Hello

I am trying to make up new rules for BDTP and Harm inspired by Mouse Guard. It changes some of the basic principles, so beware. I am interested in your thoughts before playtest.

What do I want to accomplish:
- to make BDTP potentially less harmful, in other words, to be able to win BDTP without taking or inflicticting long term damage (the character in SS is often seriously beaten down after one lost BDTP)
- to make 'giving up' a less prominent function in system (This feature is hard to to accept for a lot of players, most of them hate giving up and fight to bitter end. it breaks the game)
- to make difference between status of character (harm) and the counter of reaching the goal in BDTP (in SS harm represents both status and goal tracker)
- to make Harm and BDTP more elegant and less confusing (Harm shaking down and tracking of penalty dice is messy, different types of goals in BDTP can be confusing)
- to indroduce compromise in the game (there is no such thing in SS)

Goals:
in SS, opponents can have different types of goals. A wants to seduce B. B wants to steal from A. This can be resolved with one check.
If one of them (mostly it would be the loser) wants to BTDP, the goals must change. in my version of BDTP (Solar system revised, SSr) participants must comply with: "Fighty Goals for Fighting Conflicts" (yes, from MG)
So B won and stole something from A. A doesnt like it so he starts BDTP. Its no more about him wanting to seduce B. Its about stealing or not stealing. A should make up goal that reflects that. For example: I want to catch the thief. Then they can start BDTP.

In regular SS its common to change types of goal in the middle of the BDTP. In SSr, this is not possible. Player can change his goal only if the type of conflict is relevant (in fighting conflict: to kill, to subdue, to force, to disarm...)
In SSr, if player wants to change the type of his goal, he must give up current conflict and accept defeat or compromise based on remaining disposition of winner. (again MG style, more on that later). So different conflicts are built from one to another. They dont mix.

Goals can never change the feelings, beliefs, opinions in the long term. They can persuade, intimidate, deceive, but only for a short time. A cannot make B to fall in love with him, but he can seduce her for a short while. Goals should never be deprotagonizing (only if the players agree to such kind of goal)

Bringing down the pain:
BDTP starts when someone refuses outcome of simple opposed ability check. Goals are stated. Starting disposition (this number represents
strength in the conflict). is determined by adding rank of innate ability relevant to conflict type + success level of unopposed ability check made with skill player intends to use + 1-5 points based on major advantages that arise from fiction. *this formula is subject to change*. The winner at the roll that initiated BDTP gets bonus dice to her first action equal to the difference between her and her opponent's success levels (or it could be added to disposition, I am not sure).

If there is more than one major participant on one side of conflict, thay can help each other with ability check to disposition and all add their innate ability rank to disposition.
The participants take turns (like in MG) and if its reasonable in fiction, they can receive helping bonus dice from other team members.

A lowers the B's disposition by succes level (parallel actions) or difference of succes levels (perpendicular actions). When someone runs out of disposition, he loses conflict.

Disposition vs. Harm
In SS, Harm indicates status of character and also a counter to archieving the goal. In SSr, Harm only indicates status and disposition serves as goal tracker.

The Harm is now 4 checkers for every Pool.

Pool harm (everything is cumulative):
1. bruised: 1 penalty die to all abilities associated with the pool until the end of BDTP when it was checked. after the BDTP, the checker stays checked.
2. bloodied: 1 PD to all abilities associated with the pool until healed
3: broken: player must spend a point from the ability's associated pool to perform any relevant ability check
4: taken out: character cannont use abilities associated with the pool

By default, the ability checks in BDTP lower the disposition. To inflict 1 point harm instead of lowering the disposition, A must be able to lower B's disposition by more (it doesn meter how much more) than B's relevant innate ability (based on ability players uses to attack) and he must pay 1 point from relevant pool. The B can prevent the harm by paying 1 point from relevant pool. If A wants to inflict harm really badly, he can pay another point and if B doesnt pays another point also, A inflicts harm.  A can of course say that he changed his mind and doesnt wish to inflict harm and lowers the disposition instead. The points paid dont go back their owners no matter what.
The participant that takes harm doesnt lower his disposition. The harm should be always be somehow reflected in game fiction.
In teamfight, A can inflict harm only to character he rolls against or to other character that helps his opponent with bonus dice. So giving bonus dice is dangerous.

Compromise:

Compromise happens in two cases:
1. A wins the BDTP but loses more than half of his disposition
2. B gives up the BDTP (maybe to change his goal) and A lost more than half of his disposition

If the winner has more than half of his dispostion in the end of BDTP, there is no compromise, his goal is fulfilled, loser's goal not.

The loser B can offer one of these compromises:
1. A's goal is fulfilled, B's goal is not fulfilled but A takes additional 1 point of Harm
2. A's goal is fulfilled, B's goal is partly fulfilled
3. A's goal is fulfilled, B's goal is not fulfilled, but B can indroduce some minor complication or twist that has
arisen due to the winner’s victory
4. A's goal is partly fulfilled, B's goal is not fulfilled

If players cannot reach agreement on compromise, the default compromise is 1.

I hope I wrote it clearly enough, but please ask if you dont understand something.

Hi Corvus(?),

Glancing over the MouseGuard rules, I felt reminded of the conflict/extended conflict rules in some parts, too, and some things seemed more simple and elegant than Solar System. I haven't spent the time yet to work them out and see how to integrate them.

Please take my commentary on your idea as provocation to defend and improve, not as an outright dismissal.

If one of them (mostly it would be the loser) wants to BTDP, the goals must change. in my version of BDTP (Solar system revised, SSr) participants must comply with: "Fighty Goals for Fighting Conflicts" (yes, from MG)

In regular SS its common to change types of goal in the middle of the BDTP. In SSr, this is not possible. Player can change his goal only if the type of conflict is relevant (in fighting conflict: to kill, to subdue, to force, to disarm...)

Goals can never change the feelings, beliefs, opinions in the long term. They can persuade, intimidate, deceive, but only for a short time. A cannot make B to fall in love with him, but he can seduce her for a short while. Goals should never be deprotagonizing (only if the players agree to such kind of goal)

thank you for valuable insight.

Not true. Goals must be clarified, not changed. if you escalate to an extended conflict, the theft has not been successfully finished, so there's no need to catch a thief. That would be a follow-up scene/conflict whatever, shaping the game events on the go.

IME, it's not common and and it's always part of the negotiations. I've seen conflicting parties coming to an outcome that didn't match up with the original intents but as it came out of the negotiation and matched with what had happened so far, it was fine.

Is that a new rule, something you want to achieve?

I don't understand what you try to gain by going from one harm track and three pools to three pools, three harm tracks and a disposition computed by a complex formula (even if it is subject to change).

In my experience, extended conflicts run for 3 to 5 rounds, because then it is clear who will win in the long run – exceptions are when someone has a great idea how to reverse the situation by changing tactics. Longer conflicts tend to cost too much in terms of pool or harm, and put you in a bad position for follow-up conflicts (simple or extended).

Corvus,
  OK, I want to hit on a couple of points:

  First, I don't know Mouse Guard, sorry. I didn't even know what MG stood for until Harald's reply, lol I have heard of it, but I don't own it, haven't read it or played it.

In regular SS its common to change types of goal in the middle of the BDTP. In SSr, this is not possible. Player can change his goal only if the type of conflict is relevant (in fighting conflict: to kill, to subdue, to force, to disarm...)
In SSr, if player wants to change the type of his goal, he must give up current conflict and accept defeat or compromise based on remaining disposition of winner. (again MG style, more on that later). So different conflicts are built from one to another. They dont mix.

Goals can never change the feelings, beliefs, opinions in the long term. They can persuade, intimidate, deceive, but only for a short time. A cannot make B to fall in love with him, but he can seduce her for a short while. Goals should never be deprotagonizing (only if the players agree to such kind of goal)

I can certainly appreciate both wanting to fiddle with the BDTP system and wanting to make a rpg conform to your own mechanical aesthetics. I haven't seen Mouse Guard yet myself, but from what I've read, I wouldn't be surprised if it had things that might well be appropriated into Solar System.

That said, many of the details you fix are things that I specifically like about Solar System BDTP, so I'm probably the wrong person to comment here. For example, changing intentions - that just happens to be a crucial negotiation tool and a lever of dramatic situations, so it's just about the last thing I'd want to remove. Nothing better than revealing something important in the middle of conflict and having characters change intentions in an effort to better defend their interests.

In general, I get a feeling that you're handling the extended conflict in a somewhat more formal and constrained manner than it is intended. The secret of extended conflict is that it is actually just a slightly abstract combat system, within which characters can act pretty freely. They can do different things, move about, change targets and in general the conflict continues as long as there is, in fact, conflict present in the fiction. Your version resolves conflicts quite formally in comparison.

From the above viewpoint it's illustrative that you describe the Harm tracker as a conflict counter and consider features such as giving up and changing intentions problematic. The Harm tracker is only a conflict pacing device if you approach the conflict without a willingness to negotiate the result - as you yourself say, the system breaks down if the player is committed to winning without regard for the consequences.

The way the system is supposed to be used, though, is that Harm is not a conflict tracker - it's a gauge of the character's ability to resist others. A conflict will only be resolved by filling the Harm track if the situation is such that one or both characters are willing to put their entire well-being on the line for victory. The conflict may end at any point without Harm if the players manage to negotiate a different outcome. This is a difficult choice for the player, so I'm not so sure if I like taking it away.

I'm reading this thread with some curiosity and interest, especially because hearing the opinions and views of those experienced with this game is always enlightening. Solar System BDTP/extended conflicts have many nuances to them that are not immediately apparent.

To the original post:

I wonder if you and your players might be engaging in extended conflicts too often? The system does make them very significant events, both in terms of handling time and in terms of consequences. Maybe realizing that, and handling most conflicts as simple opposed ability checks, might solve this issue?

I'm not sure I'm sold on your revamped version as presented here, but some of the issues you bring up do resonate with me. In particular, I like the idea of compromises (a larger range of possible outcomes), and intuitively I wonder about the necessity for the players to give up in conflicts. Many players do like to "play things out", looking forward to see what will happen, and I fear they would, as you describe, forget the option to give up and end up suffering heavily from most conflicts. I have to play some more, myself, to figure out how I feel about this, but it is an issue I wonder about.

To Eero:

I am very curious about something you wrote in your post. You spoke several times about the negotiation of outcomes between players in extended conflicts. Particularly here:

Eero wrote:
The way the system is supposed to be used, though, is that Harm is not a conflict tracker - it's a gauge of the character's ability to resist others. A conflict will only be resolved by filling the Harm track if the situation is such that one or both characters are willing to put their entire well-being on the line for victory. The conflict may end at any point without Harm if the players manage to negotiate a different outcome. This is a difficult choice for the player, so I'm not so sure if I like taking it away.

Little Rules Nitpick: Since changing intents happens in the negotiation phase but only is active when you choose abilities and put the dice to the table, you can opt out of accepting the new intent by conceding to the old one or offering something to your opponent that they can agree to end the conflict for.

Cross posted with Paul: I drafted up an example about the exact thing you wanted, but deleted it.

So I have to rewrite.

In my PBeM TSOY game, we had a conflict between two PCs and a group of SGCs, where the NPCs intended to beat the crap out of the PCs to teach them a lesson or somesuch. We had two rounds of fighting, where very little harm was dished out, but then the whole thing evolved into one of the PCs killing of a couple of nameless secondaries, while the other one ended up in a romantic tussle with one of the PCs –  this was where we had a change of intents due to a tie in results, so both sides changed their intent accordingly: The PC wanted to force the SGC  to tell all about their employer, while the SGC wanted the PC to be enthralled by the barbaric wildness of the SGC (to end them up in bed). Both parties could agree to that, so there was nothing to run a conflict about anymore.

Without the chance to renege intents, we would have been stuck in the original situation, which would only have been half as interesting.

The negotiation in BDTP is implicit and happens by changing your intent. You can often win a BDTP simply by downgrading your own goals to a level where the opponent is willing to accept them.

In our play this sort of thing happens all the time as a contrast between kill vs. capture vs. simple self-defense. If your goal allows the opponent to go, he's much more likely to give up when the conflict swings against him. The opposite holds true as well: if you want to make sure somebody is ruined, hike up your intent to trap him in the conflict.

thank you all. I have to think about everything you wrote. And I have to play SS more to really get all the system nuances. it's very possible that I simply don't understand the way it's supposed to work.

but now just few remarks:

You can often win a BDTP simply by downgrading your own goals to a level where the opponent is willing to accept them.

So, if I am fighting you, and you are trying to steal from me. I am harming your vigor and you are harming my instinct. If you take away my ability to use Vigor, it doesn't stop me from trying to steal from you, or even affect me at all.

The point of this example is, they wouldn't have been able to do this if they were using your system.

To elaborate a bit about the practical issues, it seems to me that your revised system turns individual actions in BDtP into abstracted conflict steps instead of concrete in-fiction tasks. Do I have that right? Your classification of conflicts into fighting and non-fighting seems to hint this way.

In contrast, the original BDTP rules don't classify different types of conflicts simply because the fiction is used in full force to constrain the possible means that are used to achieve the goals. Thus you can have both stealing and fighting tasks in one conflict, but only when it makes sense in the fiction. The first round of the conflict might feature a character sneaking in to steal the king's crown, say, and when he fails the second round turns into violence. As that doesn't go so well for the thief, he tries negotiation on the third round. In each case we're resolving tasks that, when taken together and being consequence-enforced by the rules, ultimately resolve the conflict.

Turning this task-resolution base into an abstract multistep conflict resolution is actually a quite radical change. In the original system characters just basically act freely in BDTP in different ways and we assign mechanical consequence to these actions to force the conflict to resolve in due time. It's just like the D&D combat system, just generalized into handling all sorts of conflicts. In your system the attention seems to be on Disposition, the abstract measure of conflict length.

After reading through the system a second time I have to say that the bit I dislike most is the very reason you made a new system - I actually like the way BDTP forces characters to resolve their differences essentially by breaking each other. I like this same feature in Dust Devils, it's a great source of gravitas. In your system it seems that causing Harm is not actually an attractive option at all - after all, you can easily win the conflict by focusing on the disposition, so why bother? The only reason would be if you didn't actually care about the conflict stakes and just wanted to hurt the other character, but then why not make hurting him your goal in the conflict?

Hi Corvus,

one last question:

stealing and fighting are different types of goals, so not allowed in one BDTP.

That passage refers to his new system, Harald. It requires a conflict to have a predetermined conflict arena that determines the sort of Abilities you need to use in the conflict.

this thread is most helpful to me. I will definitely play BDTP differently now.

the most enlightning thing:

because the fiction is used in full force to constrain the possible means that are used to achieve the goals. Thus you can have both stealing and fighting tasks in one conflict, but only when it makes sense in the fiction. The first round of the conflict might feature a character sneaking in to steal the king's crown, say, and when he fails the second round turns into violence. As that doesn't go so well for the thief, he tries negotiation on the third round. In each case we're resolving tasks that, when taken together and being consequence-enforced by the rules, ultimately resolve the conflict.

I never interpreted the rules that way. Where did you get that from?

Corvus69 wrote:
any ideas about Harm with simplified penalty dice rules and no shakedown?

Eero,
  That is a LOT of penalty dice. I don't know abuot your games, but in my games, I don't think my players could overcome the penalty dice generated by a 4 harm attack. But they could handle the penalty dice generated by a 4 harm attack in the old system. I think the creates a really powerful death spiral. If I am reading your correctly.
  And it doesn't really change the record keeping burden. I mean, it is easier to track a pool of dice, then to remember that one time when you need to make a Vigor roll and you have to do a one time penalty die. But you still have to track harm and penalty dice.

  There are two other possible approaches you could use to reduce actual record keeping
1) Keep the harm track, but replace the one time penalty dice with removing a point from the relevant pool. The advantage of this is, you still have "7" as a meaningful amount of harm. The disadvantage is the recordkeeping is only slightly reduced. It does directly resolve the issue of tracking when to apply one-time penalty dice.
2) Make your pool your harm track. So that when you run out of pool, you are broken. the advantage of this is, it drastically reduces recordkeeping. However, it does mean that causing 6 or 7 Harm could be meaningless and you do have a bit of a Hit Point situation going on now.

  What do you guys think?

Corvus,
  One thing that strikes me about your BDTP system is:
- If you can't mix conflict arenas (fighty vs talky for instance), then who gets to decide which is relevant?

  I know you wrote the person declaring BDTP does. But what if both players want to BDTP?

  Its seems like you need an initiative mechanic. Or at least a trump mechanic to figure out who gets what they want first.

  I mean, it seems like you are writing this system to address the "mind control" issue (as well as to maybe address issues of plausability). But instead, you are just introducing another kind of mind control. I mean, if I am playing a ninja-like character and I need to steal a letter from you and escape, so I can deliver it to my master. Why would I ever fight you? But, if you declare a Fighting BDTP, then I have to fight you, even though my character never would. I mean its not needed for the mission, right?

  Just a thought, let me know how it goes for you.

dindenver wrote:
  That is a LOT of penalty dice. I don't know abuot your games, but in my games, I don't think my players could overcome the penalty dice generated by a 4 harm attack. But they could handle the penalty dice generated by a 4 harm attack in the old system. I think the creates a really powerful death spiral. If I am reading your correctly.
  And it doesn't really change the record keeping burden. I mean, it is easier to track a pool of dice, then to remember that one time when you need to make a Vigor roll and you have to do a one time penalty die. But you still have to track harm and penalty dice.

  There are two other possible approaches you could use to reduce actual record keeping
1) Keep the harm track, but replace the one time penalty dice with removing a point from the relevant pool. The advantage of this is, you still have "7" as a meaningful amount of harm. The disadvantage is the recordkeeping is only slightly reduced. It does directly resolve the issue of tracking when to apply one-time penalty dice.
2) Make your pool your harm track. So that when you run out of pool, you are broken. the advantage of this is, it drastically reduces recordkeeping. However, it does mean that causing 6 or 7 Harm could be meaningless and you do have a bit of a Hit Point situation going on now.

This thread has made me wonder:

How do you folks apply those 1-3 Harm penalty dice? There a few spots where I would feel unsure about applying them.

1. Let's say you fail an Ability check and take Harm 1. When you roll again next, do you take a penalty die?

2. Let's say you get into a BDtP, and take Harm 1 and 2 in the same round. Do you take two penalty dice for the next roll?

3. Let's say you get into a BDtP, and take Harm 1 and 2 in the same round, then immediately give up. Do you take two penalty dice for the next roll, in a subsequent scene?

4. Let's say you have Harm 5 and 6, then get into a BDtP and it "shakes out", leaving you with Harm 1 and 2. Do you take two penalty dice for your next roll, in a subsequent scene?

Finally: are these 1-3 Harm penalty dice Pool-independent?

I apply the one-time penalty dice to the next check made in BDtP - they are not applied after the BDtP ends. It's a minor issue, though, I don't think that you can play it too wrong whichever way yo decide to go with it.

The one-time penalty dice are Pool-independent, so they are applied to whichever check the player makes next.

Here is my very straightforward interpretation:

1. Yes

2.  Yes. Harm at Levels 1 to 3 are cumulative.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

I like Eeros idea of harm dice instead of harm levels, but I am not sure if I understood it correctly.

I have this very simple idea:

The first three Harm dice can be used as penalty dice only.

If you have more than four Harm dice, your opponent can use any of them to deplete your Pool (even if the number of Harm dice fall below three).

If one Pool is depleted this way and you accumulate X more Harm dice, you are broken as if you got Harm beyond level six (X probably is seven).

The numbers here are mainly to keep symmetry with the old system. I have the feeling they might be correct.

Interesting.

I thought there might be some disagreement over this issue.

My original reading of the rules had indicated that 1-3 Harm only applied within BDtP, but it can be read the other way, as well.

The main reason I brought this up in this thread is because I think it's very relevant:

If you're trying to apply those penalties outside of BDtP, there is a whole lot more to keep track of, and could get tricky. For instance, you must remember whether points of Harm on your sheet have "gone into effect" already or not--has your character suffered those penalty dice yet or not?

And... one more question:

That penalty die from 1-3 level Harm, does it apply to the next action, no matter what, or only if the action is related to the same Pool?

If I take Harm 1 in a foot race, do I get a penalty die when I try to charm the princess after the race?

(I could see it played either way, and happily so, but it also compounds the issue of tracking this stuff.)

I think it is very clear in the revised rules?

http://tsoy.crngames.com/Resolution#Harm_and wrote:
[...]one to three harm is bruised. This means on your very next ability check, you'll have a penalty die. These add up - if you get bruised twice in a round of Bringing Down the Pain, you'll have two penalty dice. Level four and five harm means your character is bloodied. All your abilities that are associated with the pool that you took the harm from now take a penalty die. If you are bloodied twice in the same pool, you still only take one penalty die. These do not stack. Level six harm means your character is broken. If broken, in order for your character to perform any action, even defense, you must spend a point from the ability's associated pool, and you still receive one penalty die to this action.

this is what I was talking about harm rules being messy and not very elegant. no one seems to get the rules right! the update is imho neccessary.

and dont forget the shaking down and rewriting the pools next to harm checkboxes.. pain in the ass.

I'm all for writing up the current rules cleanly.

Mortal level Harm causes a penalty die to all Ability checks and forces the character to spend a point from the Pool associated with an Ability to use it at all.

I have all penalty dice be cumulative with each other. Most folks have the mortal/broken die be cumulative with the rest, I think.

Cumulating all the dice actually remove pressure from the victim, as they have a diminished effect after matching the base number of dice. In other words: You might have a bad result now

Removing the distinction between cumulating and non-cumulating dice also reduces house-keeping.

I'm all for it.

Wait a minute...

* Penalty dice are all cumulative
* The Pool only matters for Harm levels 4 and 5 (right?)

So, if I have Harm levels 1, 2, 4 (V), and 6, then my next roll will take four penalty dice, or three penalty dice if it's tied to a different Pool than my level 4 Harm.

And after that, I'll be rolling at one penalty die, unless I'm using a Vigor-associated Ability, in which case I take two penalty dice.

Is that right?

Now what happens if I also take Harm 5? According to the original rules, it doens't "stack"; in Solar System, it's not specified.

oh stacking *all* the dice (so harm 4 V and 5 V gives you two penalty dice to V?) really simplifies things, but it can be pretty harsh...

To answer your mostly hypothetical question, it would be one pool point and 2 penalty dice for every action for any action tied to  Harm levels 4 and 5 (if it's Vigor again, so much better for you) and one pool point and a penalty die for any action not tied to Harm levels 4 and 5.

As you have only one slot left on your Harm Tracker at that point, the suffering won't last long…

This is interesting, because I'd always interpreted the text differently. I've just reread it, as well, and it still seems to me it could be read either way.

I thought:

* Harm 1, 2, 3 is just a penalty die on the next BDtP action. They stack if you take several in one round.
* Harm 4 or 5 means you take a penalty die permanently, to a particular Pool. These do not stack.
* Harm 6 means you take a penalty die to everything, and must spend a point just to act.

I figured that more serious effects superseded less serious effects. So, if you're Broken, that's it--you don't take additional penalties for Harm 4 or 5 (the one-time penalty dice for minor harm being an exception) on top of that.

By any straightforward reading, though, it seems that sometimes getting hit for Harm 1 could be worse than getting hit for Harm 5, depending on which Pool you're using in the conflict--after all, after it's done, it collapses back down to 1.

In my own head, I was interpreting the rules as:

* If you take Harm in a round of BDtP, roll a penalty die on the next exchange. Effectively, your character is not affected in any lasting way if you only take minor Harm..
* If you take Major harm ("bloodied"), you take a permanent penalty die to one Pool (instead of a temporary one). Your character is now suffering the condition "Bloodied in [Pool]", which means a penalty die all the time in that Pool.
* If you are Broken, you replace the "bloodied" condition with the "broken" condition--you roll at a penalty all the time, and must spend a die just to act (which, in my mind, is equivalent to two penalty dice, when you choose to act).

Is that simpler or more complicated? How do you keep track?

Those of you with more experience playing the game, which level of penalty *feels* more appropriate?

I have trouble seeing where the difference is between what you wrote and what I wrote.

Broken: You don't get two penalty dice if you don't pay up. You just cannot act. So it is slightly different to two penalty dice.

Harald,

The difference is:

Do you stack all the penalties, or do you just take the "worst" condition you're suffering from.

One requires you to track each individual level of Harm. The other lets you just look at the single highest Harm.

For all you experience TSoY players, which "feels" better?

That depends on your personal aesthetics:

Stacking gives you a somewhat traditional death spirally feel, but in reality it's not as harsh as one might think.

Skipping lower Harm levels and/or ignoring them makes Harm less … harmful and gives characters some more staying power. Which personally, I deem mostly unnecessary.

That's very helpful, Harald, thanks!