Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Andrew Morris, May 18, 2004, 11:09:49 AM
Quote from: lumpleyBe extremely clear about who gets to set the stakes under what circumstances. That's a big, big deal.
Quote from: lumpleyYou'll need rules for setting stakes when there's a clear attacker and defender vs. there's not; when the attacker wants to up the stakes and the defender doesn't vs. vice versa vs. both do; when the attacker sets the stakes but loses (what are the defender's options?).
Quote from: lumpleyConsider: I'm the attacker, I set high stakes, I lose - can I adjust the stakes downward after the roll to a level where I win? If I wanted to drop a sack over your head and drag you off silently, but I lose by 1, can I fall back to "capture with injury"?
Quote from: lumpleyFind something really interesting to happen in case of ties. Stakes automatically up?
Quote from: lumpleyThink about resolution on two different levels: the in-game level and the representational level, meaning the dice and stats and numbers and modifiers and so on. Right now, your rule resolves one Situation ("I'm creeping up behind you") into the next ("you have a sack over your head and I'm dragging you off") at the in-game level, but what does it do at the representational level? The modifiers on the roll reflect certain bits of the in-game initial Situation, but after the roll you drop the representational level cold. Think about how this resolution might set up the next, at the representational level. In short: do I get a plus for the next conflict for winning this one? For losing this one? For going along with my opponent's stakes this time? For contesting them?
Quote from: lumpleyWhen you have multiple players in conflict, you're going to have to be especially cunning and articulate about who gets to set the stakes for whom.
Quote from: lumpleyAnd most importantly, play the thing. Grab a friend and play out a fight, it's not game design until you start testing.
Quote from: lumpleyI think it's a wicked cool start - get it humming and it'll be right there for your game. Whatever your game turns out to be about.
Quote from: YouEither party can raise the stakes (before the roll is made), attacker or defender. This can be done in any circumstances, as far as I can imagine. If you have a specific example of where this would be problematical, let me know.
QuoteUhm...what? Not sure what you're saying here, but I'll address the questions. No, you wouldn't get a modifier for the next combat based on the results of the current one. Why would you? What does it add? How does it make sense? I could see giving a bonus to say, an attempt to put heart back in your troops if you've just defeated an enemy, or something like that. Is that what you're talking about? No, you don't get a bonus for either going along with the opponent's stakes or for contesting them.
QuoteI've got two ideas for how to handle mass combat...
Quote from: lumpleyI want you to raise your stakes beyond your skill to achieve - you losing a high-stakes roll gives me the most options. I hope that the who-raises-when rules channel that constructively.
Quote from: lumpleyDo you get me about the difference between the in-game Situation and the representational level?
Quote from: lumpleyI'll back up and ask: where do the situational modifiers (-4 to +4, as you say) come from? Who assigns them, and do I know what they're going to be before I choose whether to raise, or do I have to raise before I get my situational mods?
Quote from: lumpleyI think it's very sound rpg practice to have one conflict's results contribute to the next conflict. Even if it's as clear-cut as "I just lost a fight = -1" and "I just won a fight = +1" on the sitch mods list.
QuoteThe situational modifiers are assigned by the GM, based on what's happening in the game. For example, fighting in poor lighting could be a 1-point penalty. Yes, players will know what the situational modifiers are going to be before they set the stakes.
Quote from: lumpleyIf you ask me, any circumstance worth assigning a bonus/penalty for is worth rolling dice for instead.
Quote from: lumpleyThe purpose of resolution rules in RPGs is not, mostly, to resolve. It's mostly to escalate. You want resolution rules for your game where each resolution sets up a more charged subsequent conflict.
Quote from: lumpleyHey, you aren't planning to make this resolution mechanic be just for physcial fighting, and thus play second to some other mechanic, are you?
QuoteThough come to think of it, stakes might not be a bad thing to add to the other challenges.
Quote from: lumpleyOopsie! I didn't mean to imply that my margin on one conflict should become my mod on the next. Winning the conflict with the bells should give me a bonus - but it could be just a standard +1 or +2 or whatever, regardless how many points I beat the bells by.
Quote from: lumpleyIf you like, you could have three kinds of setup conflicts: 1) the kind where losing doesn't matter but winning gives you a bonus; 2) the kind where winning doesn't give you a bonus, but losing gives you a penalty; 3) the kind where winning gives you a bonus and losing gives you a penalty. But that seems kind of fiddly to me.
Quote from: lumpleyHow about this: I get the +2 for navigating the bells if and only if we can justify it. We almost always can, I'm positive.
Quote from: lumpleyWhat's the point of the modifiers anyway?