If you’ve followed from the last Way of the Agent (WotA) post, you’ll be aware of the Rich Dice concept. If not, click here. To clean things up things, I’d like to smother the current WotA rule-set with the last post’s proposition, and show you which parts enjoy the squeaky lather of change, and which parts grind stubbornly against it.

Action Points

WotA uses Action Points (APs). Everyone has them. You spend them to DO. That is, to shoot, argue, kick, punch, leap, drive, and debate. All contested actions are resolved using APs. So when I want to do something and you want the opposite, we use APs to help resolve it.

APs are a persistent, limited currency in conflict resolution. That is, they are used as a currency to act, but they are also used to measure the capacity to act. Clumsy wording. Here’s a better explanation:

APs measure your ability to do things, but they also track damage. On your turn, you begin with a number of AP to spend. If you are hurt, the number of APs you begin with on the next turn is lowered. So as you become more and more wounded, your capacity to act and retort is quashed, eventually leading to your probable defeat.

My Turn: I have 10 AP. You punch me for 6 damage.
My Next Turn: I have 4 AP. You punch me for 3 damage.
My Last Turn: I have 1 AP. You punch me for 1 damage. K.O.

This illustrates AP as a measurement for damage, but it shrugs off the chief role, so I’ll explain that in the example below:

My Turn: I have 10 AP. I punch you, which costs me 3 temporary AP. I have 7 AP. I roundhouse kick you, which costs me 4 temporary AP. I have 3 AP. I shoot you, which costs me 3 temporary AP. You punch me for 6 damage.
My Next Turn: I have 4 AP. I roundhouse kick you again, costing 4 temporary AP. You punch me for 3 damage.
My Last Turn: I have 1 AP. I gurgle painfully. You punch me for 1 damage. K.O.

Not very exciting, but hopefully my purpose has been illustrated.

Rich Dice, Old Rules

Now, how do the Rich Dice intersect with these old rules? First the bad news. If I cost actions according to the Duration result (see the last post), I’m looking at budget of around 3 AP per action, sometimes much less. At the same time, I could easily dole out 9 damage. I’m worried about the ratio. Assuming that a standard character has a low number of APs, each player will get a limited number of actions per turn but a single successful action will K.O. them. On the other hand, if I balloon the number of starting APs so they’re large enough to accommodate a number of connected attacks, then each player will have to roll many, many repetitive attacks in order to defeat the enemy. It’s a matter of taste, really, but I’ve had to think on it (conclusions tomorrow).

More bad news? There may be too much calculating going on in the roll, with not enough narrative feedback. Sure, I’m getting all the information I need to resolve the consequence, but it feels like sums. I think a ‘success’ based system, like DRYH, is faster and more intuitive, where counting up isn’t such an overhead. Also, I’ve got to consider how to colour the narrative with the results of the rolls. I know I hit you hard, and I know it cost me to do it, but essentially that can be done with a couple of die rolls in any other game. Is there room here to add some more flavour? Or has all the narrative work already been done leading up to this conclusion? Maybe there just needs to be some work done in the rigging of the conflict, more than in the die results. Ah, that’s a topic for another day. Today, let’s stick to the dice mechanics…

Evasion

So, the good news? There’s some interesting room for opposed manipulation of the dice pool. In contested actions, what if it were possible for the opposition to mess with your dice? This is what I’m provisionally calling Evasion.

Evasion is when someone declares a contested action, announces their “attack,” and before they get chance to roll their handful of dice, you get to jump in and manipulate their dice pool. E.g., I tell you I’m going to throw a punch. I select 3d6 Rhythm and 2d6 Intensity. You then announce that you want to Evade. You now swap one die from my Rhythm into my Intensity, altering the ratio to reduce the odds of hitting. As counterpoint, if the punch does connect, you will probably receive more damage.

Evasion, as you can tell from above, does not come without its share of risk. As for narrative, this is the player’s chance to input their defensive intentions during the attack. Either they increase the odds of hitting and soften the blow (the “roll with the punches” technique) or they reduce the accuracy but increase the damage potential (the all or nothing dodge technique). The advantage is that narrative is handled by two parties (the attacker and the defender), defensive measures are taken, and yet still there is only one roll.

That’s it for now. There are a heap of problems, especially in balancing the dice. I’m chewing on a couple of solutions. More on that tomorrow.