Conflict in Crux

[taalyn]

hey guys and gals and various werebeasts,

I'm starting to think about Crux conflict, and have discovered a wall I'm bouncing on. I'm hoping some of you could help me out.

The basic idea is that classic, I-hit-him-with-my-+2broadsword combat is red (physical) conflict. Slam poetry, insults, having your dark secret exposed - this is amber (social) conflict. There won't be a separate chapter for Combat in the Crux book, because combat isn't a central premise of the game. Conflict, on the other hand...

So I want there to be 7 kinds of conflict, one for each color. The problem is trying to figure out what some of that conflict is like. Here's where I could use your help - what kind of conflicty events go with the following colors and associations?

Red - strength and athletic skills
Amber - charisma and social skills

(Those two are basically figured out - what about:)

Green - intelligence and knowledge skills
Cyan - Dexterity and precision skills
Blue - will and spiritual skills (counseling, meditation, prayer, etc.)
Magenta - perception and artistic skills
Clear - empathy and magical skills

Note that empathy is a character's ability to understand the universe at large, to know what Quiddity/Chi is doing in a particular place and how to avoid the not-so-nice effects that can cause. This is why it's magic.

So, yeah, what does artistic combat look like? Is cyan conflict just a gunfight, or can it be more than that? I think that the color of the conflict defines the damaged color - red conflict removes red motes from the caern - so cyan conflict wouldn't be a gunfight, as that would still remove red motes.

An additional thing that's bugging me - ranged vs. melee. For combat, the distinction is red skills vs. cyan skills, so I can see that being a useful distinction, for damage. That is, in a red conflict, ranged weapons use cyan skills and cause greater damage. Cyan is opposite red on the spectrum. In amber conflict, ranged damage comes from blue skills (hypnotism, for example). In a cyan conflict, ranged damage comes from red skills. And so on. Ranged isn;t about how far away you are, it's about how easy it is to dodge (usually impossible or VERY difficult) and how much damage it does - guns and bows are more dangerous and deadly than knives and sticks.

This is not to say that swords and axes aren't deadly too. Damage, at the moment, works like this:

Normal damage (WoD's Bashing) causes bruises and scrapes, and Deadly damage (WoD's Lethal) causes punctures, sucking chest wounds, and general whup-ass.

Melee weapons do normal damage as default. The amount depends on the draw - Power + weapon bonus + appropriate Trait. So, using my +4 sword of ouchiness, and drawing 5 power, if my strength is 3, I've done 4+5+3 or 12 normal damage (ND).

Ranged weapons use a multiplier, with the average handgun's multiplier being 6. I shoot with my Gun of Hurtiness, and get 3 power. That's 18 ND.

Deadly damage (DD) is determined by how strong the victim's trait is. For the melee, on an average victim (strength of 3), that's 4 DD - he's not doing well (it IS a Sword of Ouchiness!). Same guy, unhurt, shot with the gun - that's 6 DD, which will put him in a coma at the least.

Every caern starts with 3 of each color, so to kill someone, you have to do more damage than the victim's trait + 3. DD removes a mote from the victim's caern (among other things), and ND provides a penalty to draws, for every Trait # of ND taken. If I collect 6 ND, and have a Trait of 3, then I'm at -2 to all draws. If I take 4, that only -1, because I only have the one set of 3 in there. If my Trait is 10 (I'm a god, yeah, I'm bad, you know it), and have 8 ND, I have no penalty at all yet.

Now, a weak little guy with a strength of 2. The melee - 6 DD, which kills him outright, as it's more than the 5 motes he has. The gunshot - 9 DD - "meet my friend, Fine Mist". Str of 5, melee does 2 DD and 2 ND. Gunshot - 3 DD and 3 ND.

I like grainy and deadly, but this is TOO grainy I think.

Anyone offer some help?

Aidan

[Mike Holmes]

Here's where the problem starts, IMO:

I think that the color of the conflict defines the damaged color - red conflict removes red motes from the caern - so cyan conflict wouldn't be a gunfight, as that would still remove red motes.

I'd change this for a couple of reasons. First, it makes it so that there are only seven overall sorts of conflicts with seven distinct results. Second, there are counterintuitive examples. What I'd do is have each participant describe what they are attempting to do, and what they hope to achieve by the outcome. This makes the combinations of conflicts number 49, and combined with results, 2401, more if you consider non-color results.

So for example, one character is trying to kill the other with his bare hands. That's Red, with the attempt to "draw" Red from the other character. The other character simply want's to get away. That's Cyan, with the attempt to simply end the conflict.

Normal damage (WoD's Bashing) causes bruises and scrapes, and Deadly damage (WoD's Lethal) causes punctures, sucking chest wounds, and general whup-ass.

I'd ignore "damage types", and just stick with bonuses for weapons. This is actually realistic. There is no such thing as "non-lethal" damage. As a Physicians Assistant I know once told me, "any harm to a person that renders them unconscious is a potentially life-threatening situation". For a more cinematic sort of game, there are other ways to keep characters from dying than the "normal" damage fallacy (in this case in the stat comparison/draw).

Ranged weapons use a multiplier, with the average handgun's multiplier being 6. I shoot with my Gun of Hurtiness, and get 3 power. That's 18 ND.

I'd not make an exception for ranged weapons. Just as Red adds to the "damage" done by melee weapons, Cyan should add to the "damage" of ranged weapons. One system.

I like grainy and deadly, but this is TOO grainy I think.

Not at all. If this is a Conflict resolution system, then one contest like this should determine the overall results. So it should range from unhurt to dead in one roll, potentially. That is, if per the example above, the killer wins, then he ought to have done some serious amount of damage to the defender. If he loses, the conflict is over by the other character's definition. None of this round-to-round stuff. Unless that's really what you're shooting for.

So, for the types what does this mean?

Green - intelligence and knowledge skills

There's always the idea that Conflicts don't have to be between active opponents trying to hurt each other. So Conflicts of the Green sort would often revolve around trying to recall information, or solve puzzles, or the like. But I can see a character using Intelligence to find a weak spot in an opponent's defense in a fight, and causing Red damage. Or coming up with a mental ploy that he could use to confuse someone about something, which could lower their Magenta. Or cleverly drawing an opponent onto ice to lower their Cyan. Or making a philosphical argument against their beliefs in order to lower Blue.

That's several examples for one color. I'll give one example for each of the others.

Cyan - Dexterity and precision skills

One could use Cyan to make a person look foolish in combat thus lowering their self-confidence in front of others, thus lowering their Amber.

Blue - will and spiritual skills (counseling, meditation, prayer, etc.)

Using Blue to remain calm in a fight and strike at just the right moment to do Red damage. Very Kung-Fu action flick.

Magenta - perception and artistic skills

Noticing an easy to disrupt element of a magical ceremony by another character which when done causes the character to lose Clear motes.

Clear - empathy and magical skills

This one is too easy. It's magic, it can be described as doing anything. Use Clear to produce a gout of flame that does lots of Red damage. Or make a spell that clouds the mind lowering Green.

When you open a system up like this, you tend to get players always using their best stat to try to do everything. What I'd do is figure out a way so that each stat had natural susceptibilities and resistances to other stats. Thus, Red might be the most effective way to damage Red, but Blue would be hard to affect Red with. A simple way, and I'm not sure if it works, is to say that you automatically lose one level of damage for each color you are away on the wheel. That makes a sort of intuitive sense, but maybe not practical sense - you'll have to determine that. You could even make it as complicated as a cross referenced chart if you wanted. But it would just be very cool if players had to constantly consider what ability to use against another in conflicts.

Is this making any sense? I'm going kinda fast, but it all seems very clear to me.

BTW, reduce any stat to zero and you ought to have defeated your opponent. Zero Blue? No will to compete. Zero Amber? Cowed. Zero Green? Befuddled. Etc. Makes lethal combat only one mechanical way out of seven to defeat an opponent. And there's always non-mechanical defeats. Winning a Cyan v Cyan footrace is one way to beat an opponent that has to mote loss involved, neccessarily.

Mike

[Paul Czege]

Hey Mike,

I like the color of the act plus the color of the outcome solution.

When you open a system up like this, you tend to get players always using their best stat to try to do everything. What I'd do is figure out a way so that each stat had natural susceptibilities and resistances to other stats. Thus, Red might be the most effective way to damage Red, but Blue would be hard to affect Red with.

The alternative is to reduce stats as they're used, cycling points through them as if they're colored buckets, ala http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=66437">The Valedictorian's Death (and Jared's Red, White, Blue, from which it takes inspiration). The consequence to this method is that you can no longer use stats for character differentiation...you'd need to come up with another means of achieving that.

Paul

[taalyn]

So, what you're saying is that swords and choppy bits are red-red combat - red actions for red damage, while guns and shooty bits are cyan-red combat, with cyan actions for red damage. That's doable. There are lots of associations with the colors, so a green-cyan conflict might be information leaked to the authorities to get you put in jail. Kind of like a green grenade.

Keep in mind that I'm making a distinction between task resolution and conflict. Task reolution may result in damage, but it's always impersonal - falling, big nasty fires, and so on. Conflict is always personal.

What I'm not seeing, though, is how being put in jail (cyan because it's about movement and freedom) is deadly. Being insulted (amber) to the point of suicide - I can see that, and being hacked to death, that's really easy to see. This is what I'm having trouble with. You've allowed me to refine the question, though, so here goes:

What do the other colors represent, in terms of personal and potentially deadly damage? Clear is easy, yeah, so skip that, but what is artistic damage? That's really what I'm describing here.

I like the color action-color damage system, but I'm not convinced it would work yet.  Have to see what some possibles for color damage are.

On damage - if everything's normal damage, fine, but where does the removal of motes come from? Are my ranges simpler smaller (witha  knife doing 1 or 2 damage only, and a gun potentially 7), and if so, how does that follow from the draw's power? Or do I convert to motes removed as before, just don't call it deadly? At which point, it seems silly not to - it IS so much more deadly than the other stuff, which only causes penalties.

Note that when motes are removed from your caern, the opponent gets to define a new flaw of the appropriate strength and color, and to heal back those motes, you have to spend XP (Boons or motes from passions) to heal the flaw. If I got shot in the leg for 1 DD (1 red mote from my caern), then the Guide (for the NPC who shot me) might give me the flaw "Limpy R1" - no effect but color, except for the effect on the caern).

Aidan

[taalyn]

Normal damage (WoD's Bashing) causes bruises and scrapes, and Deadly damage (WoD's Lethal) causes punctures, sucking chest wounds, and general whup-ass.

I'd ignore "damage types", and just stick with bonuses for weapons. This is actually realistic. There is no such thing as "non-lethal" damage. As a Physicians Assistant I know once told me, "any harm to a person that renders them unconscious is a potentially life-threatening situation". For a more cinematic sort of game, there are other ways to keep characters from dying than the "normal" damage fallacy (in this case in the stat comparison/draw).

Well, yeah, but the distinction is there to represent the difference between damage that does or does not render you unconscious. A single slap in a social situation won't put you out, so it's normal, but being faced with giant octopoid-faced monsters from beyond the world would - it's deadly. Over time, normal becomes deadly, as the examples showed - you can be insulted over time to the point of suicide/death, just like you can be slowly tortured to death. But how you get there normal-wise takes a lot longer than the deadly route. I guess I'm saying I see your point, I just disagree.

ANother worry I have about the color/color model is that it increases complexity needlessly. If the determining factor is what kind of damage it does, and only the opposite color can also be used (basically, that keeps any conflict on the same axis - red and cyan are the body axis, green and magenta are the mind axis, and blue and amber are the soul axis), then I've accounted for the limits you suggest be in place to prevent min/maxing. Of course, part of the point of the game, at least for chargen, is YES! Anything you want - there are plenty of other ways to screw with the munchkin players, whether it's his character or what he does.

Aidan

[Shreyas Sampat]

I would rather contend that it actually reduces complexity, because "any color and conflict with any other color" is a lot easier to process than "there are three kinds of conflicts..."; the fact that it creates more different situations in a play is an outgrowth of its simplicity.

[taalyn]

Okay, Shreyas, good point. And complexity from simplicity is great.

So, if conflict is determined by what you're doing and what is damages, the question remains - what the heck does magenta damage look like! ;)You have to think laterally - cyan is about dexterity and motion, including freedom or the lack thereof, so imprisonment can be cyan. But what does cyan damage look like? Is imprisonment a sufficient reason for cyan motes to be lost from the caern - measuring a change in one's ability to move in the world, on a different logical level?

As to minimizing min/max - I think I'll just make non-axis colors do a little less damage, or be a little more difficult (same difference, really). As to what axis - doesn't matter - I think. I'm starting to imagine counterexamples - in which case - screw the players another way! (I've been playtesting - I should post the results to the actualplay forum... all kinds of great ways to screw over my players, without it being painful or nasty!)

Aidan

[MathiasJack]

So, if conflict is determined by what you're doing and what is damages, the question remains - what the heck does magenta damage look like! ;)You have to think laterally - cyan is about dexterity and motion, including freedom or the lack thereof, so imprisonment can be cyan. But what does cyan damage look like? Is imprisonment a sufficient reason for cyan motes to be lost from the caern - measuring a change in one's ability to move in the world, on a different logical level?

I'll butt in here and see if I can answer for Mike based off of his post.

I think, just like there are different forms of conflict rather than simple physical combat, there are different forms of damage based on what color is affected. In other words, this is about incapcitation rather than being dead.

Red is weakness. Amber is social embarrassment. Green is confusion. Cyan is being immobile. Blue is hopelessness. Magenta is senseless (or in an artistic tenor, it is the creative block).

Again, in other words, it is more what does the picture look like when that trait is lowered to zero. I don't think that /should/ mean death, just the opposite of having that trait.

This opens up what conflict means for the 7 colors, without the worry about death being the result of losing a single trait, and worries like what Magenta Death looks like. And I think I agree with Mike - there shouldn't be a difference between normal and deadly damage. Damage is the ability for your opponent to assign a flaw worth those points in that specific color.

Now that leaves the area of character death undefined, but separate from the real question that was being discussed - conflict. So now, moving on to death, what does that look like? What causes death? Maybe it is the situation that is more important that point spreads and stat mechanics - create narravistic mechanics.

Maybe? It's late, not certain I made any sense.
Jack

[taalyn]

Heya Jack! (I have to start that way - it doesn't feel right otherwise!)

That last bit was me playing devil's advocate, while at the same time having my head up something dark and smelly. I warned you about the number jags! ;)

Okay, so I see what you're saying - and it's intuitive. One of the playtesters suggested creative block for magenta conflict too. the idea of "incapacitation" really clarified for me, and I now totally agree on that count, as well as on the single type of damage.

Motes can still be removed (a sign of incapacitation), and replaced temporarily with Flaws, to be bought off later to gain the return of the motes.

Now - Death! I can see the collapse of the spectrum if one whole color is missing. Imprisonment doesn't kill you, but it can lead you there if it's severe enough. Creative block can be the same. In most of these cases, it's probably self induced, but that really doesn't matter when you're a corpse.

The thing is - for characters anyway - Death is hard to come by, unless they want it. Boons can prevent Death in every case - and Death thus only happens when the character is down to 0 in a color and has no Passion left. A player can choose to have a character die, and that's fine, at any time.

The other question left is how do damage mechanics work? I think there should be a difference between how ranged (difficult to avoid actions) and melee (easy to avoid) "attacks" calculate damage, even though there's only the one kind. Ranged should do more, in my mind, or at least have the capacity for it. So it seems like there would have to be some way of converting lots of damage into motes removed.

I like the simplicity of using the Trait (I have Perception 5, so 5 magenta motes of damage causes me to lose 1 magenta mote from the caern), but this sucks for low Traits. On one hand, that's as it should be, on the other - too grainy?

While we discuss it here (because having all the extra comments is helping me a lot - I hope you don't mind, Jack), some basic stuff to contemplate and be aware of.

Average Trait is 3, Average Aspect (aka skill) is 3, so the average Hand is 6 (we've gone Trait + Aspect). Average Power (aka number of successes) for that hand is 3. Average Obstacle (aka difficulty) is 2.

Caern is built with Trait+3. If my perception is 5, I'll add 8 magenta motes to my caern.

I know we need some sort of initiative too - is using the dex score too simple, or just right? Other ideas? I had this complicated thing sort of like Stances in TRoS, but I'm not sure that works either.

I think that's enough...

Thanks to everyone so far, BTW, this is helping a lot. I knew it was screwed up, but couldn't move my head somewhere else...

Aidan

[MathiasJack]

Heya Aidan!

taalyn wrote:

I know we need some sort of initiative too - is using the dex score too simple, or just right? Other ideas? I had this complicated thing sort of like Stances in TRoS, but I'm not sure that works either.

If stances are done right, I believe they actually streamline and simplify initiative.

Might I suggest you paste your conflict post off the Crux site over here for people to peruse? I believe that might give some context to the questions you pose at the end of your last post here, such as how you're envisioning stances, as well as how you originally saw conflict (physical and social examples).

The Jack strikes back!

[MathiasJack]

taalyn wrote:

Boons can prevent Death in every case - and Death thus only happens when the character is down to 0 in a color and has no Passion left. A player can choose to have a character die, and that's fine, at any time.

This does take us back to what that type of color Death looks like. When Magenta is 0 and all the Passions gone, what does that type of Death look like? Or is that one color of each axis has to be 0 (physical, mental, spiritual) /and/ Passions, which would make deaths look a bit more alike - but /that's/ a LOT of damage to dish out. Is this where we might bring in the concept of Corona?

Maybe Death is caused when the Character has 0 in one of the physical axis traits and no Passions, but other things happen to the Character when down to 0 in spirit or mental and no Passions. Like if a Spirit Trait is down to 0, then no magic can be cast or Passions rebuilt. Maybe if it is a Mental Trait, then no Aspects can be used. I guess I am thinking of options, since sometimes Death is the nicest thing you can do to someone...

One could say that if death only occurs via physical traits, then that makes them more "vital". That might be true, but it could be balanced by reward systems for lowering the other traits. Say lowering spiritual or mental traits not only lowers your opponents' caern as well as assigning Flaws, but maybe it is another way to earn motes to raise Passions with. Maybe it can be a way to "collect" motes, say for a type of Sorcery. This makes sense in Amber conflict - not only do you lower your opponent's esteem for ridiculing her, but you gain a boost in confidence. Again, these are ideas to possibly make it more tempting to lower your opponent's other colors rather than just killing them (or making it easier to kill them) and then just simply stating "Killing in Crux is highly discouraged since it makes you mean."

taalyn wrote:

The other question left is how do damage mechanics work? I think there should be a difference between how ranged (difficult to avoid actions) and melee (easy to avoid) "attacks" calculate damage, even though there's only the one kind. Ranged should do more, in my mind, or at least have the capacity for it. So it seems like there would have to be some way of converting lots of damage into motes removed.

Is ranged /always/ Cyan? Would a magical ranged feit (spell), use Cyan? I raise this question because maybe it can be something as simple as Cyan causing more loss than the other colors.

I use the word loss rather than damage because of the physical connotations damage carries. If conflict ranges beyond combat, then our idea of what damage is should too. Knowing you, you'll come up with a better term than loss...

taalyn wrote:

I like the simplicity of using the Trait (I have Perception 5, so 5 magenta motes of damage causes me to lose 1 magenta mote from the caern), but this sucks for low Traits. On one hand, that's as it should be, on the other - too grainy?

I say, yep, that's the way the Coil turns...

Jack Attack!

[Mike Holmes]

Lot's of stuff to clear up here.

First, Jack got right exactly what I was talking about in terms of what the effects of Zero would be, but then you guys retreated from it, which I don't understand. There seems to be an opinion that causing someone to die is always preferable to causing them to become incapacitated somehow, and that as such, Zero in a Trait should cause death or something. I'm not getting that at all.

What I'm saying is that going to zero in any stat should have the game mechanical effect of preventing the character from doing anything. Incapacitation for some reason, whatever it is. That does not mean that the character should die, except in the case of Red and only in the case of Red going to zero. If your Green goes to Zero, then you are too mentally messed up to do anything. If your Blue is zero you have no will to do anything. Etc. You don't die, but the mechanical effect is the same, the character can't do anything until such point as he somehow gets a mote back in that color.

So let's say that I want to kill some guy with lots and lots of Red motes. Do I attack his Red? Well, I can do that. But if he's also low in, say, Blue, I'd attack him there instead. If I get him down to Zero Blue, then he'll have no will to defend himself, and I can then take all his Red motes if I so desire.

But this all assumes that killing is somehow a good idea. Why not reduce someone to Zero Blue, and instead get all the information I can from them? And then throw them in prison. Why is it so necessary that the game be all about killing folks? I don't get that at all. Isn't it a bigger coup, a more impressive feat, to capture something than to kill it?

I sense a strong "Traditional Gamer" bias in this determination. But I sense that the game won't be about tradtional things, and has non-traditional rules, so as long as you make the balance of the Conflict mechanics about things other than killing, I think it'll work. And for those who want to be killing machines, well, there's always the option to take a big Red score (or Cyan).


Ranged weapons do more damage than melee weapons? When? Where? Why? Let's take a quick look at Newton's Third Law in effect. When you fire a gun there's that "kick" that the firer feels? That kick is the "opposite and equal reaction". Which means that the person getting hit with the bullet is hit by exactly the same amount of force. The only reason that bullets go into people at all is that they are very small and fairly hard. If you get hit by a beanbag with similar force behind it, it hurts a bit, and might bruise you, but can't possibly kill you. People aren't knocked down by being hit by gunfire. Ever. If they do fall down, it's because they think they're supposed to do so.

With a sword, OTOH, you can put your full strength behind a blow, and really impart some force to a target. Causing much much larger wounds.

Guns are dangerous simply because they're easy to use, and can be used at range. Meaning that you can accost somebody potentiall without being accosted back. This makes aiming much easier, for instance. But given an opportunity to poke you with a rapier without you trying to stop me, or shooting you with a .45 at short range, the rapier is about 10 times more likely to kill you. Despite being common, and easy to use, only about 10% of GSW are fatal. Knifings are worse than that.

And with bows...think about it for a minute.

Now, as I always say when I point these things out, I'm being hyper-realistic here. This is based on data from the FBI and ARMA that only silly grognards like myself would ever bother to look up. So, if you want a game that matches the portrayal of guns in other media, particularly movies (I blame the movie Shane above all others for pushing the trend), then I suppose you might want to bump up gun damage.

But I don't see the point, particularly. Is this game about delivering a cinematic combat feel? I wouldn't say not to do it because it's not realistic, I'd say not to do it because it's just not important. You're adding rules to simulate something that just doesn't seem to be an important part of the game.


As for damage, and Combat in general, here's what I'd suggest. Both sides draw trying to achieve what they want to achieve. Count successes. Subtract the lower from the higher. The remaining amount is what the lower drawer takes in terms of Motes lost. Simple and fast. I think there may be some confusion here over the idea of Conflict v Task resolution.

Mike

[Thomas Tamblyn]

I agree with everything Mike said just there except about zero red motes being death.

I don't see any need for there to be an exception for red (assuming zero motes in anything is out of action) - with zero red you're knackered and just lying around wheezing (in my humble opinion)

But other than that, pay attention to Mike Holmes, he's spouting wisdom.

[MathiasJack]

I guess I wasn't too clear in my last point, because I was attempting to make the same points that Mike did in his last post. Zero traits should be about incapcitation, not death - which makes more exciting stories anyhows. This confusion is what I get after not sleeping for over 24 hours...

Just remember: what Mike said!

Jack goes to hit the Sack

[ross_winn]

When I read this and visualize it I see a color wheel with six pie slices. The center of this pie is a smaller circle that is in your description 'clear' however it is in my visualization actually white. Like the white of Saruman's(sp?) cloak in the Lord of the Rings. That is a white made up of all the colors. Each color has an opposite that it is espescially effective against. While it is less effective against bordering colors. Am I visualizing this correctly?

I think white works better than clear, as clear isn't really a color.