I also think that trying to break one conflict up into multiple rolls (based on the stakes rather than something action oriented, like the steps required to do what you want) then you're going to have players upset that they rolled well here and not there.

[Paul T]

Vincent,

Thanks! I can definitely see why that would be the case, although it doesn't seem to bother people in other "roll, and if you win, you get to narrate how you win" systems.

Everyone else: lots of great suggestions! I'm still working on this. It might be a dead-end, or it might come out as something interesting. I'll let you know either way. Let's keep the discussion going, and see which way things shake out.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Paul,

Run, don't walk, to: [Frostfolk] Carrying on. The part that matters most to your question begins on the second page, but the first part is necessary for orientation. I recommend that you print out the whole thread to read in hard copy.

Also, you're not a big Sorcerer guy, right? Multiple and possibly-conflicting aims all firing at once is that game's specialty.

Best, Ron