So there is often a bit of back and forth between myself and the brazen duke kicking ideas around about ‘Upon a Throne of Bone’ – actually that’s not quite right – I regularly mail bomb the poor swine back to the stone age; that might be a better way of describing it.
He has charitably described this behaviour as productive rather than flighty (while writing this I had an idea about flipping the order of skill resolution but I ended up kicking it to the curb) but however you describe it - I've certainly cause some confusion. I don't think my tendency to spam ideas and concepts rather than clear proposals.
This led him to write up an example prose version of a “Upon a throne of bone” conflict between two players around a system he thought was no longer the flavour of the month. Thing is – it’s pretty spot on with how I was hoping it would work.
You can read it here and it's worth a read. It’s not spot on – for example the magic card strikes me as overly fiddly for actual use but its all minor niggles. In tone and feel – it’s pretty spot on and even better its thrown light on some dark areas I’d not really considered.
This is me trying to get the conflict resolution system down clearly and unambiguously.
I'm doing my best to be guided by the simple principle – think about the consequence you want and design towards those.
I'm going to sheer some flavour text off for now – because I'm hoping that will make things clearer as I write up a slightly more formal version of the conflict system for me, him and anybody still clinging on to this barrage of posts.
A unit has 4 stats (A, B, C and D) and working backwards what they do is….
D determines casualties.
C determines victory of the conflict.
B is strong against C (so if you have two forces that are close in ‘value’ but one that has more B and the other more C - that the first one will weaken the opposition and despite them having more C win).
A is strong against B (so if you have two forces that are close in ‘value’ but one that has more A and the other more B - that the first one will weaken the opposition and despite them being even in C).
However while a force that is strong in A will weaken a force that is strong in C – it won’t weaken it enough to win the conflict.
This gives us something close to A beats B – B beats C – C beats A. However it’s not as simple as rock/paper/shotgun because you need some C to win the conflict, and because if I have 1 a and you have 5 B you will still win.
For version 1 of the rules – I want to consider that all statistics are equally strong (this might change following play test but being able to make that assumption makes throwing numbers down on paper easier if I assume there all equal). Statistic D only determines casualties – so if there is another way of killing something (ie by winning the combat) then it reduces the value of D. So to keep D’s value it will be the only way of killing something.
A key component of the system I want is that ‘spoiler attacks’ sending in units that will not win but may reduce opponent’s strength such that they cannot achieve their objective should be a valid tactic. So a force of A’s, & B’s would weaken an opponent’s force and even if they don’t win can prevent their opponent winning their actual objective. Reduced casualties rates makes that a more viable tactic.
Given that A and B need to effect later combats (to have a spoiler effect) and given that killing units is ruled out by the need for D to maintain its value – then giving both of these skills the ability to ‘remove a unit(s) from combat’ seems to be a suitable power. There should be a difference in how A and B achieve this result – they should be distinct even if they are fulfilling broadly the same game function.
For now I'm going to use the terms Guile, Magic, Strength and Violence for A, B, C, D.
So how does this actually look…..
Conflict resolution order and alliances
Before any conflict against a location defending strength is decided Overlord forces will fight amongst themselves.
A minion may choose to join their force with another overlord – however they are utterly under the control of the overlord and all benefits are given to that overlord.
A minion may choose to withdraw their forces from a location rather than resolve a conflict - in doing so they all go home and cannot be used in another location.
Conflicts among overlords will be resolved in terror order – with the two highest terrors resolving there conflict first.
Minions and decisions.
The presence of a minion allows a player to make a choice - if there is no minion present then it falls to control to decide following certain default rules.
Resolution and skills
Skills resolve in a set order.
Guile resolves first – the winning guile side may send one unit home with strength less than the amount by which they have won the conflict. By default (no minion present to choose) the strongest that can be effected is chosen, tie breaking is based off Magic, and then by random choice.
This will be strong against magic because units with magic will tend to have lower strength because they will have used their value in obtaining magic. If will be weak against strength because 4 units of guile will at best send home 3 units of strength.
Magic resolves second – the winning magic side may end one unit home with a magic less than amount by which they have won the conflict. By default (no minion present to choose) the strongest that can be effected is chosen, tie breaking is based off swords, and then by random choice.
This will be strong against strength because those units with a high strength will tend to have a low/no magic. It is weak against guile because it’s used after guile and so cannot affect that.
Strength resolves third – the winning side wins the conflict. Between two overlords that means the loser’s entire force cannot carry out any more conflicts this turn. Between an overlord and a location that means the location has suffered a defeat (what that means to be decided later).
This makes strength a very all or nothing stat – you win or you lose. Losing by a bit is the same game effect as losing by a lot. I’m ok with that – it’s one less bit of maths to do which is nice. Where people might feel a failure of theme is that winning a conflict should inflict casualties on the loser.
Violence resolve fourth and final – the winner of the violence conflict kills one creature with a strength less than the amount they won by. By default (no minion present to choose) the strongest that can be affected is chosen tie breaking is by random choice.
Consequences, Options and opinions
One consequence of this system is that it requires creatures with 0 strength/magic so that creatures can be affected by somebody winning a guile or magic or sword contest by a single point.
Where this system falls down is that Guile and Magic do not feel very different. I’d be tempted to give guile more flexibility by allowing it to affect multiple opponents – but I'm not sure how to word that such that they cannot just send home infinite numbers of 0 strength opponents. If I win by 1 I want to be able to send home at most 0 strength of creature, and at most 1 creature; if I win by 2 I want to be able to send home at most 1 strengths worth of creature(s) and at most 2 creatures etc. But not sure how to phrase that…..
Overlord vs Overlord violence
That details overlord vs overlord conflict – which needs to be the most interesting and detailed sort of conflict since it involves two players (which is basically PvP). However it will not be the most common conflict – that will be the overlord vs a location conflict and if the Brazen Duke post demonstrated anything it was that I've not given that much thought to player vs location conflict (which is basically PvE).
The brazen duke (good old BD as we like to call him) talks about how a location does not resist in the same way as a player – it’s a passive speed bump. To quote him…
“Once the battle is done, I'll assault the Castle. Guile and Magic do not have Rounds at locations, but rather meet pre-requisites.”
Which I have to admit is not what I was thinking – I was thinking that a location would resist in exactly the same way as a PC with a full range of skills. Obviously sending home would matter a lot less as it would be the last fight at that location – but it could still happen and still have value. Now BD’s plan has one major advantage – it’s quick and it’s simple. So in a game of 20 players with a 10 minute window to resolve conflicts in should not be underestimated as an advantage. So let’s consider what impacts it has.
Well it makes the stat required up to a certain point – and after a certain point makes it pointless. If the threshold of guile is 3 – then 2 is worthless and 4 no advantage at all other then as insurance. This does make spoiler attacks much easier to work out – it needs 3 guile, you go in with 4 guile I just need to drive two guile away and boom. Your options for getting around my spoiler – are heavily reduced if your spell does not grant guile then it’s no use. Under a full conflict you could get round a weak guile by increasing your strength to compensate.
The other issue is a little nebulous but having two systems (one for PvE and one for PvP) means that the players and refs will have less experience in resolving the conflicts which will slow things down and complicate things when it comes to PvP actually happening.
But we are left with a bunch of questions - what does guile, magic, or sword do against a location? Does a location have its own set of defenders – with their own stats that can be knocked out? Seems a bit awkward and tricky if you ask me – I’d rather assumed that the defenders were a characterless amorphous blob of 1 stat pieces. So then what good does having two more guile then the defender actually do if all I can do is send home a 1 strength defender?
I think the answer to that is Hero’s. So your standard defender of a location is worth 1 of whatever stat they are providing and nothing else. Hero’s are more significant – and rated much like a monster. Rouges bring guile, mages bring magic, and warriors bring strength – but like a monster they can have more then one stat. They are always at least 2 in something – setting them apart from the common defenders. They provide bigger targets that make having a surfeit of guile or magic worth having.
Swords and hero’s present an interesting challenge – can you kill a hero? Thematically I’d say not – just drive them back to the heart of the nearest kingdom….. If they are there then sorry - swords are a bit useless.
So let’s stick with – the PvE and PvP systems being the same for now. Unless play test screams ‘what a terrible idea!’
That’s not to say that a location won’t also have requirements – guile 2 or the keyword flying – or even bonus for meeting certain conditions – have siege and get +3 strength against the really big wall. Also a location might exclude certain sorts of conflict – no guile contest here. All in the name of making the locations different from each other – not just the same thing with different numbers.
BD did however manage to solve one of my design issues for you – lives for locations. Or to quote him once more…..
“The Castle has a Location Value of 3, but has been defeated twice, so once more will finish it.”
Which makes perfect sense – and is now clearly part of the game. So defeating a location does not automatically destroy it and we know that the person destroying it gets the terror. So what do you get out of making the early attacks? How about first pick of the loot? Each location gets dealt as many loot cards it has lives/location strength/resilience (insert your own word here). When you win you get one of the loot cards – your pick. So who ever goes first gets to choose and also gets to see what else is there. Give the loot cards a bit of a range – and you are driving behaviour. A nice little reward…..
Still to discuss – Raiding, and other actions.
Thus endeth the Epic - well done for getting to the bottom. If you in fact did.......
No comments:
Post a Comment