Category Archives: Experimental Mechanics

There are bunches of attack moves to spend successes on. Defense consists primarily of negating an attacker’s successes. But what if there was more you could do?

I’m not sure about this idea, but I had a thought that a defense fractional success might be used to cut damage in half.

Mechanically, you wouldn’t want to use a success on this unless you were sure you weren’t going to be able to negate all an attacker’s successes. But instead of an all or nothing winner take all roll, what if the defender could cut damage in half?

The down side to this is that it would make combats longer. Something I’m not keen on. The upside is that it would allow the players to survive longer and rewards a good roll, even if it’s not the best roll.

Being able to negate an attacker’s successes is pretty useful already. This would add a really powerful ability to characters. Perhaps this could be included as a Dodge skill focus? I’d be a lot more comfortable with that.

I’d love the ability to use social interaction and have a tactical system associated with it and not the players simply winging things. I think that players (including GMs) enter playing a character with far too much of themselves bleeding through. I don’t want to take control from the players but I would like something that gave as much texture to social interaction as physical interaction gets.

Being keen on simulation, I research psychology and neurobiology to gain insights into how to model interactions. In my studying there was a particular finding on willpower that fascinated me. In some situations, making choices cost mental energy but for people with strong beliefs on a subject, the choices are nearly automatic, they can resist temptations of certain sorts all day long and feel fine.

Knowing how to describe that in a game would be really useful. I made a crude approximation of it for the 3rd edition system with principles and priorities but I had a new thought on how to model it today.

It involves knowing the desires of a person. Having a desire for something means that a person has to use mental energy to resist a temptation. If a person will be deprived of something they want, they’ll fight to get/keep it. This can work two ways though. Say that I want chocolate cake because it’s a food I like. Then say that I desire to lose weight. The two might cancel each other out to an extent and so making a choice is difficult. It would take an effort.

Now what if I could add things like “really doesn’t want to exercise” to argue with myself that I shouldn’t eat it. Then maybe “hungry” could kick in and “It’s a small piece of cake” could deliver the knock down blow. Resisting now will be especially costly.

What this becomes is a list of draws on the character, not barriers that protect them. However if something takes the character away from one of their draws, the character gets a bonus to resisting. If it goes against several draws, the choice is automatic and can’t challenge the character.

So what this looks like is a system of tags that add or subtract from the argument for and against. The problem is that in any person’s own mental argument, there could be dozens of desires that come into play and naming them all would be difficult to impossible.

So either a simplified list would be needed or some way of intuitively calling them up would have to be created.

One idea that comes to mind is that most desires are in balance, it’s the really strong desires that sway things one way or the other. Then a character could have a short list of desires and only deal with those.

But to have this work well, the players have to see having desires as a net benefit. They need to mechanically benefit the character in most situations and only be harmful occasionally. In part, that means the GM not overusing them to the players detriment. Players may also view it as taking away some agency, so there has to always be the choice of resisting at a cost.

I was tossing around the idea of getting a character to progress not just mechanically but having the story they tell, change over time. I want mechanics involved though, because mechanics are one of the tools the players use to assert their agency on the story.

In some games, the player builds a character out of predefined elements by spending points. Xp are points, so what if the player progressed by spending xp on things that change their character? Cheaper buys would be more of a give and take. More costly buys would be better for the character as a whole. I don’t know if it’s necessary to have dozens of options. The more attributes and abilities you have in a game, the more options you’d need though.

What are we talking about then? My first thought was a buy like “Battle Hardened” where the character gets tougher, mentally and physically but becomes scarred as a human being. Maybe “Pumping Iron” makes the character stronger but their mental abilities of skills drop a bit from lack of practice. A buy where the character becomes more charismatic might mean becoming more mentally flexible and so loose some of their mental toughness.

Implementing this in The Artifact is a little tricky because of the progressive nature of xp buys. If my Constitution is 90 and my Charisma is 10 and I take a buy that boosts Constitution 5 points but drops Charisma 5 points, it sounds like an even trade. I’ve actually made out by a lot because those Constitution points are really worth 3 Charisma points apiece.

I like the idea but I’m not sure how to implement it. It could be as simple as saying one attribute is raised and another lowered the same amount. Instead of the regular 3 xp it costs to raise an attribute, the cost could be brought down to 1 xp.

Equipment ranges are governed by Range Classes in the Fraction Column System. The ranges are based on rough amalgams  of different distances I found in research. In normal use the ranges make sense but in a few edge cases though I’ve become aware of people busting these distances. Very frequently they’re exceptional cases, but they do happen.

I thought about changing the range classes, but that doesn’t seem practical especially at this point.

My other thought is to say, by spending fractional successes, one could extend the range of the equipment. I’m not sure how difficult to make that though. On the low end the thought is that by spending 2 fractional successes, you can double the distances in a range class. That would make tripling the distances in the range class possible if the character gets one fractional success from an advantage.

That seems to be almost right, but it’s an odd process. Do you spend the successes before or after rolling for range impairment? Do all rolls of this type get an extreme range Impairment? Do they get two? I think that requires us to play the rule and smooth out the process.

One of the problems we’ve run into for character generation for The Artifact is that it takes time to sit down and record all the stuff that a character starts out with. We’ve also had times where all the game books are being used and someone needs one for finishing a character.

To fix that problem, I made a small format PDF that can be printed on 3×5 cards or easily viewed on a smartphone. Each type of character occupation take up a single card so if you wanted, you could just keep the card with your character sheet if you didn’t feel like writing.

Quick Character Cards

Whatever it takes to make it easier to get playing and into the action!

How does a character get someone else to be their friend? Or get them to fall in love with them?

The first thing to get out of the way is that they can’t make anyone be their friend. You can’t make anyone fall in love.

So how do we make this happen? How can this work if someone isn’t getting forced? The answer is standard procedure for the Social Conflict rules. You push them.

Each time a character tries to get another character to be their friend or fall in love, they enter a social conflict and they actually cause mental stress to the other character. It’s important to understand that this isn’t explicitly the angry kind of mental stress of a shouting match. This can actually be very pleasant mental stress.

What this stress represents, is social pressure. It’s an open loop in the character’s thought process that is crying out for resolution. It’s the character’s choice whether they will consent or not. They could consent on the first try or refuse until they’re a miserable mess. It all hangs on how dangerous the character views the relationship. The stronger the proposed relationship the more danger it presents.

The following are guidelines for an GM to handle an NPC’s decision on if they should consent to a relationship. This isn’t intended as a chart the GM needs to consult, just as proposed milestones to help them in making choices for an NPC who may or may not have any kind of background.

So how does a GM decide for an NPC? The first time the NPC takes stress, the GM can check to see if they will accept. First, could the NPC handle the stress of the relationship breaking up? That includes friendships. Would the stress cause them to go over their Psyche attribute and cause a mental breakdown? Would entering the proposed relationship put the character in a difficult position? For example, falling in love with the enemy or it would conflict with existing relationships. Is the character that is proposing the relationship is deficient somehow that would effect the relationship? For example, the character’s Beauty attribute is lower than the NPC’s or the character is poor. If the relationship would cause little or no trouble for the NPC, they may take up the offer.

At any point the character can Stall the conflict or react with Aggression if the relationship would seem offensive to them. Follow the standard rules for this.

Only if a character immediately accepts the proposed relationship can it become a “True Love” relationship.

The conflict continues until the Mental stress built up is five points away from overwhelming the NPC’s lowest mental attribute (IQ, Int or Psy). Now the NPC is weighing the relationship more seriously. Remember though, they’re not stressed like they would be in an argument. They may be very upbeat, even ecstatic. Now the GM tests against the question, would entering the proposed relationship put the character in a difficult position? Especially if the relationship would cause a dangerous situation, the NPC will still refuse. Is the character proposing the relationship seriously deficient in some way? An attribute under 10 may be a good example, or more than four attributes are lower than the NPC’s attributes.

Once the conflict has overwhelmed the NPC’s Psyche the GM should consider refusing if the relationship would put the NPC in danger. Even at that, the NPC may still decide to consent. Is the character  proposing the relationship severely deficient in some way? For example more than seven attributes are lower than the NPC’s attributes. This may still be grounds for refusing but the NPC is still conflicted and strongly considering the proposal.

If the conflict should progress to the point of Mental stress doubling the NPC’s Psyche attribute, the GM should very strongly consider the proposal being accepted by the NPC.

Player characters always have the choice made by the player but the conditions above could be used as rough guidelines if a player desired.

Relationship Decay

Over time a relationship will decay if it is not maintained. This could lead to bothersome accounting if the players were required to track each relationship. To avoid this, any time the GM feels it is appropriate, they may require a relationship check. Only one of the characters needs to pass a Charisma roll. The Extra Effort rules can be applied. These may be frequent or infrequent according to how the GM interprets the nature of the relationship.

In so many games and with so many players, I’ve seen characters that are designed to be devoid of emotion. They are gruff, calloused warriors, loners with nothing to tie themselves to this world but their fortunes and their expertise.

*Yawn*

Aside from a few poorly adjusted individuals, almost no one moves through life without emotional ties. Most people desire companionship and laughter. So why do players make characters like this?

Because it’s safe. If they have an emotional tie with someone, that person is a liability. They can be hurt, captured or even betray the PC. It’s better to be shielded from the outside world than risk that danger.

So what’s the solution? Will characters always be the heartless loners they are now? Can something melt through these hardened exteriors? Can you make the players risk the danger of an emotional connection? After all, the PCs face physical dangers all the time. Why aren’t they afraid of those? It has a lot to do with risk vs reward.

So how can emotional ties be a reward? When I look at this kind of question, I try to think of why people really behave the way they do. In this case, we have to think about what happens if a person has no emotional ties vs. someone who does.

People without emotional ties tend to get depressed more easily. They suffer from poorer health in most cases. They sometimes eat less healthy foods. Without people you trust to talk over issues, a person can make a string of poor choices. Over long periods, their behavior can become erratic.

People with emotional ties tend to be happier. They live longer. A lot of the inverse of what was just listed for a lack of emotional ties. But anther thing is that they have a reason to keep pushing forward when the going gets tough.

So what are these? A lot of the effects would be positive stress effects, not only mental but also physical. Maybe healing happens faster.  Maybe advice could be used to make more intelligent choices. They may be able to call on their emotions for a boost in will power and endurance.

My thoughts on how to implement these effects is that if left to the GM, they’ll never get used. The GM already has enough to handle. Let the players handle it. Let them call on the positive effects when they need them.

In this kind of a system, I’d like to see players with a list of people their characters have ties with. Wife, children, friend, best friend all being something like an equipment list. Each relationship imparting different effects on the character. For instance, having children could give a significant boost to will power and endurance when the character’s life is in danger.

Spending time with loved ones and friends could be a stress reliever. Having friends and loved ones at your bedside (taking care of you) while healing could give that healing boost.

Obviously, the risk is still there but the game should be all the better for having characters and players that care about other people. Obviously some players would think of them only for their mechanical benefit “No! My stress point reliever!” but I’m not looking for the player to form emotional attachments to NPCs, just the characters. A lot of times players form attachments to their equipment anyway, which are all about mechanical benefits. Maybe some of that will leak through. At that point it’s just an issue of how it’s role played.

The bonuses have to be significant but not turn the characters into super humans.

For the Children! – When the character’s life is in danger, they get a 70% Advantage to Psyche and Constitution rolls.

Good Advice – If a character can talk with a friend or loved one, for IQ and Psy rolls they can use the helping mechanic to make multiple rolls using the other character’s attributes and pick the best result.

Friend – Spending an hour with a friend allows for a Charisma roll, each fractional success relives 1 Mental Stress. Each character’s roll effects the other character in the relationship. This time can be spent doing other simple tasks like eating, traveling, etc. This effect can be stacked up to four times. If a friend is wounded, the PC takes 10 Mental stress. If a friend dies, the PC takes 20 Mental stress. Breaking a friendship causes 15 Mental stress.

Love – A spouse, children, parents are all examples of loved ones. Spending an hour with a loved one  allows for a Charisma roll, each fractional success relives 2 Mental, 1 Physical and 1 Functional stress.Can be time spent doing other simple tasks like eating, traveling, etc. If a loved one is wounded, the PC takes 20 Mental, 10 Physical and 10 Functional stress. If a loved one dies, the PC takes 40 Mental, 20 Physical and 20 Functional  stress. Breaking ties with a loved one causes 30 Mental , 15 Physical and 15 Functional stress.

True Love – Spending an hour with a true love allows for a Charisma roll, each fractional success relives 3 Mental, 2 Physical and 2 Functional stress. Can be time spent doing other simple tasks like eating, traveling, etc. If a true love is wounded, the PC takes 30 Mental, 20 Physical and 20 Functional stress. If a true love dies, the PC takes 60 Mental, 40 Physical and 40 Functional  stress. Only one True Love can ever be claimed by a character. Breaking ties with a true love causes 60 Mental , 30 Physical and 30 Functional stress.

Healing – Having a friend help with a character’s healing by staying at the PC’s side gives a 30% Advantage to healing rolls. This Advantage can be stacked up to 3 times. Having a loved one help with a character’s healing by staying at the PC’s side gives a 50% Advantage to healing rolls. This Advantage can be stacked up to 2 times.

Player characters can claim each other as friends and loved ones. The other player (or the GM in the case of NPCs) can choose to reciprocate or it could be a one way relationship.

Normally there is some kind of a cost when a character wants a new piece of equipment or something that gives them a mechanical bonus. Possibly the threat of loss would be enough to dissuade a player from claiming every NPC as their friend. Maybe it shouldn’t be that easy though. Maybe a friend or loved one needs to be attracted.

Next up? The Rules of Attraction.

Update: I added a Charisma roll to each hour for reliving stress.