[INGENERO] conflict res - tactical crunch players would u like this?
Ron Edwards:
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
stefoid:
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?
Bossy:
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?
stefoid:
Quote from: Bossy on May 11, 2011, 12:54:17 AM
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.
stefoid:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page