[Mage:tA] Going to try with Conflict Resolution

edited December 2011 in Play Advice
I'm going to be running either either my first Mage or Vampire nWOD chronicle soon. This is TBD tomorrow night, but it's leaning so heavily toward Mage that I feel it's unlikely for the group to change its mind after we talk in person.

I've been familiarizing myself again with the nWOD rules (which I've owned for years) and I can't help but forsee potential problems using its task resolution system as written: including the special arbitrary rules that appear under some skills, and the arbitrary (and not always commonsensical) choice of attributes which many skills are based upon. Don't get me started on the game's own interpretations of the nine attributes; although I have something simple planned to demuddify that. It's possible in the first sessions we'll just go with 3 attributes anyway: Mental, Physical and Social

In any case, I'd like to go with a conflict resolution system that utilizes the basic nWOD dice mechanic. My desire here is to be able to use something similar to what's in Burning Wheel: state goals clearly, check if a conflict indeed exists, and then pick up the dice and determine the outcome. I'm also prepared to do my best at improving complications upon failed dice rolls and will probably create a stash of complications to keep handy for scenes I think are likely to take place.

Does anyone have any experience with attempting this kind of thing in nWOD, or for that matter, any experience handling conflicts in nWOD, in general?

- One potential challenge I see might rise from the few number of generalized skills. It's not like Burning Wheel, for example, where you create a character that suggests to you how you should approach conflicts via skill tests.

Cheers.

Comments

  • edited December 2011
    Posted By: Big J MoneyDoes anyone have any experience with attempting this kind of thing in nWOD, or for that matter, any experience handling conflicts in nWOD, in general?
    Just out of curiosity, why not use the extended contest rules already present? I ask so that, when you lay out why you chose to diverge, we can try to offer better advice so as to help you reach your goals.
  • Yah, agreed.

    One thing I see as a potential difficulty is that in Mage, a lot of stuff is done in advance/as a contingency. Nobody is there to stop you putting up your mental shields, but you can still overtax yourself/be hubristic/cross the spirits and end up scrambling your brains into jelly.
  • I thought about this some more, maybe you could model this by breaking down some of the attributes further (I know you just decided you wanted to reduce the number of attributes, HEY, let me completely ruin the advantage of that).

    Maybe your Mental attributes could include one for Forethought or Anticipation or something like that, and you could have a number of unspecified "I thought of that!" defenses that could be spent for advantages in conflicts. You would still lose the possibility that you could flub up when making preparations, but you could still have the advantage over someone who didn't anticipate the situation as well as you did. Of course you would also get a bonus preparation point for each dot of the Time Arcana, wut wut.
  • @JD: those sound pretty awesome! I'm picturing people rolling to see whether their characters successfully devised a contingency plan "ahead of time" using retconning. I think if any game deserves a lot of deliberate retconning, it's Mage :)
  • Yeah, I was trying to think, what's the important thing about all those magic preparations - it's so wizzards spend a lot of time on their own fussing with shit and sometimes their preparations get out of control and they have to go on quests just to get ready to do the thing they really want to do, and they go down the rabbit hole. That's cool, but not really a fit for conflict-resolution. So it's a puzzler.
  • edited December 2011
    I was thinking just that, yeah. Good call.
    It could possibly be interesting to layer this prep deliberately into the spaces between conflicts: maybe there are larger-scale conflicts (Iteration X moves in on our Sleeper allies) that are settled by the outcome of component conflicts (how we find out that they're coming, how we plan to handle their tech, etc.).
    For one thing, I think that Mage would absatively benefit from having two different scopes of play going on: the Cosmic War (war of reality, whatever it's called ^__^) and the immediate lives of the pc's.

    [EDITED for concreteness]
  • Posted By: Zac in Virginiait's the only way to actually fight the Cosmic War and have it necessarilygoanywhere, imo
    Wait, really? Just what sort of scale do you imagine these conflicts being on?

    Personally, I feel like Mage-magic is so super-tasky that introducing conflict resolution for magical conflicts is going to do really weird things to the game. I mean, part of what's so fun/crazy about magic in the game (at least in oWoD, maybe this has changed?) is that its power is extreme, but limited by your paradigm, personal creativity, and of course Paradox. This lets relatively low-powered Mages achieve impressive, circumlocuitous effects through both methodical preperation and, occasionally, fast on-your-feet thinking. But that's the thing: magick is about achieving effects, not about winning conflicts. The intricacy and fun-exploration-stuff is in the range of effects, and there is no mechanical support for their efficacity in terms of accomplishing what you want -- moreover, that never really seemed like the point.

    So it seems to me that any conflict resolution system that is meant to include magical effects is going to have to honour that basic awesomeness somehow; all effects can't just be created equal in terms of winning a conflict, simply because they use the same number of dice or have the same combination of spheres (or whatever they're called now.) The appropriateness of the effect (and by inference the Mage's paradigm, the context vis-a-vis paradox/observers, etc.) needs to be a crucial factor, possibly just as crucial as how well they roll.
  • good points!
    i was recently trying to imagine some sort of homage to Dungeons and Discourse, and it occurred to me that I would feel a lot more like I know what to do when I play Mage if the factions' differences and agendas felt more.... feisty. Prickly, maybe?

    Like, the most senior among the Verbena and the Order of Hermes should probably legit be anti-science, anti-modern weirdos. Pretty much every Tradition should be terrified of the modern world, but I don't feel that terror.
    How do you make that kind of feeling come out in play?
  • Thanks for jumping in and stirring up the pot guys. I'll weigh in tomorrow; today just took some unexpected turns and I never made it to my PC. It is definitely going to be a Mage game now.

    BTW, I should be clear that I plan to use the rules for magic pretty RAW. It's really the WOD skills (i.e. core rules) that I've considered running as single roll conflicts so that making magic tests will feel just that little bit more arcane. Colin, I'll have an answer for you tomorrow.
  • Okay, a couple points first:
    - I don't know anything about oWOD Mage, and my nWOD Mage setting knowledge is limited to which parts in the core rules interested me
    - If anyone has any supplement suggestions I'm all ears. The players have never played it before, so I'm taking as much liberty with the setting as I feel will be fun. Rules-wise I feel the Core Mage book has all the tools I need, so for me, supplements would be used as idea vaults for characters and conflicts.

    Colin: At the risk of being wrong, I'm going to assume you are asking in regards to the core nWOD (not Mage specific) rules. Why conflicts? Because resolving tasks using nWOD core looks unfun. The roll and trait summary on page 38 makes me cringe. Do they really expect they can provide a comprehensive set of special rules for every task that might arise? It's daunting and scary to me, and the attributes they pick for some actions seem arbitrary or inconsistent with the 9-stat model*. If you're unconvinced, I can elaborate privately, but I don't want to go into too much rules critique in this thread. A more basic, success driven conflict resolution system seems like a possible solution to me, but I've never played nWOD, so I'm wondering if I in get any pointers there.

    Why not use extended actions? From my reading, extended action task resolution looks to be a step in the opposite direction of what I'm trying to do. They're a series of multiple rolls in an effort to achieve successes toward a task. Their purpose is to simulate a task that would be very involved with much passage of time in between by drawing out the resolution over several dice rolls. I can't help but notice that the writer of this section conflates the passage of time with difficulty, which I miss the significance of. This rule seems fairly opposite to the idea of "let it ride", which is more the approach I'd like to take with non magical dice rolls. If my players do feel the need to simulate the passage of time during long conflicts or tasks, and feel gypped by handling it with a single roll, we'll use extended actions.

    I want to reiterate that, as far as magic and spell casting are concerned, I do plan to go with magical casting task-actions, RAW. Daniel's description sums this up beautifully! I hadn't yet identified it, but this is part of why Mage is so appealing to me. I feel that the way Mage handles task resolution is elegant and purposeful, while the way the WOD core handles it is clunky, awkward and arbitrary, and since is the first time I've GMed it, I'm afraid using it RAW will explode in our faces. To re-pose my question in this thread, "how might using the nWOD core Instant and Contested Actions as a conflict resolution system for all non-magical conflicts work out?" Imagine Burning Wheel Standard and Versus tests as a base.

    Thanks everyone, and I apologize about the initial confusion.

    * In another post, if folks are curious or feel it's necessary to know, I can explain how I'm refining the 9-stat model. It won't influence the way spell casting works in the least; only (hopefully) make it clearer which attribute should be used when taking action, on the fly, while also fixing that 50% of the listed actions, plus most recurring traits or rolls players use in play rely on the wits, dexterity or composure stats.
  • Since that's what you're asking about, I think you better explain further. :)

    What will you do with "near" Mage things like research? nWoD core makes that a normal, not magical, task.
  • edited December 2011
    Since the whole group is new to this, we're starting out by utilizing only a portion of the rules, and will add more as we go. So it may be easier to explain it like this:

    In the first few sessions, we're only using these rules from the Mage Core book (even me, the Storyteller):
    Rote casting
    Improvised casting
    Magic Resistance
    Mage Sight
    Starter Rotes that players have chosen

    These we're playing RAW. When a character wants to utilize magic use or resist magical phenomena using their own magical talent or nature, these rules will determine the outcomes and effects of those actions. I may occasionally ask for things like character goals or intent to make sure everyone at the table is clearly communicating, and so that I can color the outcomes appropriately, but largely Mage rules are their sandbox. Use at your own risk.

    Because the nWOD core rules are causing me to have fits, everything that falls outside the above will be rolled out as conflicts. Say yes, or roll dice. If a task (listed in the nWOD rules, or implied by a skill on a character sheet) doesn't lead to a conflict, we won't roll dice. I will define potential conflicts against the player characters by whatever forces under my own control have opposing intents. If an NPC wants to stop a PC, a PC's agency can create conflict. If a rotting rope bridge presents itself as an obstacle, a PC's agency can create conflict. nWOD's rules defines everything as "actions" and largely seems pretty agnostic on conflict or task (although they use the word task a lot, and the impression is that for the most part, you are intended to use the rules to resolve tasks). But it seems pretty hopeful to me that the most basic action, the Instant Action, can be used to resolve conflicts as long as it's clear to me and the player which task/trait/skill they are utilizing to achieve their goal. And I will prompt for a goal whenever necessary. Success means they achieve their goal and may embellish in narrative appropriate to the task used; failure means they don't, or that a complication* arises if blocking the goal would grind their story to a halt; failure allows ME to embellish these results with narrative.

    So to answer your question directly, if a player wants to research, I would need to know what they hope to accomplish through research. If it's to learn about a particular creature that opposes them in some way, and their ultimate goal is to attain advantage over it, or bypass/avoid some threat that has been foiling them, then the results would relate to that: probably providing advantages or negating disadvantages, with some narration to explain it. In my group, this example might be a case where a player would be uncomfortable narrating success, and although I may encourage them to be creative, I have no problem doing it here if they'd rather me do it. Of course, you HAD to pick one of the hardest examples, because knowledge checks are the bane of my existence. ;) I had considered porting over BW's wises and circles to replace research/academics and the allies/contacts merits respectively, but Mage is pretty setting heavy and doesn't seem like a game that supports allowing players to make up their own information results via successful rolls. Yet, my Mage experience is too limited. Maybe this could be awesome if done correctly; others might see potential in this (speak up?).

    Hopefully this has answered some questions! I guess I haven't talked about HOW our game is going to be character-conflict driven -- I'm ditching Vices and Virtues for a larger pool of Passions that players create and choose for themselves, to play with and gain Willpower. I honed nWOD's somewhat vague suggestions for Willpower awards to hopefully make them easier for players to pursue in play. I'm not sure about Wisdom, I don't really see a reason to use it. If we were playing Vampire I'd be all over Humanity, but Mage core doesn't sell me using on Wisdom to drive play.

    * I have never played with complications deliberately before, so I'm a little unclear if it might be better for me to state potential complications before conflict dice are rolled, or surprise the players with them afterward. This group comes from a traditional RPG background, and the expectation is that the GM has full control of everything outside the characters, as long as players are allowed to "make their characters do whatever they want". We'll just have to play this by ear.
  • edited December 2011
    To me the big question is what you do when magick effects are being deployed to achieve non-magickal, conflict-oriented goals. Which I note is mostly all the time.

    Like to take a really basic example, a Mage is trying to convince a bouncer to let them into a nightclub (a fairly straightforward social conflict.) They begin by doing this through social means, but then decide to throw in a little intimidation by (I dunno) using their awesome powers to levitate a trashcan, or implant a memory into the bouncer's head about how they're an important celebrity. Or as a second example: there's a fistfight, and a Mage decides to use his mastery of Time to gain a crucial (but not definite) advantage.

    Generally in my experience of the system, the usual methodology is to have the magickal effect (if successful) give some number of bonus dice or other task-mechanical benefits (though sometimes the benefit is purely narrative, which is of course much easier to handle.) Or like, a fireball does a certain amount of damage, in the same way a fist does. But with a simplified conflict-resolution system, fists don't actually do damage anymore -- or at least, not in the same way as a task-resolved fireball. So what will you do when a Mage comes up with a clever magickal approach to a conflict that is not enough to simply be like 'oh okay if the spell works you just do it', but should still offer a clear benefit in the conflict? Especially if you are using single-roll resolution?
  • So what will you do when a Mage comes up with a clever magickal approach to a conflict that is not enough to simply be like 'oh okay if the spell works you just do it', but should still offer a clear benefit in the conflict? Especially if you are using single-roll resolution?
    You could do what Apocalypse World does: the PCs never have to miss a shot or fail to land a punch, and yet the outcome of the conflict itself is still in doubt. It's like, Let's take details that are usually randomized in RPGs (hitting, damaging, etc.) and making them strictly a matter to be decided on the spot, or handled via Karma?

    Oh, jeez. I'm off to work on a Mage AW hack. But think about what I said! :)
  • edited December 2011
    I'm... not sure how that is an answer to my question. Whether or not (and how and to what degree and with what mind-boggling worldviews and metaphysical consequences) Mages succeed at performing magick is a huge part of the game, I don't think you can really hand-wave that and assume they do or don't succeed based on player whim.

    If by contrast you mean hand-wave the effectiveness of the magick vis-a-vis the conflict, well, again, that's precisely my concern: casting the better (more appropriate, more powerful, more ingenious) spell should be one way to succeed at a conflict, possibly the most important way. Hand-waving that, or giving all spells equal effectiveness, or reducing the effectiveness of the spell to a straightforward mechanical bonus based only on dice or difficulty... none of these seem to me like they will capture the fun of using magick to get shit done in amazing fashion, as the magick system promises (and generally delivers.)
  • Posted By: Ice Cream Emperorto take a really basic example, a Mage is trying to convince a bouncer to let them into a nightclub (a fairly straightforward social conflict.) They begin by doing this through social means, but then decide to throw in a little intimidation by (I dunno) using their awesome powers to levitate a trashcan, or implant a memory into the bouncer's head about how they're an important celebrity.
    If the social attempt comes first, failure in this case might lead to a complication rather than not getting inside the club (what complication depends on the method used).* Assuming the magic is attempted first, both effects you describe are narrative effects that I feel are suitable to be used as methods for resolving the full conflict -- I'm assuming in your example, the goal is to get in the club. If the levitation spell fails, the trashcan levitates, but goes out of control and flies toward the mage and bouncer like a heat-seeking missile. The bouncer is suitably freaked, but now the mage smells like garbage and has a penalty on social rolls for the rest of the scene. If the mind implant spell fails, the wrong celebrity is planted in the bouncer's head and he feels the need to protect the celebrity all night since their bodyguards seem to be taking the night off; calling the embarrassing or notorious celebrity by name from time to time.
    Or as a second example: there's a fistfight, and a Mage decides to use his mastery of Time to gain a crucial (but not definite) advantage.
    I haven't yet decided how I'm going to handle combat, but I define it as any conflict where the goal is to inflict lethal damage upon another, i.e. any conflict that is going to engage with the health pool currency. If a character has "lethal intent", this forces conflict into combat. I agree this calls for more than a single roll because currency sort of demands that. However, magic is sort of the exception because it's a task that sometimes carries the result of a damaging effect. So a player could cast a damaging spell and not necessarily be drawn into combat per the system (although their target may very well initiate a lethal conflict as result.)

    However, a fist fight need not be lethal if the goals on both side are non-lethal, ex. knock my opponent out vs. pin my opponent and talk sense into him. In this case I'd either allow the mage to cast the spell before the conflict roll to acquire a bonus or use the spell directly in the conflict depending on which makes the most sense (and feels more fun for the group).

    I can't tell if my answers were sufficient to get my overall point across yet or if there is still some fogginess, so feel free to probe some more; it's really helping me think this through.


    * -- Although... what if I took a different take specifically for Mage? What if I let players actually dead stop fail at conflicts whenever they fail utilizing mundane means? This would force them to rely on their magic to get through. The idea is that it follows the Let it Ride principle because magic = circumstances have changed. I'm not sure this would give my particular group any more of what we're looking for though, TBH.
  • After posting my last entry, I thought about it some more and realized where the Achilles Heel in my approach at nWoD conflict resolution is (or at least part of it). I didn't catch it before since I didn't go into the bouncer's response in example conflict 1. If I don't get a breather at work to respond about this problem, I'll brainstorm some strategies in the thread when I get home tonight. I'm a lil curious to see if anyone else catches the problem :)
  • I am very curious about what you develop. Our group has masochistically undertaken a nWOD changeling game. We run up against the rules and the poor poor (terrible) editing of the Changeling book. I think in about 12 sessions or so we have had two or three fights because of some craziness within the rule system.

    I think our problems go deeper than a task resolution / conflict resolution system change could solve, but I am curious to see how this develops for you.
  • I have a long phone call when I get home tonight, so I'll post as much as I can now in case anyone wants to discuss the point before I can offer my own suggestions.

    So I realized there is a problem using simple conflict resolution of say yes or roll dice + let it ride in WOD when it comes to Contested Actions.

    Burning Wheel handles Versus Tests in a pretty elegant way: two sides state their intents, whoever wins gets their intent. But WOD has an entire mechanic surrounding Contested Actions which allows the "actee" or "victim" in the roll their own reflexive roll using a pool of dice based on special defensive attributes: either Resolve, Stamina, Composure or two of these combined.

    The straight forward solution is to have "Opposed Contested Actions". Joey wants to knock Barney over the head out-cold with a bowling pin; Barney wants to wrestle Joey to the ground and intimidate him by twisting his arm. So Joey gets his strength+martial combat: improvised weapons roll versus Barney's stamina+resolve roll. At the same time Barney gets a strength+martial: wrestling/grappling roll versus Joey's stamina+composure roll. The net successes from these two Contested Actions are compared, and whoever wins gets his intent.

    But MAN that's a lot of dice rolls! Anyone have any different suggestions?
  • Remove the defensive roll? I see zero downside?
  • Posted By: Big J MoneyBut MAN that's a lot of dice rolls! Anyone have any different suggestions?
    I have a crapton of blog post about how I'm doing this with Leverage/Cortex Plus, if that helps you see some outside-the-box stuff.

    The older ones have more mechanics talk, but It does rely some on already having a vague familiarity with how C+ works.

    - Ryan
  • I love your article on language design is game design. It confirms some tools I've been working on for years. I'm not familiar with C+ but maybe it can become a home for some of my work.

    Question is, how does C+ dice resolution work? Can it be described in the context of conflict/task? Could you compare or contrast it to, say, Burning Wheel? (I mean, more in terms of IIEE than what dice are rolled or how difficulty is chosen.)

    Would you be willing to share some of your Mage language that you used with C+? I'm running Awakening, not Ascension, but there would be some similarities.
  • Okay, let me see if I can be helpful. I'm kind of crap at doing system advice on message boards, but I think I may actually be helpful for once because I'm right where you're at. I've been prepping a Vampire:tR campaign and I've been thinking this sort of stuff over as well. I'll try not to strangle the thread guys, but I promise nothing.

    Now, if you're looking for stuff that may be helpful in dealing with NWoD in a narrative way you can't do better than to take a look at the con-res mechanics from The Shadow of Yesterday. The entirety of the game is available for free online right here. That game is hugely influential on later story game goodness like Lady Blackbird and the Cortex Plus stuff, and does a great job of placing task resolution within a framework of conflict resolution.

    Also, if you have Vampire and haven't read the Vampire Chronicler's Guide cover to cover you are, to paraphrase Ghandi, fucking up. You are fucking up right now. That book contains a grip of fantastic advice on hacking the Storytelling system to do all kinds of neat tricks, including how to change the way Attributes in much the same way that you were describing. Read the oft-worshiped article "Monster Garage" in their, by Jared Sorensen, and see how much you can hack the ever-loving hell out of nWoD.
    Posted By: Big J Money The roll and trait summary on page 38 makes me cringe. Do they really expect they can provide a comprehensive set of special rules for every task that might arise? It's daunting and scary to me, and the attributes they pick for some actions seem arbitrary or inconsistent with the 9-stat model*.
    You can easily ignore most of the (Attribute)+(Skill) combos in the books and make up your own on the fly. The important thing to remember when you're calling for dice rolls is the three Attribute types (Power, Finesse, and Resistance) and to call for the appropriate Attribute depending on the task at hand.
    Posted By: Big J MoneyI have never played with complications deliberately before, so I'm a little unclear if it might be better for me to state potential complications before conflict dice are rolled, or surprise the players with them afterward. This group comes from a traditional RPG background, and the expectation is that the GM has full control of everything outside the characters, as long as players are allowed to "make their characters do whatever they want". We'll just have to play this by ear.
    Never, ever, ever, ever sneak up on players with complications after the roll. It's a dick move. There are a couple of games that do this and they are, to me, the definition of not fun. The best examples of complications either explicitly state the complications before the dice hit the table (Apocalypse World) or force the players to create those complications explicitly from the events of the narrative (Complications in FATE). Even in FATE, the person receiving the Complication has the choice of whether to take that complication or a different kind of fallout most of the time.
    Posted By: Big J MoneyBut MAN that's a lot of dice rolls! Anyone have any different suggestions?
    Daniel totally has the right of it. NWoD's combat rules don't use defensive rolls. Instead it places a negative modifier on the acting roll based on the lower of a pair of Attributes. No reason you can't do that all over the damn place. Combat and Physical situations would use a negative modifier based on Dexterity and Wits, just like in the book. Mental and Social defense would be based on the worse of either Wits or Manipulation.

    My suggestion is all about Extended Actions. What I like to do is treat every conflict like a Fight or Duel of Wits. This lets me and my players have the conflict and intent discussion, with a corresponding discussion and use of fallout, while still keeping the moment-to-moment graininess of the Storytelling engine.

    I want to be clear and say that I've never run Mage:tAw, so I don't know how well this approach would work there. In any case, let me get down into an example to better illustrate my point. I know Vampire pretty well, so I'll pull my setting and situation detail out of that.
    Two vampires are staring each other down in a VIP room in a night club. Eric, a young and smart Carthian, has learned some pretty powerful information and is trying to use it with one of the city's primogen to get some territory for his coterie. Miguel is that primogen, and he wants Eric to give up the unlucky son of a bitch that squealed so Miguel can stake him out for the morning commute crowd. Neither of these guys are budging so you, awesome Storyteller that you are, say it's time to talk about outcomes and roll some dice. Eric obviously wants some territory, and a juicy one at that, somewhere right off the Rack. Miguel wants the rat, and if he can get Eric to just deliver him like a pizza, all the better.

    You set the Target as 10 successes. Now, here's where you change things slightly. You treat those successes like the Body of Arguement pool in Duel of Wits. Every round, the players come in with an individual task to do in the moment. Both players roll their dice and chip away at the other guy's Target. When one player's

    In the first round, Eric appeals to what little humanity Miguel may have, so he rolls Manipulation + Empathy. Miguel, on the other hand, has no appetite for words and decides to grab Eric by his little throat with a Strength + Brawl roll. Eric comes up with 3 success, Miguel with a strong 5. Both players record their loss in points and move on to the next round.

    Two rounds later and Eric's won the conflict. He gets his terms so he knows he's getting some good territory for him and his people to feed on. He did get knocked down to two points in his "Body of Argument" or whatever you want to call it, so he's going to have to cough up something in return. He gives up the rat's name to Miguel, but tells the elder that he can go do his own dirty work.
    I really like doing things this way. It makes those big conflicts feel big and gives their impacts some great weight while still keeping task resolution important and fun. You can even pull in things like Resilience Attribute rolls to defend against the attacks of another player, or a variable "Body of Argument" starting point based on a characters Willpower rating or something like that.

    Let me say that you should only do this with big inter-character conflicts, just like the way BW handles it. Burning Wheel has Task Resolution in it, it's just that Luke makes the argument that there should be an economy in dice contact, that you should roll when it's important. There's rules for both Bloody Versus and Fight! in there. There's straight up, old school Stealth checks up in there. There's no reason you can't take that same ethic over to your nWoD game. Burning Wheel still leaves plenty of room for smaller checks like the occasional stealth roll, so you shouldn't be looking to ditch those. Simply couching those rolls in important situations will make them have more impact on the narrative. A Dexterity + Stealth roll is lots of fun when the player's doing it to get around a sleeping werewolf.

    One last bit of advice, and it's the sucky one that no one wants to hear. Run the system as is. You say that you've never run the game before, and I can tell you from deep and painful personal experience that that's a very hard place to diagnose problems from. Play the game as is for one or two sessions. You may find that going through the small moments and resolving individual tasks in your game may actually be a good time. If, after a session or two of dissatisfaction with the rules you can always change them, but the experience you'll then have with those rules will give you a better vantage point from which to see the problems that you have and allow
    you to make stronger, more beneficial changes.

    Hope that helps. And I hope I didn't kill this thread!
  • You definitely didn't kill the thread, Michael! Your description of huge set up and and duke it out conflicts isn't where I was heading at first, but I did some thinking this morning, and it may end up going that route. It would allow me to make less of a distinction between combat and non-combat conflicts, for example. I'll respond in detail when I've had more time to really think it out.

    I wanted to point out that some of your post looks like it might have been eaten; this part: "Both players roll their dice and chip away at the other guy's Target. When one player's [...]"

    Thanks, I'll add your suggestions to my brainstorming. Also, I have the Chronicler's Guide but didn't realize Jared was responsible for the MG coolness. A combination of Monster Garage and TROS is actually where I'm getting some of my ideas from for the changes I'm making to Willpower and Vices&Virtues, which would almost seem like divine coincidence, heh. That's OT though, so if anyone happened to be interested I could put up a Google doc or something.
  • edited December 2011
    Posted By: Big J MoneyQuestion is, how does C+ dice resolution work? Can it be described in the context of conflict/task? Could you compare or contrast it to, say, Burning Wheel? (I mean, more in terms of IIEE than what dice are rolled or how difficulty is chosen.)
    No, because they're not the same style of game. :)

    Look up some reviews of Leverage on RPG.net or google search. That'll do better than I could for explaining in a forum comment.
    Would you be willing to share some of your Mage language that you used with C+? I'm running Awakening, not Ascension, but there would be some similarities.
    Not anytime soon. Pretty busy as of late.

    - Ryan
Sign In or Register to comment.