Topic: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Started by: stefoid
Started on: 4/28/2011
Board: Game Development
On 4/28/2011 at 1:15am, stefoid wrote:
[INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
My aim is to provide tactical flair without the crunch. Id be interested in those players who like a good tactical fight. would this appeal to you?
(there are sections missing from this doco dealing with gear and equipment (basically there is no differentiation between gear and equipment) and about fighting mooks. If you want to read those sections, go to the link to my draft doco in my sig.)
Sections to look at are particularly the earlier sections that involve 'plays' and the last section about conflict resolution.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5W32IfgIIkrOWYxNjg2MDEtZWQ0OS00YmIxLTk5ZTYtNDVmZjY0NWMyYjY3&hl=en&authkey=CLaJ4P4J
On 4/28/2011 at 5:27am, DarkHawkPro wrote:
Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
So far it looks like you have a great group tool for building a setting/story as a group. Hut when it came to mechanics my mind kinda wondered a bit.
So basically, its a climatic system with little actual dice. Where actions and their resolutions are based on a collective cooperation of the group., basically?
On 4/28/2011 at 6:27am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Hi,
In terms of tactics which are like throwing a real life ball through a real life hoop (ie, dependent on physics or some other, external to the brain mechanism), it wouldn't appeal, as it's entirely based on lumpley principle sort of stuff (it even says 'the fiction always comes first'). From my observation, if such seems tactical, it's a perceptual error in confusing what one thinks would work for what actually, empirically does work. Such mechanics are, atleast part of the time, set to reward anyone who makes no distinction between one and the other.
On 4/28/2011 at 8:33am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
DarkHawkPro wrote:
So far it looks like you have a great group tool for building a setting/story as a group. Hut when it came to mechanics my mind kinda wondered a bit.
So basically, its a climatic system with little actual dice. Where actions and their resolutions are based on a collective cooperation of the group., basically?
No -- players can make suggestions as to events that occur during story phase, particularly by bringing their own characters history and motivations into play to explain the story phase seed. Otherwise the GM resolves things - with pure narration during story phase or with the help of the conflict res mechanics during challenge phase.
none of that will make a lick of sense if you havent read the rules.
On 4/28/2011 at 8:57am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Callan wrote:
Hi,
In terms of tactics which are like throwing a real life ball through a real life hoop (ie, dependent on physics or some other, external to the brain mechanism), it wouldn't appeal, as it's entirely based on lumpley principle sort of stuff (it even says 'the fiction always comes first'). From my observation, if such seems tactical, it's a perceptual error in confusing what one thinks would work for what actually, empirically does work. Such mechanics are, atleast part of the time, set to reward anyone who makes no distinction between one and the other.
Hi Callan. Im not what you mean.
The tactical nature of games doesnt come from any real life physics -- some idea of what actually would work, it comes from utilizing the game mechanics to achieve your ends. A purely abstract game like chess is nothing but tactics, based on utilizing its arbitrary mechanics.
Im hoping that the mechanics I have in place offer that kind of tactical approach, with the result being the player is able to use them to position their character favorably in the fiction.
For me, the fun part of tactical play is first designing your character to be able to overcome the kinds of challenges you expect it to face, and then utilizing the rules in the best way to overcome those challenges. planning and execution in other words.
For Ingenero, the way to do that is:
1) selection of types of plays
2) design of plays
3) when and how to utilize those plays
mechanics that influence these decisions, both in planning and execution are:
1) -2 penalty for repeat use of plays
2) large bonus for next play from successfully executing advantage seeking play (+3 / +4)
3) resource allocation decisions when buying plays
4) +1 bonus for executing purely defensive play(s) in any given round
5) decision about targeting the opposition directly (target or counter play), or targeting their actions (cross play ) as the best way to achieve your aims for the conflict.
6) resource risking to overachieve during execution of a play (risk body or soul)
On 4/28/2011 at 8:58am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
err, I mean "Im not sure what you mean"
On 4/29/2011 at 12:10am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Stefoid, from my observation of the 'imaginative space' (ie, my estimate of what each person is imagining around a table and how much they actually match up), 'pieces' so to speak appear and disappear all the time, simply because were not dealing with physics. In chess, the pieces don't do that, as they rely on something external to the brain/imagination.
Maybe your thinking that when you group plays, your imagination is rock solid - all the pieces that exist, keep existing. But if I sat in with a notepad on a sesion, I bet I could find pieces popping in and out of assumed existance all over the place. That's why I don't find the arrangement tactically enjoyable.
For contrast, when I design I treat spoken fiction as simply appealing to peoples sympathies, that they might hand over resources in sympathy with what's spoken (and I might do the same) and only allow part (like half or less) of the resources of play to be doled out by anyone, based on that. The resources that aren't based on sympathy and instead 'rules first' lend tactical significance to whether someone (like a GM) doles out resources from his budget, but the actual interaction itself is still a sympathetic one (or, in some circumstances, conmanship (or alternatively, it's hard to draw a line between seeking sympathy and conmanship, as in where one ends and the other begins)).
I'm trying to second guess your perspective "No! It is tactics! I can totally see the crates in they alley and the guard beyond and how you could really dart from wall to wall to the top of the crates and then totally get the drop on that guard! What is that if not tactics!?". If I've repeated what you might think to some degree, it shows I know what you mean. But even knowing, I still say it's not tactics. It's a sympathetic exchange (or 'working sympathies'). That's my estimate on the matter.
On 4/29/2011 at 12:58am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
OK, I understand what you're saying now. But I dont find the distinction important myself. Im happy to define tactics as deciding how best to the utilize of the game mechanics. Tactics are about offering a game player viable options, both in planning and execution stages. That is built-in fun for a lot of humans I think. The key is presenting multiple viable options.
Thats why this mysterious 'balance' is important. Even if the mechanics offer you multiple options, if the degree of opposition is not pitched right (i.e. too soft or too hard), then your options aren't viable -- you will win or lose respectively, regardless of which option you chose. Decisions that matter, thats the ticket.
So....I agree that the fictional situation isnt concrete -- except where it is pinned down by a mechanic that is brought into play. If I say "I make a play to climb to the top of the crates in order to gain advantage over the guard", then *poof* the crates, previously a nebulous scenery detail, are now concrete. But so what? The player has decided to take the option of maneuvering to gain advantage. The mechanics offer this as a viable option. But there are others. Perhaps I designed my character to be a crack shot, so a better solution might be simply to take a hard shot? etc, etc...
So to sum up, I think the important thing is for the rules to offer the player decisions that matter. The process of the player then picking the optimal decision at the optimal time, for each stage or situation of the game they are in, is 'tactics'.
The opposite of that would be a conflict resolution system like, PTA? FITM mechanics are inherently un-tactical I think. So, I do a bunch of stuff in the fiction, we call a conflict, I state my intentions and we roll dice. The dice decide if I win my stakes or not. then I narrate how I won the stakes or I didnt. Where are the multiple viable options? There aren't any.
On 4/29/2011 at 4:21am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
If I say "I make a play to climb to the top of the crates in order to gain advantage over the guard", then *poof* the crates, previously a nebulous scenery detail, are now concrete. But so what? The player has decided to take the option of maneuvering to gain advantage. The mechanics offer this as a viable option.
The standard model of play is that the buck stops with someone, who determines if they treat something as 'existant' (as nebulous as that term is in this context). Typically the buck stop is the GM (this can be changed by rules, of course). Under this buck stop arrangement, it has not been made concrete and the player isn't manouvering. He's waiting on the GM to say yay or nay. In terms of decisions that matter, the player isn't making a decision, he's actually waiting on the person who does make the decision that matters (the GM). It'd be like playing chess, going to make check-mate with a piece...then realising you can only move that piece if the GM allows you to (and...if it 'fits the fiction', then you might be allowed to check-mate). Atleast for me, I don't call that manouvering. Indeed it's exactly where 'molasses' seeps in, in games I've played. It often feels more like wading or having no traction at all.
Here's a mechanic I thought of some time ago - basically the player has a budget of points - now he spends the full price for something, describing his actions. Now the thing is the GM, if sympathetic to the described actions, can call a lower price after that and the player gets a refund of part of his points.
This makes the player proactive instead of waiting on someones say so, because they have payed the points already. So whatever it is, is the case. However, instead of just paying points and spoken fiction isn't relevant, spoken fiction can matter, because it might considerably lower the price and the player gets some of his points back. Taking to this game, he could just buy the bonuses he gets, but his spoken fiction might be the thing upon which it hinges whether he gets the majority of those points back. There is no 'mother, may I?' passive waiting point.
Of course, this negates the idea of fiction first - fiction first predicates itself on the backstop having the final say on everything. With my example, it's merely 'fiction may be very useful'.
On 4/29/2011 at 5:30am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Callan wrote:If I say "I make a play to climb to the top of the crates in order to gain advantage over the guard", then *poof* the crates, previously a nebulous scenery detail, are now concrete. But so what? The player has decided to take the option of maneuvering to gain advantage. The mechanics offer this as a viable option.
The standard model of play is that the buck stops with someone, who determines if they treat something as 'existant' (as nebulous as that term is in this context). Typically the buck stop is the GM (this can be changed by rules, of course). Under this buck stop arrangement, it has not been made concrete and the player isn't manouvering. He's waiting on the GM to say yay or nay. In terms of decisions that matter, the player isn't making a decision, he's actually waiting on the person who does make the decision that matters (the GM). It'd be like playing chess, going to make check-mate with a piece...then realising you can only move that piece if the GM allows you to (and...if it 'fits the fiction', then you might be allowed to check-mate). Atleast for me, I don't call that maneuvering. Indeed it's exactly where 'molasses' seeps in, in games I've played. It often feels more like wading or having no traction at all.
Well, Ill talk about Ingenero, since that is what the thread is about. Yes, the GM decrees whether crates exist or not. The player does not get to say 'there are crates', although they can certainly ask "what cover is available?", (which is a leading question...) The player does get to say "I try to gain advantage", with the proviso that they also have to work it into the fiction. But there are a lot of ways to engineer it -- that on the spot creativity is part of the fun. Maybe my comrade puts his hat on a stick to draw fire, either to make the guard expose himself to counter fire, or to distract him while I maneuver for advantage, etc... there's just a lot of ways to get the job done. I dont see it as restrictive or delegating to the GM at all.
On 5/1/2011 at 6:20am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
After chewing that over for some time I still can't see how you can say the GM decides if there are crates but also say it's not delegating to the GM, Stefoid? Instead of just going 'it don work, bro' I'm charitably trying to maybe figure out some process that's being used (implicitly or otherwise). In doing so I kind of thought of blank cheque like process. Like the player says (or would just say) "I try to gain advantage" and there, of course the GM agrees the player would do that. There, now the player has a nodule of agreement , but were not done with the resolution process yet. The player then takes the agreement they have (perhaps that's why they seem proactive - I'd almost agree you can 'have' someones agreement) and basically takes that agreement and extends it within the scope of what was already agreed. Like "So you agreed already that I'm trying to gain advantage, and gaining advantage would involve me rushing towards some objects that, if scaled, gain me advantage". Now they wouldn't say that in play, I'm just teasing out the implicit into the explicit (yeah, boobies!...wait, no, not that explicit...). Even then were not necessarily done - the process of extending out prior agreements to even more agreements can go on several times.
The initial agreement to that "I try to gain advantage" is a bit like being handed a blank cheque, but much like a real cheque you can't write just anything in it (you can't take a real life blank cheque and write 'ten cows' - it wont cash out). The process is writing out something that can be cashed out AND preferably something that itself is also a blank cheque (with it's own attendant restrictions, not all of which are possibly known).
I'm still not sure I agree with tactical, but in terms of the proactive part of the player/not delegating to the GM, here I've tried to charitably figure out a way that would be proactive, that seems to match. It all revolves around getting agreement on terms which are semantically open to intepretation (blank cheques), eg, what the heck is 'advantage' - well, too late GM, you agreed that I'd be trying to get it, soooooooo....
Well, those are my thoughts on the foundation of your question (must have strong foundations). I'd actually like to read an actual play thread about something like this bit from Ingenero or from playtests of Ingenero.
On 5/1/2011 at 2:09pm, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
I just got back from playing this evening, as it happens.
It basically goes like this:
1) GM describes a scene. Maybe at this point, there are crates mentioned, but in this example, lets say not.
2) Players assesses initial situation. Decides that, with the plays he has available, a straight up shootup is not his best option -- gaining advantage and then
hammering home that advantage in subsequent rounds seems a better option.
3) players asks the GM some leading questions - what cover is available? Is there an alternate route around the area the guard is guarding, etc...
4) Maybe the answers come back negatory. Player continues to assess options. How can I sneak up or distract the guard such that I can work an advantage play into this situation?
5) player comes up with a distraction involving , I dont know... lets say throwing a rock to clatter behind the guard, momentarily diverting his attention such that the PC can draw a bead on him without having to worry about return fire.
6) lets roll and see if that worked - does the PC go into the next round with an advantage, or not?
As long as the system is flexible enough to accommodate the sort of thing going on above, it works out. The GM isnt actively trying to hinder the player's quest to work an advantage move into the situation, nor is he necessarily trying to pander to it. Its just that it isnt actually that hard to do in the first place. It doesnt require any particular wink and handshake from the GM.
I mean, if, for some reason, the guard is standing with his back to the wall in a perfectly clear area with full view of every possible avenue of approach -- if theres a good fictional reason for that setup... then the PCs quest for advantage is going to by stymied, but then thats what you would expect, right? plan B...
On 5/3/2011 at 5:37am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
I'm sure it does work, but what does it work as? I just don't think it works as something tactical (and so I don't enjoy it, by itself, as being tactics) - take these two examples:
1. Your RL PC figure is sitting at position 3,4 on a battle grid.
2. The GM has said "Your around the north west corner".
I just don't think there's anything tactical to the second one - if the GM can really know the exactatudes of position, then he could render it to an emperical metric (like a battlemat) and present the exact co-ordinates of the character. If he doesn't, then he is just working off his own biases and what, whether he realises it or not, he wants to pander to or hinder. Your probably thinking 'No, that's just the other guy - were unbiased when we play!'. In terms of the evidence it takes to convince me, I've just seen too much evidence over the years to believe you'd be an exception (same for myself - I'm no exception to this). Even if you were somehow an exception, if I were to play I'm probably going to be playing with that 'other guy', and from the evidence I've seen, he will play by his biases. And I've played under alot of games of that and I don't object to using bias to determine resource distribution (just because I use the word bias doesn't instantly mean 'Cast it out!!1!') - I just don't call it, by itself, tactical play.
Anyway, I've said the same thing with various angles of evidence a few times now. So I'll wrap it up there.
On 5/3/2011 at 6:19am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Callan wrote:
I'm sure it does work, but what does it work as? I just don't think it works as something tactical (and so I don't enjoy it, by itself, as being tactics) - take these two examples:
1. Your RL PC figure is sitting at position 3,4 on a battle grid.
2. The GM has said "Your around the north west corner".
I just don't think there's anything tactical to the second one - if the GM can really know the exactatudes of position, then he could render it to an emperical metric (like a battlemat) and present the exact co-ordinates of the character. If he doesn't, then he is just working off his own biases and what, whether he realises it or not, he wants to pander to or hinder. Your probably thinking 'No, that's just the other guy - were unbiased when we play!'. In terms of the evidence it takes to convince me, I've just seen too much evidence over the years to believe you'd be an exception (same for myself - I'm no exception to this). Even if you were somehow an exception, if I were to play I'm probably going to be playing with that 'other guy', and from the evidence I've seen, he will play by his biases. And I've played under alot of games of that and I don't object to using bias to determine resource distribution (just because I use the word bias doesn't instantly mean 'Cast it out!!1!') - I just don't call it, by itself, tactical play.
Anyway, I've said the same thing with various angles of evidence a few times now. So I'll wrap it up there.
I think you're over-thinking it. You can have a game where the game-state is pinned by mechanics (grid system) or fiction (narrated location). It doesn't matter which as long as it remains consistent. As long as the crates that were there a moment ago don't disappear for no reason. '3,4' and 'at the northwest corner' serve equally as well. I guess what I'm trying to say is the nature of the rules don't matter, as long as they are consistent in all ways.
Whether the presenter of the situation is biased or not, the players job is to deal with the situation as it is presented as best they can. Not all games are set up fair/balanced. Some games you are always going to lose, its just a matter of how badly. Like playing the Turks in 'Empire at Arms' You aren't going to win, but that's not the point. The point is, how well do you utilize the resources you have, for the situation you are in?
Maybe what you are talking about is bias in terms of being inconsistent? Like changing an established fiction on the fly because the situation isnt going in a direction you like? OK.. so thats obviously possible, but thats a) really noticeable and b) really bad form. Not just for some notion of tactical challenge, its blatant rail-roading. Its equivilant to moving a piece on the chessboard when your opponent isnt looking.
On 5/4/2011 at 3:46am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Stefoid, as I said above, if it's really consistant with its resource instantiation rules and resource interaction and position, it could be rendered to a series of written, used each time resource generation rules and derived from those, hard numbers. If it isn't possible to render those, it isn't consistant. I mean, you know that in terms of "'3,4' and 'at the northwest corner' serve equally as well.", you can't play chess with "Your queen is...in the northwest corner". I don't know how you can say they serve equally well.
On 5/4/2011 at 11:35pm, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
'3,4' , 'northwest corner' or 'planet earth'. '2/10 hitpoints' or 'badly injured' - they can all be valid in their own context. They are all just varying degrees of abstraction - you pick the one most appropriate to your game. Saying one abstraction - '3,4' is more consistent than another - 'n/w corner' doesn't make any sense to me.
On 5/5/2011 at 12:34am, Noon wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
It's absolutely consistant, because if you took one hundred people and told them to put a piece at position 4,3, they would all do the same thing. But if you tell one hundred people to put a piece 'somewhere in the northwest corner', you will find the piece ending up in all sorts of positions across the hundred samples.
If you took a series of narrated actions that gained the play bonus with one GM, then repeated that narrated action to one hundred people and asked them if it'd get the bonus, not all of them would say yes. It's gamble, rather than tactical. If 20% would say no out of the sample, it means that narrated description had a 80% success rate on the gamble (relative to the small number of test samples).
If I had to play chess through an intermediary to whom I could only give vague commands 'Move my rook down a fair bit', 'Move my queen a little bit to the west', I wouldn't call chess tactical, either.
On 5/5/2011 at 12:54am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Callan wrote:
It's absolutely consistant, because if you took one hundred people and told them to put a piece at position 4,3, they would all do the same thing. But if you tell one hundred people to put a piece 'somewhere in the northwest corner', you will find the piece ending up in all sorts of positions across the hundred samples.
No, they would all be in the northwest corner. putting it in the southeast corner would be wrong.
a chess board is the wrong context for that abstraction so why bring it up?
Here is the 'board' that makes sense for that level of abstraction
------------------------
| nw | ne |
+----------+---------+
| sw | se |
+----------+---------+
On 5/5/2011 at 1:16am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Callan wrote:
If you took a series of narrated actions that gained the play bonus with one GM, then repeated that narrated action to one hundred people and asked them if it'd get the bonus, not all of them would say yes. It's gamble, rather than tactical. If 20% would say no out of the sample, it means that narrated description had a 80% success rate on the gamble (relative to the small number of test samples).
Lets put the location issue to rest, its getting us nowhere.
I would like to discuss the bolded part. One of the things about 'plays' is that include the effect that the character wants to achieve - by their nature, they are conflict resolution stakes. If you say 'climb the crates', the roll to climb the crates, succeed, and the GM has the power to say whether you get a bonus, then yeah, its an arbitrary tactic.
but a play is 'climb the crates in order to get an advantage over the guard' - the stakes are not arbitrary, they are explicit. The thing that is then arbitrary is whether there is any plausible fictional cue from which to leverage an advantage play. That is arbitrary, but not because the crates may or may not exist. If they do or they don't is not an issue -- the player bases his tactics on the situation as it is -- con or sans crates. The issue is the requirement for the GM to be the judge of what is plausible. Is it plausible that the crates could be used in any way at all to gain advantage over the guard?
In my experience, the first situation (task res), where the GM is required to make the call 'does the player get the advantage for being on the crates?' you will get a wide variance in response. You are explicitly leaving the vital outcome to the GMs plausibility meter.
But the second question is different- in my experience, people are happy to 'let the dice decide' when a borderline decision has to be made. The question 'could crates plausibly be used in some way to gain advantage?' is overwhelmingly likely to be answered 'yes', and lets go to the dice to decide if that actually occurs. The GMs responsibility is now not even really a plausibility detector now, its more like a complete bullshit detector. He is happy to let the dice decide unless what the player proposed is complete bullshit. "I want to use this blade of grass as an ambush advantage play!' 'dude, that is complete bullshit.'
On 5/5/2011 at 1:22am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Oh, and you could even take the GMs bullshit meter out of the equation completely if you wanted to, like this:
player - "is there anything in the room that would allow me get the drop on the guard"?
GM either "yes, theres these crates" or "no, nothing substantial enough to hide your presence"
that is unequivocal - now deal with the situation as it is.
On 5/5/2011 at 3:15pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Hi,
Stefan, is this the discussion you would like to see in this thread? If so, that's great, but if not, then please provide a concept or question to re-focus the discussion.
Best, Ron
On 5/5/2011 at 11:46pm, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Id like to get feedback on the conflict resolution mechanics from players who appreciate a tactical style of play, like D&D players, etc... Are these rules a turn off because they are too abstract / different , etc?
On 5/11/2011 at 8:54am, phatonin wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
I like it a lot, that's the sort of thing I was looking for lately... I have questions about conflict resolution.
As I understand plays are resolved more or less simultaneously, right? In that case it becomes very important to rule in which order characters decide their play. How do you see that?
In the conflict resolution examples, you give examples of rolls and play scores. It would be really helpful to provide for each one an example (or several examples) of outcome. Because at the moment I'm not sure of how the plays are resolved in fact.
Have you already tested it already?
On 5/11/2011 at 10:05am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Bossy wrote:
I like it a lot, that's the sort of thing I was looking for lately... I have questions about conflict resolution.
As I understand plays are resolved more or less simultaneously, right? In that case it becomes very important to rule in which order characters decide their play. How do you see that?
In the conflict resolution examples, you give examples of rolls and play scores. It would be really helpful to provide for each one an example (or several examples) of outcome. Because at the moment I'm not sure of how the plays are resolved in fact.
Have you already tested it already?
Hi Bossy, yes playtests have went well for plays. they just seem to work.
Think of plays as outcomes a character can generate, so when characters oppose each other, its a case of dueling outcomes and the highest score outcome occurs and the other doesnt. If there is a tie, neither outcomes occurs.
As all plays are resolved simultaneously, the only time order is relevant is when a cross play comes into it. Thats a play designed to stop another play from occurring. In that case you resolve the cross plays first. They either stop their target play from occurring or they dont. Just follow the chain of cause and effect.
Or do you mean order of players announcing their intentions? As in aha! you're going to do that, in that case I do this. Oh well in that case I change my mind and do this? ad infinitum? yes, it seems that there is a 'last mover' advantage. Well there is one rule I have about that. If you are going purely defensive in order to get the +1 defensive bonus, you have to announce that first if other plays insist. I dont think its worth having explicit initiative rules to resolve order of stated intentions. It would hurt more than it would help, overall.
In practice, NPCs arent fussy about the order of announced intentions - they do what they do and players react to them. I suppose for player vs player there could be some angst about order of intentions, but I figure 90% of conflicts will be PC vs NPC.
There is a fairly detailed example with diagrams. It covers ever conceivable case of play interaction. Can you point to any specific parts of that which are hard to understand? that would help me a lot.
On 5/11/2011 at 10:06am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
The specific pages you would be looking at are 35-41 which detail how to determine play scores and apply plays with an example and diagrams.
On 5/11/2011 at 10:15am, stefoid wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Bossy wrote:
In the conflict resolution examples, you give examples of rolls and play scores. It would be really helpful to provide for each one an example (or several examples) of outcome. Because at the moment I'm not sure of how the plays are resolved in fact.
Oh, the outcome of those example plays are in the sidebar as annotations. It looks better if you download the pdf rather than use the online google docs viewer.
But by way of example, lets say my play is "stomp on your toe with my hobnail boot" and you resolve to make a counter-play "poke me in the eyes with both index fingers" highest play score wins and that outcome occurs as stated.
Now lets rewind and say that Ron wants to protect you - he targets my play with a cross play "smack me upside the head". we resolve that first. my play score vs his. He loses. Perhaps he did smack me but it didnt put me off, or perhaps I evaded the smack. Either way, the stomp is still good to go. Now you roll and we see whose play prevails, mine or yours. In this scenario it was mine. stomp.
On 5/11/2011 at 11:01am, phatonin wrote:
RE: Re: [INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
stefoid wrote:
Hi Bossy, yes playtests have went well for plays. they just seem to work.
Good. Sometimes we devise a mechanic that seems interesting and in practice they're not fun at all.
Or do you mean order of players announcing their intentions? As in aha! you're going to do that, in that case I do this. Oh well in that case I change my mind and do this? ad infinitum? yes, it seems that there is a 'last mover' advantage. Well there is one rule I have about that. If you are going purely defensive in order to get the +1 defensive bonus, you have to announce that first if other plays insist. I dont think its worth having explicit initiative rules to resolve order of stated intentions. It would hurt more than it would help, overall.
In practice, NPCs arent fussy about the order of announced intentions - they do what they do and players react to them. I suppose for player vs player there could be some angst about order of intentions, but I figure 90% of conflicts will be PC vs NPC.
That's what I had in mind: order of declaration of intention. But you're right about NPCs doing what they're supposed to do.
Oh, the outcome of those example plays are in the sidebar as annotations. It looks better if you download the pdf rather than use the online google docs viewer.
That's what I was looking for. Somehow I missed it...