Intensity Escalation as a game mechanic

[Eske]

Hey gamers, looking for feedback on a mechanic, would love to hear your ideas. I don't know any other game designers here but @Grey, so I hope you have the time to respond...Otherwise, please show yourselves


I've been toying with the idea of creating a mechanic that ensures an increase in intensity, difficulty and action as the game progresses.


Every time a player fails a roll, the GM can offer to make it a success at a price; When this happens, add a single point to the Escalation score. The Escalation score determines the intensity of the game, and creates an increasing level of tension as the story progresses.


The ES determines what the GM can do in terms of obstacles and enemies. It also has a mechanical effect; the higher the ES, the more difficult the players’ rolls will be. An exception is combat; when a roll fails in combat, it does not generate an ES point.


The players can deescalate the game in several ways. They can complete character goals, they can role-play to reduce tension in the fiction and they can use Bonus Dice. The ES mechanic serves as a reward/stick rule, since it is always in the PCs best interest to lower the ES.


All choices need to fit the fiction; the GM must come up with a reason for the increased difficulty. Also remember that the GM’s role is not to be adversarial; the ES is simply a way to raise the level of suspense as the game progresses.


For those who do not know, this is part of a game called Modus, a modular game where you can add or remove rulesets as you please. The Escalation level would be a Module, which are all optional.


So I am looking for feedback on this idea. What kind of things can the GM do with a high ES? It never limits the GM, but it opens new options. The obvious idea is an increase in combat, but since Modus can be used for any kind of game, having the ES do more is imperative.


Also, think about how the ES is increased - I began with the idea that every time a player failed an important roll, the ES went up; but that would cause the players to limit themselves.


Any feedback would be appreciated!

 

[Wolf Rawrrr]

Hm. Wolf likes where this is going *bark*

Every time a player fails a roll, the GM can offer to make it a success at a price; When this happens, add a single point to the Escalation score.

So this is the only time the ES counter goes up? And it's a global thing, right, the intensity? All of the players share the same ES pool which increases whenever one of them "corrects" a failed roll?

 

[Eske]

@Wolf Rawrrr[/URL] : do you know anyone else who would be interested in helping out with this Module? I really want to know if players and GMs can see the potential in it without ruining their game. So subjective statements are welcome.

 

[Wolf Rawrrr]

You've already tagged the only person that comes to mind, but you could check out the Resources. People who post their own modifications to existing systems are likely to be interested and skilled enough for what you've got going on here.


Old Wolf's no expert, but I definitely see potential in this. It reminds me of the bonfire ascetics in Dark Souls 2 and I find it very inspiring... oh indeed...


But what's ruining the game? Relative as hell! So what if your third character died to the boss you've buffed by correcting a ton of failed rolls in the previous chapter where I pitched you against impossible odds? Just make a new one! What are you, casul? What rings you got, bitch, cuz I know you ain't got Havel's! And this time don't level dexterity, you frakking noob #MLG

 

[SephirothSage]

All Poise and Strength.


All of it.

 

[Eske]

Resources[/URL]. People who post their own modifications to existing systems are likely to be interested and skilled enough for what you've got going on here.
Old Wolf's no expert, but I definitely see potential in this. It reminds me of the bonfire ascetics in Dark Souls 2 and I find it very inspiring... oh indeed...


But what's ruining the game? Relative as hell! So what if your third character died to the boss you've buffed by correcting a ton of failed rolls in the previous chapter where I pitched you against impossible odds? Just make a new one! What are you, casul? What rings you got, bitch, cuz I know you ain't got Havel's! And this time don't level dexterity, you frakking noob #MLG

Thanks for you post, I want to hear both GMs' and players' opinion, so it's much appreciated.


About "ruining" the game - that was perhaps hyperbole...What I meant was that the players would be afraid to take action, but since it is a choice that can be refused, I don't see it as a problem.


And yes, you're right: The mechanic is a sort of band-aid; if you fail roll upon roll and make dark deals with the GM, you're in trouble. Not necessarily death, but something that adds to the game fiction.


Another reason I wrote this Module was for the players to "fail forwards" - meaning that if they need a series of rolls to do something important, and they miss a single roll, they have the option of making a deal with the devil (the gm, heh heh heh)

 

[Eske]

All Poise and Strength.
All of it.

Not really getting what you are saying. Would you mind expanding on it?

 

[SephirothSage]

...It was a Dark SOuls reference, and in reply entirely to Wlf's comment. Totally irelevant to the thread.


Sorry.


Uh- but no.


I do like the idea, though.

 

[Eske]

...It was a Dark SOuls reference, and in reply entirely to Wlf's comment. Totally irelevant to the thread.
Sorry.


Uh- but no.


I do like the idea, though.

Ah, okay - no problem Is Dark Souls a computer rpg?


The Escalation Level isn't really a new concept - however, it has always been up to the GM to raise the intensity towards the climax. Here there's a sturdy mechanic that does it automatically.

 

[Wolf Rawrrr]

Ah, okay - no problem Is Dark Souls a computer rpg?

You might say that. It's this awfully friendly game that everyone claims to be harder than it really is.


Like so: [media]



[/media]

 

[Shining Lotus Sage]

This reminds me of the Joss system from Legends of Wulin, or even more of something that the latest Marvel-branded superheroes RPG does, where players can accept advantages in exchange for increasing the GM's pool of resources to threaten them with. I don't have Wu Xia handy, and I know the Marvel book is with a friend, but if you can track one of those down before I do, it may help to see how the subject has already been approached.

 

[Eske]

[QUOTE="Shining Lotus Sage]This reminds me of the Joss system from Legends of Wulin, or even more of something that the latest Marvel-branded superheroes RPG does, where players can accept advantages in exchange for increasing the GM's pool of resources to threaten them with. I don't have Wu Xia handy, and I know the Marvel book is with a friend, but if you can track one of those down before I do, it may help to see how the subject has already been approached.

[/QUOTE]
Cool, thanks! I'd like to see something similar if it's out there.


Never heard of the former game, and haven't tried the latter, but I will check up on them.

 

[Shining Lotus Sage]

Oh, man. You should definitely pick up Wulin when you have the opportunity. Lots of really fascinating mechanics that are uncommonly well-woven into the setting. Plus, wu xia.


Wuuuuu xxxxxxia

Spoiler

Memory has faults, but here are the basics.


In Marvel, the heroes have hero points, and they're good for a lot of the same things they are in Mutants & Masterminds. Making failed saves, avoiding critical failures, powering strenuous abilities, and swinging narrow margins toward victory. The GM is also given a pool of dice, which work roughly the same way, except they're used by the non-mook villains and also to cause the scenery to become more dangerous, generally. Heroes get hero points (...which may also be dice. It's a funny system, and memory has faults.) when they suffer difficulty by GM fiat, and the GM gets more dice and bigger in the danger pool when the heroes take get-out-of-jail-free offers. They CAN be used in combat, which is a clear difference from what you're trying to do, but they also can end combat. If the GM gets up to XdY, which I think is 5d12—memory has faults, did I mention?—the scene just ends, in huge setback for the heroes that doesn't grant any hero points, but not in actual defeat. It's a superheroes/comics game, and the assumption is that there are no real permanent losses for either side.

 

[ninbinz]

I have to say, this mechanic has some great potential. The things I could do with an escalation/intensity pool. Though I'm neither a player nor a gm, just an aspirant tinkerer. Each level of Escalation could have added bonuses or penalties when players roll, throwing a monkey wrench into the works. You could also have two Escalation pools, one which adds penalties and another which adds bonuses. I'm probably just playing around with basic concepts here so don't mind me.

 

[Eske]

[QUOTE="Shining Lotus Sage]Oh, man. You should definitely pick up Wulin when you have the opportunity. Lots of really fascinating mechanics that are uncommonly well-woven into the setting. Plus, wu xia.
Wuuuuu xxxxxxia

Spoiler

Memory has faults, but here are the basics.


In Marvel, the heroes have hero points, and they're good for a lot of the same things they are in Mutants & Masterminds. Making failed saves, avoiding critical failures, powering strenuous abilities, and swinging narrow margins toward victory. The GM is also given a pool of dice, which work roughly the same way, except they're used by the non-mook villains and also to cause the scenery to become more dangerous, generally. Heroes get hero points (...which may also be dice. It's a funny system, and memory has faults.) when they suffer difficulty by GM fiat, and the GM gets more dice and bigger in the danger pool when the heroes take get-out-of-jail-free offers. They CAN be used in combat, which is a clear difference from what you're trying to do, but they also can end combat. If the GM gets up to XdY, which I think is 5d12—memory has faults, did I mention?—the scene just ends, in huge setback for the heroes that doesn't grant any hero points, but not in actual defeat. It's a superheroes/comics game, and the assumption is that there are no real permanent losses for either side.


Did not see your spoiler until now; that was great info, and while it isn't what I'm trying to do, the fact that the GM has resources will give me a better idea of how to implement the rule.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Eske]

I have to say, this mechanic has some great potential. The things I could do with an escalation/intensity pool. Though I'm neither a player nor a gm, just an aspirant tinkerer. Each level of Escalation could have added bonuses or penalties when players roll, throwing a monkey wrench into the works. You could also have two Escalation pools, one which adds penalties and another which adds bonuses. I'm probably just playing around with basic concepts here so don't mind me.

I'm glad you see the potential. You say you're not a player or a GM - but you are interested in game design? I'd love to hear more thoughts on the concept.

 

[solyrflair]

There are a couple of systems that use something like this, but most of them apply to a single character and not to the whole group, or world. Double Cross is a game system where you are a normal person, but with powers. As you use powers you gain encroachment, as the encroachment builds you add dice to your actions making them more likely to succeed. But if you don't burn off your encroachment with some RP, you eventually go insane and become an enemy. Not sure you want to go that far, but it has a numerical system that is pretty easy to follow. It also stops a player from having their character play in every fricking scene, potentially being in two places at once.


Better is the Hold system of Apocalypse World. This is probably a bit closer to what you want, but the way the system is built is non-numerical so you can't really know when you have too many Holds against the group, until you start overloading them. The GM gains holds by characters taking actions. If they succeed absolutely, then no Hold against them. If they marginally succeed, then they will succeed, but something doesn't go quite right. They can take a consequence, or give the GM a Hold against them. If they fail, then they must take a consequence and the GM gets a Hold against them.


Holds are a GM plot device that allows him to take a move against the characters. (AW is very character driven.) with a Hold, the GM can take moves against a character or increase damage done. Moves would be something like Separate the characters, cause Harm to a character, introduce a new Threat, Commence Fuckery (Fuckery is their term, not mine, though it fits remarkably well). You spend the Holds given to you by the players.


From what I can see, your system (in its infancy) lacks the ability to release the escalation factor. So, for instance, if the characters can buy a success while incurring escalation, the GM should be able to escalate a failure by spending some. You should also be able to do things like place a critical attack on them, gain an automatic surprise, spring an ambush, force them to roll when a roll wouldn't normally be needed (like opening a door that you suddenly decide is locked and barred), or have a villain escape without any possible way out. You spend escalation to reduce the escalation level so that it doesn't get too big.


AW isn't numerically heavy, so their Hold system works for introducing or complicating the plot lines. If you want a more numerical system, you need to be more judicious with its use. One thing is to always make it more expensive to buy a success after you roll than before. The point being that if you already know you failed, the consequence should be bigger than those who decide that the odds are against them and decide to bypass the roll altogether.


For instance:


Player: I check the door for traps.


GM: you find a very powerful trap. Nothing you have ever seen before.


Player: I can't risk it. If we don't get through, we are all dead anyway.


GM: you willing to escalate to gain a success


Player: yes, damnit. I don't see any other choice.


<GM awards 3 points of escalation. It would have been 5 if they failed the roll and then asked to escalate>


GM: you disable the trap, but in the process one of your tools is damaged. You are -1 for all future uses of the tools.


<GM uses 1 escalation to damage the tools. He could have used all 3 to destroy them, but he knows they will need them again. He still holds 2 escalation.>

 

[Grey]

My immediate thought is to use this in a game of police or counter-terrorist forces. Adding to the Escalation Pool represents you resorting to unethical methods (blackmail, torture, collateral damage) which can then turn public opinion against you, lead to internal investigations. Essentially it can serve as a measure of consequences that the players will suffer for their actions.


Other possibilities include environmental harm, magical backlash, or alerting security protocols while in VR.


It's a mechanic with potential, but I think it needs to be primed for the genre and style of the game in question.


Do check out Legends of the Wulin - some great mechanics in there.

 

[Eske]

There are a couple of systems that use something like this, but most of them apply to a single character and not to the whole group, or world. Double Cross is a game system where you are a normal person, but with powers. As you use powers you gain encroachment, as the encroachment builds you add dice to your actions making them more likely to succeed. But if you don't burn off your encroachment with some RP, you eventually go insane and become an enemy. Not sure you want to go that far, but it has a numerical system that is pretty easy to follow. It also stops a player from having their character play in every fricking scene, potentially being in two places at once.
Better is the Hold system of Apocalypse World. This is probably a bit closer to what you want, but the way the system is built is non-numerical so you can't really know when you have too many Holds against the group, until you start overloading them. The GM gains holds by characters taking actions. If they succeed absolutely, then no Hold against them. If they marginally succeed, then they will succeed, but something doesn't go quite right. They can take a consequence, or give the GM a Hold against them. If they fail, then they must take a consequence and the GM gets a Hold against them.


Holds are a GM plot device that allows him to take a move against the characters. (AW is very character driven.) with a Hold, the GM can take moves against a character or increase damage done. Moves would be something like Separate the characters, cause Harm to a character, introduce a new Threat, Commence Fuckery (Fuckery is their term, not mine, though it fits remarkably well). You spend the Holds given to you by the players.


From what I can see, your system (in its infancy) lacks the ability to release the escalation factor. So, for instance, if the characters can buy a success while incurring escalation, the GM should be able to escalate a failure by spending some. You should also be able to do things like place a critical attack on them, gain an automatic surprise, spring an ambush, force them to roll when a roll wouldn't normally be needed (like opening a door that you suddenly decide is locked and barred), or have a villain escape without any possible way out. You spend escalation to reduce the escalation level so that it doesn't get too big.


AW isn't numerically heavy, so their Hold system works for introducing or complicating the plot lines. If you want a more numerical system, you need to be more judicious with its use. One thing is to always make it more expensive to buy a success after you roll than before. The point being that if you already know you failed, the consequence should be bigger than those who decide that the odds are against them and decide to bypass the roll altogether.


For instance:


Player: I check the door for traps.


GM: you find a very powerful trap. Nothing you have ever seen before.


Player: I can't risk it. If we don't get through, we are all dead anyway.


GM: you willing to escalate to gain a success


Player: yes, damnit. I don't see any other choice.


<GM awards 3 points of escalation. It would have been 5 if they failed the roll and then asked to escalate>


GM: you disable the trap, but in the process one of your tools is damaged. You are -1 for all future uses of the tools.


<GM uses 1 escalation to damage the tools. He could have used all 3 to destroy them, but he knows they will need them again. He still holds 2 escalation.>

That is one good post - you see all the possibilities which helps me make the final design decisions. Really good work!


I think the last missing link to finishing the Module is to take into account that Modus isn't setting-specific (although it comes with its own setting, Dark Globe). So some sort of social/political/intrigue parts that the GM can use to make the game more interesting. The real point of the Module isn't really to make things harder (although GMs certainly can use it that way); for me, it's about adding elements that are either missing from the game, or make the players think about the characters they're playing and feel what they feel.


Never heard of Double Cross, but I will take a look for sure. It reminds me of Lacuna, where your heartbeat is the critical factor when you use more dice.


About Apocalypse World; I am a huge fan; AW brought me back to RPGs after being sick and tired of it. I am not sure that the MC needs to have a Hold to make a move - he can make a move whenever a player fails a roll. Otherwise, I've misunderstood that part of the game


You've been very helpful, so please keep it coming. I believe that collaboration is vital if you want the best possible games. I will surely run the other Modules through here to get some perspective on it.

 

[Eske]

@Grey : I think we're on the same page here

 

[Skari-dono]

I'm working on my own little game right now and I approve of this mechanic as written. I don't particularly like the idea of the GM "spending" ES against the PCs. If the situation is tense, it should not get less tense because the GM used a point to make the PC fall into a trap. The ES could drop somewhat after each scene to keep with the intensity dropping.


I'd figure you could have a starting ES equal to the number of players (or PCs, if each player has more than one character or if two players are playing one character corporately). From there you can use ES in much the same way as Challenge Rating for D&D, only interpreted differently. So, the higher the ES, the more dangerous monsters appear to fight you.


I like that ES is not figured directly into combat, and failed combat rolls do not increase the ES. Outside combat, the ES can act as penalties to the players' rolls and/or provide different and more difficult challenges. I would go with a scale, maybe with each increment at 5 or 10, some easy number, and provide some samples that can easily be modified to fit the situation.


I don't know the system you have in mind for this though, so exactly how you could include this mechanic varies.

 

[Eske]

[QUOTE="Skari-dono]I'm working on my own little game right now and I approve of this mechanic as written. I don't particularly like the idea of the GM "spending" ES against the PCs. If the situation is tense, it should not get less tense because the GM used a point to make the PC fall into a trap. The ES could drop somewhat after each scene to keep with the intensity dropping.
I'd figure you could have a starting ES equal to the number of players (or PCs, if each player has more than one character or if two players are playing one character corporately). From there you can use ES in much the same way as Challenge Rating for D&D, only interpreted differently. So, the higher the ES, the more dangerous monsters appear to fight you.


I like that ES is not figured directly into combat, and failed combat rolls do not increase the ES. Outside combat, the ES can act as penalties to the players' rolls and/or provide different and more difficult challenges. I would go with a scale, maybe with each increment at 5 or 10, some easy number, and provide some samples that can easily be modified to fit the situation.


I don't know the system you have in mind for this though, so exactly how you could include this mechanic varies.

[/QUOTE]
First off, the mechanic is actually a Module for my modular (!) game called Modus. It is one Module amongst many that can change the way the game is played.


I agree with the notion that ES shouldn't be used on random traps or simply make the game harder; what I am going for is something more complicated. The ES should be used when the game fiction becomes more intense/interesting by further complicating it.


One of the key concepts of Modus is that success and failure aren't as important as consequences. The GM should be 100% focused on how the player actions impact on the fiction. This is where ES becomes interesting - the GM can complicate and extend consequences and not necessarily make the game harder.


(although Modus is a multi-genre game, so fantasy enthusiasts can use the ES mechanic as a straight up monster DC as you suggest)


I'd love to hear more about your game; if you want to discuss it, begin a conversation with me and we can exchange ideas, etc.

 

[Skari-dono]

I'd love to hear more about your game; if you want to discuss it, begin a conversation with me and we can exchange ideas, etc.

I actually have a thread here if you want to take a look.


I like your ideas and specifically that the game is more focused on the narrative than the numbers; you should definitely keep focusing on that.

 

[ninbinz]

At certain points of the game where the plot is particularly intense you could assign certain plot developments to a number of ES points.

Example

"your team has arrived at the temple of Ninge, the temple is surrounded by an army of antagonistic Orcs, but for a reason unbeknownst to your party, they do not attack"


Escalation Point Values:


1: Auto success on spot checks for (insert appropriate amount of time here)


2: An old enemy appears


3: You suffer a fear penalty to all rolls except (insert appropriate conditions here)


4: An old ally appears to aid you


5: The Orc chieftain appears to challenge one of your party to a duel


Plot points in play: 5


The temple of Ninge shudders at the reverberating roar of the Orc chieftain. He stands at the top of the stone stairs beating his chest. As he descends he points out a member of your team and taunts them into a battle. From the looks of this chieftain he appears to have weathered many battles.


or


Plot points in play: 2


The warrior Gestrude has appeared atop the stone staircase to the temple of Ninge. His face is split by an ugly rictus that barely passes as a smile, he brandishes a ring that emits an eldritch green light. You guess it is what keeps the orcs from attacking you as the green light of the ring matches those in the eyes of the orc warriors. Gestrude laughs hideously, sending shivers down your spine and launches into a monologue you don't listen to as it is obvious how he has come to be at the temple of Ninge with The Ring of Ninge upon his finger.

 

[Dragnar]

Mechanics like this can be great - but (to vastly oversimplify the issue because it's 3 AM...) they are also potentially dangerous. Interest curves, dramatic tension, whatever you want to call it, managing the intensity of an experience over time is extremely important to a good game. And integrating that management into the mechanics themselves makes the players feel it all the more.


The issue is that if you're going to do this, you'd better make very sure that your mechanics regulate that curve properly - And the proposed mechanic here does not do that effectively, not entirely anyway. Turning a failure into success to drive the tension up is perfectly fine, given the circumstances a player would do such a thing under, it will almost certainly give the proper climb to that curve. But your suggestion for how to lower the tension has one simple issue: It is under the control of the players. This means you are taking away one of the MOST important powers the GM has - the power to choose when the plot comes to a climax. Take a look at all the other examples of these sorts of mechanic people have given: This is why, in every case, the GM is the one who chooses when to 'discharge' the effect. When to use up the additional power the players gave them. And until they do, the players know what they have hanging over their heads, serving to reinforce the intensity of the situation all the more.


Or, TLR... The mechanic has potential, but you need to be very careful that you don't hamstring the GM's plans by letting players discharge the 'Escalation points' by their own actions, when it may or may not be dramatically appropriate.


(Also quite bluntly, you cannot limit what obstacles/enemies the GM can throw at the players. You just can't. Even if it might be a noble effort or improve the game, the GM has Rule Zero on their side. You never want your mechanics to oppose the GM without very good reason, so I'd suggest not relying overly much on that particular bit.)