Scaffolding

[contracycle]

Well, this is tyhe design that I have recently been tinkering with and which Mike badgered me to see in December.  Its not exactly finished... the intent is to have the actual setting and situation and so forth articulated in specific contexts distinct from the core mechanic.  These are typical areas of conflict or self-expression in the game world, and I'm having a little trouble concpetualising exactly how to write them.  I know what I want them to do, they will be boxes holding lists of reprsentative target numbers and the like, success levels, tools, patterns of behaviour, that sort of thing.  The mechanic that resolves all this stuff is intended to exist externally of the contexts in whcih play occurs, and for almost all mechanical variables to be generated ad hoc by the players.  The classic Combat section will be one Context of Conflict.  Therefore, this mechanic is called...

Scaffolding

0] Outline
This mechanic was conceived to exploit deferred resolution structure, which allows multiple rolls, representing actions by characters.  These rolls are not immediately resolved in terms of the overall conflict; the final resolution is delayed until a separate roll is made specifically to resolve the overall effort.  In each stage, the acting character carries out actions, which they narrate, and accumulate dice in a pool to be used in the final roll.

These basic rules may be somewhat modified under a variety of Contexts.  A Context is a specific type of roll that may be typical to the game environment.  Such signal conflicts often require that the general case exemplified by the mechanical rules be adjusted in accordance with the significant factors that impinge upon the situation.  Contexts are specific implementations of the central mechanical model, and provide inputs to the variables processed by the mechanic.

This mechanic was initially conceptualised as "Hero Wars with Dice Pools".  I have drawn heavily what I think were the two most important aspect of HW – the extended contest and the "flat" attributes any of which could interact with any other.  There's also a touch of the game show, in that the initiation of actions and the triggering of crises are usually invoked by the players.  

During play, the mechanical resolution may be called on whenever some conflict in the game world arises.  A character possesses Traits which are valued in a number of dice, and which are rolled as a pool against a target number.  Successful dice are "banked" in a pool and accumulated towards a critical moment, at which time they are rolled and the success or otherwise of the overall conflict or goal is assessed.

I expect play to be follow inter-player dialogue strongly.  Taking mechanical actions is indeed still an interruption in the flow of dialogue, but the player may act, or not act, as they see fit during the course of narration, no matter who is narrating.  There is no organised turn structure, and the rules governing who acts when are limited to indication of intent and speaking in turn.  Judgement of the flow of in game time is left entirely to the consensus of GM and players.

The GM is used here somewhat as a rhetorical device.  I can imagine that this mechanic could be used mutual consent mode that governs a collective decision.  However, I am using the GM mainly to present the locus of the arcane... by which I men quite literally, the unknown.  The GM is a repository of secret knowledge to which neither character nor player privy.  It is my view that this element of the arcane is an important part of the goals of Exploration, in that there must by something which was previously unknown and that is discovered, something that is learned in play.  This should not be seen in too literally an educational sense; I think uncovering the unknown has a joy of its own regardless of the value content discovered.  For this reason, the GM is considered a role taken by on of the players throughout.

[contracycle]

1] Resolution

Structure
The system operates by allowing opportunities for characters to undertake Actions, which are used to generate dice in a Crisis Pool.  The dice used in an Action are rolled against a Target Number (TN) and dice that succeed pass into the Crisis Pool.  When the player is ready to resolve their overall action, the crisis they have brought about, they roll the Crisis Pool dice for a final level of success.  Thus, Actions accumulate Crisis Pool dice, and Crisis rolls determine the final degree of the outcome.  

Using the Dice
When rolling the dice, a character will gather a number of dice equal to the Trait being employed.  Sometime a character will have dice of a variety of types added to these, to constitute an overall pool.  These dice are rolled the same way for either Actions or Crises, with the number of dice that EXCEED the Target Number considered successes.  When dice are rolled for an Action, successful dice are added to a Crisis Pool.  When resolving a Crisis, successful dice are considered Final Successes.

Taking Actions
When a player takes an Action, they gather dice for the Action pool equal to the Trait they are calling on for the action.  Traits can called on in any sequence over successive actions.  The player should then ask if any dice are to be added to the Pool; these may come from many sources, from any other player in the game.  Each die added to a pool allows the adding player to nominate one Detail that must be incorporated in the subsequent narration of the Action.  The player taking the Action is responsible for narrating the outcome of the Action, but must incorporate all the nominated Details as they describe what happens.  They then roll the dice, and these are treated as above, accumulating in a Crisis Pool.

Resolving Crises
When a player chooses to resolve a Crisis, they roll the dice presently existing in their Crisis Pool against a Crisis TN (CTN), either determined from the context or nominated by the GM.  They will need to achieve a number of Successes against this value equal to a Success Level, also taken from the context or nominated by the GM.

Traits and TN's
The values that serve as inputs to the system originate from a variety of sources.  The base numbers of dice that a character may gather when taking an action is equal to one of the Traits recorded on their character sheet.  A character may not normally employ more than one Trait at a time.  Target Numbers are usually derived from an opposed Trait, where a contest occurs between two characters, or may be established by GM fiat.  Specific contexts, in which the mechanic may be employed, such as combat, will have specific discussions as to how Traits are employed and how TN's are determined.  For example, in the Combat context the
TN of the final Crisis Roll will usually be taken from the targets armour rating.

[contracycle]

2] Special Dice

What Are Penalty Dice?
A Penalty Die is a form of impediment that may be added to the dice rolled by a player for a character, rather like a Side Pool but with one major difference.  These are often derived from magical hindrances applied by other characters or situational modifiers imposed by the GM.  Penalty dice may be added to a pool by other characters.  The player who originated the pool keeps narration power over their action, however, even with the penalty dice.  

Using Penalty Dice
The player applying the penalty dice explains to the player making the roll what the penalty dice are for and what they represent before they are rolled, and the rolling player incorporates this into their narration of the Action or Crisis.  The character under the influence gathers the dice they would normally use for the roll, and adds to them the number of dice indicated by the penalty.  These dice are rolled with the others normally and are counted normally, but a number of the highest values equal to the number of penalty dice are dropped, from highest down.  For example, the GM might award three penalty dice to a character fighting in up a narrow stairwell.  The player would roll these dice in the company of their own and drop the highest three results, and in describing their action would incorporate the fact that the confined space is impeding their action.

What Are Side Pools?
A Side Pool is a pool of dice that can be called upon and added to any other roll.  These dice are rolled against the same TN as the rest of the dice in the pool, whether generated by an Action or a Crisis.  There are several types of side pools, depending on how they were created, and a character may have several or many.  Side pools are most often of magical origin, representing divine intervention, the blessing of the ancestors and special powers.  Character may also have anti-pools; these may be generated by curses, or the taint of corruption and operate on the rules for Penalty Dice below.

Using Side Pools
When dice are used from a pool, they are permanently lost and can only be replaced through the refreshment process below.  The dice selected are removed from the pool and added to the player's current pool of dice, whether they are rolling for an Action or the resolution of a Crisis.  The character may apply these dice to any pool in the game – they may be applied to the allies of a character, or used as penalty dice and added to an opponent's pool.  See the section below on Penalty Dice.

Refreshing Side Pools
Side pools are refreshed through some sort of repetitive, often periodic in-game behaviour.  Side Pools gives bonuses, and the mechanisms of their refreshment guides game activity. Appropriate Side Pools are established in a Context that describes the setting and situation of play, and discusses the common attributes of actors in various venues.  A common Side Pool (given that most characters are human) is Health, and a character may use their Health as a side pool at their own discretion, and thus risk.  Each context will lay out the precise pattern of character behaviour o refresh a particular side pool.

[contracycle]

3] The Care and Feeding of Conflicts

When engaged in conflict, opponents will usually undertake several discrete manoeuvres before the matter is decided.  There is no fixed number of actions in a sequence, or determination of what parties carry them out.

Goals
The conflict opens when the first action is taken and a goal is established.  Whenever each acting entity takes its first action, it establishes a Goal and the same time it carried out the action.  The Goal is the purpose for which the Crisis dice are accumulated.  The player controlling that entity explains the goal openly, and when Crisis dice are rolled the results are interpreted in the light of that expressed goal.  A character that joins a conflict after some goals have already been established may elect to use their crisis dice to support that goal rather than nominate a new one.  Whenever they score successes, their successful dice are added to the Crisis Pool collecting dice for that goal.  Crisis pools can be collected in nominated cups to keep everything under control.

Conflict Actions
When a player wishes to take an action, they indicate this with a sudden movement.  A group might conventionalise many things as an appropriate sudden movement, but I lean toward an illustrated card portraying a typical behaviour for the appropriate Context taking place.  Alternatively, coloured objects could be dropped representing different broad categories of action.  This sudden movement is referred to Committing to act.  When a character commits to action, they are implicitly also risking some of the consequences of conflict should their intervention fail, and may themselves become the victim of an opponents successful crisis dice.  There are no restrictions on when a player may commit to act, but they may well have to form an orderly queue.  Players also nominate their own Target Numbers for action, although this is regulated by the GM by means of the OverRule (see below).

Sequencing
The GM can only deal with one person at a time, and if multiple players wish to act more or less simultaneously, then they should be handled in order of who indicated first.  The GM is free to announce actions for NPC's at any time, either individually or collectively; likewise characters with control over groups involved in the conflict may describes actions for their supporters in whole or in part at any time.  The only restriction is the order in which physical indication is given and the described events being played out.  If events being described invalidate a characters planned action in some way while they are in queue, they are free to extemporise when their turn comes around.  Committing to the queue is a mixed blessing; if a player does so they are talking the initiative, but may find themselves committed to act in a situation other than they expected, and possibly at great risk.  It is therefore sometimes wise to wait for a queue to resolve before openly committing to an action, although this does leave the possibility that the opposite side will seize the opportunity to act rather than react.

The OverRule
The players are responsible for nominating their own target numbers, and I expect that they will be self governing.  The purpose of taking the TN from the player is that it should convey something of the scope of the intended action.  However, should the GM possess privileged information, or the players proposal be worthy of contempt, the GM may exercise the OverRule and determine the TN themselves.  Furthermore, a number of Penalty Dice should be imposed upon the character (or active entity) depending on the extent to which the player has mis-read the situation; by default this should be the same number as the difference between the TN the player proposed and the TN the GM judges is fair.  The character is still committed to taking their action, broadly as they have outlined, but the necessity for incorporating the Details associated with the penalty dice will probably modify the described action somewhat.  Also, the roll is made against a TN set by the GM, and the character may hence find themselves in substantial trouble.  

Conflict Crises
Players may choose to resolve a Crisis at any time.  Resolving a Crisis is like taking an action, with several exceptions .  The dice used are the Crisis dice found in a Goal Pool rather than Trait dice (side pools and penalty dice may still apply).  The Crisis roll TN is not nominated by the player, but rather by the GM, as the Crisis itself may likely be governed by many factors invisible to the player and the OverRule is thus presumed to be in effect.  The GM may also impose Penalty Dice and nominate Details to be incorporated into the players description in order to reflect any arcane knowledge that may be in their possession.  The necessary success level for the roll is derived from the Context in which the conflict occurs.  If the conflict could be considered relevant to more than one Context, an appropriate one may be assessed from described actions, or the most severe may be assumed to apply.  

Judging Crises
The variables that govern a crisis are heavily informed by the Context in which it occurs.  These will frame the sorts of actions characters can plausibly describe by establishing the narrated circumstances; what sorts of tools are in us, what sorts of crises are common, traits commonly employed etc.  They will also establish Success Levels for achieving various sorts of goals to which people aspire.  These are among the few given numbers that would be listed for a particular setting or circumstance; commonly, a game would include a context for the health of a character (common to almost all games) or the particular skills or areas of activity (status, combat, commerce etc).  While it is wise for a player to hold off on a crisis roll until they are confident of success, this may not always be possible.  Furthermore, while the player describes the action and rolls, the GM may Qualify the outcome of the Crisis roll according to the degree to which the Success level was passed or missed.  Rolls above or below the actual number given for success should be interpreted roughly along the following lines

Success of Failure by 1
Most of the intended outcome should apply, with some slight extras or limits.  The GM should not qualify the players description of events too heavily.

Success or Failure by 2
Many of the intended effects occur, but there are several unsatisfying or highly satisfying aspects as well or despite what was achieved.

Success of Failure by 3
The achievement is substantially superior or inferior to expectations, and characters should have to adjust to these new circumstances.

Success of Failure by 4
A signal success or utter failure, the qualifications either extend the outcome significantly or apply substantial circumstantial consequences to the character.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Are examples of play coming soon? I'd like to see this put into action to get a better feel of it.

[MoonHunter]

I would like also to see a play example and some examples of what will be a trait to make more sense of the system.  Right now, it does evoke a system much like Hubris Game's Story Bones system, except with an extra layer of complexity in the mechanics, and two layers in execution.  This is different from Herowars with dicepools, but it is the best fit in my experience/ paradigm with the info presented.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gareth,

I agree with Moonhunter - this looks like Story Engine with a lot of the fluffiness removed and settled into more usable categories. Which is a good thing!

Have you read the Maelstrom rulebook? It's the first version of Story Engine and contains some of the best game text for establishing, defining, and implementing conflicts during play that I've ever read.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

Examples of play:

This is a bit tricky because an example of play is going to require giving values to the variables, which I’m hesitant to do at this time in that I am looking for advice on how to establish them.  That’s the bit I don’t seem to be able to move towards without some sort of critical feedback on the resolution architecture itself.  So, all these examples will be totally provisional and thumb-sucked, but hopefully they will convey the right impression.

Ex 1:
Snorri wants to sail his longship from Hedeby to Orkney.  Consulting the North Sea Navigation context, Snorri’s player discovers that this trip is made in three Trait rolls before the crisis is mandated; also that 4 successes are the default SL for this trip.    Snorri’s player is confident, as Snorri has an explicit ‘Sail Drakar’ trait at 6 dice, and so sets the difficulty at 2.  The GM accepts this without invoking the OverRule.  Snorri rolls 6 dice and gets 4 successes that are committed to the Crisis Pool.  For the second roll, the player sees no need to change anything as things are going well; however the GM advises the a strong wind has blown up and the TN is now 4; Snorri also aquires 2 penalty dice in line with the OverRule.  Snorri now rolls 8 dice, the highest 2 of which are dropped, against TN 4.  Snorri gets 2 successes, and these are combined with the existing Pool dice to make a total Crisis pool of 6 dice.  For the third roll, Snorri’s player elects to be safe rather than sorry, and sets the TN at 5.  The GM feels that this is good enough and does not invoke the OverRule.  Snorri rolls 6 dice against TN 5, getting another two successes.  The Crisis Pool is now 8 dice.  The GM sets the difficulty for the goal (find Orkney and land safely) at 4 and Snorri rolls the 8 dice; 5 successes are rolled.  The GM rules that the goal was achieved with a slight improvement (SL+1), in this case that Snorri arrives half a day earlier than might have been expected.


For the second example, of the flow and sequence of combat

Ex 2:
The reason Snorri has come to Orkney is to exact vengeance for his brother in accordance with the ‘laws’ of blood-feud, and he has brought his pack of adventurers with him to ensure that justice is done.  The action resumes with Snorri and Thorgils, his enemy, facing off in the middle off the village.  As this is ostensibly a private matter, the pair start out duelling alone.  Snorri and Thorgil both have tacit Goals: Kill Snorri/Thorgils. Obviously.  The GM’s narration sets the scene, and the players exchange in-character banter.  Suddenly dropping a Frenzied Assault card, Thorgils player (the GM) formally opens the contest.  Instantly, Snorri’s player, and the player of one of his henchmen, Erik, both drop cards/tokens to lock themselves into the action queue.

Thorgils action is resolved first; he rolls a handful of dice and gets 4 successes against TN: 5 toward his ‘Goal: Kill Snorri’ crisis pool, describing a vigorous assault on Snorri that pushes him back into a pool of mud.  Thorgils does not attempt to resolve the crisis yet, as he will need (from context, and again thumb-sucked) 6 successes due to Snorri’s mail and helmet to bring him low.  Snorri’s action is next; and he also goes for TN 5, but the GM invokes the OverRule due to the mud and raises the TN to 7 and imposes 2 penalty dice.  Snorri rolls his Sword & Shield dice, 6 of them, against the TN 7 and achieves only 2 successes toward his ‘Kill Thorgils’ crisis pool; the player also narrates the hampering effects of the mud as the Details mandated by the penalty dice.

Next up in the action queue is Erik.  Nobody ever said this had to be a fair fight, and Erik declares that he is going to take action toward Snorri’s already established ‘Kill
Thorgils’ goal pool.  Erik narrates circling about and ambushing Thorgils from the rear; confident of this he nominates a TN of 2.  The GM feels this is a bit optimistic and invokes the OverRule to set the TN at 3 and imposes a penalty die.  Erik is something of a scrapper and rolls 6 dice (one a penalty die) against the TN3, succeeding 5 times and adding 5 dice to the Kill Thorgils pool, which now stands at 7 dice.

At this point we briefly return to open narration, even though Snorri and Erik rapidly slam down attack cards to commit to the queue.  The GM reports that shouts and screams can be heard and that several warriors are reaching for their weapons and appear keen to enter the fray.  However, the GM concedes that Snorri gets to go first on the basis that Thorgils is distracted by two opponents, and so Snorri is next up, followed by Erik, followed by Thorgils.

Snorri narrates that Thorgils has part-turned toward Erik and that his TN is therefore 2; the GM advises that the mud penalty is still in effect and that the TN is therefore 4 with 2 penalty dice.  Snorri rolls his combat pool and gets 5 successes; this raises the Kill Thorgils pool to 12 dice.  Erik is next up, and elects to resolve the crisis rather than take an additional action; he rolls the 12 dice in the Kill Thorgils Pool against a GM-nominated TN 6 (no penalties).  Erik obtains 8 successes, enough to strike Thorgils down despite his armour, and so Thorgils is slain.

Notes:
This is a little vague because, as I said, I’m making up the actual content of the Combat context as I go along, but it should I hope demonstrate the rough outline of action sequencing, pool accumulation, and the interaction between narration and TN’s.  That’s the stuff that needs specific development for each setting, and some further thought on my part to establish exactly how to discuss TN’s, types of goals/conflicts, and fixed success levels.

This idea has indeed been heavily inspired by Maelstrom in terms of goal establishment.  The element of HW I was after was the deferred resolution, in which the outcome of an extended context is decided after a number of exchanges and governed by AP transactions.  Any thoughts appreciated.

[Mike Holmes]

Reminds me a bit of Zenobia combat, and mirrors closely what the ver 2.0 of Synthesis (which is being reviewed before publication) is like.

A big difference, are the SLs, and the number of rolls til crisis. I know you don't have it worked out yet, but generally speaking, how are these things established? Are they referenced? Or do you intend for them to be created in play similar to the TNs? IOW, do you look up Thorgil's armor on a chart, or is it's SL determined in some other manner?

Mike

[contracycle]

The idea would be that a given game setting is equipped with defined Contexts, but these can conceivably be swapped in and out for different games.  Also, cvlaues in one context need not be consistent with values in another.

So frex the North Sea Navigation I mentioned would be a specific implementation of a Context to describe that type of problem in that particualr setting.  It would include things like known routes, which have fixed Success Levels.  SL's should serve as, more or less, the only fixed numbers in a particular setting.  There could be a discussion of probable sailing TN's based on boat features and weather conditions, which would serve to inform player nominations of TN's.

Similarly, the Combat context can be flipped for different settings.  SL's needed for a kill against a target with given armouring can be tuned for appropriate contextual balance.  This emans you would not necessarily be able to port characters from one setting to another; its conceptually more like tabletop wargames in which specific rules exist for specific combatants and their likely opponents; they often cannot handle units from beyod their period range, or produce whacky results if they are introduced.  So a given context will list the weaponry and armour available in that specific setting.

Conspicuous by its absence is any discussion of character creation. I see this as being freeform in the paragapragph description mode; character abilities will be player-authored in the manner of HW's decsriptors, arising from the conflict-issues identified in the contexts.  So the North Sea Navigation context will contain a discussion of regional weather and current patterns such that the GM knows how to penalise and the player can make reasonable TN propositions; also, of course, they necessarily describe the kinds of things in which characters may be skilled or have acquired experience; knowledge of routes, currents, weather, hazards etc.