Conflict in Crux

[taalyn]

Hey Mike,

excelelnt ideas, and thanks for providing them. You and Shreyas will certainly be in the credits when we get there - you've been a great help.

Understand that I'm gun clueless (it's a long story, but lets simply say that I have the odd magical power to make guns jam on touch), so you're ultra-realism notes helps a lot. It all makes sense, plus you have Jack, my co-writer, on your side, so even if I wanted there'd be little I could do to counter. ;) You win!

Anyway, this works as you describe. I still have a couple of thought/issues, though.

You're right to say that Crux isn't about killing people - if anything, it's aboput all the problems that come with doing so. Which is why some way to determine death (even if rare or impossible for characters) is important. I want a way to account for accidental death in a gunfight, so that I can then add the police, guilt, revenging relatives in to the mix. That, and there is a certain degree of tension introduced, even if Crux let's the character escape death almost always.

Deadly weapons like guns and swords and letters (bombs) simply have a bonus to the loss/incapacitiation.  My Sword of Ouchiness adds 2 to the damage. This is sleek, and I like.

How about initiative? This can be significant in conflicts - being able to whip off the first stinging insult can be quite an advantage, since any loss you cause means the other guy is less effective. Initiative is very important, I think. Have any of the ideas I mentioned sparked anyone's interest?

Thanks again, guys. This has been messed up for a long time (since I was discussing the whole thing here as Aisling), and it looks like it's finally reaching a good place. Now maybe we'll have to do magic here too...Jack? Good idea?

Aidan

[taalyn]

Hi Ross!

Yeah, you've got it right. There are several reasons for going with clear -

White light isn't really white, is it? That's what that center represents, as I'm using the light spectrum instead of the paint spectrum (geekily, additive vs. subtractive spectra). Also, each caern, a collection of tokens representing motes of various colors, also includes one white, one black, and one iridescent (or stiped, or mauve, or polka dotted - distinctive somehow, anyway) token. The white mote is called a Boon, which has all sorts of good stuff come with it. If I call clear "white" there's confusion there, and the Boon as white is intuitive.

Also, technically, white isn't a color either - it's either all or none of them (depending on the spectrum used).

Does that make sense now?

Aidan

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.

[ross_winn]

White light isn't really white, is it? That's what that center represents, as I'm using the light spectrum instead of the paint spectrum (geekily, additive vs. subtractive spectra). Also, each caern, a collection of tokens representing motes of various colors, also includes one white, one black, and one iridescent (or stiped, or mauve, or polka dotted - distinctive somehow, anyway) token. The white mote is called a Boon, which has all sorts of good stuff come with it. If I call clear "white" there's confusion there, and the Boon as white is intuitive.  

Also, technically, white isn't a color either - it's either all or none of them (depending on the spectrum used).  


thanks for the clarification. I like the idea of a boon mechanic as well. Thanks.[/i]

[Mike Holmes]

No "initiative". Again, what I propose is a contest between abilities. Higher drawer wins, and does something to the opponent.

So, if I'm drawing Cyan to escape, and you're drawing Red to do Red to me, and I draw higher, I get away. If you draw higher, you do damage, and I don't get away.

If I'm insulting you with Magenta, and you're trying to kill me with Red, and I roll higher, then I have insulted you, and you haven't hurt me because of the sting of the jibe. If we do the same Conflict again, and you win, you injure me before I can insult you, thus shutting me up.

It's a very simple method, but also very realistic. Conflicts are rarely "IGO UGO" in real life. Everybody sorta goes at the same time, and through some combination of events dictated by skill and random chance, somebody scores on somebody else. For example, in a sword fight, you might have a situation where one attacker attacks repeatedly forcing his opponent to defend like mad, and then the defender gets hit anyhow. Followed by the same thing. Sometimes one side just doesn't get an opening. IGO UGO systems just don't represent that well.

The system that I'm describing does represent this sort of situation. Using high levels of Green? Represents a fast mind. Lot's of Magenta? Quick wit. High Blue? Constant levels of spiritual support. In any case, they all represent some ability to do well in conflicts and find an opening to score on. After all, you wouldn't want to rate a character's speed of ability to insult on their Cyan, would you? So no need to have a secondary system to determine who "goes" before whom.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

If you decide to go with the color for action/color for damage you get some unique advantages if you also decide to go with the simultaneously resolution system Mike is throwing at you.  This relates to a system I've been experimenting in my head with, you can resolve all conflicts as damage.

So, if I'm drawing Cyan to escape, and you're drawing Red to do Red to me, and I draw higher, I get away. If you draw higher, you do damage, and I don't get away.

Another way to resolve this using the same system could be to figure out what the end goal of escaping is, and then apply that as damage.  If you are just trying to run away until they give up, that'd be Cyan doing damage to Blue.  If you do enough damage to Blue, they give up.  Of course, you'd need to add this-conflict-only incapacitation.  Everything being an attack of sorts lets you avoid tack on rules to simultaneous resolution to provide a reason to just defend (if it's the same roll to not get hit and not get hit plus hit, then why not hit?).  You just figure out the goal behind just defending.  Old master embarrasing young grasshopper because he cannot hit you?  The Grasshopper is Red to Red, and the old master is Red to Amber.  No defending, only attacking (in one fashion or another).  It also means you don't need rules for extended tasks, the task is finished when you've removed all the opponents "hit points".

The system that I'm describing does represent this sort of situation. Using high levels of Green? Represents a fast mind. Lot's of Magenta? Quick wit. High Blue? Constant levels of spiritual support. In any case, they all represent some ability to do well in conflicts and find an opening to score on. After all, you wouldn't want to rate a character's speed of ability to insult on their Cyan, would you? So no need to have a secondary system to determine who "goes" before whom.

This is a very good arguement why initiative may not be right for this particular system.

[taalyn]

On intiative:

The issue isn't simultaneous IGO UGO for me. Rather, it's an issue of "I see what you're going to do, so I'm going to do this." I LIKE the simultaneity, and whatever else happens that will be included - every "action" in conflict includes attack AND defend.

There are metagame reasons for initiative. When I have 6 players all acting at once, I need both a way to fairly get actions in some sort of order and a way to reflect the fact that a player can preempt a NPCs actions (as well as other players). I suppose the simultaneity and the power of the draw addresses that last issue.

My thoughts on the metagame aspect - simply use DEX, in order from highest to lowest, and use draws to differentiate if necessary. If player's have DEX as: player a - 4, b 3, c, 5, and d5. Then c and d draw, then a then b. On the other hand, you guys may have a better way to handle this. I thought about simply going around the table to the left, but that seems to penalize players who sit to my right.

The more I think (and apologies for rambling, I just woke up and there is no caffeine) the more I think this metagame thing might not be an issue at all. Everyone simpoly says what they want to do, and the succeeding draws get to do what they want.

If Joe is running and shooting at the giant snake, and the Snake is moving and striking at Wanda: if Joe succeeds - he simply gets a shot and hits the snake, interrupting his action, thus preventing the snake from moving AND/OR striking Wanda. Perhaps power indicates whether both "sides" of the action are stopped, or whether he moves but striked, or strikes but doesn't move. If the Snake succeeds, Jow doesn't hit/run, depending. Actually, I like this. Simply require, say 2 power, to stop the secondary side of the action, the primary being the offensive side.

Another concern about simultaneous actions: only one side draws (PC), except for particularly significant NPCs or dramatically tense situations). That makes the "who got higher power" a difficult measure - it's represented already in simpoly one draw. Oh wait - íf it's included in the one draw, then it isn't an issue. If they don't get enough power, the other guy suceeds, with a power derived from how much the draw failed by.

Now, on damage - had inspiration/help last night from one of my playtesters. A caern, the pile of motes you draw from, contains a base 3 motes of each color plus traits. Incapacitation happens when you lose your Trait number of motes. If the remaining base 3 motes of a color are lost, death happens. If I have CHA 5 (amber), I can take 5 motes of "damage" before I'm flummoxed, and 3 more before I become suicidal.

The point of having death rules is to reflect the interrelatedness of the caern. Without any particular color, the spectrum starts to unravel.  Since I'm concerned about damage being too severe, perhaps it takes twice your trait +6 to kill. If I have CHa 5, at 5 amber damage I'm temporarily incapacitated (I can regain those motes fairly easily), but once I've taken 8 (5+3), I'm doing badly, and those motes are hard to get back (a la previous rules ideas with flaws). And at 16 amber damage, I'm dead, from my spectrum unravelling.

With all this rambling, if people make a good case for why I'm just stuck on old ways of doing things, I'll believe you and drop it. Sorry for rambling on - you got the "thinking out loud" process - a good thing I think since you get a little bit into my head that way. It may reveal presuppositions I'm not conscious of.

Aidan

[MathiasJack]

I would go ahead and present what we have on Magic so far as a separate thread, and see what people think. They might help with the three Schools of Sorcery, Magery, and Wizardry, since we seem to be going around in circles on that one. Also I'm curious to see what they think of our 7 Threads, and the minor, medor, and major levels of 7 actions (do we have a term for them?).

The ever-allusive Jack

[MathiasJack]

I think I like the idea of incapcitation rather than death. Incapcitation emphasizes each color equally rather than just one. Death on the other hand creates a preference on red and other colors that make sense for death, and creates a wierd tension for the colors that don't.

Now of course death in rpg, just in life, is unavoidable. Why not have the idea that bringing one trait to zero creates incapcitation, doesn't matter what color. Once an opponent is incapcitated, then bring in the death mechanic, like lowering Red to zero. But first the target needs to be incapcitated first.

If it is Red that is brought to zero for incapcitation, then yes, the trait has to be brought down to zero again for death.

But lets say Blue is brought down to zero. The target has Flaws assigned appropiately by the attacking player. But lets say that the player wants the target to commit suicide. Then the player would assign Flaws that would cause the target to go commit suicide, lowering his or her own Red trait down to zero themselves. Or with Boons, the target removes the Flaws before suicide is successful.

What say you to this idea? I think it combines the incapcitation aspect plus the need for death aspect into one package.

[MathiasJack]

As far as initiative goes, once again I think I like the simplicity of the one-step by Mike. He said the highest draw goes first. I think I actually would see it as end-result deciding who goes first. So everyone makes their draws, and based on power achieved, that declares who went first. This lets that lucky shot from the low trait go first at those miracle times.

[taalyn]

Heya Jack,

I think what we're getting stuck on is that death is a physical (red) thing, and that's not necessarily the case. The mind(green) can shut down and you get brain death simply from (lack of) will - people who think themselves to death. Or the soul(blue) can be destroyed, which leads to death too.

What I'm saying is that red, green or blue can cause death, but the others don't. Perhaps clear/magic can bring death too, by simply sundering the threads that hold everything else together, though this might be a strange death that would be easier to resurrect from. You'd just need to reweave everything together. Of course, the body is easy to find, but where do you find the floating-free mind or soul?

So, if R,G, or B (and maybe X) are reduced to 0, death. Otherwise, it's incapacitation. Or perhaps you need to have two Traits incapacitated to die, with appropriate flaws helping. Red at 0? Create flaws that make the pain so severe they give up(B or G). Blue at 0? Flaws that induce the character to putting themselves in danger, like schizophrenia. Green at 0? Flaws that reflect a general lack of faithin the world, or the character believing that death is coming for them.

If one of the other colors reaches 0, incap, then flaws tend to aid in reducing another trait to 0 as well.

I like this. Now we have a simple way to reflect an incapacitating blow, with the evil serial killer who then scars the face (actually Green damage - damaging a person's understanding of themselves) or frightens the person (Blue damage) to death.

I'm still worried that this is too deadly - playtest will tell. I think perhaps the first Trait motes are easy to get back, and it's the last 3 (caern=trait +3, remember) that are difficult to regain. If I get incapped in conflict on amber, and I have CHA 5. I can regain those 5 motes fairly easily (within a day or two), but the last 3 remain for months or longer - those are the motes that have to be bought off with experience. This way, my draw isn't penalized forever, but there is still a game effect - I'm easily cowed by a certain person, for example, until my confidence is rebuilt (through XP). This also works for red, reflecting wounds that take months to heal. It's slightly unrealistic there, but not egregiously so.

Initiative - simple draw it is.

I'm starting a new thread with magic stuff.

Aidan

[MathiasJack]

I'm always sufficiently dense in the mornings that I sometimes need things repeated for me. Let me see if I understand what you said last, Aidan.

So, if R,G, or B (and maybe X) are reduced to 0, death. Otherwise, it's incapacitation. Or perhaps you need to have two Traits incapacitated to die, with appropriate flaws helping. Red at 0? Create flaws that make the pain so severe they give up(B or G). Blue at 0? Flaws that induce the character to putting themselves in danger, like schizophrenia. Green at 0? Flaws that reflect a general lack of faithin the world, or the character believing that death is coming for them.

If one of the other colors reaches 0, incap, then flaws tend to aid in reducing another trait to 0 as well.

I like this. Now we have a simple way to reflect an incapacitating blow, with the evil serial killer who then scars the face (actually Green damage - damaging a person's understanding of themselves) or frightens the person (Blue damage) to death.

I'm still worried that this is too deadly - playtest will tell. I think perhaps the first Trait motes are easy to get back, and it's the last 3 (caern=trait +3, remember) that are difficult to regain. If I get incapped in conflict on amber, and I have CHA 5. I can regain those 5 motes fairly easily (within a day or two), but the last 3 remain for months or longer - those are the motes that have to be bought off with experience. This way, my draw isn't penalized forever, but there is still a game effect - I'm easily cowed by a certain person, for example, until my confidence is rebuilt (through XP). This also works for red, reflecting wounds that take months to heal. It's slightly unrealistic there, but not egregiously so.

To paraphrase:
To "kill" someone, first any Trait must be reduced to 0, and the character is incapcitated. Anything motes in the Trait higher than three are easy to regain, the last three in a Trait are much harder to gain back. Once the character is incapcitated, then Red, Blue or Green must then be reduced to zero.

To recap:
Any loss of motes in a Trait result in the equal loss of motes from the caern, as well as a Flaw equal to the loss of motes assigned to that Trait. Mote loss can be rehealed in time, but a Flaw must be bought off with Boons.

And as far as initiative goes:

Initiative - simple draw it is.

So, um, is this initiative based off of highest draw, or highest power result?

The ever-annoying Jack

[taalyn]

Heya Jack,
Your paraphrase is right. After the character is incapacitated (whatever color), Red, Green or Blue incapacitation then equals death.

Damage causes motes to be lost in the caern, where there are trait + 3 motes of each color. A Trait number of motes can ge regained fairly quickly, minutes to days, depending. The last 3 take months to years to heal without help (medical, psychiatric, magical, etc.) - in game mechanics, the flaw is bought off (and thus flaws are only applied when the damage is greater than the trait, and always range from 1 to 3).

Initiative is based on the highest power of the appropriate draw.

Let me do an example af a complex conflict (multiple attackes and defenders):

Our characters:
Amy: STR 3 CHA 4 DEX 2 INT 3, guns 2, bitch 4
Bob: STR 5 CHA 3 DEX 4 INT 3, guns 4, sword 2

The badguys:
Xon (Marahh henchman): STR 3 CHA 3 DEX 3, guns 3
York (Marahh agent): STR 4 CHA 4 DEX 3, sword 3, cutting remark 5
Zuul (summoned Caesura spirit): STR 4 CHA 8 DEX 7 INT 2 mindeating 4

Amy and Bob stumble across York and his henchman Xon in the middle of a ritual to summon a mindeater. In order to prevent the menace, Amy and Bob attack, hoping to stop the ritual. York and Xon saw them enter the warehouse.

Round 1:

Initiative:
Amy - RAA (Dex 3 - cyan) - 0 power
Bob - AGBM - 2 power
Xon - RMX - 0 power
York - RCG - 3 power
Order is York, Bob, Amy, and Xon (effectively, Bob then Amy).

York is going to finish his part of the ritual, and then move to engage Amy with his sword. Bob is going to fire at York (C on R) and avoid any attack on himself. Amy is going to fire at Xon (C on R), and avoid York. And Xon uses both sides of his action to finish the ritual.

First, Bob fires at York - that's a draw of 8 with an Obstacle of 4 (for distance). he draws - RAGCMMX and the Bane. That would be 3 power, but the bane subtracts 2 more motes (the Guide decides), for a final 1 power - he misses widely.

Now Amy fires at York - Draw 4 Obstacle 4. RRGX - only 1 power. She misses too.

Because they both missed, York was able to finish his part and has now moved to engage Amy. Xon completed the other parts of the ritual.

Round 2:
Init:
Amy - RCC - 4 power
Bob - RGB and the Boon, Bob opts for 2 motes to draw (gets RR) - 2 power
Xon - ACM - 2 power
York - AAM - 0 power

Amy then Bob, basically. Amy is going to shoot York(C on R), and avoid his sword. Bob is going to shoot at Xon(C on R), and avoid any attack against him. Xon will finish the ritual with one side, and with the other side will flee the warehouse. York is going to attack Amy(R on R), and will flee with his other side.

Amy shoots: Draw 4 Obstacle 2. RBBM - 2 power, not quite enough. Bob shoots at Xon, Draw 8 Obstacle 4 (Xon didn't move closer, nor did Bob) - RAACMXXX - only 2 power. Missed again. Xon finishes the ritual then flees.

Finally, York attacks Amy. She will dodge with a draw of 3 (her DEX) against an obstacle of 3 (York's DEX + sword aspect, halved). MBX - only 1 power, so she takes 2 damage to Red.

Round 3:
Init:
Amy - RBM - 1 power
Bob - RCX and Bane (Guide says it will go as badly as possible) - 2 power
Xon: fled, no longer in conflict
York: G boon and bane (2 motes for boon RC, goes badly) - 3 power
Zuul: CCGGGMX = 7 power

Zuul will try to eat Amy's mind (she's closest - B on G) with both sides, gaining a +1 to the attempt. York will try to attack Amy again (R on R), and insult Bob with the other (A on A), getting a -1 to each attamept (2 different targets). Bob will shoot at the mindeater, and dodge York's insults. Amy will try to disengage York, and avoid Zuul (-1, two targets).

Zuul jumps at Amy. She'll draw 3 (DEX), obstacle 4 (INT 2 + mideating 4 +1 bonus, halved). CGX - 3 power. Not enough, and Zuul does 2 damage (1 for power shortfall, 1 for bonus) to Green. Amy is now down 2 red and 2 green.

York tries to attack Amy. She'll draw 3 vs. 3 (STR 3, sword 3, -1 = 5 halved rounds up to 3). GGX, 2 power, takes no damage even though she failed to block. She would have taken 1 red, but with the minus for additional targets, there's nothing left. York thought he hit, but actually only sliced her shirt.

Now York insults Bob (A on A). Bob dodges with CHA, so he'll draw 3 vs. Obstacle 4 (CHA 4, cutting remarks 5, -1 = 8, halved). CMM, no power, so Bob takes 3 amber damage (4 - 1 for multiple targets).

Neither Bob nor Amy get to act now, as their acts were disrupted.

The conflict can continue, but this is enough. I'm wondering if Mike would post a complex conflict too, so I can see what he means? I think he's not going for this, but maybe...

Note that depending on the situations, I'm also open to single draw conflicts, depending on the significance of the fight. The above is obviously an important one, to do it round by round.

Aidan

[Mike Holmes]

Holy cats. It's times like these that I remember just how flakey most people must think our ideas here are. The Matrix is hard to shake.

After the character is incapacitated (whatever color), Red, Green or Blue incapacitation then equals death.

Howsabout, if you've incapacitated a character you can just kill him. No rolling, no other mechanics. Just take an action and off them. If they've got no Blue, or Magenta, or whatever, it just means that they sit there suicidally and allow you to cut their throat.

If you've defeated your opponent, you ought to be able to do whatever you like with them. Why do you need more rules than that? In fact the cause of the defeat doesn't have to relate to the nature of the defeat at all. I could get you to zero Blue, and then say that you kill yourself in a suicidal fit. The color is just the realm of the competition it seems to me.
----

Here's my version of the example.

Amy and Bob stumble across York and his henchman Xon in the middle of a ritual to summon a mindeater. In order to prevent the menace, Amy and Bob attack, hoping to stop the ritual.

Round 1:
Amy - I am shooting at York to stop him from completing the ritual.
Bob - I'll do the same.

The players draw simultaneously.
Bob fires at York - that's a draw of 8 with an Obstacle of 4 (for distance). he draws - RAGCMMX and the Bane. That would be 3 power, but the bane subtracts 2 more motes (the Guide decides), for a final 1 power not enough to beat the difficulty, so his shots go wide, and he doesn't achieve his goal.

Amy fires at York - Draw 4 Obstacle 4. RRGX - only 1 power. She also fails to stop York. GM: York finishes his part of the ritual and rises from the magic circle.

GM: Xon, unmolested finishes a chant, and moves on to another part of the ritual.

Round 2:
GM: York turns on Amy with a sword. Xon attempts to finish the ritual.
Amy - I try to shoot him before he can close.
Bob - I try to shoot Xon in a final attempt to stop the ritual.

Amy's Draw 4 Obstacle 2. RBBM - 2 power, not quite enough again. GM narrates York closing creatively dodging between the metal debris of the warehouse, and grazing her with his sword (she takes one damage Red).

Bob shoots at Xon, Draw 8 Obstacle 4 (Xon didn't move closer, nor did Bob) - RAACMXXX - only 2 power. Missed again. GM: Xon finishes the ritual. A tarrible shape appears from the circle. It is Zuul, the destroyer. He turns his attention on Amy and tries to eat her mind. York, thinking that he doesn't have to wory now, turns and attempts to humiliate Bob. Xon is trying to excape the scene.

Round 3:
Amy - I just want to avoid being eaten.
Bob - I shoot at Zuul, ignoring York.

Amy draw 3 (DEX), obstacle 4 (INT 2 + mideating 4 +1 bonus, halved). CGX - 3 power. Not enough, and Zuul does 2 damage (1 for power shortfall, 1 for bonus) to Green. Amy is now down 1 red and 2 green. (Lucky York wasn't paying attention to her, because otherwise she'd have to have faced a further penalty for multiple attackers).

Bob draws for Red for shooting, but gets no power in the draw, so Bob takes 3 Magenta damage from York's insult. GM: Hmm. It seems that this incapacitates Bob who's still stinging from that comment that Amy made earlier...
York mentions Bob's mom, a sore spot, which turns Bob's face red.  As he turns to face York and aim at him, Zuul grabs hold of Bob pinning his arms to his side unable to move. He holds Bob between Amy and himself and hisses, "don't move or I kill this puny mortal".

Time for Amy to try another form of Conflict.

Round 4:
Amy - I use Magenta to try to trick Zuul into letting us go by convincing him that we're actually cultists, too.

Better draw well, Amy. :-)

Etc.

Mike

[MathiasJack]

Why does Mike elegant use of simplicity always make me feel like my thinking is the equivalent of Jack Tripper from 3's Company trying to walk across the living room?

I don't know about you, Aidan, but I kinda like Mike's example better...
Sorry ;)

Jack

[taalyn]

Well, yeah. I knew there was something wrong, I just couldn't figure out what the Matrix was. His example is better.

Aidan