I have some ideas on a little conflict system.

Right now i am using skills between 1 and 12 and two D6 dice that are added together.

In a fight both (we assume a duel for simplicity) players gets markers (any kind) equal to their skill.

Step 1.
In this step the players makes a hidden bet on initiative. They bet with their markers and any used markers are lost. The one that bets the most "wins" and become the attacker.

Step 2.
The attacker now chose how many of the remaining markers to use on attack and on defence. The defender chose how much to spend on defence. This is also done hidden. Both hit the dice and add there markers. The highest wins. If the attacker wins he does "damage" on the attackers "marker pool" for the next round. The defender loses the difference between the results.

Step 3.
If the defender wins he is allowed to counter the attack if he has any markers left. This is solved in the same way as "Step 2".

Well there you have it. You can ad different styles to this later but this is the principal. Now to my questions.

Have anyone tried this before?

Will this work? Are there any "bugs" that you can se right away.

If you have tried any similar; did you have the initiative hidden first and then after that is revealed chose how to spend skill on attack and defence. (Like above) Or would it be better to make all choices hidden at the same time?

An alternative is to do this with a dice pool instead. Is that better?

Thanks for reading this, I hope this could be interesting for someone.

/Henrik

Seems pretty good--have you tried just playing both sides of it? It would be easy to just play a few rounds.

A couple of potential problems that I can think of off-hand:
* There's little to no incentive to win initiative, particularly with a low skill (few markers). Let's play it out in our heads:
-- Equal Skills of 6. I bid 2 to initiative, you bid 0.
-- I attack, but with only 4 to spend. Say I spend it all; you can match it with 4 and still have your 2 to counter. As such, you've got a net BETTER chance of hitting me than I do you, and my attack attempt is merely down to dice.
-- Or maybe you go ahead and use all 6 on defense, increasing your odds of getting to counter, which puts your counter down to dice. (This is probably more of an optimal choice.)

* On that note, 2d6 averages 7, so your skill range median (6.5) is less and furthermore, it's divided into two (or three, if you try for initiative). You got a lot of randomness in there. Maybe you like that--fair enough. Or maybe you mitigate it by building the marker pool out of several skills, as appropriate to the conflict at hand. (I like the latter, actually.)

* And speaking of optimal choices: this system clearly has one, for a given skill value. As such, you'd have to keep a LOT of stuff hidden: opposition skill (but that's found after round one... unless he holds back some markers), initiative bids, attack and defense bids. All this could pose a bit of a handling time problem, as folks play games with markers under the table and so-forth. Probably would mean all choices get made at the same time, for ease of handling AND information hiding.

* I assume in Step 2 that you mean "if the attacker wins he does damage on the defender's marker pool." Hello, death spiral. Maybe THIS is the thin incentive to win initiative: an early lucky shot (because my pool was used up on initiative) can make it so I have full control of the subsequent rounds, chiseling away at the defender while he more and more desperately loads markers into defense, hoping (against hop) for a REALLY lucky roll-off that lets him chisel at my pool.

All those issues can be adjusted for in a variety of ways. Your dice pool idea is strong; it has been done in a couple of other games, actually--The Riddle of Steel, maybe?--with dice rolled for successes (4 or higher).

I like the idea; however, in my experience it's hard to make mechanics like versatile. I'd suggest you think about how this would work in a variety of situations (combatants with different weapons & armor, situational modifiers, etc). Also, would it work with multiple people?

David wrote: I assume in Step 2 that you mean "if the attacker wins he does damage on the defender's marker pool." Hello, death spiral.

I love this idea, simple, intuitive and quick. Seems pretty versatile too. I'd be interested to see how it stands up in play.

If you wanted to make it more tactical or detailed you could add markers to a player that represent a favorable position (cover, high ground, etc.) or defensive markers (that are a different color) to represent armor or evasion. This would obviously clutter the "quick" and "simple" benefit if they became too prevalent, but it's something to think about.

Thanks for input.

David wrote:
* There's little to no incentive to win initiative, particularly with a low skill (few markers).

David wrote:
* On that note, 2d6 averages 7, so your skill range median (6.5) is less and furthermore, it's divided into two (or three, if you try for initiative). You got a lot of randomness in there. Maybe you like that--fair enough. Or maybe you mitigate it by building the marker pool out of several skills, as appropriate to the conflict at hand. (I like the latter, actually.)

David wrote:
* And speaking of optimal choices: this system clearly has one, for a given skill value. As such, you'd have to keep a LOT of stuff hidden: opposition skill (but that's found after round one... unless he holds back some markers), initiative bids, attack and defence bids. All this could pose a bit of a handling time problem, as folks play games with markers under the table and so-forth. Probably would mean all choices get made at the same time, for ease of handling AND information hiding.

David wrote:
* I assume in Step 2 that you mean "if the attacker wins he does damage on the defender's marker pool." Hello, death spiral.

David wrote:
The Riddle of Steel, maybe?

trick wrote:
Also, would it work with multiple people?

trick wrote:
Actually, I like this. First, it gives players an incentive to pull out of a fight before they completely lose. That may not be good all the time, but for combat it's very realistic. Also, it shouldn't be a death spiral as much as an "ability to fight" spiral. After a fight there are often a good number left alive who have lost their ability to fight back, either physically or mentally.

mjbauer wrote:
If you wanted to make it more tactical or detailed you could add markers to a player that represent a favourable position (cover, high ground, etc.) or defensive markers (that are a different colour) to represent armour or evasion. This would obviously clutter the "quick" and "simple" benefit if they became too prevalent, but it's something to think about.

henricius wrote: This is a problem. Thanks for pointing this out. I need more motivation to win initiative. Right now the motivation is that you strikes first and that the defender is not able to counter if you hit him but I need something better. If I cant come up with nothing else I will have to give the attacker an extra marker or something.

To much randomness. Noted. I will probably change either the skill range or the dice. The pool will raise a little if I add different bonus for different weapons.

I am not concerned over having to hide the skill. But I don't like if there is a optimal choice, at least not one that is easy to find. Maybe this can be fixed with some kind of boost to the one with the initiative.

Death spirals or not? I like the effect to some point (have used death spirals before) but it is bad if the first strike is the winning strike and everything else is just waiting for it to end.

I have not played The Riddle of Steel but it seams a bit complicated. The basic stuff may be similar.

This is tricky. For starters I would divide the fight in groups with one against many and never many against many. The defence would also be used against all involved and you are just allowed to attack one person/turn (or maybe spilt the attack over several enemies). I am not finished with how to use the initiative in this case.

David wrote:
Here's a thought that may or may not be obvious and/or in your rules (but not explicit): the loser of initiative bid keeps his or her markers; the winner gives them up for the round. Now I can bid SOMETHING, in the hopes of snatching initiative from a no-bidder. Makes follow-up round strategy kind of interesting, actually (e.g. do a round or two of no bid, then bid JUST two markers, hoping that the opposition has been convinced he can get away with just limping in with a one-marker bid).

David wrote:
You could also consider having a hard-to-recover resource that is sacrificed by the player for a "boost" in the shorter-term conflict. "Will To Endure Points" or something, which convert to markers somehow or another.

David wrote:
The beauty is the simplicity. Stick with that.

I'd watch out with adding flat bonuses; it means that bonuses matter less and less as skill values increase, compared to multiplication where they always matter. So when people have 50 points, fighting for a bonus of 2 doesn't seem so important.