Challenges - A discussion

[thegiftofgabes]

TheGiftOfGabes
Jan 10
So Hold is your “HP”, let’s say.

I need to refine it but the challenge system is supposed to work both for conceptual, material and interpersonal challenges. So you can build an environmental problem, a squad of enemies or a single boos, all with the challenge system.

I’d say that Exprewssion Moves should allow players to affect mechanics on the rule of 1: 1 harm, 1 heal, 1 tick of the clock.

Allow players to improve that by 1 if they give something up: positioning, 1 Hold, 1 tick of the clock and so on.

Example:

Entering a charged situation against a band of raiders you can design their angles as such:

Lead by Fear
Courage in Numbers
Greed
Bloodlust

This hould be quite a difficult challenge.

hang on, I gotta do a thing and then Ill finish typing, please send more questions

Reply

Deodatus
Jan 10
I personally like its flexibility, but right know my understanding is still too vague.

Lets say I try to be brave against the raiders, and I roll a solid hit: I face them and behave boldly when I challenge their leader to a duel. They see that I am fearless and their leader cannot control me by intimidation. Does this mean that I could beat their ‘lead by fear’ angle in one roll or does rhis angle have a clock and I just puts 2 ticks on it? How does this work?

TheGiftOfGabes
Jan 10
This is a part of the system I am struggling with. I came up with a coupel different systems and each has variations and I can’t settle on something that feels just right yet.

A system I feel strongly attached to is using d6 gainst a threshold:

When you create angles, distribute 5 points among them.

When a player interacts with an angle, they roll a number of d6 depending of the success of their roll. If they roll that angle’s points or below, that angle is out. If they roll above, increase it by 1.

The issue is that it feels odd to make a player roll twice for a thing, although I do enjoy the feel of “roll for damage” there.

Another one is a bit more arbitrary:

When a player engages an angle, they describe how they do it and if it’s a feasible solution or approach, and if they rolled well, you can just cross it out.

But well, it’s arbitrary, see? And I don’t like it.

The theory of it is that yes, angles are a sort of two-dimensional clock.

Each angle is a “tick”, and when you beat all those ticks (or some of them, I’ll get to it in a moment), the challenge is resolved.

But also, each angle has its own track that gets increased or reduced by the player’s actions. What I haven’t figured is how to make this interaction not feel like crunching numbers and being lucky over being narrative. What’s the point of describing an action if all I need to do is roll against a threshold?

It did occur to me that you can just say well, if I get a good hit at it, cross it out and done. But I wonder if that isn’t too easy, although that’s kinda like masks conditions work.

Deodatus
Jan 17
Hey!

My second son was born today so I only have a half an hour to answer :slight_smile:

So some feedback:

If you are fond of the concept of 3 questions / +1d6 rule, then dont drop it. Using it as a checklist every single time is very impractical, but maybe the problem is about the positioning and presentation of your concept. If its a guide to the GM how to determine the advantages and disadvantages (like in BitD), then I think thats okay. But maybe its better, if you put the burden of it on the players and turn it into an optional rule. This way it is a checklist for the players. They can use it to determine if an action is doable or not, and they can argue for a +1d6 using it! :slight_smile:

Using the yes/no & and/but approach makes your foundations very open ended. I like this approach but I think it might undermine the function of keys. If I understand correctly, keys are not about Y/N questions, but tools to change the situation. But these changes are ambigious and not as black&white as yes/no.

I also enjoyed that in the beginning we had to negotiate a bit about what does face against mean, for example, but later evolved a sort of shared understanding.

So the PC, a wanted lead aide was framed for the murder of his own ruler. He found out, who did it, but could not get close to him in a subtle way. I created this nemesis with the following angles:
Difficult to approach 2
Fearful aura 2
Ruthless 1
So the player rolled a couple of solid hits with 2 keys to use on the situation but every time he rolled for ‘damage’ it did not ‘kill’ the angle. When he finally won, it was like:

Difficult to approach 3
Fearful aura 4
Ruthless 1
Fortunately, this not made our gameplay frustrating. Instead, its elevated our experience from the casual, 'tell me how you try to do it and if 10+ = done" approach which is very predictable after so many years of PbtA. When you roll a strong hit, you really change the fictional situation if a favourable way, but it does not necessarily mean ‘a quick win’. Every roll had an impact on fiction, but it was not an easy-peasy thing. The player said it felt like he really has a ‘boss’ to fight against and not just some diegetic obstacle which is mechanically hollow, can be solved with just rolling well, thus, not being a real challenge.
To sum it up, it was really like HP, but less abstract, and more diegetic. So I think its a very neat design, if used sparsely. Are you interested in the details of the struggle?

No, no, I do not advise you to start to build it up again from scratches - but maybe thats a good solution for you? (I dunno). What I was trying to say that I felt that you still do not have clear vision on what you try to achieve with your design, and this appears in your text too.
If you have grasped a clear & distinct vision, then it would be easier to determine what rules the game really needs, and what are just dead weight. There are numerous methods in creative design for divergent and convergent phases, you can search about them or if you want, I can suggest you a few approaches. Of course, all of this 4th point assumes that you are trying to create a distinct game for an audience, and not a homemade hack hand-tailored to your current whims :slight_smile:

Deodatus
Jan 27
We were brainstorming about the challenge & angle dilemma and came up with the following version:

So you roll the pooled ‘hit’ dice and sum the highest 2 dice:
** 12: Angle totally destroyed. The situation changes.*
** ‌10-11: Angle is not destroyed but beaten, won’t be active unless the boss can withdraw and ‘heal’ it. The situatuon changes.*
** ‌7-9 Angle fights back with some soft counter move*
** ‌1-6 Angle retributes with some hard counter move*

This way, one weak hit will only enrage the angle, but there is a chance to change the situation in your favor from a solid hit.

We are curious about what you like and what not about this idea!