I established this Stakes-resolution system for Misery Bubblegum.  Then I Playtested it and found that the other bits of the system (which work in smaller, more manageable increments that build up their effect over time) was much more fun.

So now I want to turn the Stakes-setting system into something fast and light, like that, which builds up meaning in smaller, more manageable increments.  I want a single increment of Stakes-resolution to take no more than thirty seconds to resolve from start to finish ... and to lead naturally into the next one (if another one is called for).

Here's an example from actual playtest:  Eric (playing Ben) was negotiating with the Stag King in the Faerie court.  Ben said he wanted the kids that had been lured into the faerie forest and been captured (including Leila, a prominent and innocent NPC, but not including Reggie, an antagonist who had cut a deal with the Faerie Queen, and who was generally a prick).  The King said he wanted Ben to serve him, with his knowledge and his soul (making him no better than Reggie).  So we had a single choice (put to Eric) that had on one side Ben's Soul, Ben's Knowledge, Ben's superiority over Reggie and on the other side The children, Leila's innocence and Ben's Nice-Guy quality.  He could either take the deal (losing control of his soul, his knowledge, and his standing vis-a-vis Reggie, but saving the kids, Leila and his virtue) or walk away (losing the kids, Leila and his nice-guyness but saving his soul, his knowledge and his superiority to Reggie).

So, yes, that's a cool choice.  But it took us too long to get there, and in too unformed a fashion.  All of those things (and, in fact, several more elements that I didn't mention) were on the table the whole time.

I suspect that the right way to deal with this is to say that, rather than letting people add a card, then remove it, then add it back, then remove it, and so forth that there should be just one roll that says "Is this card on that side, or is it not?"

So instead of lots of manipulation of the whole Soul+Knowledge+Superiority+Innocent+Nice+Kids tangle as a whole, you get individual set-tos like:

• "Okay ... can I get the Faerie King to make a deal for the kids?  You roll dice, I roll dice.  YES!  They're on the table."• "Now ... the Faerie King wants to make the other side about your soul.  You roll dice, I roll dice.  YES!  It's on the table."• "Ack!  Okay.  But if I give up my soul then I'm superior to Reggie, because I did it for a good reason.  You roll dice, I roll dice.  NO!  I don't get it."• "Well, since you bring it up ... I say that you are only superior to Reggie if you don't take the deal ... otherwise you're just the same as him, no matter your motivations.  You roll dice, I roll dice.  YES!  Your superiority and your soul, versus the safety of the children."

... and so forth.  I think that would be a more engaged and engaging mechanic (and would also probably mean that there was more fiction being narrated during the stakes-resolution).  But there are some serious questions:

• How do you handle turn order?  If Eric gets to add stakes, add stakes, add stakes does that give him an advantage?  Or ... all sides only have a certain number of dice available to them before they run out of ability to do stuff.  Does that resource mechanic mean that people can add things in whatever order they feel like?
• Will a mechanic as simple as "Eric, you're the GM right now ... you roll as many GM dice as you want, I roll as many player dice as I want, and whoever gets the highest total wins" work for this?  I think it would (with the addition of the "Player dice held by the GM are a minimum requirement for his rolls" and "GM dice held by a player are a minimum for his rolls" ) but I could be mistaken.  Does that give enough scope for people to express the difference between stakes they care about a little and stakes they care about a lot?
• The previous system had a lovely negative feedback cycle:  When you won something, you took the opposite side's dice.  But, of course, that means that the GM is acquiring player dice (which penalize him) and the players are acquiring GM dice (which penalize them).  How do I maintain that in this new set-to system?
• If someone adds stakes that make the decision (for the GM) a foregone conclusion, it seems to me that everything after that might get a bit boring, or even abusive.  Like, if Eric is totally unwilling to sacrifice Ben's soul, and people know that, and so just keep piling up things on the opposing side:  "Oh, you want to keep your soul?  Well what if it means Leila dies?  And Reggie becomes king of the world?  And all the kidnapped children are damned forever?"  Is this a bug or a feature?

I seriously need some different points of view on this.  My mental processes are getting a bit incestuous ("Oh, this must be a good idea, it's so similar to another idea I had!" and like that) so any breath of fresh air (even a "What the %$@^ is this?") would be welcome.

Hey, Tony.

It *sound* like what you're doing is Falling Leaves, with more dice.  Have you read Falling Leaves?

(also, you know, Polaris)

I can tell you that it works really, really well.  The trick to stopping the "hit the same thing over and over" abuse that you talk about near the end is to either limit it to a certain number of consequences (Falling Leaves) or to let one player "call" the escalation and move on (Polaris.)

yrs--
--Ben

Ben wrote:
It *sound* like what you're doing is Falling Leaves, with more dice.  Have you read Falling Leaves?

Ben wrote:
I can tell you that it works really, really well.  The trick to stopping the "hit the same thing over and over" abuse that you talk about near the end is to either limit it to a certain number of consequences (Falling Leaves) or to let one player "call" the escalation and move on (Polaris.)

<a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18015.0">Falling Leaves

There are also some AP reports in that forum.

The system is exactly the cake-cutting method that you describe.

The thing about hitting the same thing over and over is that it is a bug if it makes your stakes setting take too long.  Otherwise: I don't think it's a bug.  It certainly didn't break my game.

yrs--
--Ben

Cool!  So this is tested ground.  Excellent.  So much nicer than what-if speculation.  One question down, three to go!

TonyLB wrote:
Because, bear in mind, if you put Riches, and Power and Glory and Love on one side because you figure he'll never choose to trade his Soul, even for all that ... well, you may be in for a sudden and game-changing surprise.

TonyLB wrote:
I remember in my youth, the very common way of ensuring fair cake-cutting:  "Tony, you cut two pieces of cake, Cori you pick which one you want."  I think there's some of the same thing operating here.

Eric wrote:
Here, the reverse is true.  If you are an open book, it just makes it easier for people to mess with you.  (I can hear Sydney saying "Doh!")  If you are unpredictable, that gives you power.

Eric wrote:
This is more like dividing a bag of Halloween candy with diverse elements of varying appeal.  "Sure, I want the Snickers bar, but there is all this licorice on that side too..."  In other words, which piece of cake is superior is dependant almost soley on its size, while the value of a pile of candy is more subjective.

Turn Order -- limited resources sound like a good way to constrain this.  It will keep people from piling on tons and tons of stakes -- right up until it's really damn important that they pile on tons and tons of stakes.

Dice -- Is it always one PC versus one GM?  Where do the other players fit into this?  Can they lend dice to either side?

Negative Feedback -- can you set it up so that these once-only rolls have the loser handing over his dice?  That looked like a good, simple system.  And would also constrain how much got thrown into a given conflict, since you'd be risking your dice every time you chose to roll some of them.

Overloaded Stakes -- if Eric is unwiling to sacrifice Ben's soul, why is it on the table in the first place?  Is there any mechanic to remove things from play or marginalize them if they're not popping?  More importantly, is there a mechanic that benefits people for creating engaging stakes?

TonyLB wrote:

Eric wrote:
Here, the reverse is true.  If you are an open book, it just makes it easier for people to mess with you.  (I can hear Sydney saying "Doh!")  If you are unpredictable, that gives you power.

Yep.  I think it motivates you to use your Author stance to figure out ways that it makes sense for your character to make choices that they'll really, really regret (because they run counter to everything the character wants in the long term).  It is a high school game, after all.

Joshua wrote:
Overloaded Stakes -- if Eric is unwiling to sacrifice Ben's soul, why is it on the table in the first place?  Is there any mechanic to remove things from play or marginalize them if they're not popping?  More importantly, is there a mechanic that benefits people for creating engaging stakes?

Joshua wrote:
Dice -- Is it always one PC versus one GM?  Where do the other players fit into this?  Can they lend dice to either side?

Joshua wrote: Negative Feedback -- can you set it up so that these once-only rolls have the loser handing over his dice?  That looked like a good, simple system.  And would also constrain how much got thrown into a given conflict, since you'd be risking your dice every time you chose to roll some of them.

Joshua wrote: Overloaded Stakes -- if Eric is unwiling to sacrifice Ben's soul, why is it on the table in the first place?  Is there any mechanic to remove things from play or marginalize them if they're not popping?  More importantly, is there a mechanic that benefits people for creating engaging stakes?

TonyLB wrote:
Hypothetical:  Ben's Soul is (maybe) being added to the Stakes.  Eric rolls three GM dice, totalling 11.  Sydney (by way of creepy-goth-girl Rachel) rolls four player dice totalling 13.  Tony (by way of the Faerie King) rolls four player dice totalling 12.  Sydney wins!  Ben's Soul is on the table, and if Eric chooses to let it go then it goes to Sydney.

Yeah, it's way more than I'd expect, but it's just an example, right?

Although ...

If the winner takes all the loser's dice then Sydney would end up with more GM dice (from Eric) but no less player dice than he started.  He'd lose the four that he rolled, and gain the four that Tony rolled. 

I know that dynamic.  That's the dollar auction dynamic (or close enough).  And that, I think, could encourage some rapid bidding wars between players over things they wanted to contest.  After all, if Tony's bid four dice and you've only bid three, bidding two more isn't costing you two it's assuring (probably) that you only lose one, rather than three.  What a bargain!

Now if I wanted to do it really fast, I wouldn't let people bid up progressively.  I'd just say "Okay, how many dice are you rolling?  How many are you rolling?  Roll them.  Done!"  But that gives a serious tactical advantage to the person who declares how many dice they roll last.  They know what everyone else is spending.  Is there a way to make that serve the goals of the design?

TonyLB wrote: Hypothetical:  Ben's Soul is (maybe) being added to the Stakes.  Eric rolls three GM dice, totalling 11.  Sydney (by way of creepy-goth-girl Rachel) rolls four player dice totalling 13.  Tony (by way of the Faerie King) rolls four player dice totalling 12.  Sydney wins!  Ben's Soul is on the table, and if Eric chooses to let it go then it goes to Sydney.

TonyLB wrote:
Now if I wanted to do it really fast, I wouldn't let people bid up progressively.  I'd just say "Okay, how many dice are you rolling?  How many are you rolling?  Roll them.  Done!"  But that gives a serious tactical advantage to the person who declares how many dice they roll last.  They know what everyone else is spending.  Is there a way to make that serve the goals of the design?

Joshua wrote:
What if Sydney's goth girl and your Faerie King are in league?  Can they pool dice?

Eric wrote:
I don't know if this system will produce something good, but it does avoid a long cycle of bids....which I am not totally sure would happen anyway.  What I like about this is it allows someone to express an interest and then not follow through.  That seems very high school to me.

I still forward my worthless vote for the dollar auction.

Y'know, the smartest thing would probably be for me to get some people together and actually playtest all three options in a sample conflict.  It'd probably take about an hour, all told, and generate a mound of practical information about how it makes people react.

TonyLB wrote:
Yes, but ... it's really not possible to be let down by somebody else on your side backing out, is it?

Like, it's not reasonable to expect:

Tony:  I want Ben's Soul!  4 Dice.
Eric:  No way!  I'll go in with 5 Dice.
Sydney:  I want to make absolutely sure that Ben's Soul is on the table, but Tony clearly has it, so I won't risk staking dice.
Tony:  Well, I'm folding.
Sydney:  But!  But!  I was counting on you!

Basically, there's no reason for Sydney not to put his dice in if it's something he wants.  There's no reason to ask him to predicate his actions on my actions.  Yes?

TonyLB wrote:
I'm almost tempted to say that people simply put forward the number of dice they want to roll.  The person who most wants to have Ben's Soul get bid upon takes the disadvantage of tipping their hand by saying how many dice they'll spend.  Then you get into a whole situation where you can have:

Tony:  I want Ben's Soul!  1 Die.
Eric:  You can't think you'll get it for one die.  I'm in with 2.
Sydney:  Cool.  Then I'm in with 3.
Eric:  You bastards.

TonyLB wrote:
I don't know which one of those dynamics would work better.  What do people think?

Tony: here's my worthless vote.  Everyone at the table, starting with the conflict's initiator, gets to put on thing on either side of the conflict.  Then, you're done.

I'd suggest not rolling to set-up stakes, because I think that's going to violate your FAST criterion.

yrs--
--Ben

Eric wrote:
I see potential problems with both methods.  I think there is another idea or mix/tweak of ideas that we just haven't come up with yet.

Okay, here's a thought ... sort of similar to TSoY's Bringing Down the Pain, in that you have a simple, dirty system that people can override with something more risky and painful. 

Whatever system you want, in order for original stakes to be set up.  Probably the "Everyone bids, one after the other," thing, because it uses the dice (and therefore helps keep the dice economy cycling) but it's fast.  It doesn't so much matter if this first pass ends up with uncomfortable results, because if a card that you don't like ends up in the stakes, your recourse is to roll to replace it with something else from your hand.  So it's:

Eric:  Ben wants one side to stake the safety of the kidnapped children.
Tony:  Done.  I want the other side to stake Ben's soul.
Eric:  Roll!  Dang, I lose.
Tony:  Now you must choose.
Eric:  I don't think so.  I want to trade Leila's Innocence in place of Ben's Soul.
Tony:  Ooooooh.  Go for it.  I do not contest.

Looking at it in the clear light of morning, tbis idea has more problems than I can readily shake a stick at.  Primary of them is that it encourages people to defure cool conflicts by turning them into lame conflicts.

"Okay ... the question is, will Ben trade his soul for the safety of these children.  I'm going to swap out Soul and replace it with Drivers License."

The swapping mechanic would be cool if it were always swapping to something more interesting for everyone at the table.  The "Ben will sacrifice Leila's Innocence rather than his own Soul" one fits the bill, but I'm not seeing a way (off the top of my head, anyway) to make that happen more often than "Ben will sacrifice his rock collection rather than his own Soul" (universally less interesting) or "Ben will sacrifice his position as President of the Supernatural club rather than his own Soul" (possibly more interesting to some, but probably not to the person playing the Faerie King).

I may just be looking at things too simply here, but during the "bidding phase" can't each player just keep the number of dice he wants to you in his closed fist, and then everybody hands are opened at the same time? For example:

Eric: Does Ben's Soul go on the table? Grab dice, everyone.

Eric grabs 3 dice and holds them in his closed fist.
Shawn isn't interested, so simply closes his fist around nothing - maybe miming getting dice from his pool to throw other players off.
Tony takes 3 dice from his pool and hides them hidden under his hand.
Sydney really wants that and looks at the other closed fists trying to assess how many dice to use. He picks up 4 dice and holds em.

Eric: OK, let's roll for it.

Everybody opens their hand and rolls the dice they have in their hand. Play then proceeds how you expect.

It's quick and simple, so I expect that I have missed something.

I'd just be so tempted to cheat, in so many ways.  I'm a pretty compulsive counter, so I'd know how many dice people had in their hands even if I made a conscious effort not to count their pool and compare it to what the pool was at the beginning of the action.  I can't turn that off, but I may be a bit on the "freak" side of the scale in that regard.

On an unrelated (to Warren's point) note:  I've been thinking (a lot) about this issue.  The question of "How do you quantify that Ben's Soul is more important than Ben's Drivers License?" has been weighing upon me heavily.  At the same time, the question of "How do you pace an episode such that people don't try to open up a big can of worms at minute 47 of a one hour TV episode?" has been weighing on me.  Strangely, I think they contain an answer to each other.  Check this out:

You want to know how important something is in a session?  Not how important it should be, or how important it could be, but how important it actually is?  Count how many times it has been offered as Stakes.  That's how many times it's been a factor in a major choice.  We'll just call that it's Importance.

But!, you justly retort, Ben's Soul, in any normal game, will have more potential to be important than Ben's Driver's License.  Yes, in an episode where his soul never comes up and his driving privileges do the drivers license has more Importance, but the drivers license should never be as important in its most important episode as his soul is in it's most important episode.  I agree with you.  Let us assign each card a (semi-)permanent value called "Potential."

Importance is always less than Potential.  Importance starts out at zero.  Each time the card is staked, it rises by one.  When it reaches Potential something happens.  That particular sub-thread has some big event that resolves ... I dunno.  Whatever's happening.  That bit is to be filled in later.  Let us assume that this "Something Happens" is a reward that players seek.  They like to make Something Happen.  The reward is proportional to the Potential of the card.

Let us further assume that Importance resets to zero at the beginning of every episode.  With me so far?

So, a card like Ben's Soul (Potential 7) is a lucrative prize ... but one that you have to work hard for.  You could try for a whole episode to drive its importance up to the point where Something Happens, and still fail.  But if you manage it, great!  Big prizes.  A card like Ben's Drivers License (Potential 2) is low-hanging fruit.  It's easy to resolve it, but resolving it doesn't buy you all that much.  Worth the effort, if you have no bigger prizes that you can reasonably seek.

At the beginning of a session, you've got maybe three hours ahead of you.  Then, you want to be looking around to see what big thing you can carry through the episode.  Maybe this episode (for you) will be all about Ben's Soul, or Rachel's Loneliness, or whatever.

Come the middle of a session, you're looking to see what's achievable.  Have you pushed Ben's Soul up high enough that you can get it to a climax?  Or maybe you want to jump ship to Rachel's Loneliness ... it's closer to a resolution, and if you capture it at the right time then you can control that resolution.  Sleazy!  Basically, around the middle-to-late period of the session, there's going to be a flocking effect, where people jump on to the clear winner(s) in terms of what's going to come to climax.  Better to have a part in an issue you didn't expect than to throw your vote away on the one you want but clearly won't get.

Then at the end of the session (after the clear winners have been resolved) it's time to go for the low-hanging fruit.  Has Ben's Driver's License already been important once in the episode?  Grab it, make it important again (for a denouement) and get a quick reward.

So what relevance does this have to what is being discussed right here and now?  Well, go back a few posts and notice where I'm talking about trying to make sure that the swapping mechanic only swaps something more interesting for something less interesting.  What if you simply say "You can only swap a card of greater Importance for one of lesser Importance"?

I wanna see it in action, Tony.  I think you may be on to something, there.

There is a lot intrguing about your most recent model, Tony, but there are more details to come before I would even venture a guess on how it plays.