Support the Brains in Jars!

30. November 2009 by admin.

Just a note….

Posted in Mind control, Superpowers, Wealth, Teams, Magic, Machines | No Comments »

Entry 18: The Conflict System

5. November 2009 by admin.

.::: Entry 18, 2009/11/5 :::.
This entry will be aimed at something more tangible than the usual out-loud thinking. The conflict system is an essential part of any mainstream roleplaying game today, and this one is no exception. In most games, ‘conflict’ directly translates into ‘combat’. While the following will take the viewpoint of combat as an example, the system described is also being tested for use in hacking, mind-probing, vehicle and animal racing, and some other, rather unexpected areas.Hopefully, this entry will result in material that can actually be put directly into the second draft. It is the goal that entries from now on will result in more tangible material, for actual use in the game. Not all entries will, but hopefully many.:: The Quick System ::As mentioned in Entry 17, the game will be built with two main veins running through it: The original system (the actual game) and the ‘Quick’ System (for newcomers wanting to test the waters before jumping in). The conflict system is no exception to that.

The Quick Conflict System is pretty simple: Both or all sides pick the appropriate Ability, add any bonuses and subtract any penalties (in the Quick System, tools are likely to be the only modifiers most of the time), and roll that number of dice (or substitute some for ’safe’ dice, as explained in Entry 17). Highest number of good dice wins the conflict. Ties mean dramatic standoffs, if it fits the situation, and rerolls may be allowed if it makes sense and the characters have time for it.

That’s it.

If a bit more detail is wanted, the ‘winner’ deals damage equal to the difference between the number of good dice. So if one rolls 8 good dice and the other rolls 11, the latter deals 3 damage to the former. In combat, that would probably be some form of hit points (that part of the mechanic has yet to be decided).

Combined with safe dice, the Quick Conflict System allows any kind of conflict to happen quickly and easily, with minimum consultation of character sheet and with plenty of room for dramatic interpretation (a slight win is a close call, a great win, like 15 good dice superior, is next to a massacre!).

:: The Full System ::

Using the Full Conflict System puts a lot more options in the hands of the players. The system is still in heavy testing, and most uses have been combat. Hacking is second (somewhat unrealistic, Hollywood-ish hacking, to be honest), racing third and several more experimental uses beyond that. The philosophy seems solid, but any possible snafus are still being looked for.

The conflict is set up in turns. Each turn is a second, but that matters very little at this point. Each player involved has an Ability to use. Modifiers are not added yet, not even for tools (like weapons) used. Instead, the player decides how many dice from this ‘Ability Pool’ are used for attack (and by consequence, how many for defense). Once all players (and the GM) have decided on attack and defense dice, and pointed out their targets, all attacks versus defenses are rolled, one after the other. In these rolls, the modifiers finally come in; anything that is ‘circumstantial’ (like footing, distraction, injuries, etc.) is applied to both attack and defense. Tools useful in an attack are added to attacks, and the same for defense. Note that rough circumstances may reduce the number of dice to be rolled to below zero; in that case, there simply are no good dice rolled in that roll, period.

An attack that rolls a greater result than the defense against it hits. Not only that, but the amount of dice rolled better than the defense are noted, because that number may be added to any kind of damage.

This system is built originally to handle complex tournament fighting, one on one. In multiple-enemy fighting, the defensive dice can be spread out across multiple attackers, at a -2 for each added defense (the first is without the penalty, the second is at -2, the third at -4, etc.). This can make it prudent to hold off on the attacks, allowing better defenses against foes, until something can turn the tide (like assistance, for example).

The beauty of this system is that it is not limited to attack and defense rolls. Dice may be spread over other things, like sizing up your opponent, charging your special weapon feature (whatever that might be; martial arts sci-fi movies have some funny suggestions!), or other things that can benefit you in the fight. Different weapons, maneuvers, tricks and such can also be used. It even allows multiple attacks per turn, like double punches or other fast techniques!

As for Specifics, they are added like the other modifiers: On any single roll that dice are invested in from the Ability Pool gets the Specifics added to it that apply. The one difference is that the sum of dice added from Specifics cannot be greater than the number of dice from the pool spent on the roll! So if an attack has 12 dice invested in it, that character can never get more than a +12 from Specifics for that one attack roll. This both adds some realism (there is a limit to how much familiarity will do for you in a fast fight) and balance (players can’t simply invest one die in an attack and get 15 from Specifics, then dump the remaining dice from the pool into defense).

:: Branching Out ::

The point of this is not just to find a conflict system. There are literally hundreds of ways that two characters may be pitted against each other, and there is nothing to say that the one described is even the best. But it seems the optimum choice for what this is really about: Providing options.

More precisely, it’s about providing options for future expansion and diversification of any conflict that uses this mechanic. As described, moves, tricks and secondary abilities can be fitted in nicely with this system, giving characters with a fair or higher Ability level in the conflict new possibilities. A good fighter can make multiple attacks, do stun-and-strike attacks, and so on. A veteran racer can make several complex, highspeed maneuvers in rapid succession. And so on. There is room for rules branching out to more detailed options in the conflicts, and that detail is what is the actual goal. But instead of producing all of it right off the bat (which is a silly thing to expect from oneself, anyway), the system is simply built for it all to fit neatly into it as it is. Theoretically, a character could even use the extended tricks and maneuvers in a conflict where nobody else knows how to use them; the system allows it!

Of course, as mentioned, there is still extensive testing going on. The Quick Conflict System is solid, but the Full Conflict System has a wide range of lesser nuances to it that can still trip it up. The base mechanic of the Ability Pool works, but the more complicated conflicts, the ones dealing with hard-to-grasp subjects, involving multiple shifting opponents, and/or changing circumstances, still has some questions to them.

For now, the above will be refined and included in the second draft. It is clear, it works, and it follows the spirit of the overall game philosophy, so it is the ultimate solution out there. Unless there is a cataclysmic discovery of flaws, any problem will be a question of proper tweaking, as has already been done to other areas in the shift from first to second draft.

Posted in Hacking, Mind control, Racing, Old blog, Conflict, Combat | No Comments »