đŸ Archived View for ttrpgs.com âș gen âș devlog_arena.gmi captured on 2022-10-16 at 17:02:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In the new Contest System for the Storyteller system books, both players roll the same Attribute + Ability combination. This has made a number of people online strangely irate, so this seems like a great time to speak about non-obvious system benefits, and why just going with your gut doesn't always produce great results.
First, let's consider the alternative - players enter a Contest with whatever Attribute + Ability pair works best.
You want to get the job of local sheriff, so you need to compete with everyone else who wants the position, and really get into the Prince's good graces.
What could the roll be? Well players could argue plausibly for Manipulation, to manipulate the prince...or manipulate the competition. Or maybe Charisma, to be well-liked? With the right method, it seems one could even argue for Intelligence being used - after all, people will have to construct a good case, publicly, which involves thinking through the implications. Abilities give the same problem. Should the player use Etiquette, Empathy, Subterfuge, or MĂȘlĂ©e? Why shouldn't MĂȘlĂ©e get employed, if the job involves being perpetual muscle for the Prince?
The solution for the players here is obvious - just use whatever gives the most pluses. I don't say this to insult players - if you have a character with a Charisma + Etiquette total of 8 dice, while your Manipulation + Subterfuge has only 3 dice, you're clearly going to want to do what you do best.
Now here comes the worst part: the storyteller must adjudicate your rolls. The storyteller has already been burdened with a lot of decisions, and each one will tire the brain (this is science, not opinion - each decisions you make drains your decision-making ability).
No, the other guy is showing off his muscle with Manipulation + Intimdation, saying he could mess you up, so you need to respond in a way that makes sense for the position of sheriff.
Now the player can push back. Maybe Etiquette really does have a part to play. They bring further arguments, and eventually an interpretation arises which prompts an Ontological discussion, derailing the entire thing.
The Attribute + Ability pair which both contestants use is called 'the Arena'. The aggressor decides which Ability to use. The defender decides the Attribute.
The Aggressor's Ability will almost always make sense, because what they are doing is decided based on the Ability. Trying to use Finance? Well you must be trying to Financially ruin someone, or call their book-keeping knowledge into question. It's clear you can't use Finance in a fight to hit someone with a binder, but as long as you can provide a clear picture of how you're using an Ability, it's fine.
The Attributes follow the same reasoning. Want to defend against a brawl with Stamina? That sounds like wrestling, with a lot of clinches. Or you could use Dexterity, which sounds like quick shots to eyes, crotch and the floating ribs.
In short: decide Traits first, and find any interpretation which fits.
A single success allows someone to change one Trait in the Arena, which naturally builds a nice narrative flow.
You switch from Finance to law.
Where once you tracked a business's cash-flow, now you're sending in the lawyers to make a pig's breakfast out of their compliance issues.
You switch from Subterfuge + Etiquette
"I would like to work together for everyone's benefit", you say, "but I find it hard when you're being so hostile". The room takes not that it doesn't matter who's tales of glory are true - if your interlocutor can't work in the general interest, then nobody in Elysium would work with them. With the room accepting your gentler tone, you have successfully changed the values at play.
You switch from Drive to Athletics.
"He can't drive through the shopping-mall - let's just get out and run!"
Several narrative switches can occur, which builds a natural narrative from the mechanics. Instead of rolling Dexterity + Brawl until someone gets too many penalties, we can craft scene of a fist-fight, then a knife is pulled (switch to the Sparring Skill), switch to Athletics (run away!), switch to Drive (get in, motherfucker!), then back to Brawl.
If people can select their own Traits, it's very tempting to get very good at one thing, then just use that Trait for everything. But with a fixed Arena, characters have an incentive to get good at multiple things. A clear split arises here in terms of attack and defence - someone might increase their Etiquette to undermine others in Elysium, and on the street (a fine tactic), but if they put all their dots in that one basket, they'll be on the back-foot when someone starts a row using Expression.
White Wolf books have primed people to think in terms of [ Strength + MĂȘlĂ©e ] vs [ Dexterity + Dodge ], or [ Manipulation + Subterfuge ] vs [ Perception + Empathy ]. It's hard to fight against the instinct to frame things like this, but given the prizes on offer, it's worth the time to consider different pictures and interpretations.
Under the narrative of the Arenas, 'Subterfuge' helps to lie as well as spot lies. Stamina allows one to withstand damage, and tire an opponent out. Every Attribute and Ability are both the sword and the shield.
This is not the case with all Traits however - characters add Bonuses from the Contacts background, or get Bonus dice for having a sword without any reference to their opponent. The Arena does not need to be perfectly symmetrical.
This leaves a lot of questions to be answered. How do we deal with Soak? How does Health work?
Those answers are less interesting, so I'll leave the reader to download the book for a more complete answer.