New rules for BDTP and Harm
Corvus69:
Hello
I am trying to make up new rules for BDTP and Harm inspired by Mouse Guard. It changes some of the basic principles, so beware. I am interested in your thoughts before playtest.
What do I want to accomplish:
- to make BDTP potentially less harmful, in other words, to be able to win BDTP without taking or inflicticting long term damage (the character in SS is often seriously beaten down after one lost BDTP)
- to make 'giving up' a less prominent function in system (This feature is hard to to accept for a lot of players, most of them hate giving up and fight to bitter end. it breaks the game)
- to make difference between status of character (harm) and the counter of reaching the goal in BDTP (in SS harm represents both status and goal tracker)
- to make Harm and BDTP more elegant and less confusing (Harm shaking down and tracking of penalty dice is messy, different types of goals in BDTP can be confusing)
- to indroduce compromise in the game (there is no such thing in SS)
Goals:
in SS, opponents can have different types of goals. A wants to seduce B. B wants to steal from A. This can be resolved with one check.
If one of them (mostly it would be the loser) wants to BTDP, the goals must change. in my version of BDTP (Solar system revised, SSr) participants must comply with: "Fighty Goals for Fighting Conflicts" (yes, from MG)
So B won and stole something from A. A doesnt like it so he starts BDTP. Its no more about him wanting to seduce B. Its about stealing or not stealing. A should make up goal that reflects that. For example: I want to catch the thief. Then they can start BDTP.
In regular SS its common to change types of goal in the middle of the BDTP. In SSr, this is not possible. Player can change his goal only if the type of conflict is relevant (in fighting conflict: to kill, to subdue, to force, to disarm...)
In SSr, if player wants to change the type of his goal, he must give up current conflict and accept defeat or compromise based on remaining disposition of winner. (again MG style, more on that later). So different conflicts are built from one to another. They dont mix.
Goals can never change the feelings, beliefs, opinions in the long term. They can persuade, intimidate, deceive, but only for a short time. A cannot make B to fall in love with him, but he can seduce her for a short while. Goals should never be deprotagonizing (only if the players agree to such kind of goal)
Bringing down the pain:
BDTP starts when someone refuses outcome of simple opposed ability check. Goals are stated. Starting disposition (this number represents
strength in the conflict). is determined by adding rank of innate ability relevant to conflict type + success level of unopposed ability check made with skill player intends to use + 1-5 points based on major advantages that arise from fiction. *this formula is subject to change*. The winner at the roll that initiated BDTP gets bonus dice to her first action equal to the difference between her and her opponent's success levels (or it could be added to disposition, I am not sure).
If there is more than one major participant on one side of conflict, thay can help each other with ability check to disposition and all add their innate ability rank to disposition.
The participants take turns (like in MG) and if its reasonable in fiction, they can receive helping bonus dice from other team members.
A lowers the B's disposition by succes level (parallel actions) or difference of succes levels (perpendicular actions). When someone runs out of disposition, he loses conflict.
Disposition vs. Harm
In SS, Harm indicates status of character and also a counter to archieving the goal. In SSr, Harm only indicates status and disposition serves as goal tracker.
The Harm is now 4 checkers for every Pool.
Pool harm (everything is cumulative):
1. bruised: 1 penalty die to all abilities associated with the pool until the end of BDTP when it was checked. after the BDTP, the checker stays checked.
2. bloodied: 1 PD to all abilities associated with the pool until healed
3: broken: player must spend a point from the ability's associated pool to perform any relevant ability check
4: taken out: character cannont use abilities associated with the pool
By default, the ability checks in BDTP lower the disposition. To inflict 1 point harm instead of lowering the disposition, A must be able to lower B's disposition by more (it doesn meter how much more) than B's relevant innate ability (based on ability players uses to attack) and he must pay 1 point from relevant pool. The B can prevent the harm by paying 1 point from relevant pool. If A wants to inflict harm really badly, he can pay another point and if B doesnt pays another point also, A inflicts harm. A can of course say that he changed his mind and doesnt wish to inflict harm and lowers the disposition instead. The points paid dont go back their owners no matter what.
The participant that takes harm doesnt lower his disposition. The harm should be always be somehow reflected in game fiction.
In teamfight, A can inflict harm only to character he rolls against or to other character that helps his opponent with bonus dice. So giving bonus dice is dangerous.
Compromise:
Compromise happens in two cases:
1. A wins the BDTP but loses more than half of his disposition
2. B gives up the BDTP (maybe to change his goal) and A lost more than half of his disposition
If the winner has more than half of his dispostion in the end of BDTP, there is no compromise, his goal is fulfilled, loser's goal not.
The loser B can offer one of these compromises:
1. A's goal is fulfilled, B's goal is not fulfilled but A takes additional 1 point of Harm
2. A's goal is fulfilled, B's goal is partly fulfilled
3. A's goal is fulfilled, B's goal is not fulfilled, but B can indroduce some minor complication or twist that has
arisen due to the winner’s victory
4. A's goal is partly fulfilled, B's goal is not fulfilled
If players cannot reach agreement on compromise, the default compromise is 1.
I hope I wrote it clearly enough, but please ask if you dont understand something.
oliof:
Hi Corvus(?),
Glancing over the MouseGuard rules, I felt reminded of the conflict/extended conflict rules in some parts, too, and some things seemed more simple and elegant than Solar System. I haven't spent the time yet to work them out and see how to integrate them.
Please take my commentary on your idea as provocation to defend and improve, not as an outright dismissal.
Quote
If one of them (mostly it would be the loser) wants to BTDP, the goals must change. in my version of BDTP (Solar system revised, SSr) participants must comply with: "Fighty Goals for Fighting Conflicts" (yes, from MG)
Not true. Goals must be clarified, not changed. if you escalate to an extended conflict, the theft has not been successfully finished, so there's no need to catch a thief. That would be a follow-up scene/conflict whatever, shaping the game events on the go.
Quote
In regular SS its common to change types of goal in the middle of the BDTP. In SSr, this is not possible. Player can change his goal only if the type of conflict is relevant (in fighting conflict: to kill, to subdue, to force, to disarm...)
IME, it's not common and and it's always part of the negotiations. I've seen conflicting parties coming to an outcome that didn't match up with the original intents but as it came out of the negotiation and matched with what had happened so far, it was fine.
Quote
Goals can never change the feelings, beliefs, opinions in the long term. They can persuade, intimidate, deceive, but only for a short time. A cannot make B to fall in love with him, but he can seduce her for a short while. Goals should never be deprotagonizing (only if the players agree to such kind of goal)
Is that a new rule, something you want to achieve? IMHO, long term changes in characters can only be achieved if you completely break them (take them past level six harm) – if someone stays in a conflict that long, they probably accepted and deserved grave consequences. Again, in terms of continuity and aesthetics, I think it's quite possible that some groups stick to this more rigid than others. There is an old example of a TSOY conflict where an ammenite nobleman duelist lost a conflict to the effect that he would never touch a sword again. A campaign can very well go on with the nobleman trying to overcome that (seemingly) permanent limitation and either regain the ability to bear swords or learn how to cope without being so.
I don't understand what you try to gain by going from one harm track and three pools to three pools, three harm tracks and a disposition computed by a complex formula (even if it is subject to change). My interpretation is that the extended conflict starting advantage and pool sizes already covers disposition, and that the many different areas to fight to get what you want will draw out extended conflicts to a level where you have to whittle down things. In other words, you already have about 5 things to consider going into extended conflict, why make it 8? (I'm not even counting effects, abilities and secrets here).
In my experience, extended conflicts run for 3 to 5 rounds, because then it is clear who will win in the long run – exceptions are when someone has a great idea how to reverse the situation by changing tactics. Longer conflicts tend to cost too much in terms of pool or harm, and put you in a bad position for follow-up conflicts (simple or extended).
Corvus69:
thank you for valuable insight.
Quote
Not true. Goals must be clarified, not changed. if you escalate to an extended conflict, the theft has not been successfully finished, so there's no need to catch a thief. That would be a follow-up scene/conflict whatever, shaping the game events on the go.
blame my bad writing :( What I really meant is this:
in my version of BDTP (Solar system revised, SSr) if one of them (mostly it would be the loser) wants to BTDP, the goals must change, participants must comply with: "Fighty Goals for Fighting Conflicts" (yes, from MG)
So B won and stole something from A. A doesnt like it so he starts BDTP and rewinds. Its no more about him wanting to seduce B. Its about stealing or not stealing. A should make up goal that reflects that. For example: I want stop B from stealing . Then they can start BDTP.
Quote
IME, it's not common and and it's always part of the negotiations. I've seen conflicting parties coming to an outcome that didn't match up with the original intents but as it came out of the negotiation and matched with what had happened so far, it was fine.
my experience is limited. But in tsoy book is changing goals in the middle of BDTP encouraged as valid action and it's not negotiated (you take defending action and in next round you announce new maybe totally different goal) I dont see it necessarily as bad thing but I'm not particularly fond of it either.
Quote
Is that a new rule, something you want to achieve?
I encountered a lot players, that find it deprotagonizing so I want to limit the scope of conflicts.
Quote
I don't understand what you try to gain by going from one harm track and three pools to three pools, three harm tracks and a disposition computed by a complex formula (even if it is subject to change).
the disposition formula is not so complex imho. it's almost directly taken from MG.
This whole thing serves one purpose: to make losing in BDTP have less impact on future conflict. you can mechanically lose BDTP withou taking any harm, you can lose with a lot of harm in one pool but that doesnt inhibit your ability to make different kind of conflict associated with other pool.
...and I am aware that it's quite different philosophy compared to classic SS.
Quote
In my experience, extended conflicts run for 3 to 5 rounds, because then it is clear who will win in the long run – exceptions are when someone has a great idea how to reverse the situation by changing tactics. Longer conflicts tend to cost too much in terms of pool or harm, and put you in a bad position for follow-up conflicts (simple or extended).
that's true, players have to think about giving up every round. thats what I want to eliminate.
dindenver:
Corvus,
OK, I want to hit on a couple of points:
First, I don't know Mouse Guard, sorry. I didn't even know what MG stood for until Harald's reply, lol I have heard of it, but I don't own it, haven't read it or played it.
Quote
In regular SS its common to change types of goal in the middle of the BDTP. In SSr, this is not possible. Player can change his goal only if the type of conflict is relevant (in fighting conflict: to kill, to subdue, to force, to disarm...)
In SSr, if player wants to change the type of his goal, he must give up current conflict and accept defeat or compromise based on remaining disposition of winner. (again MG style, more on that later). So different conflicts are built from one to another. They dont mix.
The trick is, if you play more or less "by the book" this is the only way to get uneven stakes. The normal ability check is one roll and you either get your stakes or the other side gets there (unless you tie). Where as with the "default" mechanic, if you change your goal, the other sides goal doesn't change and you can have uneven stakes (meaning one side wants something bigger than the other). To give you a great example of this that happened in AP, I will tell you what happened two weeks ago in my game:
OK, so the players were trying to bake up their own crime syndicate and they had identified one NPC faction that would be a real obstacle to their plans. A gang of Ratkin calling themselves The Plague. What the gang was doing was sending normal rats to visit various caravans while the caravans were camping and reporting back with the contents of each wagon. Then the Plague would hit the caravan outside the city, take the most valuable stuff and leave before anyone knew what was happening.
So, the players concocted a plan to find out more about this rival gang. One of the PCs and two of her NPC bodyguards went down near where their HQ was supposed to be to see what they could see. So, they decided to make an ability check to see if they could capture a Ratkin gang member and maybe question him. So, I set counter-stakes that if they failed their ability check, one of the Bodyguards would be captured for at least a day.
They failed. After some hand wringing, they decided to BDTP. It was going bad, I was doing more harm per turn. At one point they did a defensive action just to see if they could use the bonus dice to make up on the harm front front and to try and not get harm for a turn. They next turn I mentioned that they could change their stakes and that my stakes didn't change with it. Their eyes lit up. The group haggled over different options, run away, etc. And then they had a stroke of genius. They changed the stakes to "Driving the Plague out of the city." This was a risky gamble, they were losing BDTP at this point. But additional players made it to the scene and they switched their tactics and pulled out a victory (not without getting a lot of Harm I might add). This wouldn't be possible if their stakes were frozen to "capturing a Ratkin gang member."
The point of this example is, they wouldn't have been able to do this if they were using your system. and quite honestly, I think this sort of mechanic forces TSOY to play more like a traditional RPG. I mean, the beauty of TSOY is that the player tells the SG what they want and how they are going to achieve that. And not the other way around. This feels like it is stripping away the player's ability to do just that. And I don't really see what you gain in return. I mean you can avoid unrealistic situations (I change my stakes from I kill him to I seduce him), but you can also kill realistic situations (I change my stakes from I kill him to I escape).
And allowing for a follow up extended conflict after the initial conflict is done, seems cheap to me. Like when will it end? It seems like the whole point of ability checks, free and clear stages and everything is that you are boiling it down to the thing that the characters are actually fighting for. So, that when two characters sword fight, it is not over who will defeat the other in mortal combat, but who will win that thing they are fighting for. Will Galahad finally gain his honor or will Conan finally reap his glory. The dice decide this. If Galahad gets his glory, the fight is over, he doesn't care about the outcome any more does he? If Conan gets his glory, what the point in beating up this poor guy some more? It seems like this is just a crutch for players who don't know why they are fighting...
Quote
Goals can never change the feelings, beliefs, opinions in the long term. They can persuade, intimidate, deceive, but only for a short time. A cannot make B to fall in love with him, but he can seduce her for a short while. Goals should never be deprotagonizing (only if the players agree to such kind of goal)
I feel like this is gutting the best part of TSOY. I mean the whole point of this system is that any character can change the world, they just have to take that risk that they might fail. It seems like if someone feels like they are being deprotagonized one of two things are happening:
1) The SG is setting the challenges too hard. If the BBEGs are unbeatable, the players will always feel like their characters are too small for the story being told. No rules will overcome this.
2) The players are agreeing to stakes they won't abide to. That is THE best technique for good playing in TSOY. Don't agree to stakes that you can't accept. That is why there is a free and clear stage in IIEE. So that the players can take a step back and say, no, this is not worth it. I mean, its a one-roll resolution system, you have to give the players leeway in case they don't want to gamble so much on that one roll. Does that make sense?
As far as making BDTP less harmful, this is a sign of some sort of uneven play. Either you are setting the opposing stakes too high for the reward being offered or the players do not understand that giving in BDTP only means that the other character(s) get their stakes, nothing more. I think that is a pitfall to teaching people to play TSOY. In more Trad games, if you fail a roll or conflict, it puts you in a position to fail a lot more than you had originally risked. A classic example is sneaking past the guards.
In a more Trad game, it goes like this:
Pass: You sneak past the guards, but there will be other checks that you can still fail
Fail, You do more than alert the guy walking down the hall, now you have to fight two guards, and another guard joins the fight every round.
As you can imagine, no player in their right mind would agree to that. But in a trad game, they don't get a choice
InTSOY:
The player negotiates what they get if they succeed their ability check and then the SG negotiates the counter stakes. Because its a free and clear stage, the player can back off the stakes (or escalate if they are not risk averse) until they are willing to accept the agony of defeat if they fail.
I do agree with Harald that the Disposition is too fiddly for TSOY, but that is a personal taste. The mechanic itself seems balanced and if your group is cool with it, I say go for it!
If the players are going to BDTP too often, it means that either the SG is setting the counter stakes too high or the players are agreeing to risk that they are not willing to accept, right? And if they are staying in BDTP long after they should "give," then either the SG is setting the stakes too high, the players do not realize that they can't lose more than the stakes they agree too. Or the SG is not abiding by that rule.
If you wanted rules that allowed players to continue to play this way and still supported good play, maybe do something like this:
Mini-refresh - Players (including the SG) set a a number of facts that are the result of BDTP. For each one of those facts that change after BDTP is over, they refresh one point of pool automatically.
Aftermath - If BDTP is resolved, but the player is still not satisfied with the outcome, let them reduce an Ability by a full level to re-write the outcome based on the Ability reduced (so if they use Stealth to change the outcome, then they can describe how they used stealth to change the outcome of BDTP). And maybe set a limit that the players have to choose an Ability with a level that is equal to or higher than the number of facts established by BDTP.
If you wanted to use your version of BDTP, the only hole I see in the mechanic is this:
Harm - So, if I am fighting you, and you are trying to steal from me. I am harming your vigor and you are harming my instinct. If you take away my ability to use Vigor, it doesn't stop me from trying to steal from you, or even affect me at all. But according to the harm track, I am "Taken Out." Maybe there is another rule attached to this that you forgot to post. But if not, than you need to resolve what it means when you have two undamaged Harm Tracks and have one "Taken Out" Harm Track.
Either way, good luck with your gaming man!
Eero Tuovinen:
I can certainly appreciate both wanting to fiddle with the BDTP system and wanting to make a rpg conform to your own mechanical aesthetics. I haven't seen Mouse Guard yet myself, but from what I've read, I wouldn't be surprised if it had things that might well be appropriated into Solar System.
That said, many of the details you fix are things that I specifically like about Solar System BDTP, so I'm probably the wrong person to comment here. For example, changing intentions - that just happens to be a crucial negotiation tool and a lever of dramatic situations, so it's just about the last thing I'd want to remove. Nothing better than revealing something important in the middle of conflict and having characters change intentions in an effort to better defend their interests.
In general, I get a feeling that you're handling the extended conflict in a somewhat more formal and constrained manner than it is intended. The secret of extended conflict is that it is actually just a slightly abstract combat system, within which characters can act pretty freely. They can do different things, move about, change targets and in general the conflict continues as long as there is, in fact, conflict present in the fiction. Your version resolves conflicts quite formally in comparison.
From the above viewpoint it's illustrative that you describe the Harm tracker as a conflict counter and consider features such as giving up and changing intentions problematic. The Harm tracker is only a conflict pacing device if you approach the conflict without a willingness to negotiate the result - as you yourself say, the system breaks down if the player is committed to winning without regard for the consequences.
The way the system is supposed to be used, though, is that Harm is not a conflict tracker - it's a gauge of the character's ability to resist others. A conflict will only be resolved by filling the Harm track if the situation is such that one or both characters are willing to put their entire well-being on the line for victory. The conflict may end at any point without Harm if the players manage to negotiate a different outcome. This is a difficult choice for the player, so I'm not so sure if I like taking it away.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page