I've been footering around with Everlasting Empire over the last few days, having effectively set aside for a spell to let various ideas gestate. One thing that I concluded was that the conflict resolution system, as it stood (even in it's very early state) was far too procedural and boring for a game that was influenced by the fast paced adventures of Dan Dare.
So, retaining some of the elements that previously existed, I've been sitting with a table full of D6, my further thoughts on the mechanics and my notebook.
To recap, characters are defined by traits, motifs and motivations (attributes have been dropped from the characters as an un-necessary appendage). Players get to assign a group of 2, 3 or 4 dice to each one of these during character creation. So, you might end up with traits 3, motifs 2 and motivations 4, for example. There are also possessions and relationships, but we'll leave them aside fr now, for sake of clarity.
During the game setup phase, the group will have defined the Dastardliness of their opponents. In short, this is the total number of dice that GM can roll throughout the entire story. They will also have defined the maximum number of dice that the GM can roll in any one scene.
Conflicts have to be defined as either Physical (anything from chasing a no-gooder down the street to a sabre fight with your arch enemy) or Social (anything from investigative goings on to an oratory designed to break the will of a noted nemesis). One thing to note is that your character can only be injured during phsyical conflicts. You can take harm from social and phsyical, but characters can only be killed or injured in the physical arena.
When a conflict is called, a player must choose dice from no more than two pools. The GM can use dice up to the scene maximum discussed at the start of the game. The player must narrate how that pool is being brought into play by stating an elements from that pool that will affect what is going on.
For example:
'Biffer' Burridge is the character we are going to be concerned with, and he is set up like this:
Traits (3)
Powers of deduction
Handy with a sword cane
Fortitude in the face of adversity
Motifs (2)
Taps his pipe stem against his chin when in deep thought
A cheeky twinkle in the eye
Motivations (4)
Science shall make us great!
Defend the reputation of Britain!
Social betters must always be treated with respect and deference!
Repair the damage to my family name!
And he is hunting down the evil (and dastardly) Dr Spode! Assume for the purpose of example that there are no other characters involved in this scene. The group agrees that the conflict is physical, so there is the chance of death for Burridge!
The player decides that he will be using Traits, because Burridge is showing fortitude in the face of adversity and Motivations, because it has been previously established that the Dr is attempting to blacken the name of the Empire! The use of a pool can be vetoed if members of the group do not think that there is a strong enough case to be made for using it.
This means that the player will have 7 dice to roll for Burridge. The GM decides that Spode is a pretty tough customer and uses his maximum possible dice, 10. Now, one thing to note is that on the player side you will be using dice of different colours (Traits are red, Motifs are white and Motivations are blue).
Notes at this point:
The pool with the highest number cannot be used again in your next conflict.
If you only choose one pool, then you can't use that one in the next conflict.
Using a pool opens you the character up to having that pool damaged by harm.
It's important to use different coloured dice to see which pool is dominant, should the character succeed.
Anyway, the goals for the conflict are set and both sides roll! A 4, 5 or 6 on the D6 is a success.
Burridge gets: 2 successes
Dr Spode gets: 5 successes
That means that Burridge will take 3 harm. As this is a physical conflict, there is the chance that Burridge will take actual, physical injuries as the result of the goings-on! It also means that his Traits pool and Motivations pool can be damaged by the harm. Finally, it means that Motivations cannot be used in the next conflict.
Characters will have three physical wound states: Healthy, Injured and Dying. It costs 2 Harm to put a character to Injured, so that's what happens to Burridge. The GM also places a temporary deduction of 1 on the Traits pool, asking the player to put a tick next to fortitude in the face of adversity, as that was the trait that was brought into play. The player will now have to take some time to rest the character and spend some Derring-do to heal the damage. Derring-do can also be spent in conflict for re-rolls and so forth, but we won't go into that right now.
What I'm aiming for is something that can be used swiftly and economically and that ties in with the themes of the game as a whole.
Thoughts and feedback on the very basis of this would be very helpful.
edit: I'm also still thrashing out the specifics of the harm mechanics and also the nature of narrative authority, post-conflict.
Cheers
Malc
From an initial read, seems
Submitted by Steve Hickey on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 06:12.
From an initial read, seems like it might a while to determine the results of each exchange. Not a super-long time, maybe 30 seconds to a minute or so.
From what you've got here, players need to:
-- Roll dice.
-- Separate those dice back out into pools.
-- Which pool got the most successes?
-- Subtract successes from opposing pool, to determine harm.
-- Allocate harm as either (a) damage, or (b) freezing a trait
-- Which pool got the highest number?
-- Indicate that that pool can't be used in the next round.
(Have I missed anything?)
Cheers,
Steve
Problems with Finite Dice Pools
Submitted by Destriarch on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 06:51.
The fact that the GM only has so many dice to roll, full stop, worried me. The winning tactic for the players would seem to be constantly finding excuses to do vaguelly important, simple little tasks that nevertheless require some kind of roll to adjudicate, whittling away the number of dice that the GM has to his name little by little. Are there any rules in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening?
Ash
Also, like we talked about
Submitted by Steve Hickey on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 07:02.
Also, like we talked about on the weekend - I love the setting. Dan Dare, Ministry of Space - it's all good. Can't wait to try it out!
Cheers,
Steve
Hi Malc
Submitted by JoE PrincE on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 07:42.
Those mechanics look fine, they promote exploration and a good deal of gaming fun. There's little there to promote narrative advancement though or character immersion.
You've built in some harsh anti-banjoing mechanics in that you can't use the same pool consecutively (even if it's the most applicable). This helps gaming fun but grates with exploration a bit. There's also a big ass death spiral alleviated somewhat by derring do.
The mechanics support a fairly straightforward goodies vs baddies romp. Seems like there's little reward for PvP or introspective thinking on the nature of empire.
The main thrust of the game seems to be resource micro management from both players and GM.
What exactly do you see as the key themes for EE?
Cheers
+++
JoE
+++
Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....
On a rapid skim through that
Submitted by Tim Gray on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 08:14.
On a rapid skim through that seems rather hard to understand, and it's not clear how motifs would be concretely relevant. (EDIT: by which I mean that people are going to scratch their heads about why smoking a pipe is going to help them beat up Venusians.)
Question: why are you not just using the Cold City mechanics sans Trust? (Possibly replacing it with something reflecting main and supporting characters.)
Tim Gray
Silver Branch Games
www.silverbranch.co.uk
Responses
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 08:11.
From an initial read, seems like it might a while to determine the results of each exchange. Not a super-long time, maybe 30 seconds to a minute or so.
From what you've got here, players need to:
-- Roll dice.
-- Separate those dice back out into pools.
-- Which pool got the most successes?
-- Subtract successes from opposing pool, to determine harm.
-- Allocate harm as either (a) damage, or (b) freezing a trait
-- Which pool got the highest number?
-- Indicate that that pool can't be used in the next round.
I think that's pretty much got the stage covered, yes. I don't, however, think that there is a requirement to seperate pools after rolling. Using different coloured dice will indicate which pool was dominant. Dominance simply offers guidance as to how the narration might go. The 'freezing' process, as I see it, puts a tick against a selected trait/motivation or attitude. Once you get three ticks, that 'thing' is gone forever.
Also, like we talked about on the weekend - I love the setting. Dan Dare, Ministry of Space - it's all good. Can't wait to try it out!
Cheers, hopefully we'll get a playtest in sometime in the near future.
The fact that the GM only has so many dice to roll, full stop, worried me. The winning tactic for the players would seem to be constantly finding excuses to do vaguelly important, simple little tasks that nevertheless require some kind of roll to adjudicate, whittling away the number of dice that the GM has to his name little by little. Are there any rules in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening?
The GM dice pool is there to determine the length of story that you want to play out and the per-scene limit gives a rough guide as to how many scenes there could be, at minimum. If there are vague little tasks, then no dice can be rolled. The dice should only come out in a situation where the conflict will move the story in one direction or another. This hasn't been tested in game yet, but I'm hoping it does provide a viable in-game economy. The GM is encouraged to play it hard: they are the force of antagonism in the game. Everyone has sat down at the start and said what kind of game they want and it's up to the GM to provide the antagonism, while everyone contributes to the story. Shock: kind of uses a similar idea, only in a GMless environment.
Those mechanics look fine, they promote exploration and a good deal of gaming fun. There's little there to promote narrative advancement though or character immersion.
You've built in some harsh anti-banjoing mechanics in that you can't use the same pool consecutively (even if it's the most applicable). This helps gaming fun but grates with exploration a bit. There's also a big ass death spiral alleviated somewhat by derring do.
The mechanics support a fairly straightforward goodies vs baddies romp. Seems like there's little reward for PvP or introspective thinking on the nature of empire.
The main thrust of the game seems to be resource micro management from both players and GM.
What exactly do you see as the key themes for EE?
I think there will be reason to have narrative advancement, in terms of harm + positive outcomes to conflicts + Derring Do, once I have that all fully straight in my head. You're comment about anti-banjoing is spot on, although it may be the case that with a fully fleshed out system of harm, that won't need to be inserted, as the risk of causing harm to your various pools may be enough to prevent their continued use. Again, comment on this is heartily welcomed.
Also, you're right about the lack of PvP, it is a very goodies vs baddies, lightweight game. I don't intend EE to be like Cold City, for example. It's time to write a lighter game that just promotes simple, slightly comedic fun.
The themes, as I see them, are fairly simple: heroic struggle against dastardly bad guys, played out against a faux-British backdrop. There is undoubtedly a subtext regarding the negative points of the Empire, but on the whole it's about biffing the bad guys and getting home before cook burns the bangers again.
Cheers for all the responses so far.
Malc
Contested Ground Studios
The mechanics seem straight
Submitted by Iain McAllister on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 08:32.
The mechanics seem straight forward enough but i would be slightly concerned, from a practicality stand point, of needing the players to have 3 pools of different coloured d6's. Just a minor quibble though.
Does the GM just choose the number of dice he rolls in a scene or is he restricted by other parameters i.e. guidance on how difficult he should make it?
The finite pool for the GM could cause problems if the GM isn't that strong willed and the players are mainpulative. If you want to include a setup phase where the players define the difficulty of their opponent what about having dastadliness as a pool of points the GM can use like derring do. Maybe the players can win this from the GM as the plot progresses, giving them more derring do as they advance towards the finale.
Where does the deduction on traits come from? Is it because 2 of the harm goes to him becoming injured and their is still 1 left over?
Cheers
Iain
Mob Justice now available!
'The Giant Brain':Small games, big ideas.
Overcomplicated?
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 09:55.
I can see why it's asthetically pleasing to have red, white and blue dice but it sounds overly elaborate. I know that you had concerns about the colours of dice, ect. in Don't Rest Your Head and the handling time that brought.
Also, are the d6 really just functioning as d2s here?
Policing the locking of traits, motivations and motifs may be problematic with all the procedures going on perhaps. And it might be frustrating to have the appropriate follow-up pool locked by a high roll (or maybe that's a challenge to the players to get around?)?
Working through a conflict with some other players will throw up some data on ease of play and how it feels to play.
All the motivations end in an exclamation mark
Submitted by Graham W on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 10:12.
I think that should be a rule.
Will give more useful feedback later.
G
D2 or not D2?
Submitted by Destriarch on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 12:14.
Also, are the d6 really just functioning as d2s here?
If this is the case, you also have the option of allowing players to use different types of dice to differentiate between the pools, since every standard polyhedral die can be used as a D2 equivalent by saying odds = 0 and evens = 1 (or vice versa.) This has the advantage that, while a player is unlikely to have, say, five red, five white and five blue dice in his or her bag, he or she is quite likely to be able to find five D6, five D10 or five D12. Not quite as intuitive as using colour-coded dice maybe, but an option nontheless.
Ash
Dastardliness
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 12:17.
will have to be very carefully looked at. In terms of how much produces appropriate adversity at which points in play, and how players can join together in conflicts against it.
Does dastardliness go up and down at any point? A static pool allows people to make decisions based on known values, which has benefits and problems, depending on what you want to achieve.
Also, at the moment it feels like a task resolution system (maybe due to details being removed for posting). The questions I'd ask and that need embedding in the system are: Who decides how many scenes we have? Who decides when conflicts are called for? Who decides when a scene is over? Who chooses what dice rolls are actually deciding? Add when and why to each of these too, as it could happen pre or during the game.
-Matt
Realms Publishing
Vetos
Submitted by Gregor Hutton on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 12:45.
...The group agrees that the conflict is physical, so there is the chance of death for Burridge!
...The use of a pool can be vetoed if members of the group do not think that there is a strong enough case to be made for using it.
How much agreement is needed to decide the arena? Can't the player doing the thing say "I want it to be Physical" and have that stick? What if there is a disagreement, who has the tie breaker?
And for vetos: is it just one member, or the majority, or a significant minority? Restricted to those involved in the conflict? Or everyone at the table with veto? I'd read that as any one player can veto a pool's use.
...The GM also places a temporary deduction of 1 on the Traits pool, asking the player to put a tick next to fortitude in the face of adversity, as that was the trait that was brought into play.
This is clearer about who assigns the outcomes. It's the GM in this case reducing a player's Trait.
Thanks for all the comments
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Fri, 26/10/2007 - 23:51.
Thanks for all the comments on this. Rather than answer them all in detail, I'll bear everything in mind (and write down some of the key stuff) and fiddle with what i currently have prior to an upcoming playtest. I'll address some of the points raised in some upcoming posts.
As regards the handling time of the different pools, yes, that is something that is a concern. Hopefully, some testing will define whether it is an insurmountable problem or not.
Cheers
Malc
Contested Ground Studios
Cold City mechanics
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Sat, 27/10/2007 - 00:31.
Question: why are you not just using the Cold City mechanics sans Trust? (Possibly replacing it with something reflecting main and supporting characters.)
You know Tim, that's a bloody good question.
On reflection, I can't think of any good reason why not. I mean, you could easily have a split between traits and motifs on the character sheet and instead of Hidden Agendas, you have motivations (perhaps personal and some other area?).
Hmmm, much food for thought.
Cheers
Malc
Contested Ground Studios
re: Cold City mechanics
Submitted by Andrew Kenrick on Sat, 27/10/2007 - 13:06.
You know Tim, that's a bloody good question.
On reflection, I can't think of any good reason why not. I mean, you could easily have a split between traits and motifs on the character sheet and instead of Hidden Agendas, you have motivations (perhaps personal and some other area?).
I thought the original mechanics at Spodley were a variant on the Cold City mechanics?
Covenant
Submitted by Malcolm Craig on Sat, 27/10/2007 - 21:00.
You know Tim, that's a bloody good question.
On reflection, I can't think of any good reason why not. I mean, you could easily have a split between traits and motifs on the character sheet and instead of Hidden Agendas, you have motivations (perhaps personal and some other area?).
I thought the original mechanics at Spodley were a variant on the Cold City mechanics?
No, they were actually much closer to Covenant than Cold City, if truth be known. And I junked the mechanics I had come up with at that stage, because, while the way Covenant works is great fro Covenant, it didn't give the right feel for EE.
Cheers
Malc
Contested Ground Studios