Hokahey.

In Guardians, previously titled HENSHIN!, you are the teenaged, Sailor Moon / Buffy / Spiderman-esque Guardians of a town under seige from forces supernatural, and for your characters at least, it sucks rocks.  That's because every time you try to save the ones you love, you hurt the bond you have with them.  At some point you have to ask if it's worth the sacrifice.

So the conflict resolution mechanic is based entirely on the Bonds you have with people.  QUESTION ONE: Should Bonds also possibly be with things and places and favored activities?  A Bond, for the purposes of this discussion, can be Normal, Frayed or Snapped.

In most things, you do fairly standard setting of stakes.    Each participant who wants something incompatible will have different stated stakes on the table.

Then, each Bond that hasn't been Snapped gives you a single d6.  A d6 can be used to defend your Stakes or attack someone elses Stakes.  QUESTION TWO:  Does that make a lick of sense?

When you roll a d6, you may as a Guardian (or as a monster) at any time state take that you are "fraying a Bond," explain how it's been frayed ("My parents are going to notice the black eye the monster gave me.  I Fray the bond with my parents."), and place a token on the bond on your character sheet to indicate that it's Frayed.  It adds to your die roll - either another die, or just a flat +3 / +4. QUESTION THREE: Which seems better?

Your opponent may Fray in response to you Fraying, and you may Fray in response, ad absurditum.  You may do this multiple times with as many bonds on the sheet as you like.  Fraying a Frayed bond Snaps it. 

High rolls win roll-offs.  Ties mean the defender wins the roll-off.  Attacks that meet with no defense win roll-offs. 

Tally up successful attacks: whoever got the most successful attacks wins the Stakes.  In case of a tie, both sides might get the stakes if possible, if not they re-roll once, with the possibility.

BIG QUESTION:  So, what does Fraying a Bond represent besides Life Sucking?  I WANT it to represent deliberate, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Usagi" sacrifice For The Sake Of Love, but right now, it seems sort of random.  Time tricks can make it less so, but gah.  Any advice on that?

Howdy.

This seems to be coming along nicely!

Elliot wrote:
So the conflict resolution mechanic is based entirely on the Bonds you have with people.  QUESTION ONE: Should Bonds also possibly be with things and places and favored activities?

Erick wrote:
Then, each Bond that hasn't been Snapped gives you a single d6.  A d6 can be used to defend your Stakes or attack someone elses Stakes.  QUESTION TWO:  Does that make a lick of sense?

When you roll a d6, you may as a Guardian (or as a monster) at any time state take that you are "fraying a Bond," explain how it's been frayed ("My parents are going to notice the black eye the monster gave me.  I Fray the bond with my parents."), and place a token on the bond on your character sheet to indicate that it's Frayed.  It adds to your die roll - either another die, or just a flat +3 / +4. QUESTION THREE: Which seems better?

Your opponent may Fray in response to you Fraying, and you may Fray in response, ad absurditum.  You may do this multiple times with as many bonds on the sheet as you like.  Fraying a Frayed bond Snaps it. 

Heya,

It sounds like you've got a strong concept for a resolution system.  That's fine and a game's definately got to have one, but I think there might be somethings we need to know before we can really evaluate that system and know if it's right for your game.  If you get a chance, could you answer the three following questions in more detail for me than you already have? :)

1.  What is your game about?

2.  What do the characters do exactly?

3.  How do the players play the game?

Peace,

-Troy

Ah, the Big Three.

Troy,

The game is about what you're willing to sacrifice to protect what you love.

The characters face supernatural threats that could destroy what they love, duelling monsters, investigating magical threats, and trying to defray (hah hah) the costs of thier actions by balancing that with a normal life with the ones they love.

That last question is the most tricky one.  I'll think and post on that one later.

A couple of random thoughts:

I do not think you need Bonds it anything other than people, or groups of people. I can see it is interesting to have Bonds to places too, but is this really central for your game?

There should be more than three levels on a Bond, so it is possible to indicate the strength of the Bond. The Bond to your parents should not be as easy to break as a Bond to a friend.

I think that "fraying a bond" should be a gamble. Depending on how the dice roles, you may get the bonus without consequences. You can make it so that the player can decide how high a bonus want to get (say 3), he then roll a d6, if he roll above the bonus, he will get it without consequences, if he rolls belove, be will still get the bonus, but the Bond will weaken by 3, and this will have the story consequences too.

Can a person that you have a Bond to use this against you? So friends and family actually have some power over you because of the Bond.

- Anders

I got to talking with the talented fellow who goes by Mr. Sluagh about the theme of this game and what players should actually do, and we got hit with revelatory insights about stuff that would make it much, much cooler.

So, I have new answers to the Big Three Game Design Questions.

The Guardians Promise (or maybe just "The Promise: A Game About Magical Girls") is a game about balancing your goals, desires, and the magically sealed Promises you have made to yourself, others, and the universe.  Can you balance the promise you made to act as Guardian to the ones you love with the other things you've promised to do?  Like not flunk math?  Or demonstrate your undying love for your boyfriend?

The characters fight supernatural forces that block peoples progress towards making good on their Promises and then try to get them to give up, while trying to keep as many of thier own Promises as they can.  It's not easy.  Sometimes they'll let particular Promises slip to fulfill others.

The players come up with interesting goals, desires and promises (and to a lesser extent traits) and play them to the hilt, while the GM creates monsters and villians ("Oathbreakers," I think I'll call them) and situations that try to trap the players into situations where fulfilling one Promise will damage commitment to another.

System to come.

So the system is in revision?

Okay ... one thing I'll be looking for in the new version:  What's the mechanical downside of just being willing to lose stakes?  If I have a Frayed relationship with my mother, and I'm contesting stakes about whether or not she is turned into the undead lich-queen of the town, why not just lose?  As it stands, I still keep my Frayed relationship if I don't risk it, and that's an extra d6 on every roll to follow.

I hope that question makes sense.  I like the premise, so I'm stoked to help make it a reality.

So!  New system.

You have a number of Promises. Every character must have thier own brand of "I will protect my town and the ones I love from the depradations of the Oathbreakers" - the Oathbreakers being the villians.  Other examples include "I.  Will.  Not.  Flunk. ALGEBRA!" and "I will love Mamoru until I die."

Each Promise starts out with say 15 Commitment points, representing what you've done to work towards fulfilling that promise lately: a range of Commitment corresponds to a certian dice pool.  15 Commitment gives you 2dwhatever.  30 Commitment, the maximum, gives you 8dwhatever!  6 commitment or less subtracts 2 dice from your pool.  0 commitment allows an Oathbreaker to seriously fuck you up.

Each Promise that still contributes dice gives you one action, either an attempt to get the stakes (Attack) or to prevent your opponent from doing the same (Defense).  You may divide your dice into pools for attacks and defenses.

Roll.  I think I'll use a system of successes, with Fortune in the Middle. Try to get above X on your pool of dY dice, describing your attack.  Your opponent describes his defense, doing the same.  Ties go to the defense.  The attacker, if the defense wins, incorporates thier defense into a description of how the attack fails.

Keep track of successful attacks.  Whoever has the most of them wins the stakes.

You may give at any time.

TonyLB wrote:
Okay ... one thing I'll be looking for in the new version:  What's the mechanical downside of just being willing to lose stakes? 

I hope that question makes sense.  I like the premise, so I'm stoked to help make it a reality.

ElliottBelser wrote:
Whenever you give in a conflict where a Promise is at stake, you lose 2 points. 

It's at stake if, before rolling the dice, the GM suggested it was at stake and you agreed.  D'oh.

Herm.  This might be more complex than I thought.  Perhaps the rules must state that two promises must be opposed or at stake in every conflict.

Like,

You: "Do I get my homework done before I go on the date?" when you have I Will Not Flunk and I Will Love Mamoru Until I Die.

GM:  So!  Is your "I Will Not Flunk" promise involved in the stakes?

You:  I beleive it is.

GM:  Roll for it!  (Get's dice for it, rolls first attack)  You are feeling sleepy, very sleepy.

You:  Which is why I bought a metric ton of energy drinks for this...

etc.

If a Promise is at stake then does winning that conflict automatically get you the reward for something that helps fulfill the Promise?

I want to say yes, you get points for trying to fulfill the promise.

ElliottBelser wrote:

Each Promise starts out with say 15 Commitment points, representing what you've done to work towards fulfilling that promise lately: a range of Commitment corresponds to a certian dice pool.  15 Commitment gives you 2dwhatever.  30 Commitment, the maximum, gives you 8dwhatever!  6 commitment or less subtracts 2 dice from your pool.  0 commitment allows an Oathbreaker to seriously fuck you up.

Now, whenever you do something that helps you fulfill a promise, you're rewarded with a certian number of points of Commitment: 1 point for something unopposed, 3 points for overcoming opposition, IE, conflict.   

Whenever you're prevented from doing something that helps you fulfill a promise, no change. 

Whenever you give in a conflict where a Promise is at stake, you lose 2 points. 

Whenever you do nothing in a scene to further a Promise, even if you were distracted by more pressing matters, -1 point.