As some of you might remember from old threads, I'm working on a game tentative titled "In a Land Called". I'm getting close to a playable alpha, but I'm still having issues working out exactly how resolution works. So I'm humbling myself and asking for feedback and advice.

For the game, I'm really interested in making eveything a sort fo extended conflict. There were two TV shows that solidified this for me [slight spoilers ahead]:

The first was an episode of Battlestar Galactica from the second season. Setup: The Galactica had encountered another human battlestar that was commanded by a superior-ranking officer. Conflict: Cmd. Adama (sp?) and the superior ranking officer begin struggling for control of the Galactica and crew (this is one of Adama's major issues).

What followed was a series of scenes were Adama and the other commander struggle back and forth, but the issue is never revolved. First the officer says she has no interest in beaking up Adama's crew. Then she does, and Adama gives. Then she takes a few of Adama's crew prisoner (there was some other stuff that went down), and Adama gives. The she condemns the men to death, without telling Adama first. Adama sends out his fleet of jet fighters & marines to rescue the men and the other officer does the same. But still, the issue isn't resolved (at least not in that episode).

The second was the flashback sequence from a recent episode of Lost. Jin, who was a sort of intimidator for his wife's mob-boss father, is told to go kill a man, something he's never done. At first he refuses, but then the father calls him son, something he's never done. He goes home and tells his wife, and they fight about it (she's not very supportive in this scene). Then, in the third and final scene, he goes to the guy's hotel room, points the gun at the guy's head and... (dramatic pause)... promptly lowers it and tells the guy to flee town.

Important to note, in both shows, this series of scenes is broken up and interspersed with other scenes. In Battlestar Galactica, it should also be noted that each scene was an escalation of the conflict. In Lost, I'm not sure if you want to call that an escalation (maybe it was, just not an heavy one).
_____________

OK, so I'm interested in emulating that sort of a sequence for IaLC. So resolution seems scene-based. It also seems that there will need to be some list of conflicts that's floating out there (like "the opposing commander wants control of the ship and crew"). When you roll, you add a point to some measure that says whether the conflict is defeated or not in the end.

So here's a question---it seems that a scene will need to be framed with a specific conflict in mind. But I kinda want to hold on to that feel of "the PCs go out and do stuff, and based on that stuff we formulate the conflict."

Mechanics aside, do you think it possible to reconcile these two (in my mind opposing) goals? To both have a pre-determined list of general conflicts/issues and still let specific conflicts/resolution rolls be determined in play?

I guess one issue I have is that I still want conflicts to be driven by PC action & player desire, but I don't neccessary want to prescibe what the scene will be about ala PTA or MLwM. But I want pre-defined conflicts/issues for a variety of reasons--mainly so that players can engage in multiple conflicts simultaneously, or different characters can engage the same conflict/issue in seperate scenes.

Is this a real issue or am I just over-thinking things?

I guess one solution might be just formulate a conflict and roll, and then when the scene is over let the player or whoever dictate which conflict/isssue the point of success/failure is credit towards (as appropriate to the scene).

Thanks! I just wanted to talk with out with people.

Tim,

Not sure this will help or not, but I will throw it in the ring so to speak. First, in  a draft for a game I have on hold, the game was about big events and people either believing in them coming to pass or not coming to pass. But there was a mechanic that made it either happen or where it would never happen. Sort of a meta-game conflict. When the event either happened or was made impossible to happen, the fallout would impact the characters based on their belief of it.

The way it worked was every conflict that was related to the event, the player had a choice, they could put a die in the "great event pool or not". And at the end of every scene, the players could all roll the number of dice in the great event pool. If it came up 3 1's it didn't happen, if it came up 3x6's it did. If they weren't rolled either, well then it was still undetermined. In the one or two minor tests of the game, it created a big tension every roll when someone would choose to roll. Espically since every character would change in some way or another based on it being a set of 3x1's or 3x6's. Which is also why sometimes people didn't roll, they liked the status qou.

Again, maybe that is missing the mark of what you are talking about and if so, please ignore. But I think what you are saying is possible, and very interesting an overarching story arc with scenes within it. Somehow the scenes within impact the overall arc. 

Cheers for now,

Steve

I've been looking forward for this game - it's good the project closes to the end.

Mechanics aside, do you think it possible to reconcile these two (in my mind opposing) goals? To both have a pre-determined list of general conflicts/issues and still let specific conflicts/resolution rolls be determined in play?

Hello Tim,

What you've described is a very difficult situation to resolve. Not so much the details, but how to manage an extended conflict that keeps the parties involved. The hardest part is determining the criteria for winning the conflict. After I spend several sessions on a conflict that has overwhelming importance, I don't want it to be random. Neither do I want to follow a script nor invite an arbitrary decision.

I would like to look at conflicts and know exactly what they are. The easiest ones are win/lose situations. You fight something and either win or lose. Other situations let you try again. The guardian will remain until I vanquish him or the door does not open until I pick the lock. Some are conflicts with various levels of winning and those are the most difficult to define.

RPGs normally don't have variable or dynamic conflicts. Its all or nothing, no second place, no consolation prize and no room for defeat of any kind. But life isn't like that. Its all about request, opportunity, compromise, tactics and strategy. Maybe a way to look at conflicts is to look at the different possible results and how you would achieve them. I find its easier as a GM and for players to have three possible outcomes for a conflict, and they don't necessarily involve death. And these three outcomes are directly related to the effort of the players and the success of their characters. So, they can completely win the conflict, partially win it or completely lose it. The partial win takes some creativity to design. Often the goal is accomplished with some repercussions: the enemy flees but doesn't complete his evil scheme, the vault is opened but the TNT blows up the cash, you acquire the weapons but forgot the energy paks, the vaccine works but there are only two doses, you stop your commander's continued indiscretions but must keep the incident a secret. Its actually wise to have partial successes to conflicts. It keeps the players coming back for more as there is still tension regarding the conflict without facing utter defeat.

In your first example referencing Battlestar Galactica, I don't see a conflict between the admiral and commander. That is the proper chain of command and there is no conflict because he follows the orders. Only when he sees injustice does the conflict begin. So, I don't think that is an extended conflict. The second example definitely is one, but it latches onto internal conflicts and is more complicated.

Players definitely want to do something with their characters besides go into a bar and raid a keep of some sort. Let the players come up with some plans and then break them down into specific objectives. Let the players brainstorm what defines complete success, partial success, try again scenarios and complete success. This will put things in perspective and the players will be able to direct their characters with intelligence and skill.

Each objective must be completed to realize the goal. When an objective is completely satisfied, the players get something (knowledge, item, resource) that can help them with the next objective. If they complete the objective in an average way then they get nothing special. If they fail but don't botch the plan, then they can try again...with greater opposition. If they completely fail and just do something stupid, then the plan fails too. However, completing the objectives still has validity and reward. Essentially, they are salvaging the wreckage.

Random results are great to represent the fog, karma and chance of chaotic situations. In extended conflicts, there is an expectation that intelligence, planning and careful execution are involved. Take advantage of this and reward the players by showing a true evaluation of their characters actions. They'll love you for it.

Troy

Hi Tim,

Are you familiar with the HW/HQ extended contest mechanic. It does a lot of what you are seeking, with explicit mention in the rules for using them over a long period to model just this kind of issue.

I really like the system, but it has many opponents due to it being mathematical and in some peoples mind a game in itself, I am struggling with adapting it myself to make the strengths of the system more evident, but you may find it interesting as a stepping off point.

The key is that starting skills set Advantage Points for each participant, and the relevent level of these AP reflects who has the upper hand in the conflict. Players then make statements of intent each round and the riskiness of the action is assigned a number of AP represented as a proportion of the currently held AP. Skill rolls result in multiples of the AP bid being lost gained or transferred to the opponent.

Importantly, a mini resolution of how well each party is doing is reached each round, but a full resolution is only achieved by driving the opponent down to zero or below, with the amount below zero relative to the starting points giving an over-all success level.

The negatives can be that the players may focus on the maths of the situation especially when driving their opponent below zero, but a solution is to leave actual quantities up to the GM, with negotiation based on refining the action and intent when disputes arise not the bid level. In other words don't dwell on the maths of the bid and emphasise the relative AP only as an indicator or who has the advantage and bids as a function of risk.

Variants could include defining starting points based on dramatic impact not skill, or defining a bid quantification mechanic to take the abstract maths away.

I find that as long as you focus on the drama of the situation, and map any quantity used back onto the dramatic situation via narrative then the system works excellently.

I am familiar with the principles of HQ and its extended conflict mechanic, but have never played it. Here's a question---within the context of an extended conflict, how is it decided in HQ what a scene & a roll will be about?

Once a player engages an extended conflict, are they automatically locked in that contest until it resolves (they can't do anything else)? Or can they set it aside and engage other stuff? If they can set it aside, how is it decided what a scene/roll will be about? Does the GM or player say, "I want this scene to address the on-going extended conflict," before the scene is framed? Or is the scene framed and in the middle of it someone goes, "hey, this situtation would be a good time to make a roll for the extended conflict"?

Thanks! This is the sort of thing I'm having trouble imagining right.

timfire wrote:
How is it decided in HQ what a scene & a roll will be about?

Once a player engages an extended conflict, are they automatically locked in that contest until it resolves (they can't do anything else)? Or can they set it aside and engage other stuff?

If they can set it aside, how is it decided what a scene/roll will be about? Does the GM or player say, "I want this scene to address the on-going extended conflict," before the scene is framed? Or is the scene framed and in the middle of it someone goes, "hey, this situation would be a good time to make a roll for the extended conflict"?

Skimming through your on-line documents on In a Land Called, it strikes me that you could combine the AP concept with the dice pool, loosing or gaining dice each time one engages in the conflict. I guess the player would need to record the conflicts (and their possibly changing goals) currently engaged in on the char sheet, but this is actually quite a neat idea, bringing the character focus onto the long term conflicts engaged in.

Web_Weaver wrote:

timfire wrote:
Once a player engages an extended conflict, are they automatically locked in that contest until it resolves (they can't do anything else)? Or can they set it aside and engage other stuff?

That depends which form it takes. The most common usage is to resolve the conflict there and then...

If they can set it aside, how is it decided what a scene/roll will be about? Does the GM or player say, "I want this scene to address the on-going extended conflict," before the scene is framed? Or is the scene framed and in the middle of it someone goes, "hey, this situation would be a good time to make a roll for the extended conflict"?

It would be equally easy to do either...

Hi Tim,

I'm going to risk a slapping down here since you asked for actual play, and I don't have empirical knowledge to provide you with that. I've only got reason for this one. It seems to me that if you build a reward mechanic that gives some type of bonus for tying in the overarching extended conflict that you don't necessarily have to predefine a scenes purpose to have that continuing tie-in to happen. Players will find inventive ways to tie that extended conflict into the middle of a scene if they get dice for it. If you also allow that bonus, or a different bonus, for setting up a scene that is intended to directly engage and add to that overarching conflict you then have two tools you can use to address that continuous conflict.

Think of the Mountain Witch, it could be argued that fate cards are an extended conflict that players tie into existing scenes, to get the mechanical reward of narration.

So, I would love to hear about Actual Play experience where it gets decided mid-scene that the PCs' actions seem to be addressing an extended contest, but that was not the intention before hand.

Clyde wrote:
It seems to me that if you build a reward mechanic that gives some type of bonus for tying in the overarching extended conflict that you don't necessarily have to predefine a scenes purpose to have that continuing tie-in to happen.

Web_Weaver wrote:
Is this an example of what you are asking:
In a scene framed as Adama confronts his son over a rumor of insubordination, how do you switch context to the Commander Adama v Admiral Cain conflict in mid scene?

Also, I get the impression that you may be using a very specific definition of a scene, do you define a scene in terms of the embedded conflict, or do you define it in terms of situation and character?

Cool, I still see HQ extended contests (EC) as a useful example, I will try and detail a structure assuming you used a like mechanic. In HQ you can have simple and extended contests, and the outcome of each is the same. But, the essential difference is that with ECs this outcome is not calculated until the contest is over.

Sure each dice roll provides an outcome which informs the narration and adjusts the Advantage Points (APs) which act as a "Who's winning indicator", and the dice mechanic is very similar to simple contests, but the actual outcome cannot be estimated from the current situation as the APs can swing, to model the way that fortunes shift back and forth in fiction.

So in HQ the equivalent of Consequence is only calculated in EC once the APs reach a winning condition, and then the current state of the losers AP (zero or below) is used to calculate the Consequence.

Using the HQ model but without the specific mechanics, you frame a scene with a conflict, and at the point of resolution you decide if it should be Simple or Extended:

Simple
relative skills and resistances are calculated, the dice are rolled, the conflict is resolved and narrated and consequences are calculated.

Extended (new conflict)
Relative skills and resistances are selected, from these starting APs are calculated, AP bids are calculated based on intent and risk, the dice are rolled, APs are adjusted to indicate the change in fortune, this change is narrated.

Extended (ongoing conflict)
APs are brought forward from previous scene, new relative skills and resistances are selected based on current situation, AP bids are calculated based on intent and risk, the dice roll, APs are adjusted to indicate the change in fortune, this change is narrated.

If after APs are adjusted, in either extended contest, one party has been driven to zero or less AP the negative value is compared to that parties starting AP and consequences are calculated.

Note: for Extended contests details of current APs and starting APs are kept until the conflict is resolved.

Now, you may wish to modify this to allow consequences to emerge in the process of the conflict, or maintain a more elegant way of keeping the current state of the contest and or winning conditions, but the essential thing to remember is that the full consequences cannot be understood until the conflict has been resolved. After all, that is what resolution means in this context.

I've been thinking about all this and I wanted to give an update.

In the beginning, I was using the assumption that ALL conflicts would be pre-defined. I don't think this would work, I think this would lead to artificial shoe-horning of situation. I think that there always has to be the possibility of starting new conflicts. So my current assumption is that there will always be a certain number of conflicts floating out there, and new ones will be declared from time to time.

I think with scene resolution you probably do need to be a bit more focused in your scene framing. (Occasionally, when I've played PTA, scenes have sorta floundered a bit when the GM & player doesn't know where the scene should go.) So I think scene framing should probably focus more on the GM agressively setting up the situation, rather than letting the players set up things up themselves. In other words, the GM will have primary responsibility/authority in scene framing, rather than it being more cooperative. It could have gone the other way, with the player taking a large role in defining the current scene, but I think giving the GM responsibility here jives more with what I wanted for the game.
____________________

So with that settled, I would like to discuss actual mechanics a bit. These are the things that must be considered in resolution:

Character Skills & Traits: Traits are gained from the character's personality archetype (ex. Strong, brash, quiet, cute, etc). Skills from their Skill Set (ex. martial arts, special weapon, magic spells, etc). PC will have 3-4 of each. Originally, I intended them to have the same mechanical function---they both would just give dice. But it doesn't have to be this way.

I'm thinking Traits & Skills will actually be fairly narrowly defined, because I actually *don't* want characters to succeed all the time. Also, these numbers will NOT change at all during play.

Connections: Players have the option of calling on their Connections for some sort of advantage/bonus in conflicts. Right now I'm thinking Connections will come in different levels, meaning some will be stronger than others. Connections are meant to be the primary method of "character advancement", and the number/levels of Connections will grow over play.

There are consequences to invoking Connections, however, so they won't be a thing that's used all the time.

Multiple conflicts in a scene: I'm thinking I want the possibility of having multiple conflicts in a given scene.

More than one PC in a scene: You know, group conflicts.

Players address different conflicts scene-to-scene, different players address a given conflict scene-to-scene: I would like flexibility in who can address what conflict.

Only players roll? The game is actually intended for GM-less/ful play. I'm thinking to keep things easier to manage, it would be nice if only the acting players rolled, and not the "GMing" players. This is not a requirement.

Conflicts are created using a currency: Just something to be aware of.
____________________

So my original idea was just that players would pick a number of applicable Traits & Skills, which would grant a number of dice, which would be rolled against some number that would determine binary success/failure for that scene. The amount of currency pumped into a conflict would determine how many successes would be neccessary to defeat it (as well as how many failures determine PC defeat).

But lately I've been thinking of ways to make Traits and Skills different... Maybe, players pick one trait and one skill (multiple skills, maybe)? The Trait could determine the threshold of success (ex. 4+ on a d6) and skills could determine the number of dice, or maybe the type of die, if I want to use a step die mechanic. There's gotta be a system out there that already does this, how does play?

It would also be nice if there was a way to augment conflict difficulty. This number could either be fixed (meaning different conflicts would have different difficulties, but they would always be the same for a given conflict), or it could vary (the same conflict is different every time you face it).
____________________

So here's a proposed system:

• Traits determine the threshold of success---let's say we're using d6. There will be color consequences for which Trait is chosen as well.
• Skills determine the number of dice a player rolls. For a given roll/scene, players can select multiple skills.
• Conflicts are given a pool of points, based on the amount of currency pumped into the conflict. In a given scene, the "GM" takes a number of points. This number determines how many successes the player needs to win. The conflict is over when all the points are spent. (How to determine if the conflict is defeated overall? If the player gains more successes than failures?)
• Connections will be rated like Skills, indicating a number of dice. Connections, I think, can be declared after the roll, to boost up a failed roll. When they are in invoked, players are granted their number in extra dice. An individual Connection can only be invoked once a scene, but multiple Connections can be invoked.

The advantage to this system is that multiple players can combine their successes to win. Or inversely, players can be forced to divide their successes between multiple conflicts. Book-keeping is kept to just recording how many points each conflict has.

But I don't have a provision for "damage", hmm...

Hi Tim,

A few clarification questions, as I cant quite get a handle on the game and I am not familiar with the genre you are working with. I am aware that some of these questions may be a bit off the mark, so feel free to answer only those that help you.

In a given session, what do you see play focusing on? Are you still geared towards a "save the world" game, and do you see the ongoing conflicts as being aligned with these aims?

You describe a number of wide and unresolved conflicts existing in play, will it be possible for players to ignore some of these, or do they or the GM have the power to change their nature in order to demand resolution?

Your structure seems to focus on relationships being the major part of your reward cycle, how do these help with the overall aims for the game? You seem to imply they are a kind of resource, to help resolve conflicts, is this their primary function, or is it more about embedding the characters into a social framework?

If the characters are building a world full of social groups, connections and backstory as they go along, are they doing so for world building sake, i.e. is the primary exploration focused on these elements?

What exactly is the GMs job at any moment in time (regardless of whether GM duties are distributed)? Is it to take the players setting information and weave them into the existing world crisis, or is it to introduce new dramatic opposition to the aims of saving the world? (Or something else?)

How do these wider ideas inform your choice of mechanics? For instance, are the player characters built around stats and skill sets just for simulation sake, or do these inform the players choices and options? If so how? Is it just about making characters require help with unknown domains of knowledge or competencies, or is part of play focused on being a expert in certain fields?

But lately I've been thinking of ways to make Traits and Skills different... Maybe, players pick one trait and one skill (multiple skills, maybe)? The Trait could determine the threshold of success (ex. 4+ on a d6) and skills could determine the number of dice, or maybe the type of die, if I want to use a step die mechanic. There's gotta be a system out there that already does this, how does play?

That's a big question, Jamie. I was planning on writing an essay that described the design of this game, but I'm not quite ready to write that. Do you have specific areas of confusion about resolution? I tried to lay out what I wanted for resolution in general and the system features that I needed to go into it in my previous posts. (I know I'm kinda working backwards here, I have the outer framework worked out before the actual mechanics.)

Looking through your skeleton design it does feel a bit hollow without the conflict system, but I can see where you are coming from now.

I will attempt to rephrase the problem.

You require a conflict and resolution system that drives the story forward in a structured manner. If we look at it as a black box, it must take the PCs and the initial situation as primary inputs, outputs of new situations and conflicts must be fed back into it, and the eventual output should be a rewarding "story chapter" with multiple story threads but where the story generation process itself must be both fun and engaging, and involve an ongoing struggle.

I think story escalation is already well handled by the overall chapter structure, ie dividing play into discrete escalating arenas (as you propose elsewhere). So the black box needs to focus on what happens within chapters.

In fact this story generation process is the heart of the game. Its the central explorative process that everyone will be engaged in. Therefore the black box must be a "story engine" but not in the Narrativist premise addressing way, as the whole story does this on its own with little need for attention from the players,. But instead in a deliberate crafting of self consistant story for its own sake, in a clearly defined direction.

I think what you are searching for is hinted at by Shooting the Moon. Which has discrete scenes, and plot direction, while accumulating a resistance that is applied in the final scene to inform resolution of the plot.

If within the back box, you have some way of "keeping score" in this way (players vs chapter level crisis) then in the final climactic scene for each chapter you could then use this to produce a resolution.

This way you don't worry too much about multi scene conflicts, they can be encouraged by setting low stakes in each scene, but instead how each scene will mechanically effect the final scene in the chapter.

i.e. Ok final scene, lets check the score: the girls homeland was laid waste, the bad guy in black is incredibly powerful, the cool smuggler with all the street savvy has gone home with his cash reward, the wizard is dead and the big deadly ship is closing in on our base, but on the positive side we escaped the deadly ship with its plans, we have identified its weakness, we have hope from the mysterious circumstances of the wizard demise, and a slim hope that love or honour will bring back the smuggler. So, 5 v 4, were loosing, we have gotta pull out the stops here.

Does this help at all? Am I at least rephrasing the question correctly?

I'm a bit behind the 8-ball on how your game mechanics work as proposed, but I can definitely see the potential for resolving "macro" and "micro" conflicts in the same scene, as per the Adama/Cain conflict.  As the above poster mentioned, and I think it's key to this, almost every scene in the episode contributes to resolving the issue.  It's one of the strengths of the show that every scene feels important.  I don't agree though, that a scene needs to explicitly bring up the issues of the "macro" conflict, in order to help resolve it.  Adama talking to Lee feels like it's resolving the Cain/Adama conflict, even though neither of them mention it. 

Sorry, I'm having difficulty expressing myself here.  I'll approach it from a different angle.

Here's how I would do this:  Once a "Macro" conflict is established (The Adama/Cain thing, for example), players can call for scenes to resolve "micro" conflicts, (for example, Lee/Adama, or Starbuck/Cain).  When framing each scene, the players describe how the outcome of that conflict will affect the "macro" conflict.  Lee rejecting Adama's authority makes it more likely for Cain to prevail, Starbuck rejecting Caine's authority makes it more likely for Adama to succeed.  It is not necessary for the scenes to directly reference the "macro" conflict, the players must only describe how the outcome is relevant.  Once a number of "Micro" scenes have been resolved, the players can call for the "macro" conflict to be resolved, involving modifiers from the previous "micro" conflicts.

So, to use the BattleStar example:

Opening scenes: The GM sets up the "Macro" conflict - Cain is threatening to execute Adama's men.  If Adama can't find some way to stop her, they'll be killed.
The players call for a scene where Lee confronts Adama.  If Adama can secure Lee's loyalty, he'll be able to use that in the final conflict against Cain. 
Dice are rolled (your mechanic goes here).  Adama successfully brings Lee over to his side.
The players call for a scene where Starbuck confronts Cain.  If Cain can bring Starbuck on side, it'll help her against Adama.
Dice are rolled, Cain fails to win over Starbuck.
Finally, the "macro" conflict is resolved - There is a battle, and Starbuck and that other guy both go about their missions.
Dice are rolled, incorporating Adama's bonus for winning over Lee (the exact effects of this are narrated).  The result is a partial victory for Adama.  The men are saved, but Cains authority is intact.

I think the advantage of this method is that every scene feels relevant to the main issue, even if it doesn't directly reference it, and it builds nicely to a dramitic conclusion.  Also, it lends weight to the scene framing dynamic, where the players will try to frame scense which play to their strengths, while the GM can try to frame scenes which exploit weaknesses.  Also, I think leaving the final outcome in doubt to the end makes for a more dramatic game.

Now, my apologies if this ends up being irrelevant, and I have to admit that I haven't properly grasped the mechanics that you're looking at Tim.

Looking back at your first post, you talk about a conflict building up to a dramatic climax.  In both examples (BSG and Lost), you show the progression towards the final conflict.

In both cases, the outcome of that final conflict is undecided until its resolution.  Indeed, it often looks like a 50/50, regardless of what has been stacked on either side.

In the BSG case, Cain often looks to have the upper hand.  In the Lost case, everything lenas towards him carrying out the murder.

I guess all I'm saying is to be aware that, in an extended conflict, you can move towards a "steamroller" effect, where the odds are being stacked in favour of one side or the other, whereas in the dramatic (TV) situations you describe, it could go either way.

I wonder whether these "micro" scenes are actually adding in consequences to the "macro" scene?

Maybe you're getting an escalation of consequences rather than support/opposition, similar, in a way to TheTris' "Falling Leaves" game idea.

If that were the case, the final "win or lose" remains roughly as easy or difficult as it was initially, but the consequences stacked up on the various sides might cause ppl to assign their currency (if I'm using the term correctly?) in different ways, depending on what now looks more or less favourable.

I'll stop now before I completely derail everything by my mumblings.

Tim,

About the mechanics. Aside from your summary in this topic, how much of the original outline and flowchart is still actual?

Only players roll? The game is actually intended for GM-less/ful play. I'm thinking to keep things easier to manage, it would be nice if only the acting players rolled, and not the "GMing" players. This is not a requirement.

Conflicts are created using a currency: Just something to be aware of.

But lately I've been thinking of ways to make Traits and Skills different... Maybe, players pick one trait and one skill (multiple skills, maybe)? The Trait could determine the threshold of success (ex. 4+ on a d6) and skills could determine the number of dice, or maybe the type of die, if I want to use a step die mechanic. There's gotta be a system out there that already does this, how does play?

(How to determine if the conflict is defeated overall? If the player gains more successes than failures?)

But I don't have a provision for "damage", hmm...

I thought I would be able to discuss this stuff without bringing up the larger system, but I guess not. Here's the summary:
_______________

GM-less/-ful Play: Each player has a PC. Players switch back & forth between "Acting" and "Directing" Modes. Being an Actor means your PC has the spotlight. Being a Director means you are basically a GM.

So a given scene will have a certain number of Acting players and a few Directing "GMs". Who does what changes from scene to scene, based on... something, probably currency levels (Consequence, Hope, & Debt).

Each Actor plays their character, doing the stuff players normally do. Directors will each play a NPC, with the purpose of either pushing Conflict or offering the Actors dramatic support. (Director's PCs may be in the scene, optionally, but they don't get the spotlight, and can't engage in conflicts.)

Consequence & Hope: Winning a conflict incurs the Acting player Consequence (used to be called "fallout"), some sort of negative long-term consequense. Losing conflicts incurs Hope, some sort of positive long-term consequense.

Consequence is the currency Directors use to generate conflict. It is important to note that consequence is used to generate setting-based conflicts/adversity.

I should add that I want all, or at least most conflicts to be spun off of old conflicts. Everything has a consequence, and everything is the result of something that came before. I should add here that I don't want to mandate that the spinoff conflict be declared right away,  I want consequence to be a generic resource.

After Consequence & Hope get spent to create conflicts & magical/fateful events (hope), they convert to setting tokens which get spent to declare setting elements. Used-consequence is used to create grotesque/dark/evil elements while used-hope is used to create marvelous/positive elements. Thus there's a connection between PC actions and the color of the setting.

Connections & Debt: Connections are relationships, if I wasn't clear earlier. Invoking a Connection incurs Debt. Debt is a currency used to generate Connection-based conflict. In this regard, it is used similarly to Consequence (though it disappears after use).

Besides their use in Conflicts, Connections are also the primary mechanism for creating PC backstory.

Rewarding Directing: I want to reward the GM'ing aspects of the game. My current thought is a Fan-Mail-type thing. If an Acting player really likes one of the Director's bangs/conflicts (consequence- or Debt-based), magical/fateful event, or possibly one of their setting element creations, they can basically say, "that's cool".

If the thing was Consequence or Hope based, the Director then gets to elaborate (add a fact, etc) the setting's "Sin" or "Magic". If it's Debt based, the Director gets some sort of point that's credited towards buying more Connections.
___________________

That's the broader system as it stands, now on to people's comments...

Jamie & Simon: I think you're both suggesting the same basic thing. That the results of individual scenes contribute somehow to the resolution of the one, final "conflict" scene... That's definitely one way of doing it, I'm thinking it over in my head...

Mark: That was a very insightful post, I think! One problem, of course, is that drama doesn't always follow easily decipherable rules.

Kami-no-Mark wrote:
In both cases, the outcome of that final conflict is undecided until its resolution.  Indeed, it often looks like a 50/50, regardless of what has been stacked on either side...

I guess all I'm saying is to be aware that, in an extended conflict, you can move towards a "steamroller" effect, where the odds are being stacked in favour of one side or the other, whereas in the dramatic (TV) situations you describe, it could go either way.

I wonder whether these "micro" scenes are actually adding in consequences to the "macro" scene?

Maybe you're getting an escalation of consequences rather than support/opposition, similar, in a way to TheTris' "Falling Leaves" game idea.

Filip wrote: What about giving each conflict two values - one would be the number of successes needed to defeat it overall, the other would limit the maximum length of the conflict...

You mean more like actual damage, or the Fallout/Hope thing?

If it's the latter, you can base the Fallout/Hope gains on the margins of success defeat (e.g. players needed 6 successes to win and failed with 3 successes - Hope raises by 3, or Fallout rises by 4 if they won with 10 successes total).

Or, dice without successes could generate "damage", making using big pools risky (the more you try, the more you screw things up).

Ok, I had a problem imagining game in which there is more than one GM at the time, but now I see it will work in a way slightly similar to Capes.

I should add that I want all, or at least most conflicts to be spun off of old conflicts. Everything has a consequence, and everything is the result of something that came before. I should add here that I don't want to mandate that the spinoff conflict be declared right away,  I want consequence to be a generic resource.

That the results of individual scenes contribute somehow to the resolution of the one, final "conflict" scene... That's definitely one way of doing it, I'm thinking it over in my head...

I was thinking actual harm or injury for the PCs. Consequence & Debt is sorta about harm on others, not the PCs. As someone I was talking to about the game said, "you can't take the type of risks heroes do without the possibility personal harm." In that discussion the idea was proposed that damage could be something voluntary. I like that, but we'll have to see how the rest of the system pans out. (The propsed idea was that taking damage could allow a re-roll in exchange for some future penalty.)

timfire wrote:
Jamie & Simon: I think you're both suggesting the same basic thing. That the results of individual scenes contribute somehow to the resolution of the one, final "conflict" scene... That's definitely one way of doing it, I'm thinking it over in my head...