Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Mixed Goal Conflicts (was Re: Star wars setting difficulty)

Expand Messages
  • Adrian Price
    ... I m glad you posted this - I m at a loss as to how best to handle this using FATE. It seems like you could have effectively two challenges going on
    Message 1 of 19 , Oct 3, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, Sarah Wolfie <sarahwolfie@g...> wrote:
      > Additionally, many of the examples I can think of in which noncombat
      > skills get used in a hampering fashion against people attempting to
      > use combat skills are actually attempts to engage contests on
      > different terms. For example, seducing a soldier who has orders to
      > kill you, attempting to engage the soldier in a combat of your
      > lustrous appeal versus the other's resolve to kill you. If you win,
      > the soldier's intended contest is aborted, if you lose the soldier
      > simply continues with the intended contest of superior combat skill
      > versus your inferior combat skill.
      >
      > Just something to think about. This applies fairly well to the
      > example of Luke's combat at the end of Return of the Jedi, which is
      > less about the swordfight than about the attempt to pressure Luke into
      > surrendering to his anger--the swordfight is merely the means.
      > --
      > Sarah Wolfie

      I'm glad you posted this - I'm at a loss as to how best to handle this
      using FATE.

      It seems like you could have effectively two challenges going on
      simultaneously, as the seducer weaves around behind tables and whatnot
      trying to avoid getting shot by the solider, trying to engage the
      soldier in seductive repartee. If you handled it as a single challenge
      with two different goals - kill the target for the soldier, avoid
      getting killed for the seducer - you'd end up matching the soldier's
      gun skill versus the seducer's seduce skill wouldn't you? This doesn't
      seem ideal, as the soldier could be fairly poor at resisting a pretty
      face but a great shot.

      If, on the other hand, you ran it as two separate but simultaneous
      challenges - gun versus dodge for the soldier's attempt to kill, seduce
      versus willpower for the seduction attempt - you'd match appropriate
      skills but potentially have exchanges with outcomes where both sides
      succeed. This would work okay, with both conflicts over once one
      party 'Takes Out' the other, whether through seduction or gunfire, but
      how would you apply penalties from wounds? Do they add together so that
      the soldier suffers -1 from a 'Hurt' when his target scuttles behind a
      crate also suffers another -1 from a seduction 'Hurt' as he blushes and
      his gun arm gets a little shaky? Would they apply to both challenges or
      only to the challenge they originate from?

      Or am I way off the page completely and it can be adequately resolved
      in a single challenge of Guns versus Seduction?

      Help!

      Adrian
    • DCA
      ... One thing we ve done with this kind of thing in our post holocaust game, and in the Hyborian game we experimented with was using a table rule that kept
      Message 2 of 19 , Oct 3, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > I'm glad you posted this - I'm at a loss as to how best to handle this
        > using FATE.
        >
        > It seems like you could have effectively two challenges going on
        > simultaneously, as the seducer weaves around behind tables and whatnot
        > trying to avoid getting shot by the solider, trying to engage the
        > soldier in seductive repartee. If you handled it as a single challenge
        > with two different goals - kill the target for the soldier, avoid
        > getting killed for the seducer - you'd end up matching the soldier's
        > gun skill versus the seducer's seduce skill wouldn't you? This doesn't
        > seem ideal, as the soldier could be fairly poor at resisting a pretty
        > face but a great shot.
        >
        > If, on the other hand, you ran it as two separate but simultaneous
        > challenges - gun versus dodge for the soldier's attempt to kill, seduce
        > versus willpower for the seduction attempt - you'd match appropriate
        > skills but potentially have exchanges with outcomes where both sides
        > succeed. This would work okay, with both conflicts over once one
        > party 'Takes Out' the other, whether through seduction or gunfire, but
        > how would you apply penalties from wounds? Do they add together so that
        > the soldier suffers -1 from a 'Hurt' when his target scuttles behind a
        > crate also suffers another -1 from a seduction 'Hurt' as he blushes and
        > his gun arm gets a little shaky? Would they apply to both challenges or
        > only to the challenge they originate from?
        >
        > Or am I way off the page completely and it can be adequately resolved
        > in a single challenge of Guns versus Seduction?
        >
        > Help!
        >

        One thing we've done with this kind of thing in our post holocaust game, and
        in the Hyborian game we experimented with was using a table rule that kept
        contests as "like vs. like."

        So that if some sword wielding lout came looking to carve you, battling him
        with your skill at bluffing wasn't an option.

        However, we did also have the option of using a fate point to "change the
        arena" of a contest.

        One example from the gaming was when, in the post apocalyptic wastes, the
        small band of explorers was cornered by a bunch of heavily armed mutant
        raiders.

        Just as we were getting ready to run the fight, where the explorers looked
        like they might end up in real trouble, one of them used a fate point to
        "change the arena" and had a second gang of raiders, rivals to the first,
        show up.

        Basically, it was a bidding process. How many fate points are you willing
        to use to change the conflict?

        In this case the character outbid the GM (me). So instead of a fight
        between the characters and the mutants, it was a contest of the character
        who paid the fate points' diplomacy skill against that of the raider leader.

        In the end, the two raider gangs ended up fighting each other, while the
        explorers of the wastes made their cunning escape.

        But the point is that the characters would have had to engage in a fighting
        contest, using combat skills, except that one of them chose to use up fate
        points to make the contest something else.
      • Darren Hill
        On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:05:48 +0100, Adrian Price ... The way I ve handled it is fairly easy. Basically, the winner of any exchange
        Message 3 of 19 , Oct 3, 2005
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:05:48 +0100, Adrian Price <AdrianFPrice@...>
          wrote:
          > If, on the other hand, you ran it as two separate but simultaneous
          > challenges ...

          The way I've handled it is fairly easy. Basically, the winner of any
          exchange can declare the nature of the next turn of conflict.
          So, if a soldier strides down on the femme fatale who has imprisoned his
          maid, if he gets the drop on her, the conflict starts as Fencing. But if
          the femme fatale wins the exchange (getting at least a Hurt), she can
          declare that as they face off against each other, she uses her body or
          charm to distract him, so this exchange switches to Seduction v whatever
          the soldier wants to use and fits the situation. Maybe the goal is to get
          him to stop fighting and go to bed, or maybe it's to continue fighting -
          but have him so distracted that he is helpless to defend her.
          The damage done via the seduction attempt works like any damage, adding to
          anything already done with a sword. It's just narrated differently.
          I've also tried this with an imposed cost: you start that you are going to
          try to change the type of conflict, and take a -1 penalty this round
          (which can be cancelled by a fate point). If you succeed (only needing
          Clipped this time), it happens.

          So in a conflict, you might have each particpant trying to change the
          nature of the conflict. It might switch from brawling to intimidation to
          swordplay to archery and back again.

          Darren
        • Adrian Price
          ... any ... imprisoned his ... But if ... can ... or ... whatever ... to get ... fighting - ... adding to ... going to ... round ... needing ... the ...
          Message 4 of 19 , Oct 3, 2005
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Darren Hill" <rpglists@c...> wrote:

            > The way I've handled it is fairly easy. Basically, the winner of
            any
            > exchange can declare the nature of the next turn of conflict.
            > So, if a soldier strides down on the femme fatale who has
            imprisoned his
            > maid, if he gets the drop on her, the conflict starts as Fencing.
            But if
            > the femme fatale wins the exchange (getting at least a Hurt), she
            can
            > declare that as they face off against each other, she uses her body
            or
            > charm to distract him, so this exchange switches to Seduction v
            whatever
            > the soldier wants to use and fits the situation. Maybe the goal is
            to get
            > him to stop fighting and go to bed, or maybe it's to continue
            fighting -
            > but have him so distracted that he is helpless to defend her.
            > The damage done via the seduction attempt works like any damage,
            adding to
            > anything already done with a sword. It's just narrated differently.
            > I've also tried this with an imposed cost: you start that you are
            going to
            > try to change the type of conflict, and take a -1 penalty this
            round
            > (which can be cancelled by a fate point). If you succeed (only
            needing
            > Clipped this time), it happens.
            >
            > So in a conflict, you might have each particpant trying to change
            the
            > nature of the conflict. It might switch from brawling to
            intimidation to
            > swordplay to archery and back again.
            >
            > Darren

            Thanks to DCA and Darren for the replies,

            I can see a system like this - either expenditure of a Fate point or
            winning an exhange (or even allowing both options) - coming into play
            all the time. Guy A wants to shoot Guy B, while Guy B just wants to
            escape. Instead of pitting Guns versus Running, it could begin at
            Guns versus Dodge, then Guy B scores a Hurt and decides to change the
            conflict to a chase, pitting Running versus Running and explained by
            him getting far enough away or behind cover so that Guy A can't get a
            clear shot without chasing him down a little.

            Nice!

            Thanks for the ideas,

            Adrian
          • Landon Darkwood
            ... For the most part, I m with Mike on this (big surprise). A few things as an addendum to this whole thread, as food for thought: 1.) Some people have real
            Message 5 of 19 , Oct 3, 2005
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Adrian Price wrote:
              > Nice!

              For the most part, I'm with Mike on this (big surprise). A few things as
              an addendum to this whole thread, as food for thought:

              1.) Some people have real issues with NPC's using social skills on PC's
              (or PC's on each other) to convince them to do anything, preferring that
              kind of thing to be dictated entirely through roleplaying. The combat
              vs. seduction example might fall down with your group simply for this
              reason. Something to watch for.

              2.) Not every conflict needs to be resolved on the exchange level -
              sometimes, a simple opposed roll is fine to determine what arena a
              conflict takes place in. I want to shoot you, you want to try seduction
              to give me pause before I start pulling the trigger. We opt to have a
              single roll-off of willpower vs. seduction. If you win, now you have the
              chance to talk (or whatever) your way out of things. If I win, I get to
              start shooting and it becomes a combat.

              3.) The FP cost for changing "arenas" isn't bad, but I don't know if I'd
              extend it so far as to allow for alteration of events external to your
              character. Still, that's a taste issue.

              4.) Whatever you do, consistency is key. Like Mike said, if someone can
              just attack someone at any time and force combat or athletics skills as
              the only counter, then someone should be able to seduce someone at any
              time and force willpower or chastity skills (ha) as the only counter, or
              whatever.

              Otherwise, you're talking about a situation where, indeed, Diplomacy vs.
              Combat is a viable scenario - "damage" from one guy represents the
              doubts that the fast-talker is planting in their mind, and "damage" from
              the other is straight up gun wounds. Remember that we're talking about
              resolving conflicts, not resolving the minutiae of individual actions.
              On that level, skills are "the tools I use to make the conflict go my
              way" - what that means is up to the immediate situational context.


              -Landon Darkwood <lcdarkwood@...>
            • Darren Smith
              Let me just start off by saying that I love symmetry. So, I was talking with my players about making new characters and we d pretty much settled on 5 phase
              Message 6 of 19 , Oct 12, 2005
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Let me just start off by saying that I love symmetry.

                So, I was talking with my players about making new
                characters and we'd pretty much settled on 5 phase
                characters for games that are planned as long term.
                For one shot's I do prefer the pyramid optimized for
                supurb, but for longer ones the pyramid at great is
                fun.

                I also use the varient for 1 aspect, 2 stunts, and 4
                skills per phase.

                We also added 5 bonus aspects, just to make sure
                people have a variety. 1 for a physical trait, 1 for a
                personality trait, 1 for a
                background/upbringing/racial trait, 1 for a goal and 1
                for a flaw.

                I find my players otherwise most often use their
                aspects to represent careers.

                So, all said, new characters end up with 10 aspects (5
                phases + 5 bonus), 10 stunts (2 per phase), and 10
                skills (20 skill points make a pyrimid topping at
                great).

                As I said, I love symmatry.

                On another note, we've been working on a stunt-based
                magic/psychic system that is spread over 4 skills. It
                means that just about anyone can learn some of the
                powers, but to focus on it is a significant
                investment. Again, some nice symmetry occurs.

                a 6 phase character has 12 stunts and with a maximum
                of 3 stunts per skill, they could spend all twelve
                topping out their magic skills. (Not that it matters,
                but I'm planning on using a joined pool for the magic
                stunts)

                It is such a nice balance that I'm thinking up making
                a skill list so that each skill grouping is spread
                over 4 skills. That way each represents a possible
                single-minded focus for a character, but more likely
                everyone fill fall somewhere in between...

                anyway, I just thought I'd share those two concepts in
                symmetry.

                cheers,

                :Darren







                __________________________________________________________
                Find your next car at http://autos.yahoo.ca
              • mothlos
                I have found that the best way for me to handle this is to let everything run in tandum. Every character has its own goals, but by doing multiple things at
                Message 7 of 19 , Oct 16, 2005
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  I have found that the best way for me to handle this is to let
                  everything run in tandum. Every character has its own goals, but by
                  doing multiple things at once they might get bonuses or penalties to
                  thir rolls to succeed.

                  So in a Vader vs Luke duel, Luke can be trying to hack Vader to death
                  and Vader can defend against the attacks quite easily (because he
                  rules). He also is choosing to try and persuade Luke during this
                  period. He is getting a penalty to fight and persuade because he is
                  trying to do both at once, but Luke is also getting modifiers to his
                  attacking and willpower (the values can be debated). Both Luke's
                  attack and Vader's persuade are rolled on every round of combat by
                  both participants vs. the appropriate skill (Vader defends and Luke
                  resists persuasion).

                  As for Luke, being a PC (assumed) he is entitled to free will of the
                  character and many players don't like the idea that they lose an
                  argument by roll and not by role play. I handle this by handling it as
                  an involuntary invocation situation. The character can resist the
                  persuasion by expending FATE points or can gain FATE points by
                  relenting and accepting the consequences of whatever it is. This is
                  also an interesting way of dealing with combat damage (archive has
                  great threads about this sort of concept).


                  --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Adrian Price" <AdrianFPrice@e...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I'm glad you posted this - I'm at a loss as to how best to handle this
                  > using FATE.
                  >
                  > It seems like you could have effectively two challenges going on
                  > simultaneously, as the seducer weaves around behind tables and whatnot
                  > trying to avoid getting shot by the solider, trying to engage the
                  > soldier in seductive repartee. If you handled it as a single challenge
                  > with two different goals - kill the target for the soldier, avoid
                  > getting killed for the seducer - you'd end up matching the soldier's
                  > gun skill versus the seducer's seduce skill wouldn't you? This doesn't
                  > seem ideal, as the soldier could be fairly poor at resisting a pretty
                  > face but a great shot.
                  >
                  > If, on the other hand, you ran it as two separate but simultaneous
                  > challenges - gun versus dodge for the soldier's attempt to kill, seduce
                  > versus willpower for the seduction attempt - you'd match appropriate
                  > skills but potentially have exchanges with outcomes where both sides
                  > succeed. This would work okay, with both conflicts over once one
                  > party 'Takes Out' the other, whether through seduction or gunfire, but
                  > how would you apply penalties from wounds? Do they add together so that
                  > the soldier suffers -1 from a 'Hurt' when his target scuttles behind a
                  > crate also suffers another -1 from a seduction 'Hurt' as he blushes and
                  > his gun arm gets a little shaky? Would they apply to both challenges or
                  > only to the challenge they originate from?
                  >
                  > Or am I way off the page completely and it can be adequately resolved
                  > in a single challenge of Guns versus Seduction?
                  >
                  > Help!
                  >
                  > Adrian
                  >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.