Try writing an example.

What's happening in the fiction at the point of escalation?

What's happening for the players at the point of escalation?

-Matt

Realms Publishing

You're trying to stop your nemesis escaping from you, he is trying to get away. You lose the conflict, he gets away.

But, you really, really don't want him to get away, and are prepared to suffer for it. So you pay to force the conflict. You want to stop him escaping still, but he wants to knock you out as well as getting away.

So instead of getting clean away, as he would if you didn't force the conflict, maybe he climbs out the window and then you grab his legs before he can get too far, and he kicks you in the head to get away.

I guess it's a way of avoiding a chain of conflicts: "i get away" "ok, i try to stop you again" ...

Dogs has some nice wording on Conflicts being "done", when they're done, I'll see if I can find it when I'm home.

I'm desperately trying not to just copy Dogs, but it's so damned hard as it's so damned good! I'm currently rewriting the text of 6B because I took one look at the clear, friendly style used in DitV and my horribly obtuse style in 6B and thought it needed loosening up a helluva lot.

That's an aside though. Dogs does escalation, but I guess that's all part of the original conflict. At no point is the conflict finished then carried on a bit more with the escalation - instead the stakes are upped as the conflict goes on.

So to use my previous example, you succeed at escaping, so i punch you, then you pull a gun on me. Escalation of the method, but not necessarily of the outcome or objectives.

So what am I telling myself to do? Either escalate within the original conflict, or just let the conflict finish and be done with.

Yeah, pretty much.

But the text for Dogs also covers people trying to then have follow-up conflicts that are just the original conflict. Vincent says something like, "No! It's done. The new conflict has to be something new."

So, the chase and punish yourself to catch-up has to be part of the original conflict, right? Or what was the point of winning the original conflict?

It sounds like you want: I tried X, it failed. Now I try Y, it costs me something but gives me an extra chance to get my stakes.

So, what are your currencies in the game as it stands? Which of them can it cost you? If none of them are appropriate, do you need a new one?

Oh, and if you want a set of eyes to go over 6B and check for clarity. Feel free to drop me a copy over email.

-Matt

Realms Publishing

Dogs is in front of me. The page in question is page 67, and it's talking about follow up conflicts.

So a follow up conflict is a conflict that ties into the previous conflict, but it can only have the same stakes if it has a different setting, protagonist etc.

So yeh, in the case of 6B, forcing a conflict, as written, is kinda redundant. The whole forcing issue has to be subsumed into the original conflict, otherwise you're just spinning it out pointlessly.

Yeh, that was pretty much what I was going for. I really want to get my stakes, but I fail at the conflict so don't. But I really want them, so have to try a different approach. I guess that's the key - the different approach.

The currency in the game is your pool of dice. You use them to create attributes, but also to roll in conflicts and create revelations and so forth. They're a finite resource, but you can get more through winning conflicts and incorporating revelations. I was planning on making you lose a die to force a conflict.

With Covenant I did something similar with three different arenas (social, physical, other). If you are failing in one arena, you can bow out and reframe in a different arena with the same goal. But you get the cost of taking whatever consequences are in play...

You could always make the cost of a different approach putting a revelation at risk of somehow changing...

-Matt

Realms Publishing

Yeah, that's the bit in Dogs I was meaning.

Oh, I like the idea that Rev-map idea, although would that just endlessly cycle (the opponent really wants to win too?).

They shouldn't do now, as I've tweaked how rev maps work. Will post about it in a bit.

Hang on, which rev map idea? Matt's about changing a revelation, or my one earlier?

I'd not considered changing a revelation ... but now you mention it, that could work. In fact it could segue nicely in with my current thoughts of loading dice into revelations ... Another design post is brewing. After dinner that is.

Is actually kinda how Shock: handles things (credit where it's due).

-Matt

Realms Publishing

Matts mention of Covenant here is a good one, I think. The ability to pull out of a conflict and move into a different arena (whilst taking the consequences of that conflict) is a neat way of trying again if you fail the first time round.

It pretty much forces you to take a different approach by moving into a different 'arena'. You tried something physical and got your ass kicked in your attempt to convince a bad guy to stop hassling the townspeople. Now you move on and try thing socially, how can you make him stop by the use of social skills?

To my mind (and repeat some of what has been said already) a follow up conflict, if it is going to have the same (or similar stakes) must move into a totally different 'arena' (a handy terms from Covenant, I think).

Cheers
Malcolm

Contested Ground Studios

I'm liking the arenas idea. So the scope of the conflict might remain the same, but it has to be taken in an entirely new context/method to be attempted again? This stops endlessly cycling conflicts.

So, to go back to my previous fiction:

I'm trying to stop my quarry escaping out the window, as he has an important lead at to my foe. I try to grab him (physical) and it fails, so he gets away.

But I really want to stop him. Well, I really want that information. So I pay the price (i'm thinking changing a revelation, paying a die or something like that) try a social conflict, and persuade a couple of his friends to sit him down long enough for me to talk to him.

Right, so I've had a crack at reworking forcing conflicts. This is how they now work:

1. you lose a conflict that you really want to win.
2. you spend a die (used as currency) to force the conflict. This means you can spin the conflict out into a new arena (to steal a term from Matt).
3. the original conflict wraps up, the victor gets to narrate the outcome and gets his usual reward.
4. the forced conflict begins, as a continuation of the original conflict: the stakes remain the same, but the location, participants or arena must change.
5. the forced conflict plays out as a normal conflict, but any dice used in the original conflict cannot be used in the forced conflict.

Now this seems to work, at least on paper. It keeps things simple, but still gives the participants another crack at getting the stakes they really want. But it costs, and aint easy. And hopefully it cuts out the whole "i win, no i win, no i win" chain of events.

As you've worded it the arena (i.e. general method of achieving your conflict, be it physical, social, mental or whatever) wouldn't have to change if the location and/or participants changed. Is that intentional or do you mean it that the arena must change and the location/participants can change should the situation dictate such?

To be honest I'm not sure which way I want it to be, so let's analyse each element.

Certainly if the arena changes from social to physical or whatever, then you should be able to escalate the conflict - same stakes, but different means of getting them.

If the location changes, should you still be able to escalaste the conflict? I fear that would lead to you just moving from place to place fighting the same battles over and over again. So just changing location shouldn't be enough.

If the participants change, then is it really the same conflict? I suppose you could still be pursuing the same goals, but going about them in a similar way but with someone else, such as talking to someone else to get information or whatever. This seems to me viable, although there's probably a fine line between escalating the conflict and it being a new one.