Hello,

A few months ago, I posted a few threads both in this forums and on Story-Games about my post-apocalyptic RPG called 'the Waste'. Following that, I have done a lot of thinking about what kind of play I want my game to encourage, specifically during conflict resolution. I realized that the mechanics I had did not really encourage the kind of play I was looking for, and decided to start back from the beginning, by trying to explain, succinctly, what I want this game to be about.

[In that respect, if you have read anything about my game in the past, please disregard it. There were some fruitful discussions there for me, and maybe I will bring some of that stuff back up later, but not for the purposes of this thread.]

The answer I came up with is that the Waste is an RPG set in a post-apocalyptic future collaboratively designed by the players. It is about making difficult decisions between self-preservation and the well-being of people close to you (often, the other PCs), and fighting for both what you've lost, and what you hope for. Players each take on the role of an individual in a group of people who have survived an apocalyptic event. They travel the Waste, struggling against monsters, other people, and the landscape itself for the reasons detailed above.

Due to the nature of the setting, and the themes that I want to see arise during play, I want the resolution system to really encourage players to make their characters suffer in order to get what they want. I want brutal, back and forth exchanges (not just physical conflict) where people get hurt. I have come up with a framework to this kind, which is slightly influenced by the resolution rules in DitV. I am sure there are other games that might do something like this as well, and I would appreciate any other examples you all could give me.

Here's how it works:

1. Stakes are set at the beginning of a conflict, like "Do you escape the cannibals?", or "Do you convince the slaver to let your brother go?". Generally, the Stakes are a 'Yes or No' question.

2. After that, there is a phase where we each declares some sort of task that we are undertaking to work towards our intents. Typically, this is an 'attack' of some kind (in the case of physical or verbal conflicts), but it could really be anything.

3. We will each pick up a single die, whose size is dependant on our characters' Aspects (I don't want to get into quite what that means here, but they are essentially measures of a character's self-preservation, care for others, goals and relationships) and the task they are undertaking.

4. We both roll our die, and the higher result wins the exchange. Let's say I win.

5. You have two options:
-You can give up, allowing me to get my stakes and end the conflict.
OR
-You can Take the Pain. Taking the Pain means that your character will suffer 'Harm' equal to the margin that you lost the roll by (the difference between our dice values). Then you are allowed to spend points from your character's Grit Pool (which represents his bravery, willpower, endurance or what have you), in order to get an extra die to roll back against me.

6. You narrate how your character is Harmed by Taking the Pain (as it relates to my original action), then roll your next die, and add the value it shows to your original roll. If the value on all your dice that you've rolled exceed the value on all mine, then I have to decide whether or not to Take the Pain.

7. If, after you roll, it is still less, you lose the stakes. I get to narrate a final action that 'wins the conflict' for me. Instead of Harm, you write down a Scar* with a value equal to the margin you lost by. The conflict ends.

*Scars are sort of a reward mechanic. They can be tapped in later conflicts to give the Scarred individual bonus dice, re-rolls, and other types of benefits. I have not gotten this far yet, so I don't think I can answer many questions about them. I just like the idea of later mechanical benefit for losting a conflict now, and I think this idea provides a good thematic framework for that.

That, in a nutshell is the skeletal resolution system I am thinking about. I am hoping it creates a compelling back-and-forth, give and take sort of feel, with lots of hurt getting dealt all around. PC and NPCs will have a finite amount of Grit and Harm that they can take, and only a small number of Aspects they can use to get higher dice, so eventually, one side will have to give. Also, there would be a damage track or more codified guidelines about what each level of Harm means. Obviously, the longer you stay in a conflict, the more your character will get hurt along the way.

Now, for some direct questions, regarding the above:

1. Should there be a way for someone to change the stake mid-conflict? Would there be a benefit to this, or would it just work for someone to give up, and then announce an immediate, separate conflict? My concern is that if goals start to change as a conflict unfolds, there doesn't seem to be any penalty for someone just giving up on the current stakes and launching a new conflict. How should I address this?

2. I have been toying with the idea of giving a player who Takes the Pain and still loses the ability to launch a follow-up conflict with greater stakes. However, I am struggling to conceptualize how something like this would work, when the PC's opponent in a conflict is something like the Environment Itself, with stakes like 'Do you get lost on your journey?'. If a player gets lost, how does he escalate a conflict from there?

All-in-all, I feel like I am still fumbling with how to deal with the results of what a conflict resolution yields, and where to go from there. Any thoughts you have regarding my questions above, or anything else you think might be helpful would be most appreciated.

Thanks for reading this; I look forward to your replies.

  On your question about changing the stake mid-conflict: I think this could work like DitV's escalation mechanic, where a conflict can go from conversation to fighting.  However, there's a big difference between changing the conflict and leaving the conflict.  While changing the conflict seems OK in many situations, wouldn't leaving the conflict be just giving up?  If you stop trying to convince the slaver to give up your brother then your brother's going to remain in captivity.  If you stop trying to evade the cannibals then they're going to descend on you and eat you.  It seems like with the framework you've been describing, this shouldn't be much of a problem.

First, some of the stuff you're talking about here reminds me of Vincent Baker's Poison'd. You might want to take a look at that, it may be a useful source of inspiration for you.

As to changing the stakes, I think it might be an empirical question. Try playing it with, and try playing it without. If with, I'd say that the stakes should become more intense, and ideally more perilous to the person who's changing them.

It seems to me that 1) is a more interesting way to go than 2). I think 2) introduces a stutter-step which can be jarring.

It's thematic, but it's just a die-rolling mechanism. There's no meaningful decision in there for either player.

Thanks for the replies! I'll try to address each of you individually, as best I can.

Noah- I see what you mean about leaving the conflict just meaning giving up. Fair point, and I am struggling to find a counterexample. Maybe it won't be a problem. I'll have to chew on that more.

Regarding your point about escalating a conflict similar to how DitV works, I am not sure. One thing I am not a fan of is the 4-tiers of conflict escalation in that game (just talking -> fist-fighting -> fighting with weapons -> gunfighting), thought I can see how it works in that context. Maybe what I am looking for here is a way to escalate a conflict, without just 'upping the damage type' that someone takes. What if our conflict is all ready fairly violent in nature, and I lose?

For example: Say your character and mine get into a fight (with guns). The stakes are "Does my character rob yours?". If I lose, and want to escalate, what happens? We are already fighting with deadly force. Is that the end, OR should I be able to call for another conflict, or change the stakes to "Does my character kill yours?". That sounds like an interesting possibility. Hm.

Robert- I have wanted to check out Poison'd for awhile now, mostly because I love pirates. I am not familiar with it's rules in the slightest. I'll see what I can dig up on it. Also, can you elaborate on what you mean by "stutter-step"? I am not sure I understand.

Luke- I think I understand what you're saying; let me see if I can make sense of it.

Right now, the two players roll an initial die in the conflict, which is decided by the nature of the conflict. From there, they are each deciding to Take the Pain and keep fighting, or to give up and lose. Why is that choice not meaningful? I don't mean that in a snarky way at all, but I really want to wrap my head around this. Is it because the only choices at this stage seem to be "Get Hurt and Keep Fighting" or "Give Up"?

It is also worth noting that ideally (i.e., when I am past the 'First Thoughts' stage), players would be making decisions regarding how much Grit to spend after Taking the Pain, and when it might be an appropriate time to use a Scar. Would fleshing that part out more help?

================

Thanks again for your responses. This discussion has already given me a lot to think about.

Charlie,

I'm using "stutter step" as an antonym for "smooth." Basically, you're in a conflict, you're losing, it seems to me like it'd be smoother to deal with that in the moment than to end the conflict and start a new one.

There's no incentive to give up. "Getting hurt" has no context. Winning, on the other hand is a clear, instantly understandable concept. Everyone likes to win.

Therefore, any player who understands the game even a little bit, will push until he wins. There's no other choice here. And in order to win, you simply have to roll better. No decision of the player actually influences whether or not he or she wins.

-L

Charlie wrote:

1. Should there be a way for someone to change the stake mid-conflict? Would there be a benefit to this, or would it just work for someone to give up, and then announce an immediate, separate conflict? My concern is that if goals start to change as a conflict unfolds, there doesn't seem to be any penalty for someone just giving up on the current stakes and launching a new conflict. How should I address this?

2. I have been toying with the idea of giving a player who Takes the Pain and still loses the ability to launch a follow-up conflict with greater stakes. However, I am struggling to conceptualize how something like this would work, when the PC's opponent in a conflict is something like the Environment Itself, with stakes like 'Do you get lost on your journey?'. If a player gets lost, how does he escalate a conflict from there?

Looking at it so far I think it would be interesting if there are no rules for shooting people. By that I mean shooting, or any other violent action, could be a side effect of trying to get something.

At the moment you have scars which are positive, and harm which is supposed to be negative. Now if your into people getting hurt, then you probably need injuries. Why? Because numerical health doesn't really underline the thing your after, it glosses over the horribleness of injury. Basically there is no pain for the characters mentioned in these rules so far and I think it might be good to include it.

Also it feels a bit like grit and harm are doing the same job; is there ever any time when one goes down and the other doesn't?

Here's my starting idea: When you declare your means, you should also include the kind of harm that will come to the other character if they don't do what you say. In other words, you include the implicit threat in your means, so that escalation is in the hands of players.

Next the person who looses the roll pays just in grit, and puts on their sheet "knife wound- III" if they pay three grit. My idea is that as people escalate within a conflict it might start as that and either turn into "knife wound- II/II II" (that is supposed to be a tally) if they keep fighting or into something different like the original plus "gunshot wound- II". In environmental conflicts it could be "hungry- II". Here's the cool bit: By paying in grit that's an injury that they can already deal with, they've got used to the idea, they can cope with it, but over time they could start to cost more and more grit, until you deal with them. If you lose, you'd stick a * or something in front of the injuries, so when you deal with them you get a scar.

So this would turn the system into this kind of thing:

Win easy: Short term gain
Win hard: Short term gain, medium turn loss
Loose easy: Short term loss
Loose hard: Short term loss, medium turn loss, long term gain.

Hmm I'm not sure that helps with what Luke was saying, I'm not sure I'd ever go for "loose hard" over "win hard". What if the looser gets the scar bonus right away, but still has to deal with the injury? On the other hand, maybe it's just the choice between loose hard, or win harder!

So why only grit? Well I sort of like the idea that anyone who's still alive after an apocalypse has learned to do first aid very fast, and to cope with an awful lot. This would mean that wounds like bad arms would provide no penalty, just grit loss, and without grit they basically give up the will to live.

Having said that, using an injury system like this one would mean that all the difference between different types of injury would be that they are easier or harder to get treated for, and escalation would be more about keeping going in a conflict than Vincent's talking->fists->guns. To be honest I'm not really sure how to produce the same escalation in a post-apocalyptic setting; what's to stop people going to guns every time? Some kind of regret mechanic?

Now how do we stop people wanting to give up on a conflict and restart another one? Well you just have to make conflict stakes count seriously: If someone robs you, they now have your money, and you have to catch them. If they get to the choice of having to take the pain or just leave it, and they leave it, then you should say that they have decide to back off and not try again, except in different circumstances. Alternatively he could try to beg, as a kind of inverse escalation. I'm slowly getting the hang of this myself, making it so that every dice roll is a total fork in the road, and trying to get back onto the other fork will take quite a bit of effort, effort the players should weigh up when deciding.

Thanks for all the replies! They have been very useful!

Robert- Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I understand now, and I agree.

Luke- It took me awhile, but I see what you are saying. Right now, players are going to push until they can't anymore. I think part of this seeming lack of choice is that I haven't really quantified the injury mechanics beyond what I am tagging as 'Harm' for now. I agree with you that there needs to be more player agency and choice involved. As an aside, this reminds of a recent post I was reading on Vincent Baker's blog (after Robert suggested I look at Poison'd). It's the 7/27 entry on Resolving Player Conflicts and Reconciling Their Interests. I think this really relates to what I am striving for here, with trying to get players on board with hurting their characters AND giving them meaningful choices that affect the outcome of the conflict. I am glad you brought this up; I am gonna have to chew on it a little while to see what I wanna do with it.

CoD- I might be misunderstanding your suggestion, but I am not sure that a 'sub-conflict' system would be all that intuitive or necessary. I want conflicts to be fast and harsh, and I want players to be able to escalate a situation, rather than weasel around and try to exhaust any other possibilities.

You do raise a good point about follow-up conflicts when you talk about raising stakes like, "do you starve in the wilderness?" or "do you drift for years?". As a counter-question, how would the player escalate after losing a wilderness encounter. That is what I am struggling with.

JW- I agree that a numerical Harm pool is not going to facilitate the gameplay I want. In an earlier design, I did something similar to what you are suggesting by having players write down how they are injured, and then giving it a numerical value.

I also agree that it seems like the distinction between Grit and Harm isn't currently that important. A depleting Grit resource is more compelling to me.

I don't think I complete grasp the system you layed out with the tallies, so let me see if I can clarify it:

Bob and Gary roll against each other in a knife fight, and Bob loses by 3. Bob would need to pay 3 Grit to keep going. If Bob loses again later by 1, he now has 'knife wound - IIII' on his sheet, and has to pay 4 Grit? If that's the case, I don't think that gets around what Luke is saying (*Luke- feel free to correct me).

I think that giving players more choices during a conflict is going to be necessary to make this system compelling. I'll see what I can come up with.

More comments and questions welcome.

-Charlie

Charlie wrote:
necessary. I want conflicts to be fast and harsh, and I want players to be able to escalate a situation, rather than weasel around and try to exhaust any other possibilities.

You do raise a good point about follow-up conflicts when you talk about raising stakes like, "do you starve in the wilderness?" or "do you drift for years?". As a counter-question, how would the player escalate after losing a wilderness encounter. That is what I am struggling with.

-Charlie

Charlie wrote:
Bob and Gary roll against each other in a knife fight, and Bob loses by 3. Bob would need to pay 3 Grit to keep going. If Bob loses again later by 1, he now has 'knife wound - IIII' on his sheet, and has to pay 4 Grit? If that's the case, I don't think that gets around what Luke is saying (*Luke- feel free to correct me).