Reprinted from my <a href="http://www.deadpanbob.net/lt/index.php/roleplaying/2006/01/16/prisoner_s_dilemma_redux">blog, I'm noodling a mechanics question that trys to instert push/pull* mechanics into conflict resolution, along with some degree of vs. player tactics (as in, you are playing against the other player at a tactical level, while roleplaying the character):

Thinking about dice mechanics, in light of the recent push/pull discussions, my current read of DitV and other imponderables.

So, check it:

Limits are like attribtes, and they determine how many traits characters can use in conflict resolution.

Traits are skills/actions/powers/resources/relationships/gear/what-have-you that can help characters resolve conflicts in their favor.  Triats have two uses: they provide dice, and they allow for re-rolls.

Traits and Limits are both rated 1 to 5.

Players also have a general pool of dice and a general pool of Fate.  How they gain those are...immaterial to this discussion.

So, it goes like this:

Player defines the conflict.  Everyone around the table chimes in until stakes for conflict are set, with defining player getting the final say.

Assume only two players involved in the conflict, the simple case.  Each choose a Limit, their choice, that will govern the conflict for their character.  Each takes turns in free narration introducing traits up to the value of the Limit chosen for their character.

Players may narrate anything barring actions of other players' characters or resolving the stakes.  That can't happen until the conflict resolves.

Any player may give at any time, in which case the stakes resolve to the other player - and other than losing the stakes, no ill affects are garnered for giving.

Once all traits are introduced into play, with this back-and-forth taking control of the conflict narration, dice come into play. 

Rounds of narration continue - but this time, when you narrate taking control of the conflict, the opposing player selects a number of dice equal to at least one from your character's pool, and not more than the number of dice already on the table, and not more than the total dice in the character's pool for this conflict.

Then, when your opponent narrates, you get to do the same with their character's dice pool.  When you are pulling from your opponent's character's pool, your opponent may add dice from his player dice pool to his side as well.  Likewise, when your opponent pulls dice from your chracter's pool, you may add dice from your player pool.

So, the options open to you, when it's your turn to narrate, after the dice have come out - roll the dice/call/raise.  Your narration should make it clear which you are doing - however, your opponent decides how many of your character's dice are put into the conflict, unless you choose to roll the dice.

Whoever chooses to roll the dice picks them up, and then narrates their character action, and rolls their dice.  The opponent narrates their reaction, and rolls the dice.  The conflict pool dice (which should be, say, white) are thrown with one additional die by each participant - either a black die or a red die.  Black for 'straitforward', 'reactionary', 'reactive', 'definsive' and Red for 'tricky', 'aggressive', 'proactive'.

Save any dice (excluding red or black, which are always saved) that match (all dice are d6) from within your own character's conflict pool.  Any non-matching dice are recycled back into the character's trait pool. 

If both dice come up red, the successes are doled out to opponents as 'damage', and the one dealing the most 'damage' gets the stakes.  If one die comes up 'red', and the other comes up 'black', then red dice and black dice of the same rank cancel each other out, remaining dice deal damage, and 'red' wins the stakes.  If both dice come up 'black', success are dealt as 'damage' to oneself, the person taking the most damage wins the stakes.

Don't know, that may be too complicated.  There's a build/up escalation when the traits come out.  There's a build up escalation when the dice are bid.  The dice are thrown.  There's a climax and denoument, when the 'damage' consequences are dealt back out from the successes, then there's a final capstone narration resolving the stakes.

So, questions:

1) Generically, is this too cumbersome?  The act of bidding dice out while roleplaying feels right to me, but I'd like other's reactions.
2) Does the "pull"* mechanism of having your opponent put in the dice from your side, based on their reaction to your narration, add tactical "playing against the other player" options/feel to the resolution mechanic?
3) Does this clearly hit basic, responsible IIEE standards in my description? (Note: it does in my head, but, you know, it's in my head...)

Cheers,

Jason
"Oh, it's you...
deadpanbob"
*See this <a href="http://www.deadpanbob.net/lt/index.php/roleplaying/2006/01/11/mind_blow">Mind Blow for a not-so-qick-guide to the ongoing Push/Pull discussions.

Hi!
  I dig what you are doing, there are a couple things that spring to my mind:
It seems like there is 3 phases, build up adding traits and what not, pushing it adding dice and what not, then resolution. Is that right?

In the first phase, it seems like you are adding to the maximum number of die you can roll, not actually attaining dice

In the second phase, you seem to be accumulating dice. Things that aren't clear:
  Where these dice come from (not the table and the player doesn;t seem ot have them either)
  How the first character narrating gets ANY dice at all (He can;t have more dice than he has which is none and not more than the table which I think should be none)
  How many pools of dice we are talking about. At points I can see it as one, two or three pools of dice

In the 3rd pahse, I think the blakc/red dice is confusing. And it seems like it could cause al of your maneuvering to be for nothing...

Finally, I am not sure how this would play. Part of me thinks it would be boss, part of me thinks all the narrating might get tedious...

Dave:

I was running on fumes when I wrote this, so I appreciate your patient response.  Let me try to clarify:

Characters
Limits are like attributes, rated 1 to 5, and they govern how many Traits a character can introduce into a conflict.

Traits are actions, attitudes, styles, passions, skills, roles, resources, contacts, information etc. that are also rated 1 to 5.  All player defined.  Traits can either provide dice, or the opportunity to re-roll dice.

Players
Players manage two resources - a dice pool and a Fate pool of their own - entirely distinct from the dice granted by characters' Traits.  Let's leave these out for now, as they're confusing the discussion.  Suffice it to say that dice and Fate are earned as rewards for playing the game - and can be spent to get a better chance of gaining story control.

Play
Imagine that characters have been made, the initial story prep has been done, and the first scene is upon us.  We've got two players, Alex and Matt.  They are playing characters, Colin and Riley, respectively.  For the sake of argument, the color (i.e. genre, time period, setting bits) is unimportant.

Let's say that Alex wants to have Colin kidnap Rose.  Let's say Matt has had Riley swear to protect rose.  A scene is framed where Colin's and Riley's various actions have come to a head, and they are going to fight.

Here's how I see this playing out:

1) Yes, you are right, there are 3 layers or phases of a conflict - two layers of escalation and one of denoument - or falling action.  Step 1, however, is that everyone around the table agree to the conflict, and what's at stake.  Alex and Matt decide, What's at stake is, does Colin manage to get by Riley, and get to Rose, who is in this pub, upstairs, under Riley's protection

2) The player initiating the conflict, say Alex using Colin, narrates an action for their character: Colin drew a knife, and knelt down in a fighter's crouch.  He circled around Riley, and poked and prodded with the knife.  Call this player, the one who started the conflict, the Narrator.  Alex moves a Limit card out onto the table, indicating he's using Colin's physical limit, with a value of 1 (we'll keep the example simple).  He also moves Colin's Dirty Infighting trait onto the board - it's ranked 5.  Alex places 5 dice on this trait card.

3) The other player, in this case Matt pulling Riley's strings, gets to respond, and then act on his own.  We'll call the responding player the Pone (it's a card term, from Cribbage or canasta, IIRC).  The Pone first reacts to the Narrator's action by getting the opportunity to show which limit and trait(s) his character will use.  Matt, Riley stepped away, and danced his feet across the floor, and kept furniture between he and Colin, talking as they moved in lock-step circles..."So, it's to be the knie for ye, Colin?  Goin' to try and cut me up and take young Rose?  Ye know that Garret won't stand fer it, and even if ye blow by me, there be others standing behind me that'll step up, take me place, and give ye yer just desert...".  Matt slides Riley's emtional limit card out, also valued at 1, and Riley's Talk His Way Out of Anything Trait, valued at 5.  He places 5 dice on this Trait card.

4) Reapeat steps 2 and 3, taking rounds introducing traits, up to the level of the Limit being used (tested) by the character.  Once once player has introduced their character's Limit in traits, on their next turn, they have to either yield the stakes of the conflict, or escalte to the dice.

5) Both the Narrator and the Pone, in our example, have brought out all their Traits.  With it now Alex's turn, he can either yield the stakes to Matt, or he can push forward.  He indicates this with his roleplaying - with the actions he describes for his character: Riley stopped then, at the mention of Garret, and idly tossed the knife between his hands, in front of his belly.  He smirked and wrinkled his nose, "Don't care much for Garret.  Nothin' a good guttin' couldn't fix..." and with that, the knife landed in his left hand, and he lunged across a chair at Colin, all snake-speed and venom..

6) Now, Matt's turn.  First, he considers the action Alex narrated for Colin, and nods his head, and pulls 2 dice off of the 5 on the Dirty Infighting Trait of Colin's sitting in front of Alex, and puts them in the middle of the table, but still on Alex's side of the table.  He now reacts with his character: Riley dodged out of the way, not just in the nick of time, and Colin's knife struck home, scratching the meat on Riley's left ribs.  Riley used the force of the blow to carry himself bacward, and neatly flipped and rolled over a table behind him, "Now, Colin me boy, let's not be rash.  Even if ye did get ta Garret and kill 'im, don ye think they'd just be that more bound to hunt ye down?  Think 'o yer poor sweet ma and pa livin' alone up in the square.  Hate ta see them brought inta this..."

7) Alex's turn to nod, and he takes 3 dice from on top of the Talk his way out of anything of Riley's that's sitting in front of Matt, and narrates for his character, Colin spat at the mention of his parents, and he threw the knife up from under, right at Riley's neck...

8) Matt takes 1 of the 3 remaining dice on top of Colin's Dirty Infighting trait that's sitting in front of Alex.  Alex frowns.  Matt then picks up his dice, indicating he's ready to move to the next phase.  Alex picks up his dice too, and Matt narrates, The knife caught Riley offguard, and he stumpled clumisly backward, and tripped over a chair, which probably saved his life, as the knife buried itself into the wall, "Colin, ye 'ave sealed yer fate now!  Ye better run, for I 'ear Garret and his rough boys approaching!"

9) Now that the dice have been picked up, both Alex and Matt have a decision to make: red or black die added to their pools?  Both of them have amassed 3 dice, so adding this one will make 4, and depending upon the results of this choice, the outcome of the conflict will be known.  Alex chooses a Red die (secretly), as does Matt (secretly).

10) They both roll their dice, and they see the red die the other has thrown - it's to be aggression, wounds, and broken bones, all the way.  Matt's rolls: 4,4,3 and the Red was a 4 (a hellof a roll).  Alex's rolls: 5,5,1 and the Red was a 2.  Matt gets to place the one unmatched die, the 3, back onto Riley's Trait, and Alex gets to place just the 1 he rolled back onto Colin's Trait.  Alex keeps all 3 because the red/black die is always kept.  IN this case, since they both threw Red, each character will take the other character's successes as damage.  Both players did roll the same number of 'successes', but Alex's successes are of higher rank, so he controls the resolution of the stakes.

11) Since Alex controls, Matt narrates the damage his character, Riley, takes first, Riley hit the ground, and his wrist snapped, and he howled in pain, and the blood from Colin's knife to the ribs began to pool out on the floor

12) Finally Alex, for Colin, Colin looked down at Riley, who writhed in pain, and a smile danced across his lips, until he too heard Garret and his boys.  A wave of fear crossed his face, and he tripped going up the stairs towards Rose, and twisted his ankle

That's it, in it's simplest form.  It's worth noting that the rules for narration are that you can't narrate the actions/reactions/injuries/or implications for another player's character, nor can you narrate the outcome of the stakes, nor can you violate the agreed upon asthetic (alal Capes comics code), but otherwise you may narrate anything.  Describing your character's actions should always happen in the past tense.  Dialogue should happen in the present tense.

Conflicts resolve like this:

Both throw black, their own successes are taken as damage to their own characters, and the one with the most (or best) successes win.  If there's a tie, the conflict continues for another Exchange (new limits, new traits, new narration) until a winner is found.

One Red, and one Black, the Red wins the stakes, and each set of successes cancel each other out.  If one side has more than the other, the reminaing successes are taken as damage by the loser's character.

Both throw red, and the successes rolled are dealt as damage to opposing character, again with the most (or best) sccesses winning the stakes.  Again, if there's a tie, the conflict continues unresolved.

Now, there are lots of other twists and additives to the core mechanic as described, but I'll re-posit my questions:

1) Generically, is this too cumbersome?  The act of bidding dice out while roleplaying feels right to me, but I'd like other's reactions.
2) Does the "pull" (see links above) mechanism of having your opponent put in the dice from your side, based on their reaction to your narration, add tactical "playing against the other player" options/feel to the resolution mechanic?
3) Does this clearly hit basic, responsible IIEE standards in my description? (Note: it does in my head, but, you know, it's in my head...)

Cheers,

Jason
"Oh, it's you...
deadpanbob"

Hi!
  No prob.
  What is the Black Die tactics supposed to represent? Why would anyone use that?

  I think if you are trying to replicate the prisoner's dilemna in combat, Then one tactic should be defend, and the other attack.
  Both defend - No one gets hurt
  Attack/Defend - Some dice cancel others
  Both attack - Both get hurt
  It's not a 1-1 simulation, but it has that ideal choice that no one might ever pick.

  What happens if you roll two pair? Do they get 4 successes, or just two of the higher rank?

  I think two rounds of bidding might be too much and it seems like stake setting is a little flawed. Rose was supposed to be at Stake, but they both end up getting the snot beat out of them to boot. Also, the one character was trying to talk his way out, but his opponent seemed to take physical damage, is that because the winner was using a physical trait? How would it have gone if it had gone the other way? Would anyone still take physical damage? These nitpicky type questions are kinda pointing out how you are trying to link tactical and strategic info into one mechanic and they seem to be not managed well.
  Don't get me wrong, you have a strong foundation, but I think maybe this mechanic needs a context so you can decide things like how tactical/strategic you want to get and what kind of play you want to encourage. Good luck man!

Dave:

Thanks for hanging in.

I agree that the Red vs. Black die mechanics need to map better to the Prisoner's Dilemma.  Your suggestion is a good one, and I'll give it more thought.

The stakes were well defined, but not what's at risk for each character.  What's going to be at risk is character effectiveness: traits take damage.  Add to that the fact that the player gets to decide where that damage falls on their character (any damage they take), and you get the scene where Colin took physical damage even through Riley wasn't fighting.  It was the player's choice where to apply the damage the character took, and he chose to represent that/put that on a physical trait (at least some of it).

I'm trying to get the 'feel' of tactical decisions making a difference in conflict resolution, without having to actually work lots and lots of systematic detail into it.  Put in jargon, I'd like a more 'crunchy' or 'tactical' fell without having too many points of contact.

Finally, I agree about the context thing.  The rest of the system answers some of these questions already, and some it doesn't.  These types of discussions are helpful because folks like you point out potential flaws, or things to think about.

Some day, my playtest rules will be in a 'beta' phase, and I'll publish them so the context becomes clear.

I really appreciate the feedback.

Cheers,

Jason

Heya,

8) Matt takes 1 of the 3 remaining dice on top of Colin's Dirty Infighting trait that's sitting in front of Alex.  Alex frowns.  Matt then picks up his dice, indicating he's ready to move to the next phase.  Alex picks up his dice too, and Matt narrates, The knife caught Riley offguard, and he stumpled clumisly backward, and tripped over a chair, which probably saved his life, as the knife buried itself into the wall, "Colin, ye 'ave sealed yer fate now!  Ye better run, for I 'ear Garret and his rough boys approaching!"

1) Generically, is this too cumbersome?  The act of bidding dice out while roleplaying feels right to me, but I'd like other's reactions.

2) Does the "pull" (see links above) mechanism of having your opponent put in the dice from your side, based on their reaction to your narration, add tactical "playing against the other player" options/feel to the resolution mechanic?

3) Does this clearly hit basic, responsible IIEE standards in my description? (Note: it does in my head, but, you know, it's in my head...)

Tony:

Thank you for taking the time to look this over.

The dice can be picked up at any time, by either player, after they have pulled dice into the bid for their opponent's last narrated bit, but before they narrate their own.  It's basically a 'call'.

Pulling more dice might be used in a tactical manuver to lead them to beleive that you'll be using a Black die in the roll - because with Black die there's a chance that the larger pool will affect your opponent, in this case.

That, and the idea here is that each player is judging the narrative declarations of the other player - their opponent for the conflict.  The idea would be, social contract/peer pressure would drive each player to pull a reasonable number of dice based on how 'good' the narration was.  Of course, the rules should continue some guidelines on how to evaluate this.

One limit is chosen on behalf of each character involved in the conflict, that Limit is rated 1 to 5.  That number represents the maximum number of Traits that can be 'brought into' this conflict.  Once each player has at least one Trait introduced into the scene, dice bidding may start.  But I'm thinking that as a part of each action, players may narrate new traits into the scene, as long as they don't bring in more Traits than they have score in the Limit they've chosen.

I'm thinking that dice from newly introduced traits are immediately available - allowing for an extended building of tension.

Yes, killing without consent is one of the design goals of the game.  Basically, unless you as a player decide to risk the character's life on something, the character can't die.

Thanks again for your feedback.

Cheers,

Jason