This will be a series of posts describing a potential new conflict resolution system. I'm still working through it, but it seems to have potential. There is a list of "bugs, features, and known issues" at the end, so check that out before replying.
Basics:
Whoever says they're doing something first acts first.
Everyone who wants to act can describe their actions. They should be the sort of thing that could accomplish a goal. Don't describe actually accomplishing it; other people will have a chance to respond.
Everyone who doesn't want to be in says "I'm staying out of this," and they're out unless someone pulls them in or collateral hits them.
Whomever has the highest single value involved wins. Use either Capability or Expertise, and pick ones that have to do with your actions.
You can stay in the conflict by using an escalation token from any attribute.
Spending an escalation token doubles your current score.
You have to describe what you're doing to achieve that.
Unless you're way behind, don't describe a bunch of actions and spend a bunch of tokens in a row. Give other people a chance to describe what they're doing. There are no strict turn-taking rules.
Your action should be described using the attribute that provided the token. It should be a bigger deal than the last thing that happened, but it doesn't have to be in the same vein - you can escalate from a punch to a memetic onslaught, or from a chess match to a fast-moving biotech infection.
If that token doesn't let you win, you will need to spend more of them.
Each time you spend a token, you need to describe your action in a way that brings that particular stat into play.
People can describe actions in response, but they don't need to spend tokens until they're in danger of getting beat. Those actions might garner bonuses if the GM thinks that it's appropriate.
If you tie with someone, you can work together to figure out mutual victory, a stand-off, mutual defeat, etc.
Anyone involved can spend more tokens and describe more actions.
If you keep someone in a conflict that you win, they are at your mercy. Your descriptions of your actions dictate the types of outcomes you can expect from the conflict.
Was debating "add 'em up" versus "use the highest" and went with the highest because it's more in the SA spirit of "go ahead and min-max." :) Also, it keeps the doubling slightly easier.
It does keep it simpler, although it does somewhat reduce the benefit of having both Capabilities and Expertise. For instance, if I have 4s across the board in my Capabilities, I don't get a huge benefit from being Adept (which will give me more 4s). I'm still at a 4 for my contests. What it does still give me is an extra pot of Reserve (or Escalation tokens) to pull from, which is certainly worth something.
One thing I like about the conflict cards is that it adds a certain level of unpredictability (depending on how the cards interact). In that spirit, how about adding a simple die roll to the equation? For Example: Highest of Capability/Expertise + 1d6. It adds a little tension.
Consequences of Escalation:
If you escalate using a Capability, you've pushed the conflict into a more dangerous arena. Collateral damage is likely. Someone near the conflict will suffer as a result of your actions, though not as much as the loser of the conflict will.
If you escalate using a Core Value, you've invested something of yourself and your beliefs in the conflict. If you lose, your CV is cut in half until you regain the escalation token.
If you escalate using Expertise, you have called in favors and used tricks that you'd rather not reveal. If someone uses this fact against you in the future, they can force you to "bank" an escalation token, making it unavailable for that conflict.
Seriousness Levels:
Start with your original level of Capability, and note how many escalation tokens you spent from that Capability. The table below shows the approximate consequence level of the conflict. The point of view is that of an unenhanced human.
| Bio | Cog | Meta | Nano | String | |
| 1 | Winded | Mild Confusion | Distracted | Bumps and bruises | |
| 2 | Exhausted | Headache | Sympathetic | Cuts and broken bones | |
| 4 | Disoriented | Disoriented | Swayed | Serious injury and death | |
| 8 | Incapacitated | Convinced | Vehicles damaged | ||
| 16 | Contagious | Indoctrinated | Buildings damaged | ||
| 32 | Bird Flu | Mesh-Hacked | Brainwashed | City blocks | |
| 64 | Black Plague | Whole cities | |||
| 128 | Great Contagion | city-wide disintegration | Small moons |
To consider the damaging effects of Bio and Nano, cut Bio by a factor of 4 or Nano by a factor of 2.
I like the idea of collateral damage. Not exactly sure how this would work in terms of game mechanics, but perhaps you can gain extra Escalation tokens by accepting a level of "damage" at a lesser level, or perhaps at a certain level of Escalation said "damage" is inevitable, whether it be to yourself or someone or something nearby.
What this does bring up is something that I see missing from the quickstart, which is some kind of "damage" system ("damage" covering not just physical damage, but damage to any Capability). Obviously if someone is killed that's it. However, we seem to missing a mechanic for if someone is just injured. Probably something simple like Minor Injury (suffer -1 to Capability), Major Injury (Capability at 1/2), Critical Injury (Capability at Zero).
De-Escalation:
Some characters are trained to bring conflicts back down to more reasonable levels. You may spend a point from a CV and an escalation token from Metatech or an appropriate Expertise to de-escalate a conflict. Point totals from everyone but you are cut in half. Collateral damage becomes less serious.
Subtle Conflicts:
If you want to keep someone from realizing that you're screwing with them, you need to maintain a value four times theirs. De-escalation will be key.
Independent conflicts and multiple actors:
If you say "I don't care about X, I just want to Y," then you are in a different conflict. Do your own thing without worrying about the main thing. However, if your thing influences the main thing, someone may decide to drag you in, and you may end up having to escalate or get squashed.
If you can reasonably succeed in a conflict even though you've been "beaten," (that is, your goal is independent of the winner's goal), you are in a "don't care about X" situation. Same guidelines.
If you want to team up with someone, add your score to theirs.
Each of you needs to spend escalation tokens in order to double your individual scores.
You can't more than double the highest person's score.
Entering and Leaving Conflicts:
Anyone who wants to get into the conflict needs to escalate to the current level of the conflict; otherwise they're going to get crushed.
If you want to get out of a conflict, just say you're getting out and describe how. All you lose is your tokens. If someone pulls you back in (again, all they have to do is say so), you're stuck. Leaving when someone wants to keep you in requires spending an escalation token and a description; other folks can keep you in by spending tokens of their own. Those tokens don't increase any scores.
If you enter or leave a conflict when supporting a particular person, remember to readjust their total.
Types of Bonuses:
Rather than escalating, you can seek a bonus. You still get to describe your actions and how they impact the conflict. The GM will determine the amount and type of bonus.
Bonuses can be either additive or multiplicative.
Additive bonuses should come from things that have a minor effect and do not change the basic type of conflict. Stick to +1 or +2 bonuses. Additive bonuses do not need to be consistent across multiple conflicts; just across this one particular conflict. Do NOT multiply or divide these bonuses.
Multiplicative bonuses should come from escalating the conflict. Stick to x2 multipliers.
If your multiplicative bonus comes from technology outside of your own Capabilities (e.g. picking up a gun), you have to "bank" an escalation token for this fight. You can't use it this time, but it will be available to you next time.
You can also receive additive bonuses by spending points from your Core Value on conflicts that align with them. DO multiply these bonuses as you escalate. Describe why the conflict is important to your character and what he/she does because of that.
Escalation token recharge:
Expertise tokens recharge at the beginning of a conflict.
Capability tokens recharge after 8 hours. If you're a high-tech character in a low-tech surrounding, double the time (for a 2x difference) or quadruple it (for a 4x difference). High-tech surroundings don't help low-tech characters recharge faster.
CV tokens recharge once you do something that would reinforce or align well with your CV. If it's at the level of your CV (see CV chart in the book), you can do it mid-conflict. If it's lower, you can do it once per day.
CV points recharge at the end of each day, or by doing things that align with your CV. You get points equal to the level of what you're doing.
Bugs, Features, and Known Issues:
There are three distinct levels of effect here. Escalation is the most powerful, followed by CVs, followed by the additive bonus from described actions.
The tactical aspect we had in the quickstart is gone.
The table is clearly unfinished, and tough to fill in for things like Nano and Bio.
There is no good extention to civilizations yet. Still working on that.
Timescale advice still to be added.
It will be very useful to create an "opponent budget" so that GMs know how tough they can reasonably make the bad guys in a given session before Twists start coming into play.
CV should be able to replace Metatech on defense against things that would go against them.
This is looking good. I'd add to the issues a need for a clear sequence. The system suggests a series of actions (unless it get resolved right at the start). How does the series of actions play out, and how does this affect the final outcome? Can there also be supplemental outcomes at the end of each action?
Bit of a tangent here, but if you are not totally married to the diceless thing, a dice pool (I'm thinking something similar to the One Roll Engine (O.R.E.)) could work quite well for the conflict system.
I'm a fan of the ORE engine, but I'd pass on it for this game. There are other things it's better suited for. I'm going to stick with trying to make diceless work for a while.
" There is no good extention to civilizations yet. Still working on that. "
What does that mean? The kind of technology a civ might create like the old tech level scale?
You could go with another table, an additive table. So a civilisation might create technology at level +1 but certain symptons might occur. Maybe the environment takes damage. Maybe there will be civl unrest because of the investment. Etc.
No, I meant doing inter-civ conflicts the same way you do interpersonal conflicts. I now have a possible way to handle that, which I will probably post soon.
Reading up on diceless systems and came across the The Challenge System. The basic system is very simple and totally predictable but once you start factoring in all the variables you can see how it can become pretty strategic. Food for thought.
Not bad. One issue is that it relies on not knowing your opponent's score (much like Amber). This is not something that's easy to do in SA - someone with high Meta and high Nano should really be able to figure out someone else's attributes.
Actually, the “you know the target number first” part is my only complaint with the existing (quick, as opposed to extended) resolution system.
If I tell a player that they’ll need a twenty to succeed, they’ll either spend enough reserve to get a 20, or they won’t. Outcomes: success, failure.
If I don’t tell a player what they need to succeed, or if I only give them a ballpark estimate (or if I tell them, but I tend to lie about the numbers), then the player will spend what they think is enough reserve, possibly adding a buffer for safety, or else toss in a little reserve to at least double their stats (just in case it’s easier than it looks), or not bother burning reserve at all.
Outcomes: dominating success, success, marginal success, marginal failure, failure.
I find that dominating successes, and marginal success/failures are the most interesting places in the game.
Especially dominating successes. Let’s say Robert is hacking some nanites to get him eyes-and-ears in an otherwise locked down base (he’s hacking the nanites instead of just sending in some of his own because he needs to spoof other security systems so they don’t detect him, and those security systems expect the local nanites to be hanging around). Let’s say the target number is 20.
Possibility 1: I tell Doug that his target number is 20, he burn’s Robert’s reserve to get that 20 and successfully hacks the nanites.
Possibility 2: Robert has 8 Cog and 4 Programmer. Doug burns 8 reserve, getting a 31 ((8+4)*2+7). I respond by telling him that he’s hacked the nanites, and informing him that he /crushed/ their defenses. If I have any secrets up my sleeve, I’ll reveal something he could possibly have discovered doing this. Otherwise, I’ll ask Doug if there’s anything else he’d like to hack, and give him a few other successes for free (no target number).
I think what we really want is the possibility of the unexpected. And we (or at least I) want it both for the players and the GM. It's pretty tough to do in a diceless system, and it's doubly hard to do in a system where information is freely available.
Still in deliberation. I think this current system is the best I've done so far for diceless stuff, but clearly it lacks the unexpected.
