Okay, a while back, I posted a thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10474&highlight=) asking for opinions on the idea of single-roll combats. There were may great comments and discussions on this (most notably, that people just didn't like the idea of a character dying based on a single roll), which led me to offer up a more fleshed-out concept. This might run a bit long.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, but I'm specifically looking for any "danger spots" in this model and the questions listed at the end.

My goal is to create a fast combat resolution mechanic. In the game I'm working on, combat is no more or less important than any other sort of conflict, so I don't want it to have a host of overly specialized combat rules. I'm not fully up to speed on GNS, so I'm not sure where the game falls in that model. I do know that I don't want the mechanics to support Gamist play. Whether they should support Narrativist or Simulationist play is where I'm uncertain. If anyone can comment on whether these rules support a particular style of play, please let me know.

A combat challenge is handled by adding the relevant statistic (2-8) to a die roll (2d4) and adding or subtracting any appropriate situational modifiers (-4 to +4).

The two results are compared, and the higher wins. "Winning" a combat challenge simply means that you have eliminated the other character's short-term ability to harm you. The thematics are decided either by the GM (if the losing character is an NPC), or the player who lost the challenge (e.g. the losing character is chased off, his weapon is destroyed, or anything similar).

At the start of a combat challenge, either side can attempt to "raise the stakes," changing the severity of the outcome. This incurs a penalty (in addition to any negative situational modifiers) based on the hierarchy of stakes, as follows:


By taking a 1-point penalty, the following stakes could be set: Win in a fashion that embarrasses the opponent/Win in a fashion that makes the victor look "cool"

By taking a 2-point penalty, the following stakes could be set: Win in a fashion that provides the winner with some benefit (e.g. stabbing the other character in the arm, forcing them to drop their weapon, which you can then take; chasing the guard over a ledge into a river, from which it will take him an hour to climb up; etc.)

By taking a 3-point penalty, the following stakes could be set: Fatal wound/Capture with injury

By taking a 4-point penalty, the following stakes could be set: Fatal wound without making any noise/Fatal wound in a specific fashion (e.g. stabbed in the heart)/Capture without injury



In these examples, "fatal wound" means an injury that will kill the character over time if he does not receive medical attention. It can be assumed that this entails a lot of yelling and thrashing about -- if the character wants to kill someone without drawing attention, he must take the 4-point penalty.

I should point out here that no result from a combat roll will directly kill a character. Even "fatal wounds" offer the character several opportunities to roll to avoid death. This does not apply to NPCs, unless they are particularly important NPCs. Another important point (in my opinion, at least) is that there are no "hit points" or "health levels" or anything of that nature.

The difficulties for capturing are the same as for killing. First, because capturing does seem at least as hard as killing someone to me. Second, a captured character could easily be killed if the character chooses to do so. Therefore, there is no metagame benefit to capture (with the intent to later kill) over simply killing in the first place.

So, to sum up, characters will have a number between –6 (the most inept character in the worst situation attempting the most difficult stakes: 2 – 4 – 4 = –6) and 12 (the most skilled character in the best situation attempting a basic combat challenge: 8 + 4 + 4 = 16), added to a roll of 2-8. The highest total wins, causing either the basic effect or a specific "raised stake" effect. Attempting to raise the stakes makes it less likely that you will succeed. Also, if your opponent chooses to raise the stakes, you are free to roll without penalty, and, if you succeed, apply the raised stakes. So, if you are attacked and your attacker tries to kill you, he must roll with a 3-point penalty, while you do not. If you win, you may choose any stake up to the opponent's declared stake. You could choose to drive the attacker off and look good doing it, or disarm him and drive him off, or deliver a fatal wound.

1. Would this system address all the concerns raised in the initial thread?
2. Does this system seem too biased toward non-lethal combat?
3. Does this system seem too biased toward the defender?
4. What would you dislike about this if you were a player?
5. Do these rules support Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist play?
6. Do you have any suggestions or questions?
7. Are there any other games out there that use similar systems?

Hi, Andrew. (I keep confusing your posts with mine; I can't imagine why.)

I know that it was mentioned in the previous thread, but I'd definately consider looking at how HeroQuest handles this kind of thing. They allow for simple conflicts, resolved with one roll, as well as multi-roll conflicts in which players bid Advantage Points (and can turn a large winning bid into wounds, allowing multiple ways to raise the stakes of the conflict).

HQ, by default, has the outcomes of a one-roll conflict determined based on the definition of the conflict -- so a total victory, where your goal was defined as escaping, might do no damage at all to the loser, or might instead damage them in a non-physical way (such as lowering their self-confidence or reputation with their peers).

There's a short summary of the rules on the HeroQuest site, as well as a few examples of play. Even if you don't read through the full rules (or the Hero's Book, which is a good value at $10) I think looking at how they handle the issues you're addressing would be useful to you.

Thanks Andrew. I can't imagine why you confuse our posts. You can call me Drew (so can anyone else) to avoid confusion, if you want. I'll check out the HeroQuest rules -- honestly, I'd forgotten that they were mentioned before.

But do you have a personal reaction to the rules? Hate it? Love it? Just feel blah about them?

1. Probably. But more importantly, does it address the issues that are important to you?
2. No. Saying "you cannot die" is biased towards "non-lethal" combat.
3. Biased how? Do you mean advantageous? If so, do you think it should be?
4. My opinion? I like more detailed combat rules. I like more detailed any rules. I like detail and options in my rules. I like having lots of crunchy bits to manipulate in various ways to achieve various effects. But that's me, not you.
5. IANAL*, but I'd guess that these rules alone are not enough to support any particular style, but depending on where you take them, and how you use them, and everything else that supports them, they may lean a bit towards narrativist, simply because they are not crunchy enough for gamist or simulationist play.
6. How do these rules work for non-combat situations. Like what if my character wanted to do something that is unopposed by a challenger?
7. Most likely. I'm not a game library though, but there are plenty of game libraries around, I'm sure they could give you some links.

-Ben

*IANAL: I Am Not A Lawyer: Anything I say is not meant to be taken as expertise or verdical in any way, and is solely presented as my limited knowledge and opinions.

Ben,

1. My main concern was making conflict resolution (especially combat) fast and simple, but without turning players off.

2. So...yes?

3. Yes, by "biased," I mean advantageous. No, I don't think it should be.

4. Thanks for the feedback. You're right, we seem to have totally different preferences as players.

5. Again, I'm not to up on GNS, but I didn't think the amount of rules had so much to do with it, rather the important factor was if what rules were present supported a particular style of play. For example, the Kill Bill-style system you proposed doesn't seem to have a bunch of rules, but my gut says that it supports Sim play. I'm still learning to swim in the waters of GNS, though.

6. The rules work the same outside of combat. You roll against either the opponent's roll (if opposed) or against a target number (if unopposed).

7. Heh, I hope so.

It definitely seems very biased toward the defender, because of the part where if the defender gets a higher total than the attacker, he gets to turn the stakes against him. I think that something like that should only happen on a botch/critical failure of the attacker/one raising the stakes.
While I'm far from an expert on the subject, I'd say it definitely leans towards narrative play, but also supports gamist play.
The reason I say it supports gamist play is because the goal of the system is to determine quickly who wins, with rules/modifiers for how well they win.
I believe it supports narativist because it resolves things per conflict/encounter/scene. To further support narativist, I think that you could include modifiers for how detailed the player describes how they're going to handle the conflict.
I don't think that it's sim, because it's so simple. As I understand it, sim games are based on simulating reality more accurately (wether it's combat, research, seduction, sailing, etc.). And let's face it, real life is is very complex. At least as far as conflict resolution.
Your ranges for bonuses, stats and die roll/randomization seems ok to me.
The biggest problem I see is there's nothing in the rules for the victor getting wounded in battle. The results of combat are victory with various degrees of how well you defeated your opponent, and failure with various degrees of how well your opponent defeated you. There is no, "the winner knocked him out with a punch in the jaw, but he got cut a few times by the losers knife and needs some first aid badly to stop the bleeding."
What I would suggest, is assign modifiers to the roll based on player descrition of how his/her character deals with the situation (like bonuses for details), and the victor gets to decide what happens/degree of victory by how much higher his/her roll is than the losers. This seems more ballanced to me.
Personally, I like more complex systems, and I'm not fond of D4s, but that's just me. Hope some of this helps.
-Craig

frictorious wrote: It definitely seems very biased toward the defender, because of the part where if the defender gets a higher total than the attacker, he gets to turn the stakes against him. I think that something like that should only happen on a botch/critical failure of the attacker/one raising the stakes.

frictorious wrote: While I'm far from an expert on the subject, I'd say it definitely leans towards narrative play, but also supports gamist play.
The reason I say it supports gamist play is because the goal of the system is to determine quickly who wins, with rules/modifiers for how well they win.

frictorious wrote: The biggest problem I see is there's nothing in the rules for the victor getting wounded in battle. The results of combat are victory with various degrees of how well you defeated your opponent, and failure with various degrees of how well your opponent defeated you. There is no, "the winner knocked him out with a punch in the jaw, but he got cut a few times by the losers knife and needs some first aid badly to stop the bleeding."

frictorious wrote: What I would suggest, is assign modifiers to the roll based on player descrition of how his/her character deals with the situation (like bonuses for details)

frictorious wrote: and the victor gets to decide what happens/degree of victory by how much higher his/her roll is than the losers. This seems more ballanced to me.

frictorious wrote: Personally, I like more complex systems, and I'm not fond of D4s, but that's just me. Hope some of this helps.

Hey, uh, Drew.

I don't have anything marvelously constructive to add, but I really like what's been presented. I don't have any problem with one-roll combats, as long as we're not talking about death. And you're not, so that smells fine to me.

And I really like the stakes modifier. Clever.

As far as GNS, seems to me that we don't know. This is a sub-system out of context. Clearly the game doesn't prioritize long, drawn-out kewl fitez.

So what does it prioritize, and how is that handled?

=====

I'm looking at your odds, and my math works out differently.

2-8 is base skill
+4 to -4 for situational modifiers
-0 to -4 for severity of win conditions.

Novice | in quicksand | going for the kill = 2-4-4 = -6
Olympian | behind crenelations | flat win = 8+4-0 = 12, not 16, right?

At first blush, the randomness : skill ratio felt high (Novice vs. Journeyman = 2 vs 5, with a spread of 2-8 from the dice). Because you're using 2d4, though, adding in the two curves should make it all fine.

-Matt

I can see your point about wounded chatacters is stories, and why there's no mechanic for a wounded victor in combat. Perhaps that's what could happen in the result of a tie. I understand your perspective on upping the stakes in combat, it just seems awfully risky. If that's what you're going for, the great. Maybe the modifiers the gm dictates for the situation smooth it our. I think that using 2 dice is a good idea; alot less random than one die. This definitely seems like a game that would work well with some alternate randomizng device, such as cards. It's so different, simple and story-centered it almost begs for something besides dice. If you ever sell it, I think that it could be a good idea to make your own cards. This also provides you with even more possibilities.
-Craig

Garbanzo wrote: I don't have any problem with one-roll combats, as long as we're not talking about death. And you're not, so that smells fine to me.

Garbanzo wrote: And I really like the stakes modifier. Clever.

Garbanzo wrote: As far as GNS, seems to me that we don't know. This is a sub-system out of context. Clearly the game doesn't prioritize long, drawn-out kewl fitez.

So what does it prioritize, and how is that handled?

Garbanzo wrote: I'm looking at your odds, and my math works out differently.

2-8 is base skill
+4 to -4 for situational modifiers
-0 to -4 for severity of win conditions.

Novice | in quicksand | going for the kill = 2-4-4 = -6
Olympian | behind crenelations | flat win = 8+4-0 = 12, not 16, right?

Garbanzo wrote: At first blush, the randomness : skill ratio felt high (Novice vs. Journeyman = 2 vs 5, with a spread of 2-8 from the dice). Because you're using 2d4, though, adding in the two curves should make it all fine.

frictorious wrote: I understand your perspective on upping the stakes in combat, it just seems awfully risky. If that's what you're going for, the great. Maybe the modifiers the gm dictates for the situation smooth it our.

frictorious wrote: This definitely seems like a game that would work well with some alternate randomizng device, such as cards. It's so different, simple and story-centered it almost begs for something besides dice.

frictorious wrote: If you ever sell it, I think that it could be a good idea to make your own cards. This also provides you with even more possibilities.

Wow, this is so much slicker than before! But I will say, narrativism has nothing to do with describing your characters actions really well, and simulationism doesn't have to be about realism. Currently it's very sim, to me, but you'll find it can become gamist via situational modifiers. Players can get a game out of anything, and that includes the tactics of fighting well. But I really don't think you can do much about this.

1. Would this system address all the concerns raised in the initial thread?

From my perspective in that thread it does. You've taken rather too easy PC death and instead turned it into something that will inject drama, while still having the potential to latter be fatal (dieing from wounds). Good work! :)

2. Does this system seem too biased toward non-lethal combat?

Can't see what's wrong with this. In the real world most people have a lot of trouble killing other people, psychologically, for some crazy reason. I think non lethal combat is encouraged more by your mechanic, but surely that'll mesh well with a setting where people don't kill each other too casually?

3. Does this system seem too biased toward the defender?

A little. You know that stakes turn around, where the defender can take no penalty, but then at the end take anything up to an equal stake to the attacker? Perhaps it should be still checked acording to how well the defender passed. For example, the other dude tried to kill the defender (-3), but the defender only beat him by three points. Now you make each ramping up of the stake for the defender reduce his roll now, so he can only reduce it two points (otherwise he'll equal the roll of the other guy). Thus he can only raise it to two stakes, perhaps taking the other guys sword.

Actually it might do well to extend that, making it cost two points per stake raise. So in my example he could only raise it by one point. This means characters don't benefit as much by rolling and seeing what happens, then raising their stake latter. They are better off doing it from the start (though waiting still has some advantage).

4. What would you dislike about this if you were a player?

Lack of gamist options. But you don't want gamist and I think its good you've set a personal goal rather than trying to please everyone.

5. Do these rules support Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist play?

Sim, as I said. Gamist next, as there is a tiny amount of play to be had with situational modifiers. There is no assistance in addressing premise, so its not narrativist in the least (players can do narra with rules like these, but the rule itself doesn't help them or reward them for it).

6. Do you have any suggestions or questions?

Not right now.

7. Are there any other games out there that use similar systems?

Not that I'm aware of. It looks quite slick now, and you've probably got a market niche you can fill with this! Well done! :)

Noon wrote: Wow, this is so much slicker than before!

Noon wrote: For example, the other dude tried to kill the defender (-3), but the defender only beat him by three points. Now you make each ramping up of the stake for the defender reduce his roll now, so he can only reduce it two points (otherwise he'll equal the roll of the other guy). Thus he can only raise it to two stakes, perhaps taking the other guys sword.

Actually it might do well to extend that, making it cost two points per stake raise. So in my example he could only raise it by one point. This means characters don't benefit as much by rolling and seeing what happens, then raising their stake latter. They are better off doing it from the start (though waiting still has some advantage).

I think the 2:1 stake turn-around is a great idea. That was my biggest problem with the mechanic, and this fixes it.
Your static odds seem ok. It all depends on what you decide is a moderate task. I don't have a problem with someone who is the max for mortal men always succeding at a moderate a task; besides there are still situational modifiers.
Personally I think that all opposed rolls works best. I've been turned on to that idea recently, and now I'm in that camp. Math/odds wise, I really think that it's better with small dice/randomization ranges. It also gives the possibility (however slim) of the expert failing the simple task, or the wimp defeating the badass. It really depends on what you want from your game.
I wouldn't do a critical failur/success mechanic with this system for a couple of reasons. 1st is since it's just 2D4, I'm assuming a critical success would be rolling two 4s, and a botch would be rolling two 1s. That meand the chance of a crit/botch is 1/16 for each. Personally I don't find those odds right, but again it really depends on how you want the reality of your game to work. 2nd reason is that you already have the stakes, so I feel that adding critical success/failure isn't necessary. Besides, the more rules you add, the more gameist it feels.
-Craig

Hey, Andrew.

As for GNS stuff, lets see if I can clarify.
If you present to me the game as a whole, I can look at where the majority of the rules fall, and how the game treats those bits. Walla! I come up with my own evalutation of what GNS viewpoint the game best facilitates.

If this combat stuff is the heart and soul of the system, I don't know what I'd call it. Highly-driftable vanilla. There's nothing about making hard choices (although nothing to prevent that), not too much crunchy Gamist goodness (although a GM could make a challenge of maneuvering for best terrain, putting yourself in a position where you can strike from advantage, whatever. Amber DRPG-style.). Sim is the default, so maybe that's where you are.

So it seems to me that the dressing you put around this mechanic will determine the overall spin. Whether rules or text, the other stuff will bring me to a place where I can make a GNS decision for myself. Examples: is this Conflict resolution or just Combat resolution? Can I use skills like "Winning Smile" to oppose a sword? What's the feel of the setting? What's implied about PvP? What's a character look like? What's at stake?

You see what I mean, right?

====

As for the chance/ skill thing, we're on the same page. If the randomizer was a d8, the randomness would outweigh the skill. But you're not doing this. Going with 2d4, or esp 2d4 vs 2d4 gives a hefty weighted middle, and crazy fluke upsets will be more like crazy flukes, and less like an everyday occurance.

-Matt

-- Craig's concerned about the possibility of over-common crits and botches. Because the resolution is always-opposed, you could make a crit/ fumble come from the intersection of the two rolls. When one rolls a 2, and the other an 8. Oh, wait. Odds = 1:256. Yuk, nevermind. I like the idea of combining crit chances across participants, but this ain't the application.

Garbanzo wrote: If this combat stuff is the heart and soul of the system, I don't know what I'd call it.

Garbanzo wrote: So it seems to me that the dressing you put around this mechanic will determine the overall spin. Whether rules or text, the other stuff will bring me to a place where I can make a GNS decision for myself. Examples: is this Conflict resolution or just Combat resolution? Can I use skills like "Winning Smile" to oppose a sword? What's the feel of the setting? What's implied about PvP? What's a character look like? What's at stake?

Garbanzo wrote: You see what I mean, right?

Garbanzo wrote: As for the chance/ skill thing, we're on the same page. If the randomizer was a d8, the randomness would outweigh the skill. But you're not doing this. Going with 2d4, or esp 2d4 vs 2d4 gives a hefty weighted middle, and crazy fluke upsets will be more like crazy flukes, and less like an everyday occurance.

Hey Drew. Here's my advice.

a) Don't sweat the GNS. What you've presented here is quite utterly GNS-neutral. If you're going to worry about GNS, worry about your reward rules, not your conflict rules - and don't worry about G, N or S, worry about what Premise or Challenge your reward rules set up. Long way to go before that.

b) Be extremely clear about who gets to set the stakes under what circumstances. That's a big, big deal. You'll need rules for setting stakes when there's a clear attacker and defender vs. there's not; when the attacker wants to up the stakes and the defender doesn't vs. vice versa vs. both do; when the attacker sets the stakes but loses (what are the defender's options?).

Consider: I'm the attacker, I set high stakes, I lose - can I adjust the stakes downward after the roll to a level where I win? If I wanted to drop a sack over your head and drag you off silently, but I lose by 1, can I fall back to "capture with injury"?

c) Find something really interesting to happen in case of ties. Stakes automatically up?

d) Think about resolution on two different levels: the in-game level and the representational level, meaning the dice and stats and numbers and modifiers and so on. Right now, your rule resolves one Situation ("I'm creeping up behind you") into the next ("you have a sack over your head and I'm dragging you off") at the in-game level, but what does it do at the representational level? The modifiers on the roll reflect certain bits of the in-game initial Situation, but after the roll you drop the representational level cold. Think about how this resolution might set up the next, at the representational level. In short: do I get a plus for the next conflict for winning this one? For losing this one? For going along with my opponent's stakes this time? For contesting them?

e) When you have multiple players in conflict, you're going to have to be especially cunning and articulate about who gets to set the stakes for whom.

f) And most importantly, play the thing. Grab a friend and play out a fight, it's not game design until you start testing.

I think it's a wicked cool start - get it humming and it'll be right there for your game. Whatever your game turns out to be about.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: Be extremely clear about who gets to set the stakes under what circumstances. That's a big, big deal.

lumpley wrote: You'll need rules for setting stakes when there's a clear attacker and defender vs. there's not; when the attacker wants to up the stakes and the defender doesn't vs. vice versa vs. both do; when the attacker sets the stakes but loses (what are the defender's options?).

lumpley wrote: Consider: I'm the attacker, I set high stakes, I lose - can I adjust the stakes downward after the roll to a level where I win? If I wanted to drop a sack over your head and drag you off silently, but I lose by 1, can I fall back to "capture with injury"?

lumpley wrote: Find something really interesting to happen in case of ties. Stakes automatically up?

lumpley wrote: Think about resolution on two different levels: the in-game level and the representational level, meaning the dice and stats and numbers and modifiers and so on. Right now, your rule resolves one Situation ("I'm creeping up behind you") into the next ("you have a sack over your head and I'm dragging you off") at the in-game level, but what does it do at the representational level? The modifiers on the roll reflect certain bits of the in-game initial Situation, but after the roll you drop the representational level cold. Think about how this resolution might set up the next, at the representational level. In short: do I get a plus for the next conflict for winning this one? For losing this one? For going along with my opponent's stakes this time? For contesting them?

lumpley wrote: When you have multiple players in conflict, you're going to have to be especially cunning and articulate about who gets to set the stakes for whom.

lumpley wrote: And most importantly, play the thing. Grab a friend and play out a fight, it's not game design until you start testing.

lumpley wrote: I think it's a wicked cool start - get it humming and it'll be right there for your game. Whatever your game turns out to be about.

Hey Drew.

You wrote: Either party can raise the stakes (before the roll is made), attacker or defender. This can be done in any circumstances, as far as I can imagine. If you have a specific example of where this would be problematical, let me know.

Uhm...what? Not sure what you're saying here, but I'll address the questions. No, you wouldn't get a modifier for the next combat based on the results of the current one. Why would you? What does it add? How does it make sense? I could see giving a bonus to say, an attempt to put heart back in your troops if you've just defeated an enemy, or something like that. Is that what you're talking about? No, you don't get a bonus for either going along with the opponent's stakes or for contesting them.

I've got two ideas for how to handle mass combat...

Vincent,

Everyone states what stakes they are going for, and anyone can revise it until all parties are satisfied. Then the dice are rolled. Maybe there should be a defined order in which declaration must proceed (lowest to highest score perhaps). This could resolve the potential problem of players waiting to hear what everyone else is doing before they declare their stakes. I don't know that it would be a severe problem, though, given that the dice aren't rolled until everyone is satisfied with their stakes.

lumpley wrote: I want you to raise your stakes beyond your skill to achieve - you losing a high-stakes roll gives me the most options. I hope that the who-raises-when rules channel that constructively.

lumpley wrote: Do you get me about the difference between the in-game Situation and the representational level?

lumpley wrote: I'll back up and ask: where do the situational modifiers (-4 to +4, as you say) come from? Who assigns them, and do I know what they're going to be before I choose whether to raise, or do I have to raise before I get my situational mods?

lumpley wrote: I think it's very sound rpg practice to have one conflict's results contribute to the next conflict. Even if it's as clear-cut as "I just lost a fight = -1" and "I just won a fight = +1" on the sitch mods list.

Hey Drew.

The situational modifiers are assigned by the GM, based on what's happening in the game. For example, fighting in poor lighting could be a 1-point penalty. Yes, players will know what the situational modifiers are going to be before they set the stakes.

Vincent,

This is some good stuff that I hadn't thought about. I assumed it would just be the responsibility of the GM to assign appropriate modifiers. In the bell shop example, using the rules as they currently exist in my head, I would say that the character looking to kill silently would have a penalty for the environment in addition to the penalty for the raised stakes. Of course, the character who didn't care about the noise would only have the penalty for the raised stakes. However, I can see how using one challenge to modify a subsequent challenge could add excitement. I'd have to see it in action, though, since my gut tells me this will most likely lead to extreme modifiers.

Let's see an example of how this would work, in extremes. Following the bell shop example, Albert has Armed Combat 7 and Physical Skill 6. He wants to kill the shopkeeper silently. First, he rolls against the environment which has, say, 6 dice to oppose his efforts at silence. Albert rolls an 8, getting a total of 14. The GM rolls a 2 for the environment, getting a total of 8. Albert now has a 6-point bonus to the attack. Considering that my original range for modifiers was -4 to +4, this seems pretty high to me. Also, in the end, this means that Albert is getting a bonus for trying to kill someone silently in a bell shop. This seems pretty quirky to me. Yes, I understand that the bonus is actually coming from his ability to successfully navigate the shop, but why should he get more of an advantage than if he was just trying to kill the shopkeeper without caring about making noise?

lumpley wrote: If you ask me, any circumstance worth assigning a bonus/penalty for is worth rolling dice for instead.

lumpley wrote: The purpose of resolution rules in RPGs is not, mostly, to resolve. It's mostly to escalate. You want resolution rules for your game where each resolution sets up a more charged subsequent conflict.

lumpley wrote: Hey, you aren't planning to make this resolution mechanic be just for physcial fighting, and thus play second to some other mechanic, are you?

Oopsie! I didn't mean to imply that my margin on one conflict should become my mod on the next. Winning the conflict with the bells should give me a bonus - but it could be just a standard +1 or +2 or whatever, regardless how many points I beat the bells by.

That way I'm not rewarded for too many setup conflicts: winning Metallurgy = +2 to Bellmaking, winning Bellmaking = +2 to navigating the shop, winning navigating the shop = +2 to kill you. Might as well skip straight to navigating the shop - and if it's going to be a problem, have the GM be in charge of setup conflicts! Just have the GM say "first, roll for the bells" instead of "take -2 for the bells."

If you like, you could have three kinds of setup conflicts: 1) the kind where losing doesn't matter but winning gives you a bonus; 2) the kind where winning doesn't give you a bonus, but losing gives you a penalty; 3) the kind where winning gives you a bonus and losing gives you a penalty. But that seems kind of fiddly to me. How about this: I get the +2 for navigating the bells if and only if we can justify it. We almost always can, I'm positive.

About time: Let's consider some given situation where playing out a setup conflict will take more time than it's worth. My contention is: in that situation, GM-set sitch mods aren't worth it either. Any circumstance worth a modifier is worth a roll; any circumstance not worth a roll isn't worth a modifier. What's the point of the modifiers anyway?

In fact, let me repeat that: What's the point of the modifiers anyway? If they're there to increase tension and suspense, then a setup roll will work better. If they're there to give the GM some arbitrary say in how conflicts work out, you're better off without them.

Though come to think of it, stakes might not be a bad thing to add to the other challenges.

lumpley wrote: Oopsie! I didn't mean to imply that my margin on one conflict should become my mod on the next. Winning the conflict with the bells should give me a bonus - but it could be just a standard +1 or +2 or whatever, regardless how many points I beat the bells by.

lumpley wrote: If you like, you could have three kinds of setup conflicts: 1) the kind where losing doesn't matter but winning gives you a bonus; 2) the kind where winning doesn't give you a bonus, but losing gives you a penalty; 3) the kind where winning gives you a bonus and losing gives you a penalty. But that seems kind of fiddly to me.

lumpley wrote: How about this: I get the +2 for navigating the bells if and only if we can justify it. We almost always can, I'm positive.

lumpley wrote: What's the point of the modifiers anyway?

Your call.

-Vincent

Yeah, if anyone has any other ideas or suggestions, post now. Otherwise, I'll just let this die out.