The world as it once was has come to an end.  All that is left is a few scattered pockets of survivors trying to rebuild.  The Player Characters are members of one such group.  The game follows them (and possibly their successors) as they attempt to build a community that will last in the ashes of the old civilization.

What was that civilization like?  How did it come to an end?  My intent is to have those questions answered by the players/GM for each game.  This is probably something I’ll post about again in the future, but for now, I’m struggling with resolution.

The entire group is linked to a single community, and it is their goal to protect the community from whatever hostile forces exist in their world.  That community has the potential, perhaps even the destiny, to become the seed for the next great civilization of mankind.  If it should fail, there will be nothing left for humanity but savagery for ages to come.  That is, if we even survive at all.

The characters and their home will be threatened by forces both external and internal, and if the PCs don’t deal with them, they will get worse and worse until they eventually cause the downfall of the community.  Furthermore, it is the methods that the PCs use that will determine the development of their community, and the threats thereto.

Basic resolution is a Player Vs. GM roll of dice pools.  Dice range in size from d4 to d12, with the highest die winning the conflict.  One thing I want to do is extend that a little bit to make the conflicts more interesting, with more back and forth and requiring more detailed narration.

Dice are added to the pool by drawing on resources, (pretty much anything on the character sheet), for example, a character might have "Stilleto, 1d6."  Additionally, each resource is tagged with one or more methods.  Methods are ways in which conflicts can be resolved, things like treachery, violence, negotiation, or knowledge.  So that stilleto would probably be "Stilleto, 1d6, Treachery, Violence."  A resource can only be called upon if one or more of its methods are applicable to the current situation.  The GM keeps a tally of what methods were used to activate resources during the adventure.

The tallies then become a pool of points that are spent for two things.  The GM spends points to create new threats to throw at the players and their community, and the players spend them to develop the community and their characters.  The intended result, then, is that the players will guide the shape of the game (and the game world) by their decisions when dealing with the in game conflicts.

So, that’s the basic idea.  Directed feedback time.
1) Firstly, as always, suggested reading is invited.  If you know of any games that have done anything similar, or which might be helpful if studied, please tell me about them.
2) I like the direction that conflict resolution gives to a game, but I want to reinforce the action mechanically.  With a task resolution based system, this happens automatically, a roll for every little action ensures a certain level of detail.  How can I duplicate this without stealing from Dogs or scrapping what I have of a system so far?
3) How detailed should the methods list be?  I’ve waffled on this a couple of times and have done lists of anywhere between 5 and 20.
4) I’m thinking about plenty of other issues, but let’s just start with these.  General comments and questions are also appreciated.

Dude, don't worry about that whole "stealing" thing. Everybody takes stuff from everyone else's games. If the bits from Dogs work well, go ahead and use them. That's a good game to take ideas from.

As for methods, I'd just come up with a list to start playing with, and play will reveal the ones that are redundant or missing.

I would say that the Methods should be thematically appropriate to the kind of fiction you want play of your game to generate. In Carry, I have a related thing where you choose one of four Approaches when you enter a conflict. The four Approaches I chose to have are Violent, Peaceful, Subversive and Honorable, because I want play of the game to focus on those kinds of intentions and the resultant tensions and actions.

I'm a little unclear from your description how the resolution currently works. But I would suggest that you start a conflict using one thing, and then you can bring in more things if you want to keep extending the conflict. So you start with Stiletto, and roll your die. And you're losing, boo! So you bring in Street Thug and roll that die. Ah crap, still losing...mmm....Lowlife Connections. And bringing in each thing requires you to describe how that thing comes to your aid or how you use it in the conflict.

This has the advantage of scaling, and scaling within the bounds of one conflict (like Dogs, actually. But Dogs is a Good Place TM to steal from, IMO) You could lose with the knife, and the pull in your contacts and allies and describe how you go home licking your wounds and give your buddies a call.

Does that help any?

Marhault wrote: 2) I like the direction that conflict resolution gives to a game, but I want to reinforce the action mechanically.  With a task resolution based system, this happens automatically, a roll for every little action ensures a certain level of detail.  How can I duplicate this without stealing from Dogs or scrapping what I have of a system so far?

My game Ganakagok addresses a similar thematic (the end of the world is coming...what do you do?) and I think it tackles some of the same issues mechanically.  I see you moving towards similar solutions, albeit different in the specific implementation.  For example, in Ganakagok, players invoke character resources (called 'Gifts' and 'Burdens') in order to modify the conflict die roll.  The upshot of the roll includes who controls narration (success or failure, in other words) and how much accrues in terms of long-term advantage or disadvantage.

The thing I like about your incipient system is that the resources being brought to bear are categorized according to the methods they imply, and thus the use of a particular means to any given end is a moral choice as well as an instrumental one.  What I mean is, suppose I've got a big 1d10 resource (I call it a 'Car Bomb') but it's categorized as a 'Terror' method.  My decision to invoke that resource in play may require that our nascent civilization accrue a point of bad karma (in Ganakagok, it's called "Bad Medicine") that can be compared to the amount of good karma that accrues over the course of the game.  So my very effective tool can have ultimately negative consequences on my civilization, perhaps to the point of smothering it in the cradle.  Nice.

As far as 'how many methods?' I would say fewer is better.  I can even tell you how many I'd use:  four.  To a degree, I'm basing this on examples like Joshua Newman's Shock:, where part of the game set-up is figuring out what the modes of action in the game-fiction are.  Conceptually, what you've got is complementary pairs of opposites.  So, for example, if you decide that "Violence" (direct, physical action) is one method, then its opposite ("non-violence") might be "Persuasion" (direct, social action).  The complementary pair will thus be indirect physical and social action, and could be called "Escape (Avoidance)" and "Deceit (Treachery)".  This isn't exactly how Shock: does it, but it works as a general way of conceptualizing how you want folks to orient themselves to action in the game-world.

Wow!  Thanks for the great responses, guys!

Matt, I get what you're saying totally.  Just to clarify my own stance on the idea, stealing bits and pieces from other games or using them for inspiration is great.  Taking large chunks of other games removes those chunks from their original context, meaning they're probably less appropriate to the new one.  Plus, I personally want to create something new.

Nathan, you're right, I was a little bit vague before.  To use your example traits, it would be something like "I'm going to draw on Stiletto, Street Thug and Lowlife Connections for 2d6 and 1d8."  *rolls*  "My best is a 6, what's yours?"  *Compares*  "Okay, here's what happens."  Rolling them in individually draws out the conflict, giving the right amount of detail, It also has the added bonuses of associating each activated resource directly with the game fiction and making sure none of them get lost in the shuffle.  Really, "scaling within the bounds of one conflict" is exactly what I'm looking for.

Joshua, by "reinforce the action mechanically," I really mean that I want the rules to do two things.  Obviously, the first is that they have to resolve the situation at hand, pretty much a given.  The second is that I want them to impose a certain degree of detail on how that situation gets resolved.  I guess what I'm looking to avoid is the conflict resolution version of "I swing at the orc.  Hit.  4 damage."  Interesting stakes are only half of a cool conflict.

Looking at your specific items, I'd say what I'm trying to include here is both (a) and (b), or slightly modified versions thereof.  For (a) it doesn't have to be every single thing, just as long as there's something exciting happening, and for (b) I'd say "every trait you invoke has a potential impact on player success/failure.  If a given trait rolls low, it doesn't have much impact, except, I guess to not win the conflict.  (c) is not something I'm interested in at all.

I definitely want the players to be able to define their own traits and assign methods to them.  I can see some possible benefits to them defining the methods themselves. . . I'll have to think about that, look at the pros and cons for each option.  I think the quibbling about which method is necessary will be somewhat mitigated since the method need only apply for drawing a particular resource into a conflict, rather than the method applying to the conflict itself (This is a Violence Conflict, you can only use Violence traits).  Also, the more specific the methods are, the more interesting I think the town/threat development phase will be.  If it doesn't muddy the waters too much, I see that as desirable.  I'll put together a concrete list and see how it looks.

Bill, I haven't looked in on Ganakagok since the game chef tournament ended.  I will have to do so.  Your "Car Bomb" paragraph is right on the money.  Actually, there's hopefully even more, that being that methods determine the progress of the civilizations advancement as well.  If the Players always resolve conflicts through violence, the town will become a violent one, with bloodsports, riots and murder.  Alternatively, if they never do, then the place will be peaceful, but unable to defend itself.  Tightrope.

Thanks everybody for your help so far.  I'll take a long list at my potential methods, and maybe post a test list.  And maybe an alpha version of the dice system too.

I took some time to look over the lists that I had previously brainstormed.  Made some cuts, and took a very critical look.

The first thing I noticed was that I had broken down social conflict way further than physical conflict.  It definitely was not the way I wanted it to be, everything should be around the same level of abstraction.  So, two ways to go there, break violence down further or abstract social to the same level.  Here are the lists I came up with.

High Abstraction Methods
1)  Violence
2)  Stealth
3)  Negotiation (as a Social catch all)
4)  Technology*
5)  Magic*

Lower Abstraction Methods
1)  Stealth
2)  Subterfuge
3)  Negotiation (specific usage)
4)  Charm
5)  Technology*
6)  Magic*
7)  Perseverance
8)  Intimidation
9)  Avoidance
10)  Brawl
11)  Duel
12)  Firefight
13)  War

*Technology and Magic appear in both lists and would be highly dependant upon the setting being used.  Both could obviously be broken down further, and it may be necessary/desirable to do so, if I wind up using the lower abstraction methods.  I plan to include a step to add or subtract methods from the standard list to customize it for the setting.

The lower abstraction methods feel much more like what I have in mind.  The problem is that it's much more difficult to put together a "complete" list at that level.  The higher level leaves me feeling somewhat cold, it doesn't inject a whole lot of color into the process.  That might be something that good guidelines in the text would help with.  I think I'll try translating some characters into this setup, using both lists, and see if that exposes any strengths or weaknesses.

One thing that bears mentioning.  Conflicts in this game will definitely not be exclusively between characters.  The environment itself is too interesting and dangerous and too important to the style of game I want to create for me to leave it out of this part of the game.

Things I need to do before it's complete enough for a playtest:
1)  Refine methods lists
2)  Fancy up the dice rolling.  Nathan's given me a great foundation, but it needs a little flair.
3)  Hmm. . . Short list.  Time for a blitzkrieg!

Rockin.

One thing to keep in mind is that your list limits as well as provides options, and you can use this consciously. Like, on your High Abstraction list, one cannot approach a conflict in a manner that isn't violent, stealthy, negotiating, or involving technology or magic. Thats cool.

Secondly, (and this is totally an "idea I'm throwing out cuz it occured to me" not "something you MUST DO OMG!!!eleven!!") you could keep both lists, and have a toggle between levels of abstraction depending on how important the conflict is to the player(s) in question, maybe having one of them generate higher reward but be higher risk than the other. Bringing Down the Pain in Shadow of Yesterday is a model for this approach, as well.

Anyhow. More work! Yes! Have fun!

Marhault wrote: High Abstraction Methods
1)  Violence
2)  Stealth
3)  Negotiation (as a Social catch all)
4)  Technology*
5)  Magic*

...The higher level leaves me feeling somewhat cold, it doesn't inject a whole lot of color into the process.

Nathan wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that your list limits as well as provides options, and you can use this consciously.

Joshua wrote:
That's because you didn't put any color into them, Marhault. ;)

Joshua wrote: It sounds like you're trying to consider the system separate from everything else; don't do that.  GURPS and Fudge have already got you beat.  Take a look at the kind of game that you want, think of the kind of actions that you want to see, and then categorize that into your higher-level list.

Marhault wrote: Again, you're right.  Why am I doing that?  I think it's related to my answer to Nathan about limiting options.  The Characters are going to have adversity thrown at them, and each time, the players will know that it comes as a direct result from their previous actions.  If I deny the players access to certain actions or tell them what they should do as a part of the game system, doesn't that limit the impact of that cycle?

Okay, for the most part, my response is "What Nathan just said."

But -- D&D doesn't have rules for driving tanks through the walls of a building.  Because in D&D, you don't drive tanks through walls.  It's not a part of that game.  So too when you're designing your game, you need to figure out what is and is not a part of that game.

Yeah, totally.  Guys, please forgive me if I'm sounding hardheaded about any of these things.  It's a little weird being actively involved in discussing my own game design.  Further, a lot of this is brainstorming based on your questions and comments, I'm honestly trying to force myself to examine my ideas in light of the comments and questions you've all posted.  Sometimes it's easy to be a little bit blind when you look at your own baby.

Nathan wrote:
A general principle (that I'm stating, not attempting to debate): constraint makes it easier to make choices.
*snip*
A second general principle (same caveat): all game design is the designer telling the group what to do. That's what they accept when they play the game, man.

Marhault wrote: The entire group is linked to a single community, and it is their goal to protect the community from whatever hostile forces exist in their world.
*snip*
The characters and their home will be threatened by forces both external and internal, and if the PCs don’t deal with them, they will get worse and worse until they eventually cause the downfall of the community.  Furthermore, it is the methods that the PCs use that will determine the development of their community, and the threats thereto.

Marhault, am I reading correctly that there is no specific setting attached to the game, that it's sort of a rule set for a kind of scenario rather than a specific setting?  If the players are supposed to customize the setting, maybe the players should customize the methods appropriate to that setting.  What if each game opens with the players deciding -- through some consensus-building system -- what six methods will be available in the game, and then making their characters?

Yeah, that's about right, Joshua.  I want it to be somewhere along the same lines as Sorcerer, wherein the specifics of the setting are determined individually for each game, but the thrust of the game is defined in the text.  Does that make sense?

I'm open to the idea that Methods should be defined per setting, but it seems like an awful lot to leave on the group.

It doesn't have to be an awful lot if you develop some good guidelines for building that consensus.  I'm thinking of stuff like everybody contributing three potentials, putting them on scraps of paper, and then discussing the merits of each one by one, then voting or picking or whatever.