I've been reading the preview copy of Hillfolk I got as part of the Kickstarter effort, and I'm intrigued.

In general, my thoughts can best be summed up thusly: Hillfolk is probably the most steady attempt at taking story game focus on "drama" and making something mainstream gamers will use.  I think the response to the Kickstarter (and the success of the various television dramas which Hillfolk is baldfacedly attempting to simulate) testify to this.  There are a lot of mainstream gamers who want to have a vehicle for playing out taut drama and interpersonal conflict, and Hillfolk is a means of doing so.

As far as whether Robin Laws is the man to write this, I think he is -- while I was a tad non-plussed by the earliest iteration of Gumshoe, for instance, I think it's evolved into an incredible system with some standout games, especially Trail of Cthulhu and Night's Black Agents, as well as Ashen Stars.  There's something to be said formalizing something that people occasionally did at the table, or did through fiat, and by examining the underpinnings of a whole genre that doesn't revolve around combat, and Gumshoe does that in a way no system has. He's examined investigative gaming in a way few have before him, and whether you agree with his results or not, I think that examination itself  is worthwhile.  The fact that he's now taking a look at dramatic conflict is a good thing.

With that said, now that I've read Hillfolk, I think my sole -- I don't want to call it complaint, but the thing I'm wrestling with -- is that to me what I have so far is a resolution and reward system, but not yet a full game.  Or to put it another way, there's not enough game there yet for my tastes.  It provides a resolution mechanic for playing out and rewarding dramatic conflict, in the same way D&D's combat system provided a means of physical conflict with monsters, and D&D's XP system provided a means of paying out for that conflict, but what Hillfolk lacks -- if we're going to analogize to D&D -- is a front-end, like D&D's class system.  Characters are effectively equal, and the give and take, ebb and flow, of the dramatic system makes no mind about the details of a character's type -- whether they're a forthright, honest sort dependent on reputation or a seedy blackmailer exploiting others.

Now, the counter-argument to this is we're talking about a means of creating and resolving dramatic conflict so that everyone gets a chance to shine, rather than simply a social combat system, but I think for me to be totally satisfied, Hillfolk needs more front-end on it, some way to distinguish the skill and nature of participants in the dramatic conflict.  To a certain degree, the PC/NPC divide does this, but even amongst PCs, I'm wondering if there's not some way to effectively distinguish between participants.

As an example, let's take the television show The Shield -- we could argue that the PC group might actually be Claudette, Acaveda, and Mackey, but I think we could also argue that a PC group would be the Strike Team itself (or at least Mackey, Shane, and Lem, given the paucity of Ronny doing much of anything in earlier episodes.)  How do we distinguish the fact that Mackey is a consummate plotter and that Acaveda is more politically and bureaucratically powerful in the interplay of power in Hillfolk?  Or that Shane is less manipulative but more cunning?  Fill in an example from your own experience here.

Right now it seems to me that Hillfolk relies on the players for this kind of distinguishing between parties, rather than some difference in the character sheet at the front-end to distinguish between those characters' advantages and disadvantages in the scene.  And not to be pat, what we have here is an economy, a way to resolve and pay out conflict, but not quite a full game yet, or at least not a game in the sense that mainstream tabletop gamers may recognize.

Now, some may argue that distinguishing between character ability in dramatic conflict isn't the point, and some of Laws' earlier designs lead me to believe that may be the point -- admittedly, Gumshoe effectively focuses on whether you have skills, rather than who's better at them.  And that's a fair assessment of the goals here, possibly.  But I suppose what I'm looking for is a way to distinguish between characters in dramatic conflict at the character sheet level.

NB: I have not played the game yet, but will be soon.  And don't mistake my noting of this situation as a mark against the Drama System -- I think Hillfolk is probably the best effort yet at giving us a mainstream game which allows the kind of dramatic conflicts that play out in mainstream television and movie drama to play out at the table without the cruft of indie-gaming handcuffing.  But at the same time, while the sauce is good, it needs just a bit more of something else before I'll call it done.

So is Hillfolk the type of thing I would hammer on the side of a game I already have? Or does it stand alone?

Quote from: Kaz;598007So is Hillfolk the type of thing I would hammer on the side of a game I already have? Or does it stand alone?

It does both.  There are three elements to Hillfolks -- a scene-framing and calling system (wedded to a fairly normal GM/player framework), a dramatic resolution system for interpersonal drama, and a procedural system for all of the other things we do in roleplaying games (combat, for instance.)  Laws separates Drama System scenes into two types, dramatic and procedural.  If we're going to take, say, Sons of Anarchy as an example, procedural scenes are ones where Jax and the other PCs solve a mystery, throw down with the One-Niners, or rescue somebody from the law.  Dramatic scenes are scenes where one or more characters try to get an emotional payoff from another character.  

The dramatic system can be attached to other games, and there are instructions for how to separate it from the procedural/calling systems in order to do so.  I think my problem comes when I think about taking that dramatic system and transplanting it to, say, Legend of the Five Rings 4e, which desperately cries out for something like this, there's no way to distinguish between a Scorpion and a Lion, a courtier and a samurai.  As I said, some people may say that's the point, but I don't know that answer works for me -- I think I need just a bit more on the front end, as I said.

I don't know how many people are reading this thread, but I have a question for those who are: if you wanted to take a system for creating dramatic interactions between characters and which focuses on the emotional playoffs of those, and retrofit it onto, say, Legend of the Five Rings 4e, and you wanted to distinguish between "categories" of character, would you do it by:

Clan? (Scorpion, Lion, Mantis, Crane, etc.)
Character Type? (Samurai, Courtier, Shugenja, Ninja, Monk)
Alternate Categories Decided by Players?  (Say, a keyword like Honorable, Bitter, Cunning, or some other adjective.)

Not sure I'm interested in a system such as this, but I think I understand what you're saying and so have a very basic suggestion. Not familiar except vaguely with L5R, but just in general what it sounds like you could benefit from is to take what some games present as "personality traits", and turn them into a type of attribute set. As you've already discussed, some aspects of a character are going to affect their interactions with others. This is acknowledged even in games that don't include an overt "drama" system, such as D&D's morale modifiers from Charisma. I'd also say that a given game's attributes similar to both Charisma and Willpower would affect a character's interaction with other characters in a drama system. For a fantasy game, if I were to include a system for this facet of interaction, I might even go so far as to include either random or choose-able birth signs or aspects such as those from Dragonquest that might influence social interactions.

One question I have is, how is the Hillfolk system different than what you'd call a "social combat" system? As I'm at work, I don't have much time to check it out for myself at the moment, so a summary would be helpful

I've been reading this lately myself.

Quote from: Future Villain Band;597979Characters are effectively equal, and the give and take, ebb and flow, of the dramatic system makes no mind about the details of a character's type -- whether they're a forthright, honest sort dependent on reputation or a seedy blackmailer exploiting others.

I don't think that's really the place for the mechanics given the way this game works. It doesn't tell you how to play your character nor define your character's personality, rather, it encourages you to play your character as you see them while also encouraging your character to gain an emotional investment in the other characters and rewards you for doing so, so you have incentive to give in or "lose" sometimes in interpersonal interactions.

In other words, it doesn't mechanize the roleplaying between the players and their characters, it just incentivises some outcomes from that roleplaying.

I think tacking personality mechanics on top of this is wrong-minded. It's contrary to the design goals of the game in my view.

If that's what you want, modifying the Dying Earth system (another Laws game) for social interaction, with it's trumps and all that, would probably be the way to go for you, as it probably does what you want much better than the DramaSystem does.

QuoteHillfolk needs more front-end on it, some way to distinguish the skill and nature of participants in the dramatic conflict.

I don't agree. In fact, heavy social mechanics is one of the things I like least in RPGs. I prefer for player skill in portraying their character to take the forefront.

QuoteHow do we distinguish the fact that Mackey is a consummate plotter and that Acaveda is more politically and bureaucratically powerful in the interplay of power in Hillfolk?  Or that Shane is less manipulative but more cunning?  Fill in an example from your own experience here.

We distinguish those facts by having the players portray their characters in that manner, instead of mechanising the roleplaying.

QuoteRight now it seems to me that Hillfolk relies on the players for this kind of distinguishing between parties, rather than some difference in the character sheet at the front-end to distinguish between those characters' advantages and disadvantages in the scene.  And not to be pat, what we have here is an economy, a way to resolve and pay out conflict, but not quite a full game yet, or at least not a game in the sense that mainstream tabletop gamers may recognize.

Depends on what you mean by "mainstream tabletop gamers", because really, I don't know what you're talking about.

Quote from: Kaz;598007So is Hillfolk the type of thing I would hammer on the side of a game I already have? Or does it stand alone?

Yes. I'm going to give it a playthrough sometime early next year by bolting the DramaSystem on top of High Valor (which is another game I want to test drive, so bolting them together is a two birds, one stone situation)

Quote from: Sigmund;598520but just in general what it sounds like you could benefit from is to take what some games present as "personality traits", and turn them into a type of attribute set.

There's no clean way to introduce any attributes to the system as written since it doesn't mechanize the roleplay, the system only comes into play once the scene is concluded, where those involved decide who didn't get what they wanted in the scene, and they get a "drama point" as a consolation prize.

QuoteOne question I have is, how is the Hillfolk system different than what you'd call a "social combat" system? As I'm at work, I don't have much time to check it out for myself at the moment, so a summary would be helpful

It couldn't be more different than a social combat system, because it doesn't mechanize the roleplaying or the social interaction nor how who gets what they want is determined.

Here's how it works. If you're the "caller" (the player who is in the spotlight) you get to decide what the next scene will be about and who is in it with you, like "I want to go confront Bob about his chatting up my girlfriend earlier". Thus you've set up that you want to talk to Bob, and the scene will be about the confrontation. You also have a goal in the scene, some emotional need you want Bob to grant, in this case, you want him to acknowledge that chatting up your girlfriend was Not Cool, and apologize to you.

So you and Bob's player roleplay out the scene. There's no mechanics here, you just roleplay it. There's two basic outcomes here:

1.) Bob acknolwedges the uncoolness of hitting on your g/f and apologizes. Bob's player gets a drama point from you for "giving in"
2.) Bob refuses to apologize for any number of reasons. You get 1 drama point from Bob for "losing" the argument.

These points only change hands AFTER the scene is concluded, based on how everyone perceives the outcome (did your character or Bob get what you wanted?)

Now, if you and Bob's player have dramapoints, there's a couple of other things that could happen:

1.) You could choose to Force The Issue by paying Bob's player 2 drama points to make Bob compromise with your character. He doesn't have to give in entirely, but he has to make a concession of some kind.
2.) If Bob's player REALLY doesn't want Bob to apologize, he can counter your 2 drama points with 3 drama points of his own to shut the argument down, and you get those three points in compensation

So the idea is that the drama points force a give and take between the parties involved, because there's never more than a handful of Drama points in play, and they're paid from player to player. So you can't stand pat and never give in to anything; sooner or later someone will force a compromise by forcing the issue. And if you give in frequently on the things not as important to you, it ensures you can throw down on the things that really matter.

No part of the system is used to determine who "wins" the conflict. That's entirely determined in play via Roleplaying.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;598526I've been reading this lately myself.



I don't think that's really the place for the mechanics given the way this game works. It doesn't tell you how to play your character nor define your character's personality, rather, it encourages you to play your character as you see them while also encouraging your character to gain an emotional investment in the other characters and rewards you for doing so, so you have incentive to give in or "lose" sometimes in interpersonal interactions.

In other words, it doesn't mechanize the roleplaying between the players and their characters, it just incentivises some outcomes from that roleplaying.

I think tacking personality mechanics on top of this is wrong-minded.

If that's what you want, modifying the Dying Earth system (another Laws game) for social interaction, with it's trumps and all that, would probably be the way to go for you, as it probably does what you want much better than the DramaSystem does.



I don't agree. In fact, heavy social mechanics is one of the things I like least in RPGs. I prefer for player skill in portraying their character to take the forefront.



We distinguish those facts by having the players portray their characters in that manner, instead of mechanising the roleplaying.



Depends on what you mean by "mainstream tabletop gamers", because really, I don't know what you're talking about.



Yes. I'm going to give it a playthrough sometime early next year by bolting the DramaSystem on top of High Valor (which is another game I want to test drive, so bolting them together is a two birds, one stone situation)



There's no clean way to introduce any attributes to the system as written since it doesn't mechanize the roleplay, the system only comes into play once the scene is concluded, where those involved decide who didn't get what they wanted in the scene, and they get a "drama point" as a consolation prize.



It couldn't be more different than a social combat system, because it doesn't mechanize the roleplaying or the social interaction nor how who gets what they want is determined.

Here's how it works. If you're the "caller" (the player who is in the spotlight) you get to decide what the next scene will be about and who is in it with you, like "I want to go confront Bob about his chatting up my girlfriend earlier". Thus you've set up that you want to talk to Bob, and the scene will be about the confrontation. You also have a goal in the scene, some emotional need you want Bob to grant, in this case, you want him to acknowledge that chatting up your girlfriend was Not Cool, and apologize to you.

So you and Bob's player roleplay out the scene. There's no mechanics here, you just roleplay it. There's two basic outcomes here:

1.) Bob acknolwedges the uncoolness of hitting on your g/f and apologizes. Bob's player gets a drama point from you for "giving in"
2.) Bob refuses to apologize for any number of reasons. You get 1 drama point from Bob for "losing" the argument.

These points only change hands AFTER the scene is concluded, based on how everyone perceives the outcome (did your character or Bob get what you wanted?)

Now, if you and Bob's player have dramapoints, there's a couple of other things that could happen:

1.) You could choose to Force The Issue by paying Bob's player 2 drama points to make Bob compromise with your character. He doesn't have to give in entirely, but he has to make a concession of some kind.
2.) If Bob's player REALLY doesn't want Bob to apologize, he can counter your 2 drama points with 3 drama points of his own to shut the argument down, and you get those three points in compensation

So the idea is that the drama points force a give and take between the parties involved, because there's never more than a handful of Drama points in play, and they're paid from player to player. So you can't stand pat and never give in to anything; sooner or later someone will force a compromise by forcing the issue. And if you give in frequently on the things not as important to you, it ensures you can throw down on the things that really matter.

No part of the system is used to determine who "wins" the conflict. That's entirely determined in play via Roleplaying.

Ah ha. Well, it appears I had absolutely no understanding of the situation at all I agree then, it looks like a decent bolt-on system (especially for High Valor, love that game, and would love to play it). I'd also agree that even more mechanization doesn't seem like it would benefit the system at all. Does it interact in some way with the other mechanics of the game, or is it a self-contained subsystem with pretty much only RP consequences? If the latter I think it might be an interesting add-on for many other games. Contrary to "take control of the narrative" systems that I don't like, this sounds like it would promote and benefit good RPing and not detract too much from over-all immersion in a RPG like many Story Game elements would.

Quote from: Sigmund;598534Does it interact in some way with the other mechanics of the game, or is it a self-contained subsystem with pretty much only RP consequences?

The latter. It's designed to drive dramatic emotional conflict between PCs (and, to a lesser extent PCs and NPCs) by making the roleplaying parts of the game the most important to the system, where things like combat or lockpicking are of minor importance. In this way, it turns the usual systemic assumptions on their collective ear. Whether or not this is a good thing in practice remains to be seen, but I think the intention - to bring deep IC roleplaying to the forefront of the game, is an admirable one.

QuoteIf the latter I think it might be an interesting add-on for many other games. Contrary to "take control of the narrative" systems that I don't like, this sounds like it would promote and benefit good RPing and not detract too much from over-all immersion in a RPG like many Story Game elements would.

The Hillfolk game does have a "procedural" resolution system using a bidding/playing card mechanic, but it's independent of the drama point system entirely. As a result, the drama point system can easily be bolted onto any resolution system you want.

It has a formal "scene calling" framework, but I'm pretty convinced (but have not tested the hypothesis) that you could largely do away with that and let dramatic scense arise organically just by the GM asking each player in turn "what are you doing" during non-action scenes and letting them state a dramatic scene organically like "I want to go confront Bob" in turn.

Even if I don't use the whole dramapoint economy (after giving it a couple of sessions), I think I will use the character creation from Hillfolk if only to help players create deeper, more emotionally conflicted characters who have dramatic relationships with one another.

Wow, Dr Jest. That sounds extremely broken to me.

If you care about something it becomes vulnerable because people can set up scenes to attack it and force you to spend a limited resource to defend it. If you really want to defend something you have to keep it secret and off the table rather than in play. Likewise if you figure out what someone else wants to defend then you can earn easy points by attacking that.

So the system gives incentives for not caring, keeping the things you care about secret, and attacking the things other players care about?

I want players to want to care and bring the things they care about into play. I want players to share those things with one another. I only want players to attack the things other players care about when a nice juicy substantial motive to do so exists.

This really sounds like a game I don't want to play. Amber diceless handles dramatic scenes well enough for my tastes. Thanks.

Quote from: Lorrraine;598551Wow, Dr Jest. That sounds extremely broken to me.

If you care about something it becomes vulnerable because people can set up scenes to attack it and force you to spend a limited resource to defend it.

Um.. what?

QuoteIf you really want to defend something you have to keep it secret and off the table rather than in play.

Um.. no... and... what?

QuoteLikewise if you figure out what someone else wants to defend then you can earn easy points by attacking that.

What are you talking about? Who is attacking anything? What do you mean by "defending" and "attacking"? And what do you mean by "easy points"? That two players will conspire to create an undramatic conflict together that they can easily use to husband points off each other?

I think you've got a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how this works, so maybe I didn't explain it well, but I think you made alot of assumptions based on something I'm not familiar with.

I don't even know how to begin addressing your post since I don't even really understand what you're talking about or how it relates to what I wrote. Can you cite an example I can address directly?

I'd post more about the system and especially character creation where the dramatic conflicts are set up (which probably would help) but I fear saying too much that I'd be giving away the farm here because it's pretty simple of a system.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;598526Here's how it works. If you're the "caller" (the player who is in the spotlight) you get to decide what the next scene will be about and who is in it with you, like "I want to go confront Bob about his chatting up my girlfriend earlier". Thus you've set up that you want to talk to Bob, and the scene will be about the confrontation. You also have a goal in the scene, some emotional need you want Bob to grant, in this case, you want him to acknowledge that chatting up your girlfriend was Not Cool, and apologize to you.

So you and Bob's player roleplay out the scene. There's no mechanics here, you just roleplay it. There's two basic outcomes here:

1.) Bob acknolwedges the uncoolness of hitting on your g/f and apologizes. Bob's player gets a drama point from you for "giving in"
2.) Bob refuses to apologize for any number of reasons. You get 1 drama point from Bob for "losing" the argument.

These points only change hands AFTER the scene is concluded, based on how everyone perceives the outcome (did your character or Bob get what you wanted?)

Now, if you and Bob's player have dramapoints, there's a couple of other things that could happen:

1.) You could choose to Force The Issue by paying Bob's player 2 drama points to make Bob compromise with your character. He doesn't have to give in entirely, but he has to make a concession of some kind.
2.) If Bob's player REALLY doesn't want Bob to apologize, he can counter your 2 drama points with 3 drama points of his own to shut the argument down, and you get those three points in compensation

So the idea is that the drama points force a give and take between the parties involved, because there's never more than a handful of Drama points in play, and they're paid from player to player. So you can't stand pat and never give in to anything; sooner or later someone will force a compromise by forcing the issue. And if you give in frequently on the things not as important to you, it ensures you can throw down on the things that really matter.

No part of the system is used to determine who "wins" the conflict. That's entirely determined in play via Roleplaying.

In this example Bob is being targeted. The way you described it Bob is targeted for IC reasons. Ie the player who chooses the scene want to accomplish their goal.

Unfortunately while that is obviously the way the designer wants the system to work, it is not what the system you described actually gives incentives for.

The player setting the scene can earn one or three points if they target something that they know Bob will defend. As soon as the other players figure out what Bob will defend he becomes vulnerable. The choices Bob has are A) decide not to defend anything too strongly ie not care or B) Not let anyone else know what he cares about enough to defend. or C) Give up points to any player willing to exploit the system by hammering the things he cares about.

The system you described clearly provides incentives for setting scenes that exploit other players weaknesses in this matter and for refusing to have or reveal these weaknesses. Did you leave something out or did I miss something?

Quote from: Lorrraine;598567In this example Bob is being targeted. The way you described it Bob is targeted for IC reasons. Ie the player who chooses the scene want to accomplish their goal.

Preface: since it's a game about drama, assumptively, you want drama in your game. If you don't like dramatic emotional conflict in your games, you won't like this. If you have have players who feel uncomfortable bringing emotion into the focus of play, then you can skip the rest of this post.

Bob isn't being targeted. Bob is being asked to grant a need. This may not even be important to Bob at all, it is only really important to the Petitioner. Bob can agree or refuse (or compromise). Everything that happens, happens for IC reasons, because of defined relationships and then character actions that act accordingly to those relationships. And it's not a goal, it's a need, an emotional need the petitioner is bringing to the granted, they're putting themselves on the line

So Bob isn't being attacked, Jim is exposing the stuff he cares about, he's the one taking the risk here, not Bob.


And it has to be roleplayed out. I can't just show up and say "hey Bob, give me what I want or else you give me a Dramapoint". I have to go, roleplay the scene, say to Bob the things I'm feeling and try to get him to give me what I want.

Also, Bob's player and the other character's player have already agreed to a relationship that is open to these conflicts, something they want to explore in the game in character that both of them have agreed to when they made their characters and defined their relationship.

QuoteThe player setting the scene can earn one or three points if they target something that they know Bob will defend.

But it has to be something that is relevant to the relationship that Bob's player and the other player have already agreed upon earlier during character creation. No one is involving anyone else entirely against their will. (there's another mechanic I didn't bring up earlier called "Ducking" which also allows you to just Not Be There when someone tries to bring you into a scene. There's also one that allows you to be in the scene even if you weren't supposed to be. The text says in the playtest the latter happened much more often than the former)

And the points don't mean anything, they're just a consolation prize for losing in a conflict. There's no real point in trying to hoard them, they're not that powerful, and it's not a big deal if you do or don't have any. It will also be very rare for anyone to have 2 or more points at any given time. The game is recommended for 6-8 players and recommends having a total of 12 drama points available.

And keep in mind a conflict doesn't have to be negative.

For example, if my character wants to ask your character out on a date, that's a conflict. I'm the petitioner, you're the granter; you can agree to my date and give me my emotional need for your affection, or you can refuse. I'm not attacking you by doing this, and you're not defending yourself by refusing. It's only a conflict because I want something I don't have from you, and you may not be willing to grant it or perhaps cannot grant it.

This, of course, is predicated on our having a character relationship where we both agreed on an asymmetrical relationship between us, like my character has an unrequited love for your character, which is what makes this a dramatic conflict.

If I'm just casually asking you out on a date but there's no emotionally dramatic relationship involved, then that's just talking, it's not a dramatic conflict, and no points are involved. Points only show up when it matters to the dramatic relationship we jointly defined earlier.

QuoteAs soon as the other players figure out what Bob will defend he becomes vulnerable.

He doesn't need to figure anything out. Bob's player and the other player have already defined their relationship together and are agreeing to dramatic conflict as players. The nature of the conflicts they will have is defined by their relationship. The system allows them to have a give and take as Characters without the more dominant or stubborn player always "winning". The conflict is therefore consensual, but the outcome is determined in play.

Also, for something to be a dramatic conflict, it MUST play into the relationship as defined. It cannot be just any old random thing. The GM, or in fact any other player, including Bob's player, can Challenge any scene which seems to be metagaming or out of context of the relationship.

QuoteThe choices Bob has are A) decide not to defend anything too strongly ie not care or B) Not let anyone else know what he cares about enough to defend. or C) Give up points to any player willing to exploit the system by hammering the things he cares about.

No, none of those choices are relevant (and who cares if you give up points?), because the game doesn't work like that. Bob is only bringing in conflicts that his Player has already agreed to either explicitly or implicitly through the nature of the relationship the player has established between his character and another character.

I think you believe points are more valuable than they are, as well.

QuoteThe system you described clearly provides incentives for setting scenes that exploit other players weaknesses in this matter and for refusing to have or reveal these weaknesses. Did you leave something out or did I miss something.

I left alot of things out. As I said, I fear giving away the whole farm because this system is pretty simple. But no one is being exploited (unless a player wants their character to be open to being exploited, of course).

Quote from: Lorrraine;598567In this example Bob is being targeted. The way you described it Bob is targeted for IC reasons. Ie the player who chooses the scene want to accomplish their goal.

Unfortunately while that is obviously the way the designer wants the system to work, it is not what the system you described actually gives incentives for.

The player setting the scene can earn one or three points if they target something that they know Bob will defend. As soon as the other players figure out what Bob will defend he becomes vulnerable. The choices Bob has are A) decide not to defend anything too strongly ie not care or B) Not let anyone else know what he cares about enough to defend. or C) Give up points to any player willing to exploit the system by hammering the things he cares about.

The system you described clearly provides incentives for setting scenes that exploit other players weaknesses in this matter and for refusing to have or reveal these weaknesses. Did you leave something out or did I miss something?

As DJ already responded, I'm not going to address this directly. However, this actually sounds like it would be a great system for a bit more abstract politics/negotiation In these cases, it's all about keeping what you want from your opponent, while trying to discover their "weaknesses". By actually giving the "drama points" wider utility, this system could be used to drive all kinds of espionage and political machinations Rockin... might have to think about that some more.

Quote from: Sigmund;598589In these cases, it's all about keeping what you want from your opponent, while trying to discover their "weaknesses". By actually giving the "drama points" wider utility, this system could be used to drive all kinds of espionage and political machinations Rockin... might have to think about that some more.

Maybe, but you'd have to shift the focus quite a bit and make some system changes. As written, the game rewards making compromises* rather than taking hard line approaches. Also, drama points are a consolation for not getting what you want, id be concerned about making not achieving goals systemically rewarded. Sounds like you'd want it to do the opposite in those cases. I think other systems could do this better.

Now, if you want to play espionage agents who are in love with each other... now you're cooking

This system would be appropriate for something like the relationships between the principal characters in Burn Notice, for example. Or Alias. Or Nikita. Those are filled with frought, dramatic relationships.

I think people are misunderstanding the word "conflict" here as being some kind of aggression between the PCs, when it doesn't need to mean that (although it's by no means precluded), it means a Dramatic Conflict in the way it happens on a TV drama show. Dramatic Conflicts can occur without being adversarial. Romances, for example, are frought with dramatic conflicts involving two people who are very much on the same side. A dramatic conflict is just where dramatic tension has a chance to resolve.

* in fact, if you manage to resolve a dramatic conflict in a way that both PCs get what they want, no drama points change hands... and it's possible no one will be happy with the outcome, and again no points change hands... well technically, they both get one from the other.

This is, in fact, one of my biggest complaints about social conflict mechanics, is that they always have clear winners and losers and social conflicts are rarely that cut-and-dried. They're usually much more about give and take and compromise. There's more win-win and lose-lose and other combinations (partial win - partial lose) than clear win-lose situations in social conflicts, and no other system captures that. That this system is at least trying is a positive step. The system is designed to make a clear simple mechanic to encourage complex relationships and dramatic tension that end more frequently in a complex state of compromise more often than one winner/one loser, much more like real life.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;598596Maybe, but you'd have to shift the focus quite a bit and make some system changes. As written, the game rewards making compromises* rather than taking hard line approaches. Also, drama points are a consolation for not getting what you want, id be concerned about making not achieving goals systemically rewarded. Sounds like you'd want it to do the opposite in those cases. I think other systems could do this better.

Now, if you want to play espionage agents who are in love with each other... now you're cooking

This system would be appropriate for something like the relationships between the principal characters in Burn Notice, for example. Or Alias. Or Nikita. Those are filled with frought, dramatic relationships.

I think people are misunderstanding the word "conflict" here as being some kind of aggression between the PCs, when it doesn't need to mean that (although it's by no means precluded), it means a Dramatic Conflict in the way it happens on a TV drama show. Dramatic Conflicts can occur without being adversarial. Romances, for example, are frought with dramatic conflicts involving two people who are very much on the same side. A dramatic conflict is just where dramatic tension has a chance to resolve.

* in fact, if you manage to resolve a dramatic conflict in a way that both PCs get what they want, no drama points change hands... and it's possible no one will be happy with the outcome, and again no points change hands... well technically, they both get one from the other.

This is, in fact, one of my biggest complaints about social conflict mechanics, is that they always have clear winners and losers and social conflicts are rarely that cut-and-dried. They're usually much more about give and take and compromise. There's more win-win and lose-lose and other combinations (partial win - partial lose) than clear win-lose situations in social conflicts, and no other system captures that. That this system is at least trying is a positive step. The system is designed to make a clear simple mechanic to encourage complex relationships and dramatic tension that end more frequently in a complex state of compromise more often than one winner/one loser, much more like real life.

I get what you're saying re: the negotiation angle, but I'm thinking of a system that means a situation isn't resolved in one go. It's the back and forth. Sure, your opponent gets rewarded for compromising, but then that reward can be used against you for the next phase of the negotiation, so it would be a balancing act... a strategic one, where the player would have to decide where to give in to get the resources so that they could fight tooth and nail for what they really value. This is also where pre-knowledge of what your opponent values most would give a player the edge, especially if the opponent doe not have similar knowledge. This would add value other than "this is the adventure I have prepared, so you superior sends you on this mission" to espionage and investigation. Just thoughts though.