*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 28, 2021, 03:20:29 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 77 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: PC v. PC In Dust Devils/Deathwish  (Read 2832 times)
jburneko
Member

Posts: 1351


« on: March 24, 2003, 11:15:23 AM »

Hello,

I have a question regarding PC v. PC Conflict.  I'm working up a Deathwish Scenario and I'm thinking of allowing PCs to be CIA, MI-6 or KGB.  This puts all the characters in conflict with each other ESPECIALLY the KGB agents.

Now, for normal shoot out stuff the main conflict resolution system works fine.

But what about Interrogation or Seduction?

Here's the delima:

1) Using the the conflict resolution for "role-playing" conflicts takes significant character choices out of the hands of the player with the low card.  I.E. High Card PC will be dictating the choices of the Low Card PC.  So a part of me, which may be the 'habits' part of me, says this is a bad idea.

2) However, one of the NEAT things that I REALLY like about the Dust Devil/Deathwish system is that EVERY conflict deals some kind of "damage."  So why should a PC v. PC conflict be any different?  In fact it may be MORE significant over all.

So I'm torn.

Advice?

Jesse
Logged
Matt Snyder
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 1380


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2003, 11:56:55 AM »

Jesse, first off let me say SWINGING, BABY! Glad you're putting this together.

Second, and more seriously, inter-PC conflict is part and parcel of Dust Devils and Deathwish, too, which you probably realized. I highly encourage PC vs. PC conflict in which Difficulty is exchanged, especially if the Devil / Deathwish in involved.

But, I don't think I'm clearly understanding your point in No. 1 above. Can you explain a bit more what you mean there, especially with the bit about "dictating choices"? I'm happy to offer up advice, I just want to make sure I understand the question correctly.

Thanks!
Logged

Matt Snyder
www.chimera.info

"The future ain't what it used to be."
--Yogi Berra
jburneko
Member

Posts: 1351


« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2003, 12:03:23 PM »

Thanks for the reply.  

Here's an example:

Let's say PC A has captured PC B and is interrogating him.  PC B has a decision to make: Talk or not to Talk.  That's a rather significant decision and says a lot about the character.  Is he the kind of character who buckles under or keeps quiet no matter the stakes?

However, if we go to the cards and PC A "wins" the conflict regardless of who has the high card PC B is now MANDATED to talk, thus, taking the choice out of the Player's hands.

I'm probably missing something obvious because the instincts are all saying go with the cards, but I can't articulate why.

Jesse

Edited Note: I just realized this is also a problem when the PC is under some kind of psychological "attack" (test of wills) from a NPC as well.

Basically, I'm asking what to do when a PC is the "defender" in a non-physical conflict.
Logged
Matt Snyder
Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 1380


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2003, 12:25:56 PM »

Quote from: jburneko
Let's say PC A has captured PC B and is interrogating him.  PC B has a decision to make: Talk or not to Talk.  That's a rather significant decision and says a lot about the character.  Is he the kind of character who buckles under or keeps quiet no matter the stakes?

However, if we go to the cards and PC A "wins" the conflict regardless of who has the high card PC B is now MANDATED to talk, thus, taking the choice out of the Player's hands.

I'm probably missing something obvious because the instincts are all saying go with the cards, but I can't articulate why.


Here's why. Just because PC A has "won" does not mean the PC B must "talk." I think the problem is that you're seeing action before resolution. What matters in PC A winning is only that he achieve his goal.

It doesn't make much sense to have PC A's goal be "make him talk, literally." Rather, his goal should be "get the information." Ok, so he does that, but how?

Let's say PC B has high card, but has lost the conflict. HE get's to say just how his character lets the info slip. Maybe he simply "forgets" he had the knock list disc in his trenchcoat pocket. Or, maybe PC A can use his thumb to bypass biometric security on a previously secured laptop thingy. Nothing in the game prevents such props from being brought into play.

Conversely, PC A wins the conflict and has high card (which is actually slightly more likely, I believe). PC A's player needs the info, but he likes PC B's player. They're pals. What's more, he likes PC B's character concept, and is invested in that character's style and identity (and Deathwish!). So, he's takes a little pity. He comes up with a creative means -- maybe he makes a clever deal with the guy. Give me the info., and I'll tell you My Secret Plan.

Or, he's bastard and has PC B sing like a birdie. Thing is, chances are good he'll be in that chair in the next conflict, and players never forget. ;) He'll be flopping like a fish from that stun gun next scene, with little children laughing at him. Or something like that....

I think there's just a smidge of "tradition" that's keeping you from offering up some funky ways to make both players happy and make the game more interesting. It can be done. Get creative with the conflict's results!

Hope this is relevant and helpful!
Logged

Matt Snyder
www.chimera.info

"The future ain't what it used to be."
--Yogi Berra
jburneko
Member

Posts: 1351


« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2003, 12:46:49 PM »

That was very relevant and very helpful.  Thanks!

Jesse
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!