I’ve been developing a narrative-focused game for a few years and I think I am finally in the home stretch. Everything seems to be coming together fairly nicely, though there is still one issue that I am struggling with: target numbers for the conflict resolution system, and specifically if overshooting the target number should be good or bad. My question to you is if the following seems like a good idea or if it sounds like it is a recipe for pissing players off.

To attempt to briefly provide background: essentially, in order to complete an “Important Action” a player must invest energy (a limited resource) towards that action. This is opposed by someone else who wants to stop or mess with the action. Whoever invests the most energy “wins” the conflict resolution system and they get to narrate the outcome (the general gist of which is established before hand).

Winning is good, but winning by too much can be bad.

Let us say that player B has invested 10 energy. For player A to win, s/he has to invest at least 11. However, these amounts are hidden until the end of the resolution system, so s/he has to guess the correct amount. If Player A invests 11 then they’ll win and get full narrative control. But if s/he overshoots that number, then while the goal will still be accomplished, the GM gets to add a twist. If s/he overshoots by a lot, the other players might get a chance to add their own twists as well.

To offer a quick example: player A wants to convince a magical guardian to give him/her a drink from a well of knowledge. He succeeds but overshot the desired energy expenditure. The character gets the drink, but this was achieved by accepting to pay an unpleasant price to the guardian (perhaps the character’s right eye).

If an action is important enough, then a player might put so much energy in that they’ll be guaranteed victory. But this is done with the knowledge that there are consequences.

I think this will encourage players to only spend energy on actions they care about and that it will encourage them to be frugal in their expenditures. Am I succeeding in making an interesting mechanic, or am I just setting the stage for a lot of player strife?

Thanks for any feedback you can provide.

~Joel

Hey Joel.

It seems like a good idea to me.

Any game mechanism you choose is going to have both its immediate, obvious, concrete effects, and also effects that arise from its interactions with the game's other mechanisms and the game's players. I can't predict without trying it - without trying the whole game - whether this mechanism would piss players off. Depending on how the rest of the game works, it might always, it might occasionally, or it might never.

Have you playtested? How did it go?

-Vincent

I would have thought the investment of energy into it IS the cost - it means latter on you can't do something else, because you invested your energy into whatever.

Though I grant the causal link might not be obvious, so perhaps writing down large energy expenditures and on what, then latter on writing down what they missed out on, would show the bigger picture of cause and effect here/some story (whatever your shooting for).

Thank you both very much for the feedback.

Vincent, unfortunately I haven’t had the chance to play-test this mechanic yet. The entire system wasn’t actually working until about a month ago. I had been struggling with a problem that had been preventing it from being playable and only solved it in early December. My system is essentially derived from the Action Resolution System (ARS) of the Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game fame (or infamy). The great problem with ARS was the energy regeneration rate and I was having the same difficulty. I’ll post a brief summary of the entire conflict resolution system below, if you are interested.

Playing it is, of course, the ultimate test, but I’ve generally found that my “original” ideas have all been done before, so tapping the wealth of experience here at the Forge can save a lot of heart-ache that playing a bad mechanic might produce.

Callan, investment of energy is the cost, but I am hoping for a little more tension. More energy expended now means less energy to expend later, but with this mechanic that also means that more energy expended now means less of a chance of things going exactly the way one wants them too, while less energy now means the action might not succeed but it hedges one’s bet against the future. There are both immediate and long-term consequences of each action (rather than just long-term consequences). Additionally, solving the energy regeneration problem (noted above) has sort of muted the impact of long-term energy use (it doesn’t have as much real cost as one might expect).

Thanks again!

Anywho, if anyone is interested in my Conflict Resolution System:

(At character creation, characters start with 20 energy, 10 health)

Step 1: To initiate the CRS, a player must declare an Important Action. An Important Action is one that another player (GM included) is willing to oppose. Usually an Important Action sums up an entire encounter (Thor wrestling with Death, for example), but variant rules exist for more traditional, blow by blow, actions.

Step 2: Initiating player gives the gist of the outcome they want. Opposing player gives the gist of the outcome they want.

Step 3: Players get “free” energy from applicable gadgets, if any (Thor wearing his belt would get free energy for wrestling Death since it increases his strength). Players can give their opponent “free” energy by describing actions or circumstances that help the opposing player (this increases the reward that the winner gets, in terms of “experience”).

Step 4: Players secretly allocate energy from their limited reserves to the action (representing the effort the character is putting into the action). This is limited by the character’s stats. A character with a Might (aka, Strength) score of 5 can only put 5 energy into a related action (free energy is not limited by this). A player can invest additional energy above this limit, but this energy comes from the health reserves then. Energy allocated may not be adjusted after this step.

Step 5: Players roll for luck (if applicable; luck is a developed ability) and add this to the total effort pool.

Step 6: Players reveal their effort pool and compare totals (free energy + expended energy + luck).

Step 7: Winner gets to narrate in detail the outcome of the action (limited to the gist they gave earlier).

In case of a tie, an impartial party gets narrative control and describes the outcome by attempting to conform to both previously stated gists.

Proposed Variant: If the winner exceeds the total of their opponent by 3-4 points, one impartial observer gets to add a twist to the outcome. If the winner exceeds the total by 5-6 points, one impartial observer and the opponent get to add one twist each to the outcome. If the winner exceeds the total by 7-8 points, 2 impartial observers and the opponent get to add one twist each (of if there are not 2 impartial observers, then the one observer gets to make two twists). And so on. In all cases, the winner’s stated goal is still achieved.

Step 8: After the encounter, each character notes the percentage of their total potential energy that they have expended and rolls 1d10. If the is equal to or less than the percentage expended (rounding down), they regenerate energy (roll another d10, energy regenerated can’t exceed max). A roll of 1 allows someone who is down by 10% to regenerate, a roll of 1-4 allows someone who is down by 40% to regenerate, etc.

If your working on tension at the table, how long will it be in RL time before the negative outcome of an 'overkill' win (so to speak) shows up?

I'm just thinking of my own history and seemingly others of "Oooh, something bads gunna happen" but, like, time passes and it never happens, or happens after such a long time I've forgotten about it/all sense of tension has faded as much as the memory.

I’m not sure I understand what you are asking, Callan, so please forgive me if my answer misses the mark. But, twists should “show up” essentially immediately in RL time. Whoever wins gets narrative control to describe the outcome, immediately afterwards the others add their twists. To give an example of how this might unfold…

Andrew (player): Having survived the hardships that the gods have thrown at him, Odysseus finally makes it home.
Valentine (player): Oh no he doesn’t. That little twerp killed my worshippers. He’s not done paying for it yet.
Peter (gm): That sounds like a challenge to me. Are you willing to back it up?
Val: Yeah. If I win, Odysseus gets lost again.
Andrew: And if I win, he finally gets home.
Peter: Okay then. Let’s do this…

*Andrew and Val allocate energy, Andrew really wants to get Odysseus home…*

Peter: Let’s see what you got… 8 against 14; looks like you won, Andrew. Well, more or less.
Andrew: Meh, at least I get what I wanted. *ahem* Harken now to me, fates above and below, hear me tell of Sharp-Minded Odysseus. Hear me tell of his voyage and how he left that ill-fated island. Hear me tell of his voyage home, the wrath of the god he offended now dulled. Eagerly he and the bronze-kneed Greeks scanned the horizon. Eagerly they looked for that long-remembered shore. With shouts of joy they spot it, with leaps of joy they gaze upon their home.
Val: My turn. Oh ill-fated Odysseus, has your punishment been met? Have you paid for your offense against the gods? Look now upon your house. The son you left as a babe is now a man. The wife you left so many years ago has waited for you long… but see now your doorstep is darkened by the shadows of suitors, come to replace you, their king, whom they believe dead and lost at sea.
Peter: Many they are, more than what men you have left. It is impossible to retake your home by force. But fate is not done with you, you will have no rest. An old servant sees you approach but the light of recognition it not in his eyes. You have been gone so long, no one remembers your face.

The main "problem" I can see with this is that the system you are emulating is extremely predictable. Gamers are more likely to hunker down and spend cautiously in order to get an unspectacular win rather than get a result that blows up in their face.

If the points spent were something of a karma system with a random element to it that could give the player a concrete reward for a spectacular result or punishment for a bad result, they might find that exciting,

I've been working on an idea I call the Luna Engine that works on a similar idea as yours.

It has the feel of a 21 card game for me. It's a good thing that players get to allocate their resources against each other and on top of that they can't spend too much or their sucess comes with some bad events mixed.

The only problem might be that players get to allocate a precise amount of resources, that's what it makes partially predictable the way players will tend to spend their resources. What if their resources came in the form of a pool of varied sized dice instead of a fixed amount of points? the good part of that is that you can resolve the conflict in less steps, the bad is that it might turn everyting into pure luck -depending on how you read the dice. Perhaps a failure on a d10 is still better than a failure with a d4 or even a critical success with it.

This is a practical solution, but the part of your system that I like the most is the allocation of points being kept secret until the confrontation; it's like a poker game. What if the other player is bluffing and hasn't allocated all his points on this conflict? is he making me waste my points now so he can defeat me easily after? Should I be spending more points so I can vanquish him now for good?

Another interpretation of overkill is what I use on another game: a critical sucess means same as always, double damage, spectacular results but on top of that it means the character pushed himself or his equipment too far: he dealt an incredible blow to his opponent but now his sword is broken, he managed to jump over a chasm but he smashed against the other side and now he's got to retake his breath before atempting to move again, etc.

What if the loser gets credited with the victors 'wasted' energy?

eg
A: bids 2 points
B: bids 10 points
-> B wins, spends 10 points, but A gains say 5 points  (2 spent: 7 credited as overkill)

maybe "overkill points" have to be spent in a certain way, maybe the have to be spent against the player they were won from, and/or using the opposite stat to the conflict they were won on.

Ah, sorry for the long delay in responding.

Keith, while indeed this encourages players to hunkerdown, the fact that they'll always be bidding against another human individual makes this a difficult thing to do. They'll go for the tight wins, sure, but the number then need is unknown to them. Since there's free energy, that sort of gives a player an idea of how much energy they need to put in to win, but they have no idea what the human element will be. A cautious bet might still blow their enemy out of the water, or they might loose. Do you think I'm just underestimating the human variable?

Warrior Monk, you have a very good solution, but alas I am too emotionally invested to take it. Everything grew out of the fun I had playing a single session of MURG and getting rid of energy tokens and replacing them with dice is more than I can endure. Though to note, while players do get to allocate precisely, they also have "Luck" to try to account for. That is, after they allocate their energy, they still roll dice to add (or subtract) energy. This seems to sort of be along the lines of the variability you were going after with turning the tokens into dice. Is that a fair assessment?

NN, that's definately an interesting idea. I'll have to think over it more, but if I ever get the game actually finished enough to post to the interwebs, don't be surprised if that's included.

I only read the original post so correct me if I'm being redundant.  Using this mechanic, what kind of dynamics are you attempting to coax from the players?  How do you feel it will encourage meaningful interactivity?  I'm asking these questions because at first glance, the intentions of the system seem unclear:
1. The choice to diverge from RPG conventions (resources instead of dice)
2. The rationale; what your approach offers that conventions cannot.

The choice/rationale for this system has its roots in two different considerations.

First, in thinking about Conflict Resolution and how it attempts to mimic "real life," I came to the conclusion that most systems take the approach of natural ability + skill + luck = the result, with a heavy emphasis on luck. This emphasis usually manifests by a roll of the die/dice adding more to the outcome than bonuses. I believe that does not accurately reflect reality; the formula should be natural ability + skill + effort + luck = result. Additionally, while luck is an important factor in real life, often effort and skill are far more important, and thus I wanted to reduce the impact of luck on results. My "limited resource system" has each of these factors, so while I am diverging from stock RPG convention, it is by adding to conventions and readjusting the values contained in it. Since effort, however, is the one most under player control, it was the one that I focused on in my original post. Luck (that is, the roll of the dice) is still there, it just doesn't hold center stage.

Second, the game this system is for has players taking on the role of gods. It is fairly lackluster for Odin to attempt to create humans and fail because of the roll of the dice. Luck, for such a system, needs to be downplayed to promote a mythic feel. A god will usually do whatever he/she wants, unless opposed by another mighty force. Thus intent, rather than luck, seems to also be more important.

If a conflict resolution system focuses on dice, it focuses on luck. By shifting that focus to limited resources, I am trying to shift the game's focus to intent.

It can be done with dice.

There are ways to manipulate the dice to your advantage, so that luck plays a large role for the unskilled and a small role for the skilled.  In my opinion, finely manipulated dice have greater versatility than diceless alone.  However, your options aren't binary; instead of an either/or, you can mix the two for an effect I like to call "semi-diceless".

I'm not saying you should change your system.  What I am saying is that you may be underestimating the versatility of dice.  Have you ever heard of an RPG called Godlike?

While your system helps downplay the role of luck in conflict resolution, and it ties this to skill and circumstance, it seems to still ignore the "effort" component of conflict resolution. This could be combined with Warrior Monk's suggestion of making dice the limited resource, but the problem there is that once again emphasizes luck, whereas I desire to emphasize intent and effort.

Just to note, my system isn't diceless. Dice (and thus in turn luck), however, don't get center stage. Conflict resolution basically goes: "free energy allocated" (this comes from a character's skills/powers/circumstances), "limited energy secretly allocated" (representing effort), dice rolled and energy added or subtracted as appropriate (representing luck). The star of the show, as it were, is the middle step.

I haven't heard of Godlike, I'll look into it. Thanks.

Solipsist has a system for handling overshoots (called exactly that in the game); you'll get what you want, but you'll get more than what you want, and probably twisted in some weird way.

In fact you should really look at Solipsist; it has a lot of stuff that seems to match what you're trying to do. Limits plus visions could probably be shifted to produce some of the features of beings like the Norse gods, but the standard characters are probably more powerful: They don't need to loose eyes to gain wisdom and understanding of the world, just say the have it! On the other hand perhaps the requirements of magic are just part of the justification of the change in terms of their vision (that'll make more sense after you know more about the game).

Also, "effort" often creates cycles, especially if you have the compliment of effort being rest that recharges it. Even if extra effort just forms a debt that fades away, this still produces lull periods. How would you incorporate this into your game? What will people do when their character's ability to change things is at it's lowest ebb?