Alright, so, working on my conflict resolution system, I've come to a point where I need some comments.

Things you need to know.

Push: The amount of Attack Points the player is spending vs the Challenge.
Enemy Conflict: A Conflict with a one or more opponents.
Breaking: When a die is removed from the Enemy Conflict's pool.
Breaking Point: The value, when rolled, that a die will "break".

Basically, a player will Push with an amount of Attack Points, and the Enemy Conflict (EC) will roll dice depending on the amount of the Push. The player is attempting to get the EC to roll more dice so that there is a higher chance of breaking a die.

However, what I realized is by only counting the broken dice, and not the actual results of the roll, it took away certain risks that the player or GM could choose to take.

The Player could Push for 12 and then the GM would need to decide how many dice to roll for the Conflict. If he's got d6s, but there are no penalties for rolling under the Player's Push, then obviously the GM would never roll more than 1 die. Which obviously isn't a good mechanic.

That left me with two options.

1) Make it so the GM had to roll at least a certain number of dice based on the Player's Push.
2) Make it so that if the GM rolled under the Player's Push, there was a consequence.

While option 1 definitely works, it feels like it limits the system in a way that really doesn't need to happen. In the above example of d6s with this option, the player never has a reason to spend any amount of points between 12 and 18, which is what would be needed to add another die to the pot.

Option 2, which I'm now leaning towards, does have the drawback of needing to be balanced. So, that's why I'm looking for some comments on how it seems to you all after a cursory glance.

So, here is the mechanic which I've temporarily dubbed "Overload", which allows a player to hinder the EC's upcoming attack should the GM roll poorly during his defense. The basic formula to determine the point at which Overload kicks in is:

(die size) + (# of dice rolled) + (Breaking Point) = "Overload Limit"

Let's say that the player Pushes for 12 with the Breaking Point at 1, and the GM rolls 2d6. (I don't think how Breaking Point is increased really matters for this subject, so I won't bring all that in unless someone thinks otherwise and that it would matter).

(6) + (2) + (1) = 9. So if the Player's Push was 9 points or more over the GM's roll, the EC would suffer Overload and one of their Attack dice would be disabled for their next attack. In this case, the GM would have to roll a total of 3 or less.

Now, while that doesn't seem too dangerous, if the GM was going to just roll 1 die, which would be an option, he'd be looking at 6 + 1 + 1 = 8, so a roll of 4 or less. Rolling just a d6 makes this a pretty risky maneuver. Yes, he has less chance of breaking a die, but that comes at the cost of possibly losing some of his attack power when his turn comes up.

One question I have is, is the formula simple enough that you think it'd be easily figured out on the fly without being obtrusive to play?

The other question is, would it be better to perhaps just say that whatever amount the Push is over the roll, that much is simply subtracted from the GMs next attack? While I thought of it as an option, I thought making it a chance rather than a guarantee was the more interesting and potentially exciting option.

Otherwise, Pushing for 13 or 14 would be much more powerful and force the GM to roll more dice much more often.

Though I suppose when I actually go to test the system I can run it both ways and see. Right now I'm just looking for what people think from just reading it.

Thanks in advance,
Scott