Non Combat Systems- spin-off of Women in Glorantha

[jenh]

15 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

Would you care to set a scenario from which we can derive a test set of issues or proposals? 

The PCs are involved in a dispute between an Orlanthi stead and a nearby Aldryami enclave. The Orlanthi have recently had a significant increase in population due to their acceptance into the group of refugees. The Orlanthi have increased resource needs (firewood, grazing land, etc) and want to extend the traditional borders of their holdings further into the forest that the Aldryami hold. There is a second Orlanthi settlement, of another clan, also nearby, who have been encroaching on the forest. The PCs are representatives of the first stead.

This only really becomes interesting though when it is enriched by more specific contexts, of the people involved, the history of the people and places, etc. Those are the sources for many of the items on the lists that I'd construct.

I hope this helps!

[g33k]

5 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

What will make the non-combat scenes as exciting as combat?  And, by the way, make them last longer than a single die roll, with actual player choices and not just time-wasting = so the non-combat scene is not just a minute's break between fights?

My only thought is the dramatic pattern of rising to a dramatic climax, and then the falling action of playing out the results.  Your thoughts, though?
...

I think a key element is for the characters to be facing a substantive risk/loss.

In combat, they may die (or be so injured as to "end" the expedition; or forced to expend too many resources (RP/MP), making FURTHER explorations even more risky.

It's like the rule-of-thumb to "only roll when the results matter" -- only engage in the larger multi-roll mechanics when both the potential loss *AND* gain are both reasonably impactful.  Maybe they face exile, or fail to negotiate release of hostages, or etc.

 

[Squaredeal Sten]

On 11/2/2021 at 5:43 PM, jenh said:

The PCs are involved in a dispute between an Orlanthi stead and a nearby Aldryami enclave. The Orlanthi have recently had a significant increase in population due to their acceptance into the group of refugees. The Orlanthi have increased resource needs (firewood, grazing land, etc) and want to extend the traditional borders of their holdings further into the forest that the Aldryami hold. There is a second Orlanthi settlement, of another clan, also nearby, who have been encroaching on the forest. The PCs are representatives of the first stead.

This only really becomes interesting though when it is enriched by more specific contexts, of the people involved,

Here is my test run through.  i assumed an additional rule; you can only use each augment once.

Both the GM and the PCs prepare lists of Bargaining goals, divided into

A. One Most Important thing they want

B. Two Less Important things they want

C. Up to three Things they want to avoid

 

Starting 8:35PM-8:50PM (lots of typing and thought about the Aldryami here, world buildling should already be in GM’s mind)

 

                                                                   

The PCs (Orlanthi)

 

‘A. Land to feed/house added people

 

B.1. Not to fight  B.2   Firewood  B.3. Grazing land

 

C; Avoid fighting

 The Aldryami (GM)

A. Preserve their forest 

B.1.  Allies against nearby Uz; B.2. Access to Ernalda temple; B.3. To expand their forest

 

C.1. Avoid fighting both clans of Orlanthi at once, a 2-front war; C.2. Avoid fighting any Orlanthi

3. Both sides do Bargaining rolls, which may have reasonable augments.

Round 1:

	Orlanthi: Bargainng, will augment with Aldryami lore 15% and Sartar lore 40%        The augments;  Aldryami lore 91 fail  Sartar lore  15 success Bargaining roll at 50%+20%  06 special Orlanthi choose 2/3 of A, and Insight roll,  Insight Aldryami is basic 0 + bonus 15%, roll a 36, fail
			Aldryami: Bargaining, augment with Earth rune 70% and Human lore 20%     The augments: Earth rune 75 fail Human lore  58 fail     Bargaining roll at 40%  44 fail

 

 

 

 

Round 2:

	Orlanthi Bargaining,  Augment with Man rune, 60%   Augment roll  77, fail Bargain roll  vs. 50%, 60, fail Orlanthi Bargaining, Augment with Man rune, 60%     Augment roll  77, fail Bargain roll  vs. 50%, 60, fail		aldryami Bargaining, Augment with  Plant rune,  80%     Augment roll 68, success aldryami Bargaining, Augment with  Plant rune,  80%   Augment roll 68, success Bargain foll vs. 40%+20% is 23, success   Aldryami choose C.2. Avoid fighting any OrlanthiBargain foll vs. 40%+20% is 23, success

 

Insight rolls; orlanthi 70, fail      Aldryami   85, fail

Negotiation continues-

 

Round 3:

	Bargaining, Augment with Darkness rune, 30% Gift/ bribe GM values at 10% Augment  roll  39, fail Bargain roll  vs. 50%+10% is 39, success Orlanthi choose 1/3 of (A), This gives them A, land		Bargaining, Augment with  Man rune, 50% Augment with Sartar lore,  40% Augment roll s 47%, success 26^, success Aldryami choose  one item from (B), B.1.  Allies against nearby Uz argain roll vs. 40%+ 40% = 26, success Aldryami choose  one item from (B), B.1.  Allies against nearby Uz

 

Insight rolls: Orlanthi      45, fail   Aldryami  vs. 15%,  18, fail

Orlanthi take their option to settle for what has already been negotiated.

The Orlanthi will get some land – the amount at GM’s discretion since it was not specified – And have pledged not to fight the Aldryami and to ally with them against the Uz.  The Aldryami achieved  a  B goal and will not walk away.

 I was finished by 9;50, so over an hour on my end - but most of my time was spent typing and I type slowly.  I also had to do some world building on the Aldryami side.  Each side had to do three Bargain rolls and five or six augment rolls.  and I as GM had to evaluate on gift/bribe which i had thought of as Orlanthi..

Your thoughts on how the test ran?

Edited November 4, 2021 by Squaredeal Sten
copy and paste of text boxes from MS-Word did not go well.

[jenh]

Looks alright to me. It seems like a lot of rolling on the GM's part, but combat is much the same, so in terms of making something that has similar mechanical heft that's probably a win?

What do the people who like and want fuller social mechanics think?

[Runeblogger]

What if the Aldryami had also achieved a special success in their first Bargain roll?

[Squaredeal Sten]

11 hours ago, Runeblogger said:

What if the Aldryami had also achieved a special success in their first Bargain roll?

then they would have gotten to choose 2/3 of their 'A" item or one B item.

A. Preserve their forest; 
B.1.  Allies against nearby Uz; B.2. Access to Ernalda temple; B.3. To expand their forest

If that were the ONLY die roll change, then if the Aldrymi chose A, 2/3 of  Preserve their forest, then at the end of round 3 they would not quite have that.  But if they chose B3, expand their forest, then i see a way that that is not a contradictory result (read 3 paragraphs down).

But I do see that we need a rule to resolve contradictory items, such as the Orlanthi getting more land and the Aldryami getting "to expand their forest" or 'preserve their forest". 

I'd appreciate your own views on how we might do that.  The GM can't allow a true contradiction. 

However I can see that one way to satisfy both of these and still fulfill the literal terms of the bargaining points is to ally against the Uz and take the Uz land, either dividing it equally or compensating the Aldryami for anything ceded to the Orlanthi with 100% of the Uz land.  So the GM will have to do some interpretation here. 

I would also say that if the two sides' rolls produce an un-resolvable contradiction then there is an impasse and no deal.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Squaredeal Sten
what-if

[jenh]

One issue I have with that system is that it doesn't feel like a negotiation, because the two sides are operating almost entirely independently. I suggested earlier have an opposed roll that determines the starting number of points the PCs get to spend on items on the lists. A really good success compared to the others means starting with a few points - but still not enough to get their A item. The only way to get more points is to select items from the other side's lists.

This I think would make it feel much more like a negotiation, even if the GM doesn't get involved at all after making the lists (which I would - this is where I'd roleplay out arguments in favour of or against particular items).

[Squaredeal Sten]

2 hours ago, jenh said:

One issue I have with that system is that it doesn't feel like a negotiation, because the two sides are operating almost entirely independently. I suggested earlier have an opposed roll that determines the starting number of points the PCs get to spend on items on the lists. A really good success compared to the others means starting with a few points - but still not enough to get their A item. The only way to get more points is to select items from the other side's lists.

This I think would make it feel much more like a negotiation, even if the GM doesn't get involved at all after making the lists (which I would - this is where I'd roleplay out arguments in favour of or against particular items).

Tnat's as good point, and a good idea on building give and take into the mechanics.

I would also like to build in an option for each side to have an initial offer 9as distinct from an initial request or goal).  Something like the Orlanthi in our example having a goal of negotiating for land but also bring willing to pay for it in some way.  This would not be a requirement, instead it wold be an option.

Now since the initial opposed bargaining rolls can start each side off with a number of points,

1) How many total points?  For the initial points, and for the total point value of the bargaining items? 

I suggest keeping those numbers fairly low -  something like a total of 10 or 20  points, and a crit vs. a fumble giving an initial 4 points to the crit side vs. 1 point for the fumble side. 

2) How do we set the point value of items from the two sides' lists?  

3) How do we account for one side starting with a stronger bargaining position?  Something like negotiation between  the stronger Lunar occupying forces and the weaker Sartarites circa 1620ST?  Or for the Orlanthi in our test example potentially using their new population to fight?

I would think that the simplest way is for the GM to value that a an augment.  But I'm definitely not stuck on that idea

If the previous list format of 1 A, 1 to 3 B, and up to 3 C is acceptable-  then as a starting idea how about a 10 point base,

4) What are the rules for the negotiation continuing or ending?

5) What impact will augments have?

[jenh]

47 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

1) How many total points?  For the initial points, and for the total point value of the bargaining items? 

I think (in my quest for something really simple) that I'd have a baseline of 0 points when the negotiation's opposed roll comes out with both sides equal. If one side is in a superior position, I'd reflect that with a negative modifier to the PC's points, meaning that they must buy more of the stronger sides items. I'd possibly couple this with the other side having more items on their lists, if necessary.

47 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

2) How do we set the point value of items from the two sides' lists?

A item costs 10, B item costs 5, C item costs 2? If a really good opposed roll (critical vs fumble) gets four points, that's a big chunk but still requires negotiating.

47 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

4) What are the rules for the negotiation continuing or ending?

Each side has to get at least one item on their list, and must have an item of the same level or one lower than the highest level item on the other side. So you can't have one side get their A item and buy it solely with C items. This might only apply to the non-PC side, so that PCs who rolled very poorly might decide to settle for C items when the others get their A item.

Since this is all PC driven, they determine if they can get a set of items that fulfill those criteria and which satisfy them. If they can't, the negotiation ends with no one getting anything, if they can, each side gets the items the PCs selected.

47 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

5) What impact will augments have?

Modification to the skill used in the opposed roll, I assume.

[Squaredeal Sten]

All right, let’s run through the same Orlanthi & aldryami scenario with those methods

Let’s assume neither side begins with a significant advantage.

 

Let’s make the points for Bargaining differential as follows:

4 levels e.g / Crit vs. Fumble = 4

3 levelx (e.g. Crit vs. Fail 0  =3

2 levels e.g  Special vs. Fail =2

1 level e.g Success vs. Fail =1

0 level;s e.g. success vs. success = 0

 

Here is my test run through.  I still assumed an additional rule; you can only use each augment once.

Both the GM and the PCs prepare lists of Bargaining goals, divided into

The PCs (Orlanthi)  

‘A. Land to feed/house added people  : cost 10

B.1. Not to fight  B.2   Firewood  B.3. Grazing land   cost 5

C; Avoid fighting cost 2

 The Aldryami (GM) cost 10

A. Preserve their forest    
B.1.  Allies against nearby Uz; B.2. Access to Ernalda temple; B.3. To expand their forest  cost 5

C.1. Avoid fighting both clans of Orlanthi at once, a 2-front war; C.2. Avoid fighting any Orlanthi   cost 2

 

The initial bargaining rolls are the same as in the previous test:

Orlanthi::  Bargainng, will augment with Aldryami lore 15% and Sartar lore 40%      

The augments;  Aldryami lore 91 fail  Sartar lore  15 success

Bargaining roll at 50%+20%  06 special

 

Aldryami:  Bargaining, augment with Earth rune 70% and Human lore 20%

The augments:  Earth rune 75 fail   Human lore  58 fail

Bargaining roll at 40%  44 fali

 

Special vs. Fail gives the Orlanthi 2 points.

Choice round 1: You say it’s going to be player-character driven so…

Orlanthi want to buy their A, and have 2 points, so need 8.

The Orlanthi buy 8 points with the following concessions:

Aldryami B1 allies against nearby Uz =5,  Avoid fighting any Orlanthi =2 , Avoid fighting both Orlanthi clans at once =2

Total Orlanthi points available now = 11 (one over). This will buy their ‘A”, Land to feed/house added people  : cost 10

At this point the Orlanthi want to stop.

Note however that if the Aldryami had gamed it better and only named one ‘C” the Orlanthi would be short one and need to throw in access to the Ernalda temple, or the other possibility would be for the alliance to take Uz land.

Each side has at least one item on their list, and an item of the same level or one lower than the highest level item on the other side.  This fulfills the ending criteria.  End of negotiation.

 Now is that satisfying? 

Do you have the feeling that bargaining took place? 

How about if the GM role-plays it a little, providing a conversational interchange (to be modeled)?

[jenh]

 

21 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

Each side has at least one item on their list, and an item of the same level or one lower than the highest level item on the other side.  This fulfills the ending criteria.  End of negotiation.

 Now is that satisfying? 

Do you have the feeling that bargaining took place? 

How about if the GM role-plays it a little, providing a conversational interchange (to be modeled)?

It seems okay to me - it's mechanically quick to resolve, involves the players deciding which bits of the Aldryami position they find most appealing/least unappealing, and has concrete outcomes.

It would definitely benefit, for my tastes, from the process of selecting items including bits of roleplay. The point of this process is to allow for not roleplaying the whole thing (whether for speed, to explicitly include character skill and/or randomness, to cover player gaps of knowledge, or whatever), but to end up with something that isn't abstract. The concrete results are good, but knowing the end result then also enables the roleplaying to be done that gives all of the really good stuff - how people interacted, what they feel, etc.

I think I mentioned earlier that you can use the other side's list to include things that are negative consequences that aren't part of the literal bargaining position, that can also feed into the roleplaying: eg, a loss of respect by the Aldryami for the PCs. Indeed, such items might be the majority - I'm always going to be more interested in personal relationships than who gets what. I can easily imagine setting up a negotiation in which - if the negotiation doesn't break down entirely - the other side is guaranteed to get various things, and the list items are all negative consequences. The better the PCs' roll, the fewer negative consequences they need to take.

I should point out that this is all something of an inflection on the general system in 7th Sea 2nd edition (or what I recall of it).