I'm gonna throw two Techniques together (mostly because it's past time I spelled out one of them). The first is mentioned in passing in the Mechanix, the second it Scattershot's method for handling player conflicts.

Before I began revising the Mechanix thread, the first Techinque I'd like to deal with here was referred to as Complications. This wasn't terribly accurate in accords with our terminology design criteria. The correct term will be Challenge.

Challenges
Challenge is basically anything that modifies a regular die roll. You wanna 'aim for the neck?' Wanna 'rush things?' Wanna 'go for broke?' Wanna 'wing it?' Then you want to make your attempt more Challenging. You do this by offering to 'do things differently.' When you declare your Action, you specify how it will be done 'differently.'

It's not so important to measure how differently, but actually only to describe the significant aspects. Our rule of thumb is 'mention anything you wouldn't want them to forget.' This means skip the small stuff. When you start to get more than three or four of these, it means you probably don't need to roll to succeed (but may still want to in order to generate detail).

Challenge is most often self-applied (before or after a die roll) to improve chances ("I'll make a flailing attack in hit general area." or "I aim first."), increase potential result (the familiar 'swing for the neck' or 'going for broke'), or complicate Detail (often as a pacing tool).

Other player can also offer Challenge to your rolls. This can happen anytime during your action, but is somewhat unusual. These things include things that make an Action more difficult ("Actually, his helmet has a neck-guard."), lessen the result ("They roll with your blow."), or to complicate the Detail ("It turns out that they use a peculiar kind of ink that shines different colors at different angles.") Now this can either be 'friendly advice,' which you can take or leave, or it becomes a contest. To handle this do the following:

The 'Challenger' must 'ante up' one Experience Dice, otherwise the Actor may use or ignore the Challenge at their discretion.

If the Actor simply accepts the Challenge, treat it like it was self-applied.

If the Actor rebukes the Challenge, and there's no Moderator, then it must be handled per a Solomon's Auction (see below).


If the Challenger takes part in an Auction, they may also claim Speakership as part of the spoils, 'stealing' the Actor's turn.

If the Challenger has second thoughts about joining an Auction, a proxy may take his place just as responsible for the losses and spoils as the original.


A successful Challenge where the Speakership does not change is called a Complication. Thus too is a self-applied Challenge.

You can also 'Challenge' a self-applied Complication, usually on the grounds that it 'goes against' the Genre Expectations (for example; having too many Complications)

The purpose is to 'collect' all the various mechanical benefits of die roll modifiers from the various applications of dice resolution into one simple mechanic. It also allows 'bidding wars' over the complications faced by characters in the narrative. (The chief benefit is that the whole group is now engaged in keeping the pacing appropriate to the Genre Expectations.)

The Auction
In order to mediate conflicts between players as opposed to between characters and personae, it was necessary it create a Technique that can be used between two or more players including the gamemaster. Using this Technique, it is possible to 'force' a change in Leadership (see the "Who's in Charge" article). This Technique expands simply in case it becomes a conflict between factions (parties of more than one player) by allowing them to 'buy in' to the Auction.

Originally we called this "King Solomon's Auction" based on the vague idea that the loser takes the prize. Since both 'sides' gain something, this is not a very accurate name; still it persists amongst the playtesters, use it at you own risk.

Before a Solomon's Auction takes place, two or more parties playing together must disagree. Since we assume good gamesmanship, we expect they will be 'friendly' about it. Both parties must enter into the Auction willingly or not at all. The stakes should be clear to all present before the Auction begins:

• Both points of view must be articulated clearly (to avoid Auction over incorrectly specified agreements or trivial differences).
• The other members of the group must suggest at least 2 rounds of compromises (a single notable compromise is clarified each 'round').
• When no compromise is acceptable, the contenders begin a 'bidding war' using Experience Dice.
• Taking turns, the bidders suggest how many Experience Dice it is worth to them. This amount must increase each turn.
• A contender may bid more Experience Dice than they have if they take out a 'karmic loan' from stock (see elsewhere for details) or receive aid from another player (the terms of which are totally up to them, but must be of some significance). This allows factions to bid.
• Whoever bids the most is the winner, "going, going, gone."
• The winner has the choice over the solution; the loser gets those Experience Dice from the winner.

If Leadership is at stake, the winner becomes the Leader (if they desire) as well as dictating the results. The same goes for any other stakes, except 'continual stakes' such as who the gamemaster is, how the mechanix are applied, or any other circumstance that affects more than the bidders; all of these must be ratified by a quorum (not that such couldn't be called for using a Solomon's Auction, this would be a 'coup de tat'). 'Single instant' decisions can violate the 'continual stakes' status quo as the winner decides; they're impact on the narrative is fixed, but does not force 'new interpretations' to be furthermore enforced.

I'm looking forward to how this Technique 'reads' to see if I am missing something from how we use it. I also look forward to any kind of feedback on any part of Scattershot, its Mechanix, and its Techniques, from anyone. I am sorry this forum has been so quiet lately, but we're building up to a big announcement in the next month or so.

Fang Langford

Hey Fang,

I think Solomon's Auction is pretty damn interesting mechanics. It's going to thunderstorm here in a couple of minutes, so I should get offline. But I just want to suggest that I think Scattershot has so much atypical stuff in it that you might want to consider creating a sort-of light, playtest, lab environment rules system that you could spin out into various other lean, specific, premise-focused "games." I'm thinking of games that feature a few of the unconventional elements from Scattershot, but in more of a "comfort food" game format that maybe isn't concerned with provoking extended or customizable play. It would be somewhat an exercise in subterfuge, a way of securing focused feedback on some of the mechanics (like Solomon's Auction) that you've developed for Scattershot, but in a context that doesn't obscure the information you're really after by being all of Scattershot's innovations at once. Essentially, you'd be provoking playtest by dangling a tempting setting and premise combination at potential players, with primarily non-threatening rules and a hidden "payload" of the innovative stuff you're specifically interested in. Done right, they'd feel like distinct, coherent, self-contained designs. Roll these things out like Zak does with his game designs, one every arbitrary interim of time.

Paul

Hey Paul,
We're way ahead of you.

Paul Czege wrote: I think Solomon's Auction is pretty damn interesting mechanics.

Paul Czege wrote: I just want to suggest that I think Scattershot has so much atypical stuff in it that you might want to consider creating a sort-of light, playtest, lab environment rules system that you could spin out into various other lean, specific, premise-focused "games."

Paul Czege wrote: I'm thinking of games that feature a few of the unconventional elements from Scattershot, but in more of a "comfort food" game format that maybe isn't concerned with provoking extended or customizable play.

Paul Czege wrote: It would be somewhat an exercise in subterfuge, a way of securing focused feedback on some of the mechanics (like Solomon's Auction) that you've developed for Scattershot, but in a context that doesn't obscure the information you're really after by being all of Scattershot's innovations at once.

Paul Czege wrote: Essentially, you'd be provoking playtest by dangling a tempting setting and premise combination at potential players, with primarily non-threatening rules and a hidden "payload" of the innovative stuff you're specifically interested in. Done right, they'd feel like distinct, coherent, self-contained designs.

Paul Czege wrote: Roll these things out like Zak does with his game designs, one every arbitrary interim of time.

Le Joueur wrote: I'm looking forward to how this Technique 'reads' to see if I am missing something from how we use it.

Minor question:
What can experiance die be used for other than this auction?
(Looked around, but couldn't find it. Of course there are ALOT of scattershot threads).

I guess my point is that this could end up serving as a mechanic
for transfering dice, rather than resolving conflict, via the mechanism of spurious conflict. Also, by challenging a person who is heavily bought in, one could effectivly steal dice.(Drive up the bid, then lose). Obviously this violates some sort of social contract, but I think it is a danger.

My suggestion would be to have the auction based on a quanity that can only be used to direct the action. My point is that if experiance dice, can say be used to improve a charachter, or somehow affect the narrative in a differnt way, then people could use this as a way of bean-trading between the two ways. I get the impression this isn't what you intend. I guess I'm saying that if you make rules for something, people will use them in a way they arn't intended, but you knew that.

Sorry if I'm way off base here, or that is what you intended.

damion wrote: Minor question:
What can Experience Dice be used for other than this auction?

damion wrote: I guess my point is that this could end up serving as a mechanic for transferring dice, rather than resolving conflict, via the mechanism of spurious conflict. Also, by challenging a person who is heavily bought in, one could effectively steal dice. ([One] drives up the bid, and then loses.) Obviously this violates some sort of social contract, but I think it is a danger.

damion wrote: My suggestion would be to have the auction based on a quantity that can only be used to direct the action. My point is that if Experience Dice, can say be used to improve a character, or somehow affect the narrative in a different way, then people could use this as a way of bean-trading between the two ways. I get the impression this isn't what you intend. I guess I'm saying that if you make rules for something, people will use them in a way they aren't intended, but you knew that.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: I'm looking forward to how this Technique 'reads' to see if I am missing something from how we use it.

Well, it seems very much like the challenge mechanic from Baron Munchausen (or so I've been told). Which we stole for Universalis. So, I can tell you from experience that it works, and works well, pretty much as you have it written. The one thing that you omitted is the double jeopardy clause. That is, once the auction is over, the losing player can't simply challenge back (and, having garnered the dice from his opponent, presumably win every time). I assume that it should be in there, but that its omission is just an oversight.

First off: Yeah, my bad. Most of the ways this can go wrong are either poor gamesmanship or disfunctional. And your right that you can't do anything about it. Sorry, I've had my share of poor experinaces.

What I was think of was that by having Eperiance Dice as the value being traded you end up with a conflict between short and long term gain. Frex a charachter who spends Dice on improvement may end of dominating the narrative compared to one who uses their dice for short term changes, because the first chachter will be more 'improved'. I think it is difficult to balance these two types of narrative control.

Are you contrasting Experience Dice as character improvement mechanix (usually a Joueur Approach) with "affecting the narrative" in Self-Conscious narrative fashion (often an Auteur Approach)? That clearly illustrates a contrast of Approaches. While it is important for me to have Scattershot 'house' each Approach and support them, I cannot make it so that it will work for all of them at the same time.

damion wrote: First off: Yeah, my bad. Most of the ways this can go wrong are either poor gamesmanship or dysfunctional. And you're right that you can't do anything about it. Sorry, I've had my share of poor experiences.

What I was think of was that by having Experience Dice as the value being traded you end up with a conflict between short and long term gain. Frex a character who spends Dice on improvement may end of dominating the narrative compared to one who uses their dice for short term changes, because the first character will be more 'improved'. I think it is difficult to balance these two types of narrative control.

damion wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Are you contrasting Experience Dice as character improvement Mechanix (usually a Joueur Approach) with "affecting the narrative" in Self-Conscious narrative fashion (often an Auteur Approach)? That clearly illustrates a contrast of Approaches. While it is important for me to have Scattershot 'house' each Approach and support them, I cannot make it so that it will work for all of them at the same time.

I think this addresses my concern. However I think the concept would be a bit difficult to address in play. Are you expecting everyone to have the same approach?

damion wrote: You could solve this problem easily by having a Story Dice quantity. Story Dice are gained whenever Experience Dice are, but are only used to affect the narrative and in auctions. Now I'm sure you thought of this, so I'm wondering why DID you choose to use the experience dice?

damion wrote: Unrelated Comment: You might want to put in a 'any player may at any time give any other player as many experience dice as they want' rule. Maybe this could be part of a compromise. The point being that Scattershot seems quite focused on rules, and you can do this anyway with the rules, so you might as well allow it explicitly and avoid a lot of pointless auctions. :)

damion wrote: 2nd Unrelated Comment: Possibly Challenges should add something to the narrative, rather than JUST making an action more difficult. A self imposed Challenge does, I can Challenge myself and say I'm hurrying, but if I over come it, I hurried. This does not seem to be case with other challenges, they are just penalties. I'm not familiar enough with Scattershot to suggest one, but perhaps if one overcomes a challenge without any other type of benefit, one should get something. I suppose you could bow out of the first round of biding, getting the die the challenger anted, but that seems a bit dysfunctional.

Last Question, Promise: :)

During Auter-style play experiance die scale? I.e. you get more as time goes on, and hence more control. In Joeuer style, players 'improve' and get more control that way, whereas it Auter play this does not seem to be true. (Or maybe I'm missing the Auter concept.)

damion wrote: Last Question, Promise: :)

damion wrote: During Auteur-style play experience die scale? (i.e. you get more as time goes on, and hence more control.) In Joueur style, players 'improve' and get more control that way, whereas it Auteur play this does not seem to be true. (Or maybe I'm missing the Auteur concept.)

Nope. Looks Cool. So you basicly DO have Experiance Dice and Story Dice. They just function as only one of the two at a time, so you called them the same thing. Clever.