Tales from the Rocket House
In other words, anytime a character wants to do something, it succeeds with no roll unless somebody else calls him on it. If that happens, the dice are rolled not to determine whether or not the character's skill is equal to the task at hand, but rather, to determine which player gets the narrative rights. I think this is necessary as well as being good: every task resolution system I've seen requires a neutral GM to set difficulties, determine which skills are appropriate, etc.
Last month, I outlined my all-out conflict resolution system, which was effectively a combat system (whether physical, social, or what have you). While it works well for combat, in practice it was not really appropriate for simply deciding who gets narrative rights over a scene. So I came up with two other kinds of tests: one for stealing/hacking/undermining Equipment, and one for conflicts over narration rights.
Conflict Resolution
Narrative Conflict: Two players want narration rights to the same piece of the setting. The test is based on their characters' appropriate Attribute Test, and the winning player gets his or her way. The characters' lives are not in jeopardy, and any lost Traits return at the end of the session/start of the next session. Characters/Players still bid Traits, and the loser still loses them, but only for a short time. This is sort of a catch-all for everything that isn't a combat or a Theft (and Theft is actually just a slightly more detailed version of this Conflict).
Equipment Attack: Each type of Equipment (Data, Gear, and Connections) is vulnerable to a different type of attack (Technological, Stealth, and Social). The Stakes are typically thus: if the thief wins, s/he gets to steal or damage the Equipment, causing the opponent to lose the use of it, at least temporarily. If the thief loses, the would-be victim gains bonus dice to use in a follow-up Combat against the would-be thief.
Combat: Physical (actual violence) or Social (rumors, legal battles, blackmail, etc) are the most common. In combat, the characters are trying to wreck each other, and the results can be lethal. Combat (using whatever Attribute) is the only kind of conflict that can remove a character from play.
Initiating a Conflict
When a PC initiates a conflict with another PC, that character's player decides what kind of conflict it is, and what Attribute's Traits will apply to it. The character that initiates the conflict is called the “Acting” character, and that player chooses the type of conflict. The character who's being challenged is the “Resisting” character. This character can only respond with Traits within the Attribute the Acting character chose. Basically, the Acting character sets the circumstances of the conflict, and the Resisting character reacts to them.Narrative Conflicts Sometimes, one player will narrate something, and another player will say “hold up, that's not how it is!” Players are totally free to narrate their vision of the world, unless another player objects. If that happens, the two characters roll a Test to determine which player's vision of events stands. This can also handle things like car chases that don't fit the other categories.
Physical: “The bouncers take one look at me at back away, holding the velvet rope open.” “No, they aren't scared of you.” OR “I'm the Tri-state Jiu-Jitsu champion.” “No, I am.”
Social: “I'm sleeping with the mayor's wife.” “No, she's faithful to him.” OR “I've got the housing inspectors eating out of the palm of my hand.” “You might think so, but they're really in my pocket.”
Stealth: “I sneak into the place and look through the file cabinets.” “Yeah, right, like you could get past MY security system.” OR “I bury the bodies where nobody can see.” “Nobody but me.”
Intellectual: “They welcome me with open arms. After all, my theories on (whatever) have made me the darling of (wherever's) academic community.” “Only among crackpots. Respectable academics think you're a dope.” OR “The city's university has a large section on ancient religions and mythology.” “No it doesn't.”
Mechanical: “The city has a small airstrip with a few charter flights, but no commercial flights.” “No, the airport has commercial flights.” (or alternately, “No, the airstrip is only for tiny private planes, just barnstormers and cropdusters.”) OR “I lose the cops in traffic.” “You can try.”
Technological: “The city's computer system is so old it's barely Y2K compliant. Security is virtually nonexistent, so I get in quickly.” “No, it's top of the line, and it keeps you out.” OR “Shirow robotics is on the verge of releasing the first fully-functional, better than flesh and blood prosthetic arms.” “No, they're years away from that.”
In this case, the Acting player is the one challenging the narration. However, both players must agree on the Attribute in question (it should be pretty self-explanatory). If they can't agree, the Reacting player should roll one die. If it comes up Odd, the Acting player chooses the Attribute used in the test. If it comes up Even, the Reacting player chooses.
Once the governing Attribute is decided:
Setting the Stakes: The Acting player states his version of the events, and the Reacting player states her version of the events. The winner of the conflict will have his or her version become fact. Write this version down, because once it's been established, it will require in-game events to change it. Regardless of in-game events, the results will stand for one complete session (or one complete in-game day if playing in a MU*).
For example, if one player says “The city's computer system is so old it's barely Y2K compliant. Security is virtually nonexistent, so I get in quickly,” and another player steps in and challenges her, saying “No, it's top of the line, and it keeps you out.” The challenger is the Acting player, and the person who narrated it to begin with is the Reacting player.
Bidding: The Acting player must Bid at least one Trait. The Reacting player may choose to Bid zero, one, or more Traits at this time. Any other players may Bid at most ONE Trait to help whichever side they choose. The other players may also Loan as much Equipment as they want to either the Acting or Reacting player, who may then use the Equipment as if it were her own in the conflict.
Once everyone has had a chance to bid, the Acting and Reacting players have the chance to bid more Traits, up to the maximum they have in the conflict's Governing Attribute. The Test is not rolled until everybody has finished bidding Traits.
Resolving the Conflict
Each Side rolls 1d6 plus 1d6 for each Trait (including Equipment) Bid. The Side with the higher total wins that “Round,” and gains “1 Success.” Ties mean nobody wins that Round. Repeat until someone has accumulated 3 won rounds.Results: The winner's “version” of events becomes the truth in the setting, and can only be changed by future events. It cannot be “reversed,” but must be “changed.” For example, an airport could be expanded (narrating the business deals/gov't rulings and the construction process) to include charter flights or commercial flights, but it couldn't be “ret-conned” to say it was always that way or to say that it immediately becomes that way just because someone said so. The result will remain unchanged for an amount of time determined by the winner's Margin of Success (see below).
In the example above, if the challenger (the Acting player) wins, the computer system for the city is top of the line. If the original player (The Reacting player) wins, the computer system is old and insecure, and she cracks it easily. The system's level of security can only be changed by in-game events.
If the Reacting player wins, and the Acting player wants to make the computer system more secure, perhaps he could use his business contacts (a Social Test) to get the city to spring for an upgrade. If the Acting player wins, and the Reacting player wants to crack the city's computer security, she might need a Social test to bribe, seduce, or blackmail someone into giving her the passwords, or a Technology test to try to find a back door. Whichever she does, she's trying to change or work around the narration that exists – that the city has a top of the line computer security system – not edit it down to an old, insecure system.
The losing player and any players who bid Traits or Loaned Equipment to help him lose all of the Traits and Equipment they bid. These Traits and Equipment return at the beginning of the next session (or at the rate of 1 per in-game hour in a MU*).
Margin of Success: The winner's Margin of Success determines how long it will take other players to change the results of the Narrative Contest. Since the first character to win 3 Rounds wins the Conflict, the level of success must be based on how many successful rounds the loser had:
Loser got 2 Successes: Basic Victory: The events stand for the remainder of this Session and at least one more session (two days of in-game time in a MU*).
Loser got 1 Success: Critical Victory: The events stand for the remainder of this Session and (at least) the next three sessions (two weeks of in-game time in a MU*).
Loser got 0 Successes: Total Victory: The events stand for the remainder of this Session and (at least) five more sessions (two months of in-game time in a MU*).
Equipment Attacks Some of a character's Traits may be represented by Equipment. Equipment works just like a normal Trait, except that it can be Loaned and it can be Attacked.
Equipment comes in three “flavors,” representing the three major kinds of, well, equipment:
Gear: represents physical objects like cars, guns, and books of magic. It's vulnerable to Stealth attacks to steal, damage, or destroy it (Sabotage).
Data: represents intangible information, such as modern wealth, as well as computer equipment and networks such as cybernetics. It's vulnerable to Technological attacks that disable it (Hacking).
Connections: represents who you know and official authority held, such as “knows everybody who's anybody” and “Assistant District Attorney.” These are vulnerable to Social attacks which undermine them and alienate your allies (Undermining).
The Stakes are simple: the Acting player is attempting to disable, perhaps permanently, one or more pieces of the Reacting player's Equipment. The Acting player must declare what piece of Equipment she's going after, and must use the appropriate Attribute for its type (Data, Gear, Connections). The Reacting player's Equipment is at stake, but if the Acting player fails, she's vulnerable to follow-up combats (the Reacting player gets bonus dice to attack the player).
Bidding: The Acting player must Bid at least one Trait. The Reacting player may choose to Bid zero, one, or more Traits at this time. Any other players may Bid at most ONE Trait to help whichever side they choose. The other players may also Loan as much Equipment as they want to either the Acting or Reacting player, who may then use the Equipment as if it were her own in the conflict.
Resolving the Conflict: Each Side rolls 1d6 plus 1d6 for each Trait (including Equipment) Bid. The Side with the higher total wins that “Round,” and gains “1 Success.” Ties mean nobody wins that Round. Repeat until someone has accumulated 3 “won” Rounds.
Results: A successful Heist: If the Acting character gets a Basic success, the targeted Equipment returns at 1 Equipment “Trait” per Session (in-game day for MU*s).
If the Acting character gets Special Success, the targeted Equipment returns at 1 Equipment “Trait” per 2 Sessions (in-game week for MU*'s).
If the Acting character gets a Total Success, the targeted Equipment is permanently lost.
Damaging Multiple Pieces of Equipment: The Acting character can sacrifice levels of success to increase the number of pieces of Equipment she “damages.” A Total Success usually permanently destroys 1 piece of Equipment, but the Acting player could reduce her character's success level to Special and temporarily remove 2 pieces of her victim's Equipment (which would return at a rate of 1 per 2 sessions). Or she could reduce her character's success level to Basic, and temporarily take 3 pieces of her enemy's Equipment (which would return at a rate of 1 per session).
Stealing Equipment: A character who gets a Special or Total success in an Equipment Attack may choose to Steal the affected Equipment, meaning he gets to use the Equipment for the same amount of time the victim of the Equipment Attack us without it. To Steal the Equipment, you must reduce your level of Success by 1. So if Fred tried to steal Lenny's “Three Fifteh Seven Mag-i-num Revolver” and got a Total Success, he could reduce his level of success to Special and temporarily Steal the “Three Fifteh Seven Mag-i-num Revolver.” The revolver would return to Lenny after 2 Sessions (or 1 Week of in-game time), and Fred could use it until then. It's up to the players to narrate how that happens. Maybe Fred pawns and Lenny finds it in the pawn shop, or Fred throws it in the river, and Lenny gets a new gun.
A Failed Heist: Each type of Equipment Attack leaves you vulnerable to two different types of Combat if you fail: Steal/Sabotage (Gear) – Social (arrest) or Physical (beat down) Hacking (Data) – Social (arrest) or Technological (back hacking) Undermining (Connections) – Social (exposure, possibly even arrest) or Intellectual (coming up with a trap to discredit or expose the Underminer)
If the Acting Character fails an Equipment Attack, the Reacting Character gets a bonus to the appropriate forms of Combat equal to her Margin of Success.
If the Reacting Character gets a Basic Success, she gets +1 Trait for the follow up Combat. If the Reacting Character gets a Critical Success, she gets +2 Traits for the follow up Combat. If the Reacting Character gets a Total Success, she gets +3 Traits for the follow up Combat.
The Reacting character does not have to initiate the combat. If she wants to forgive and forget (or avoid a fight with someone who's tougher than she is), good for her.
Well, that's about that: a thimble full of theory and a mountain of mechanics. But I think having objective, cleanly-delineated rules for PC vs. PC conflict can spark good roleplaying even among small groups of friends. I'm looking forward to testing it with a larger group . . . perhaps an MU* would be willing to use them so I can see the results.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Rocket House . . .
