Conflict in Crux

[Mike Holmes]

The Matrix says, all contests must be "I go, then you go" (IGO UGO). Your system screams to me UGO UGO UGO. Which is very cool. The GM just states what obnoxious things are going on, and sets the targtets. The players roll to overcome. They either win and do damage if that's what they were intending, or they lose and take damage if what they were trying to do was defeat an opponent trying to do damage against them. All the focus is on character success or failure, and NPCs success or failure only in relation to competition with PCs. Neato.

Still some bugs to work out, however. What if I'm being attacked by a bunch of stuff? I would simply add one to the target for each extra opponent (or more if you want less "cinematic"). For really realistic, allow the player to divide up his draw as much as he wants and confront as many problems as he wants simultaneously. That's really harsh, but like TROS, fair. Players will find that in cases of facing multiple opponents that their conflicts all become about trying to get to a situation where they can only face one, again ala TROS terrrain rolls. That or running away.

Lot's of potential options.

Mike

[taalyn]

Mike - I could recognize I was stuck (and hence why I asked for an example from you), but couldn't get my way out. Thanks for the Red Pill!

I prefer the split up their Hand idea for multiple combatants. My Charisma is 3 and my repartee is 4, so I can split my 7 motes among the 3 people harassing me.

Aidan

[taalyn]

Here are some other issues that came up when talking to my playtesters. I think I have a solution, but Morphe...Mike, would you say yeah I've escaped the Matrix or not here?

Initiative - still need some sort of battle order - some way to gauge who says what they're doing first, so that all the characters don't end up attacking the same guy - actually, that's not a problem. I just can't process everyone saying what they're doing at once, and having everyone write down their action(s) before hand is awful - slows down everything. A battle order (not quite the same as initiative, as actions all happen at once even though they're drawn for in _some_ order) would be useful here. I'm thinking a simple left to right around the table, with each successive "turn" skipping a person - the person who went first in declaring this turn goes last next turn. Once actions are declared, people make draws, and it all goes down at once. The Guide will have lots to do in putting it all together - oh well.

Some of my players have hyperspeed (they're vampires), so they get (so they argue, and so far I'm buying the arguments) extra actions. This is simple - when they declare actions, they simply get to declare more actions: Bob can shoot York, and Amy can shoot Xon, but Vlad gets to shoot at York _and_ Xon, if he wants.

The only complication is how to measure how fast feits are cast while in conflict. Turns work, but somehow that seems vaguely Matrixal. Might work anyway, but just in case...

I know I keep saying this, but thanks so much for your help, Mike. I feel like we should include you as one of the main collaborators, a la Zak for Ron's Dunjon.

Aidan

[MathiasJack]

Well, in real life, no one knows if everyone is going to gun for one enemy or not. Why is that any different in rpgs?

But I don't think that truly answers your question.

While the idea of each player righting down their action then drawing appropiately is intriguely, it is much too awkward and time consuming.

The clockwise or countercw turn system with skip works to prvide some type of orderliness for ooc flow, but disrupts the dynamic being achieved for ic.

And I guess I don't see how any of this creates more work for a Guide, Aidan... At least in the sloppy way I GM ;)

Jack You Up

[Jason Lee]

Hmmm...as for additional actions.  If you decide to go with the earlier suggestion of using split draws for additional actions, you've already got an additional action system.  You could just let the speed characters buy the approriate trait higher.

[taalyn]

Ack, that's totally right! I spaced on the split-the-draw thing. So, my speedy vampire Vlad draws for his speed feit, and gets 6 power. He gets to add 6 motes to all speed-related actions, including conflicts where speed is a relevant factor (being that fast and trying to inflict amber probbaly wouldn't work - no one could understand him speaking that fast). From there, he can split up his pool if he wants, otherwise he's just so fast he can avoid parries and dodges and still strike.

Aidan

[Mike Holmes]

Matriz, Matrix, Matrix...

Go around the table in any order. Each player says what they want their character to address. When you get to the end, keep going around and ask if anyone wants to change what they're doing. Let them talk about it. Negotiate. Plan. Whatever they need to do. Once everyone has clearly stated what one thing (more or less) they are attempting, the GM says, Draw, and everyone draws. If it drags on, point to people and say, "what is your character doing" and make them stick with it. That's the risk they run for hedging.

Basically this is what Ron calls "free and clear". Order doesn't matter. and people can keep changing their minds until they've decided what they're doing for sure, or you decide to punch them out for taking too long to decide.

Mike

[taalyn]

Jack, yeah, you're right, it does disrupt the flow. But I don't know what to do otherwise. I think there will just have to be some sort of compromise here, as everyone yelling what they're going to do is impossible to follow. I just don't know what the best compromise would be, other than to get boffers and go at it in real time.

Aidan

[MathiasJack]

The thing is, my games flow more like Mike's post than use. I guess I am all for chaos versus order ;)

[taalyn]

I get it now... I may actually escape the damn Matrix this time.

Aidan

[Mike Holmes]

Jack, yeah, you're right, it does disrupt the flow. But I don't know what to do otherwise. I think there will just have to be some sort of compromise here, as everyone yelling what they're going to do is impossible to follow. I just don't know what the best compromise would be, other than to get boffers and go at it in real time.

Aidan, who said shouting? It's called discussion. And it works just great. I'm not talking aobut some theoretical mode of play here but one I've used tons.

I suggest you drop in on some of the IRC games at Indie-Netgaming. That'll save me having to do an example for you. But try it next time you play or something. You'll see it's much less confusing than you think. Like I said, if you really need order, just point to people and allow them to change their minds, I dunno, by raising their hands.

Mike

[taalyn]

I playtested last night - and I found something out. I think I have escaped the Matrix (finally!), but my players haven't and won't. I don't know what to do with this info - should we reintroduce initiative (their big complaint) as a standard, or be freeform and offer several options on how to run conflict, of even just avoid that issue alogether and let these sorts of things be devised/set up as social contract issues for any given playing group?

The conflict was a simple combat - with the PCs in a house, and 9 cultists and the big baddy attacking them. I simply gathered actions ("what are you doing, Vlad") and draws, and then wove them together in a different order at the end of the round, including who hit what and how, and such like.

The players really didn't like it - when I asked for comments later, they immediately stated this, without even the slightest pause. They felt it wasn't tense enough (which I don't buy, and this seemed to be the way they phrased that they didn't like it), and that it was hard for them to get into a rhythm. I thought it particularly interesting when they said good players wouldn't have a problem with it (and thus indicating that they weren't!), and basically talked their way around saying it was weird and hard for them, and they didn't like it. Everything else they were cool with - but not conflict sans initiative.

[Mike Holmes]

I'm baffled. I mean results are results. So I guess there must have been something not working right.

But I can't tell from your post what it is. What was the "hard" part? Not making that extra die roll? Trying to visualize everything going on at once (as opposed to the totally unrealistic idea of envisioning one character doing something, and stopping, and then another character starting up)? ;-)

Why would tension go down? I mean, you roll, you get results? Was it waiting for the results to be narrated?

You were there. What did you think? If your opinion is different than your players' why do you think that might be so?

Mike

[taalyn]

Their big complaint was that there was no sequence to it, and that the speedy characters didn't get to act more than once. To me, these were invalid arguments - the speedy guys never opted to go more than once (I explained that speed simply added to their draw, and they could split it among multiple actions), and there was order to it, they just didn't know it ahead of time.

They thought that having order increased tension as they didn't all draw at once, and got to see the battle unfold in bits and pieces. But they didn't all draw at once, and they had a clue as to how the battle unfolded, in bits and pieces, as each person drew after I got their action. The only way this was at all applicable was in the fact that I combined everything together and narrated it all at the end of the round as one piece.

The only valid complaint was that initiative would allow the bad guys to go somewhen else, and to allow the players to react to them. I had a habit of putting the bad guy last every time. Still, that's not a reason for initiative, but for better use of the freeform nature of conflict. Plus, I still had players draw to be affected by the mooks - whenever it was appropriate, which wasn't always at the end of combat.

So, overall, yeah, I don't think they had valid arguments, and that the conflict was just as full of tension as any other. I think it's simply a matter of habit - they're used to initiative, and know what to do when there's initiative, and I'm willing to explore the other options now that I understand them. It feels like I'm doing something new and unusual, and getting the standard, expected static because it's different from what they're used to.

Aidan

[MathiasJack]

Good job though. I mean, it's hard enough to break the Matrix, then to go ahead and give it an honest attempt - in the very face of those still plugged in.

I believe this essentially comes down to taste.

And I don't think what that "taste" should be personally decided. I believe it should be decided based on what is aesthically pleasing to the entire game itself. As Mike said, the multi-colored draw mechanic of this game seems to lean towards a UGO UGO theme - once more breaking down barriers and moving to a wide range, intuitive, universal design.

Just how brave do we want to be with this Crux?

Jack

PS - Interested in feedback on Magic as well. Said as much on the Magic Thread...