(image; FreeImages.com / kilverap)

There are all sorts of situations in which the GM wants a situation to escalate by a measured, finite quantity. There will usually be several such escalations that he intends to occur before the situation reaches its climax and resolution.

It can be quite difficult to actually plan these escalations as a smooth progression, especially in systems that don’t index and quantify significant personality traits the way GURPS and the Hero System do – D&D, for example.

Today, the goal is to describe a system of classification for acts of revenge that uses three key metrics, enabling a more precise level of control over escalating patterns. These are Severity of Act, Response Triggering, and Proximity of Target.

Severity Of Act

The more severe an action is, the greater the escalation it obviously represents. There’s a world of difference between saying nasty things about someone and actually doing something nasty to them. For the purposes of this planning technique, I index the severity of an act on the following scale:

0. Petty: A petty act is something trivial, of no lasting impact, and is little more than an expression of spite.
1. Vicious: A Vicious act targets something belonging to the target, whether that be material or ephemeral, such as reputation or credibility. The principle defining characteristic of this type of act is the lack of respect shown toward the target of the attack.
2. Direct: Direct acts target the subject directly, exactly as you might expect. This type of attack is rarely intended to inflict severe injury, but might do so anyway; the intent is to inflict pain, not lasting incapacity.
3. Encompassing: There is a clear escalation when this type of attack is inflicted, because this encompasses the concept of secondary pain – i.e. if someone close to the target is hurt or threatened, the target is also injured.
4. Aggravated: The next stage in escalation can be inflicted on either the target directly or on close associates, and is the intent to permanently inflict some incapacity beyond mere pain but short of death.
5. Depraved: A depraved act is a vicious, direct, encompassing, or aggravated act that is carried out in such a way that innocent bystanders are placed at risk, directly and intentionally threatened.
6. Homicidal: There is nowhere else to go but to directly threaten the life or existence of the target.
7. Irrational: Beyond even Homicidal lies the Irrational, in which some characteristic shared by both the target and a stranger or passerby is sufficient to target the stranger, or in which the attack is aimed to inflict pain or injury on the target by virtue of the association with other victims who share a common characteristic. Serial Killers, Acts of Genocide, Racial Suppression, and some acts of Terrorism fall into this category.
8. Terrorist: Which leaves only those acts in which the characteristics that made the individual a target are considered to transcend the individual and apply to an entire nationality, race, society, economic class, occupation, gender, or species – which clearly implies that, in the mind of the aggressor, injury to any member of the wider group lessens or injures the individual by virtue of that commonality. The cause transcends the individual, who is nothing more than a representative example of the target group, devoid of individual importance.

Note that the action of starting the list with a “zero” rating is not an accident.

Response Triggering

The second metric which can be used as a measurement of escalation is the response that it triggers in the direct target. Some acts cause nothing more than irritation, while others are sufficient for the target to set aside all morality and social responsibility in the pursuit of revenge.

This is a significant metric because, in many cases, the reason for the escalation by the attacker is because the response triggered in the target does not seem appropriate or sufficient to the attacker.

As a result, while the same Severity Level might apply to a number of acts within a pattern of escalation, each level of response triggering will only occur once in a given progression.

At least, that would be the case if result always mirrored intent. In the real world, such correlations are far from certain, and in an RPG (where PCs are at arm’s-length from the owning Players) they can be exceedingly rare. But I’ll deal with those complications through some adjustments later in the article.

I have rated response levels on an 8-step scale:

1. None/Minor: Minor triggers don’t cause the target to change or reconsider his routines in any way. In fact, he barely registers that they are happening, at least at the time.
2. Inconvenience: When the character is inconvenienced in some way, he at least notices – though he may not be sufficiently motivated to do anything about it beyond accommodating that inconvenience and, perhaps, complaining about it. Nevertheless, for the first time, the character has to actually acknowledge that something is happening.
3. Irritation: The next stage in response is to grow irritated at whatever is happening. This does not challenge any of the character’s personality traits or routines, but may trigger an immediate response toward the source of the irritation, or to any other causes of irritation or frustration that the character might experience. This reaction may be out-of-proportion to the triggering event, especially where this type of transference (“blowing off steam”) takes place.
4. Trigger Responses: For the first time, a sensitive spot has been targeted by an act, and the character has no choice but to react in the manner dictated by his psychological profile. Responses at this level are typically fairly mild, but they may be abnormal or excessive from any normal perspective. However, they will not require the character to exceed his normal routine more than momentarily – long enough to make a complaining telephone call, for example.
5. Active Responses: An active response is a further step up the escalation cycle; it reflects an act that forces the target to actually change his routine and go out of his way to deal with the problem or its repercussions. Note that some fairly minor acts can reach this intensity of response – scratching up a door’s car panel with a set of keys (sometimes referred to as “keying” the car) badly enough that it needs to be repainted, forcing the target to rent a replacement for a couple of days, is sufficient to qualify.
6. Pro-active Responses: More substantial disruptions in routine escalate the situation. This stage requires the targeted character to undertake some action in direct response or mitigation, including altering his routine to an unknown extent for an unknown period of time – the difference is that this is an ongoing impact.
7. Extreme Responses: An extreme response is a total disruption of routine that will endure until the problem – i.e. the triggering individual or group – is/are dealt with. In other words, the target has to more-or-less put his life on hold until the cause is resolved in some reasonably-permanent fashion. The only restriction on behavior as a response to the trigger is that it will remain within the normal bounds of the character’s psychological profile.
8. Defining Responses: An more accurate name for this level of response is a “Redefining Response”. The character targeted is pushed to his breaking point, i.e. the point at which his normal psychological responses may break, triggering a response that the character would never normally be capable of. It might be a flash of killing anger, or an act of humiliation, or a disruption of the moral or ethical restraints that normally define the character. However it manifests, the character will be forever changed by the experience and its consequences.

Proximity Of Target

As noted previously, some attacks seek to injure the target indirectly by targeting those around them. More often, they will simply tolerate harm to others as a necessary consequence of escalating the conflict. As with the other metrics that have been discussed, there is a hierarchy to such things – one that is, perhaps, more illogical, but that is accepted human nature.

1. Pets: The act of harming non-humans is clearly considered less-extreme than attacking humans by most people; there are exceptions.
2. Danger-Acceptors: The next most-severe attacks target others who willingly accept danger on behalf of society – the military, the police, etc. This is generally considered more severe than attacking the intended target directly, but there is a degree of mitigation relative to other bystanders in that there is a sense that through their choice of occupation, they have in principle accepted that danger. Note that this category is not about these people in general, it is about those who seek to directly protect the primary target.
3. Self: It’s quite normal to consider attacks against the character with no risk of harm to others to be less extreme than the alternatives, in spite of the impact on other metrics.
4. Bystanders: Harming the public at large, even as collateral damage, is clearly viewed as an escalation.
5. Professional Colleagues: Assuming that they are not danger-acceptors themselves, harming professional colleagues in order to harm the primary target for no better reason than that professional relationship is often considered more extreme than a willingness to harm others simply because they are in physical proximity to the primary target.
6. Friends: More extreme still is harming the friends of the primary target if they are only in danger by virtue of that relationship.
7. Family: Next come attacks that might also harm the family of the primary target. These could be subdivided into spouses, parents, and other adults in one sub-group, and children in another, more extreme, sub-group. However, I prefer handling children in a different manner, described below.
8. Complete Strangers: Being willing to harm anyone, anywhere, simply as collateral damage , is rightly considered pretty extreme.
9. Groups: Finally, harm to any groups by virtue of the members having a common characteristic with the primary target are the most severe of all. This is because such attacks are perceived (usually correctly) as ideological in nature, more severe even than simply harming a total stranger.

The Children Modifiers

As mentioned above, attacks that harm children are generally considered to be more heinous than those that do not. It follows that risking harm to children represents an escalation that needs to be factored in.

• Any action with a slight risk of harm to children stands as shown above.
• If there is a reasonable risk of harm to children and measures are taken to mitigate that risk, apply +1 to the Severity Rating of the act.
• If no such measures are taken, apply +2 to the Severity Rating.
• If there is a near- or complete- certainty of harm to children, and measures are taken to mitigate that harm, apply +2 to the Severity Rating.
• Finally, if such a risk exists and no mitigation attempt is made, apply +3 to the Severity Rating.

There’s a frequent mention in the above list of “mitigation” and “attempts to mitigate”. This is a matter of some judgment by the GM; inadequate attempts might not “discounted”, i.e. might be treated as though no attempt had been made. More often, this will be “rewarded” with an additional +1 over an above the “no attempt” rating because it can be argued that this demonstrates an awareness of the risks to children and a deliberate intent to inflict psychological harm on the target through them.

On the other hand, measures that should completely protect children that fail for reasons that are impossible to predict do not attract as much of the outrage. If the Severity Modifier is more than one, and this occurs, the GM may choose to reduce the modifier by 1.

Combined Score

Here’s where the magic happens. There are three scores, all of which range from either 0 or 1 to 8 (the ‘Children Modifier’ notwithstanding). Adding the three scores together gives a rating out of 24.

The Measured Increment

By rating the initial act, and the intended final act within the escalation progression, and counting the number of stages desired within that progression, it’s a simple calculation to get a “measured increment” – a numeric amount by which each successive act will be worse than the one before it.

As a general rule, where this is not an even amount, round later entries within the pattern up, and earlier ones down. If it makes the pattern easier to calculate, you can also specify that the second act is less severe than indicated and the final act a greater escalation in severity. It will still appear completely plausible as a progression.

The formula is I = (Max – Min) / (N – 1).

So, if the final stage that you are building towards has a rating of 18, and the act that triggers the retaliation is rated a 6, and there are to be four acts in total, the interval is (18-6)/(4-1)=12/3=4.

The initial act will be a 6, and will be followed by whatever the PC does in response (if the other party is the instigator). That will be followed by an act with a rating of 10, and then one of 14, and then the final act of 18 – each time with a retaliation by the PC in between.

Here’s the fun part: If the PC’s response rates as higher than the next intended act by the PC, add the difference from the last act committed by the person responding to all the remaining acts within the sequence. If the PC’s response is an act rated less than the last act by the NPC, the NPC’s subsequent acts are reduced by 1; this can occur multiple times within an escalation. If lower than the last two acts, use -2, and so on, AND vice-versa.

For example:

• NPC commits act of Rating 6.
• PC reacts with an act of rating 7. This is less than the next stage in the escalation, 10, so it’s fine.
• NPC responds with an act of Rating 10.
• PC reacts with an act of Rating 15. This IS higher than the next intended escalation value of 14, by one. It is also five more than the previous action by the NPC, so all subsequent steps in the escalation are increased +5.
• NPC responds with an act of Rating 14+5=19.
• PC responds with an act of Rating 18. This is less than the NPC’s last act.
• NPC responds with the intended final act in this progression, one with a rating of 18+5-1=22.

Using this system, you can map out what the NPC will do and how that will be affected by what the PC does in response.

Correlating Deed With Increment

The final step is to map each of the values determined back to a specific combination of the three metrics plus modifier.

The Children Modifier can only be reduced by 1, and only if successful mitigation occurred in the previous act AND the attacker is sincerely regretful that the mitigation was not more effective.

Response Level can only go up, it cannot fall or stay at the same level.

The same factors that affect Severity may also affect Proximity, or the two can be independent.

In general, then, correcting the “children modifier” should be done first; increasing the response level by one should happen second; increasing the proximity by one should happen third, and be followed by an increase in the severity, fourth; and any leftovers can be dealt with by repeating steps two through four. The final adjustment should ALWAYS be randomly chosen, regardless of what this pattern says.

A similar sequence of corrections makes it simple to adjust a planned response to make it worse or better, either of which can take place as a result of PC actions. The pattern should be Proximity, Severity, Children Modifier, Response Level (in that order, and if permitted under the ‘rules’ stated earlier). However, in this instance only, it IS permitted to end up with an unchanged response level if it is directed at a target of greater proximity.

Expanding the system

This situation has clearly targeted the simulation of historical feuds such as the legendary conflict between the Hatfields and the McCoys. But it doesn’t take a lot of expansion or revision to adapt it to any other sort of escalating conflict, whether it be between two business rivals or two Nations.

The basic principle: Severity, Response Level, and Degree of proximity of those who might suffer collateral damage as a result – with a modifier for heinousness if children are directly targeted – still holds true.

With this system, you can plan a smooth increase in perceived level of hostility and adjust those plans in order to take into consideration deviations from pattern on the part of a PC.