[Oxygen] Non-physical conflicts

[brianbloodaxe]

After a couple of test sessions of my SF game Oxygen (read all about it here:http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=28244.0) and after reading a load of threads in here I have had a couple of revelations.

"What is your game about?" and "What do your players do?" are the two questions that keep circulating around these halls and I have just realised that while I do have a good grasp of these answers for my game, I haven't written a system which matches those answers. I seem to have fallen into the trap of writing the sort of system that you usually find in RPGs rather than the system that my game needs.

I want Oxygen to revolve around the responsibilities and needs of the player characters. Their interactions with other players should involve negotiations, bargaining, intimidation and lying. Physical combat is an option too but I want it to be a last resort; when guns get drawn everybody loses. My problem is that I have written a reasonably detailed combat system yet all other conflicts are simply opposed rolls with the results of those rolls decided by the GM. That may work when it is me running it but I really should have a system in place which defines the outcome of these conflicts. I think this is actually what Gregor was trying to tell me after one of the play test sessions but I didn't quite realise how important it might be.

So I need to define a structure for these situations. The opposed rolls will work as a basis but I need to decide what effect these rolls are going to have in system terms. Combat applys either Shock or Lethal damage which then give penalties to all actions. 'Damage' doesn't really fit as the result of being on the losing side in a negotiation. I'm wondering if maybe I could have the loser gain a temporary penalty trait that applies in related rolls. Maybe the strength of that trait could be determined by the margin of success of the roll? And then for prolonged exchanges the two [participants would be wearing each other down with accumulated penalty traits.

I'm just brainstorming now, I'm just wondering if anyone here has any suggestions for how I could moden these types of exchanges.

[chance.thirteen]

I don't have anything to say about the intimidation and lying to other players other than if you mean the actual players it sounds like a bad idea. If you mean characters, then carry on.

As for the needs and responsibilities of characters, a mechanical way to handle it might be something along the lines of feeding points of success to the needs and responsibilities, garnered from negotiations, conflicts and so on with other characters (NPCs, PCs). Ideally, this would involve a dear currency, which would make it necessary to achieve certain levels of effectiveness in trades and so on, otherwise you run out of things to offer in exchange.

Or you could focus on stakes driven conflicts, much in the way that The Solar System and other games discussed here handle defining the purpose of a scene and conflict. A minor economy could be created by having some conflict related resources that are spent to succeed, with numeric goals defined by the responsibility and needs ratings. Characters would use up the conflict resources trying to secure the successes needed to sate said needs and responsibilities. Sorta depends on what actions you want to encourage, and what flavor you want the mechanics to back up.

[brianbloodaxe]

I meant to type, "players and NPCs" I'm happy for the players to initiate these conflicts amoung themselves, much of the drama I see coming will be due to the differing and contradicory goals of the players.

I like what you are saying about tieing it in with a mechanical value for the player's rescorces and needs. I don't want to codify their resposibilities though, those are very much to be defined purely by the individual players.

[Luke]

I want Oxygen to revolve around the responsibilities and needs of the player characters. Their interactions with other players should involve negotiations, bargaining, intimidation and lying. Physical combat is an option too but I want it to be a last resort; when guns get drawn everybody loses. My problem is that I have written a reasonably detailed combat system yet all other conflicts are simply opposed rolls with the results of those rolls decided by the GM. That may work when it is me running it but I really should have a system in place which defines the outcome of these conflicts. I think this is actually what Gregor was trying to tell me after one of the play test sessions but I didn't quite realise how important it might be.

Just want to offer a note of encouragement! You're on the right track!

And why not take your carefully crafted combat system, change the names, file off the serial numbers and use it for negotiations? Start hacking at it to make it fit your idea of how these interactions should work and I bet you'll strike gold.

-L

[brianbloodaxe]

Thanks Luke! I'll admit that the way your conflict system in Mouseguard works has been on my mind while I have been trying to figure this out, particularly the way you figure the disposition for those conflicts.

The problem with using my combat rules is the damage system I have used doesn't make any sense as a penalty for losing a non-physical conflict. Hence why I am wondering if I can have all conflicts result in a temporary penalty trait appropriate for the situation.

[Luke]

I've been outed. I thought I ran incognito here. Let's look at why my insane-o-bots conflict resolution system works for Mouse Guard. Choosing one of four actions in series of three doesn't seem very mouse-like or very comicbook like at first glance.

But it's a team mechanic -- each member of the team gets an action from the set. Mouse Guard is very much about working as a team.

It teaches good manners -- you take your turn and then help the other players on their turn. Mouse Guard pretends to be a useful "first RPG." I think teaching good manners is a fine place to start.

It relies on strategy -- choosing the right actions, skills and weapons is important to win. This makes a game out of it, makes it interesting over and above its base goal of reinforcing the game's premise.

That's just three reasons (I'm sure there are more) why that crazy, doesn't-look-like-it-will-fit mechanic actually works in this context.

The dispo mechanic is a deeper discussion that's best put to the side right now.

Let's look at what works for your game. You need some sort of social "damage" mechanic and right now you've got "shock" and "lethal" damage. You want to hack those levels into something that represents proving your point.

Well, "shock" actually seems appropriate. Say stuff that stuns your opponent, throws him for a loop. Temporarily damage his argument. If he doesn't get help, his argument is done!

Lethal damage, the savage killing blow, a word for which there is no retort. This can come out of the blue or it can be a result of breaking down your opponent's defenses and verbally bludgeoning him into submission.

Now that all sounds pretty brutal. Players would have to be saying all sorts of mean shit to each other.

Is that your game? Tell me why it is or isn't your game.

Tinker! Don't be afraid. Being a game designer is all about tinkering. I arrived at the Mouse Guard mechanics by tinkering with the Burning Wheel Fight! mechanics.

-Luke

[chance.thirteen]

Looking at the damage types from a mechanical side, I would say shock is something that counters or damages your approach for the current situation, and lethal damage represents long term damage to your ability in this kind of confrontation, be it apolitical capital loss which must be recovered, or a longer term damage to credibility and reputation that might remove you from a given arena forever.

[Simon C]

Sounds good.  Call the Captain a coward in front of his crew, and if he doesn't knock you on your ass, he's lost the ability to intimidate them, possibly forever.  Threaten to kill him in private, and if he doesn't call your bluff, he'll be second-guessing himself forever more.

[brianbloodaxe]

Well Lethal and Shock damage aren't very different in the physical conflict rules. Both are added to a damage track which applies penalties to all actions that character performs. The differences are that too much Shock leads to unconsciousness while too much Lethal kills you. Interestingly, without the aid of some sort of weapon (weapon being a fairly abstract concept when applying this to negotiations) characters can only do Shock damage.

So taking this system into the non-physical conflicts, the same set up for Shock damage should work. As you build up Shock your ability to argue your point or gain someone's trust drops away. It will still be very abstract and need a fair bit of clarification by the GM but so does conventional combat and at least I can write decent guideline for how to go about tieing a system like this and the immediate story together. Still, I have a few things to fighure out before I can try this out:

1) How do I keep track of the damage?
If your character gains 2Shock from loosing a drinking contest then 3Shock in a brawl and then 5Shock whilst failing to justify your drunken state to your girlfriend should all these stack up? If they do stack up that would mean that they all apply all of the time and it would also mean that you would take longer to recover from them. If I kept track of them separately, say as a temporary trait for each instance Drunk-2D, Battered&Bruised-3D and InTheDogHouse-5D then we can choose which apply for each further conflict and each can 'heal' in an appropriate timescale. So this way when you got home and your girlfriend saw the state you were in, maybe the Battered&Bruised-3D trait wouldn't be a factor because she knew you were trying to deal with some dodgy people but then the Drunk-2D trait certainly would because she thinks that you are an idiot for getting drunk in a situation like that! I could se this working is has the detail and relevance that I want from the system but I am wondering if it might be too much book keeping...

2) What system do I put in place to determine when a conflict is over?
In physical conflicts the fight is over when one character builds up too much damage, of takes too much in a single hit and either dies,falls unconscious or becomes unable to fight due to excessive damage penalties. Negotiations don't usually end that way so I am trying to figure out when the conflict is over. Perhaps each character could have a temporary trait assigned to them representing their stance in the negotiation/argument/seduction/whatever and when your accumulated negatives are greater than your side of the conflict you lose. So if you had a pile of food in your cargo hold and you are in trade negotiations with a station so you both start with WeNeedThisFood-3D Maybe you can beef this trait up a bit by adding in dice for any family you have who also want to eat. So the size of traits like this could be the target that you have to beat. If you don't roll that well but you still beat your opponent's roll then that round of debate is over and they may have taken Shock but you haven't won yet. Truthfully in that example there should also be a trait for what you are wanting from the conflict (NeeadANewThermalCoupling-5D) and for what you are willing to trade (TonsOfFood-3D) but now I am worried that this method will be far too much book keeping and with ultimately just be an exercise in maths!

Luke- You have the right idea for the sort of conflicts I want, I just don't see Lethal damage working. I don't want the dice to say someone is 'wounded' when that might not fit with the current actions in the conflict.

[chance.thirteen]

1) Social conflict damage is separate from other types. You could include penalties to actions in a social conflict from other types of wounds, but this is not damage to the health track involved, it is impairment to the skilled actions being taken.

2) The health involved would involve either the strength of purpose of the given character, the absolute(ish) strength of the given position, or a combination of the two.

[Gregor Hutton]

Hit points/Health boxes, etc. can be used to give physical conflicts an end point. Really all they are doing for you are saying you have this penalty for the moment and if you take a few more hits you will have lost. The penalties are encouraging you to give up before then.

In light of that, you can do something similar for non-physical conflict, right?

[HeTeleports]

You can quantify anything. It'll work.

[Lance D. Allen]

Brian,

An idea I'm toying with, for my own social combat system, is to give an argument an objective, and allow the participants to settle on a value for that objective.

Then use a reskinned version of your combat mechanics, but instead of doing damage to your opponent, your "damage" is laid in toward the numerical value of that objective. Whoever reaches it first wins.

[brianbloodaxe]

You can quantify anything. It'll work.

Well of course you can but my problem is figuring out how much 'damage' a character can take before losing a conflict. I think that I now have a system that works for trade negotiations though:
*************
The Captain of the Moonwalk has a load of food and wants to trade some for a new fuel injector with Dave of Space Station Alpha. Each player now has to total up their Resolve dice pool and their Needs score.

Resolve is the strength of your side of the argument and your ability to use it so it is the total of you Presence stat and any relevant Expertise or Skills like Trader or Haggling or, at a push, things like Psychology which might help. Traits for why you are after these things are very important too. The Captain can add his Captain2D Trait and his GetMyCrewHome2D Drive to his Resolve because without the fuel injector his ship is finished. Dave meanwhile can add Father3D to his because the food will feed his family.

Needs is a fixed value of how important the item you want is to you. For The Captain the fuel injector is Vital but not Urgent so Needs=3. For Dave the food is Vital and Urgent and he is already Hungry1D so that is working against him, Needs=5.

Now the negotiation begins. The Players and/or GM state in as much detail as they like the basis of their arguements, if the GM feels the player deserves it he can give a bonus dice to the Resolve pool for good roleplay or creative haggling. Both pools are rolled, successes are totaled and the winner does damage equal to the margin of success to the opponents Resolve pool. In the case of a draw both pools are reduced by one dice helping to ensure that the conflict is always moving towards resolution.

This process is repeated round-by-round with as much roleplay as desired but the interesting bit it that the terms can be changed. The involved parties can try to sweeten the deal by adding in other things to the trade or offering different terms which can then modify their Needs values.

The Trade is over either when the players reach an agreement or when one character's Resolve lowers to less than or equal to his Needs.
*************

It sounds complex but it shouldn't be too bad in play. Players total their relevant Traits, state what they are after and then start roleplaying and rolling. Often it won't even get to the dice because in totaling up their Resolve and Needs the players/GM might see another solution. The Resolve pool should never be more than about ten dice because I will only allow the highest of each type of Trait (Stat, Skill, Relationship, etc) to add to the Resolve Pool.

Another nice feature is that these Negotiations can escalate in a way similar to Dogs in the Vinyard. The Captain might let slip that his ship's laser turret still works (Resolve+3D). Dave could then remind him that Space Station Alpha has ten times the crew that the Moonwalk does and they don't have to open the docking bay doors if they don't want to. It can model other tactics too; The Captain might have given everyone on the station a free lunch which removes Dave's Hungry1D Trait but gives The Captain the Trait DaveThinksIAmANiceGuy2D.

That's the concept anyway. It looks good on paper, or at least in my head. I expect that a few modifications will allow me to use this system for trying to gain someone's trust or intimiation and interrogation techniques.

Actually, now I'm wondering if I want to use this mechanic for physical combat too. It is a little more abstract than my current system but it would be nice to have everything running on basically the same rules and perhaps making the combat more abstract would help pull people away going down that path...

Back to the playtest table I guess!

As always, all criticisms, thoughts and praise are welcome!

[brianbloodaxe]

Brian,

An idea I'm toying with, for my own social combat system, is to give an argument an objective, and allow the participants to settle on a value for that objective.

Then use a reskinned version of your combat mechanics, but instead of doing damage to your opponent, your "damage" is laid in toward the numerical value of that objective. Whoever reaches it first wins.

You posted while I was pulling the above post from my brain, I think we were thinking the same thing. The Needs value is the key here. The more you need something the easier it is for your opponent to get what he wants. Effectively, in the mechanics I have given above, the damage you can take is equal to your Resolve less your Needs. Or to put it into the fiction: Your ability plus your drive penalised by how disparate you are.