The Forge Archives

You know what I've heard an awful lot?  "Why would you roll dice to argue / manipulate / race / whatever if it's possible to resolve the same conflict between the players through negotiation?"  And I've given (and heard) the response a lot too:  "Because system can contribute to the process, pointing out possibilities and creating structure that people wouldn't easily come to on their own."

So I'm trying to write up some draft rules, and my mind keeps providing the same basic assumption:  "If (and only if) the players are in conflict, you use dice."

So here's my question:  "Why would you roll dice to brood / chat / get drunk together / whatever if it's possible to just play the scene without any conflict whatsoever?"  I think that the response should be: "Because system can contribute to the process, pointing out possibility and creating structure that people wouldn't easily come to on their own."

But I am ludicrously blocked on what those things would be.  Surely system can help people to choose between alternatives in the absence of conflict?  But how and why?

Well, I don't know that this is exactly what you are talking about but in my first playtest of my game one of my players was trying to decide which side, Inquisition or Wizard Cabals, he was going to be aligned with initially.  Instead of spending a huge amount of time considering his character's motivations or discussing it for time immemorial, he just said, "Odd... Inquisition.  Even... Cabals." and then rolled a d6.

I could see something like that happening in actual play also (not just confined to character creation).  In fact, I have seen it a couple of time even though the players did it sheepishly, like they were cheating or something.  There's a choice of activities or something that isn't a Conflict or a Task and the player didn't want to choose... so he rolls and lets the dice choose.

I certainly think you could design stuff like this into a game.  I would say you'd need to be careful about taking all the decision making away from the player and putting it on the dice though.  While I love dice and rolling them, taking away all my decision making power would be very not fun.

So what's the purpose of the scene if there's no conflict?

Probably one answer is 'to explore the characters.' But in exploring them you learn about what they're in conflict with, or what they care about, what they're fighting for, etc., and that's what I personally would want the purpose to be. No big surprise there.

So say, um, it's the dice system from Sorcerer. In a scene with two chums hanging out, I might want to roll to establish that my guy's kids mean more to him than anything, because a) cool, we learn about my guy, and b) it sets up the story for later on. I roll and get three victories. Now when my guy's in conflict and his kids have to do with the stakes, I get those victories as bonus dice.

What if I fail? Just as cool. My guy's in doubt about being a good father, maybe I take that as a cue to be self destructive or something. A smart GM wouldn't use the victories to hurt the kids via a villain. He or she would use them to have my guy fail to express love or care, or maybe to add to the difficulty the next time I try something like this.

That's just one way of looking at it, but there ought to be something going on like that for me to be interested.

I've just thrown together a quick game design that came, unbidden, into my head after reading this thread. It's here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15677) if anybody wishes to comment.

Matt:  Okay, but... the first one isn't a conflict, is it?  Who is opposing your player attempt to "establish"?  How, specifically, could you actually fail?

I think, in fact, that the "succeed/fail" dichotomy is part and parcel of conflict.  What can dice do other than tell us whether we succeed or fail?  Andrew's example is clearly one possibility, a choice between two options, neither preferred.  Are there others?

(Should we be making a distinction between character conflict and player conflict?)

In Cradlethorn (http://home.thegrid.net/~fisherwoman37/id3.html) the resolution system is used to determine the general tension level of a scene, which player sets the scene, the number of conflict rolls allowed in a scene, and which player narrates the results of a conflict roll. It's a little more involved than that, but kind of difficult to explain.

In 3 Line Samurai (http://home.thegrid.net/~fisherwoman37/id2.html) resolution determines which player narrates the results of a roll (not necessarily a conflict) and what sort of skill or effect must be used in the narration.

There is a lot of unexplored potential for ways to use a resolution system to do more than just resolve conflicts.

-Chris

Chris... yeah.  Lots of unexplored territory.  I'm sort of talking about both the idea of character non-conflict and player non-conflict.  The two you're listing seem (to my loose understanding) to be talking about player-conflict, character non-conflict.  And that's one that's easier for me to get my brain around.

You could have a roll determine which player chooses what the success or failure of an action means, for instance.  So that killing the orc could (in the hands of the player whose character does the whacking) demoralize the rest of the horde, or honorably failing to kill the orc could impress them so much that they adopt the character into their clan.  Or it could (in the hands of someone else) enrage them so that they fight twice as hard as before, and failing to kill it could demoralize the hero's own compatriots.  Which would result in player conflicts (I expect) but not necessarily character conflicts.

Hey Tony,

I've been bothered by the "why roll if we can negotiate everything" argument too.  I've had trouble verbalizing why I think some means of introducing unexpected results is actually a good thing for roleplaying.  I've just remembered something I heard about creativity once: a creative inspiration only occurs when two (or more ideas) come together in unexpected ways.

It seems to me that a randomizing mechanic does two things:
1) It adds a sense of risk -- which intensifies player experience of the moment.

2) Group consensus has a tendency to conform.  The introduction of a random result inserts gaps between what the player wants and what the system says results.  This creates a desire to create and adjust -- it sparks creativity.

Quote from: TonyLBSo I'm trying to write up some draft rules, and my mind keeps providing the same basic assumption:  "If (and only if) the players are in conflict, you use dice."
...
But I am ludicrously blocked on what those things would be.  Surely system can help people to choose between alternatives in the absence of conflict?  But how and why?

I find this hard to wrap my head around, because from my point of view, I would never use dice to resolve player conflict.  If two players are actually in conflict, I would use negotiation to settle their differences.  For most tabletop games, I use dice to throw in random elements (i.e. events, results, etc.) which spice the game up and hopefully take it in directions which no one expected.  

I guess some uses for dice to consider: random character creation, random encounters, random adventure generation, and randomized character development.  There is the aforementioned "If you can't decide, roll a die" method which has numerous variations.  

It seems to me that you're stuck in a bit of a rut of thinking.  Consider it this way: dice aren't necessary for play at all.  You can use them for whatever part of play you want.

Quote"If (and only if) the players are in conflict, you use dice"

Isn't that Dogs in the Vineyard?

John:  So you would never use dice to determine whether a fighter hits an orc?  I'm confused.

Quote from: TonyLBJohn:  So you would never use dice to determine whether a fighter hits an orc?  I'm confused.

But that's not a conflict between players.  It's between characters.  That is, at least in a typical game I play, the roll will depend on what the character does and wants, which is not necessarily what the player wants.  (I have played other games, like Soap, where this isn't true -- but I'm speaking primarily.)  Let me take an example from the HarnMaster game I played last week.  

For example, an NPC fighter attacks my orc PC, Ripper.  The GM rolls to-hit, and then rolls hit location and damage.  This does not indicate that the GM disagrees with me or is in conflict with me as a player.  We can explicitly see this since later in that round, an NPC orc allied to Ripper named Throg attacks the NPC fighter in response.  The GM identically rolls to-hit, hit location, and damage.

Quote from: TonyLBBut I am ludicrously blocked on what those things would be.  Surely system can help people to choose between alternatives in the absence of conflict?  But how and why?

Aren't you talking about something much like '100 adventure seeds' in the D&D dungeon masters manual and in many other games? I'm sure plenty of GM's like to roll on them and go 'Nah, crap idea' a few times, until via free association they roll one and think 'Hey, I could do something with this!'

It's rolling dice so the system will suggest a conflict you could use. You keep rolling until you find a conflict, which like a jigsaw puzzle piece, fits the game. Then the player plugs it in.

It can be enabled by mear suggestion, as above, or you could be rolling for actual resources which would enable the conflict Eg, rolling to see how drunk you are, to see if the particular level of drunk would be useful for a conflict....PS: I can't help doing an in joke "Roll to see if I'm drunk yet!"

Or way off?

John:  The GM wants his fighter to spill Ripper's entrails.  You, as a player, don't want that to happen.  The fact that there are entirely different things that two of you aren't conflicted over... I don't see why that's relevant.

Callan:  I think that "make random choices" is one application, but not the only one.

Another possible example:  You're travelling through elvish woods.  Every once in a while you make rolls on the "Creepy, evocative elvish stuff" rules.  These are (hypothetically) more structured than "table of creepy stuff, selected randomly" in the same way that My Life with Master is more structured than "flip a coin, if it's heads you do something evil, if it's tails you do something good."  As the balance of Elvish stuff shifts toward creepy, we see elves stepping willingly into their own graves, and their servants tossing dirt down on top of them.  As it shifts more toward evocative, we see them planting flowers of immortality and regret, in bowers where the blooms intertwine in inimitable beauty.  And so on and so forth.  The dice (again, hypothetically) lead us to create all of these things in the same way that DitV dice lead us to create compelling, escalating conflicts.

I don't see any reason to think that this sort of randomly-guided emerging structure shouldn't be as powerful in a non-conflict situation as it has proven to be in conflicts.  Thoughts?

Quote from: TonyLB
Another possible example:  You're travelling through elvish woods.  Every once in a while you make rolls on the "Creepy, evocative elvish stuff" rules.  These are (hypothetically) more structured than "table of creepy stuff, selected randomly" in the same way that My Life with Master is more structured than "flip a coin, if it's heads you do something evil, if it's tails you do something good."  As the balance of Elvish stuff shifts toward creepy, we see elves stepping willingly into their own graves, and their servants tossing dirt down on top of them.  As it shifts more toward evocative, we see them planting flowers of immortality and regret, in bowers where the blooms intertwine in inimitable beauty.  And so on and so forth.  The dice (again, hypothetically) lead us to create all of these things in the same way that DitV dice lead us to create compelling, escalating conflicts.

I don't see any reason to think that this sort of randomly-guided emerging structure shouldn't be as powerful in a non-conflict situation as it has proven to be in conflicts.  Thoughts?

On the contrary... why would you roll for this? You could see it as a way to eliminate a traditional GM or give him surprises, but why would you want such a random creation? When we take our GNS: For Gamism, you could do that to add more flavour, but you aren't really interested in real flavour.  For Sim: it's mucht to random, for most players want some consistency in their world. When you create a random world, you aren't exploring the world you as GM created, but you are exploring a random world. Nar: You can create conflicts in whatever situation you would like, but why would you use a table to roll on? People like to decide themselves what they want.

I think most of the people using such a book are only using it because they want to add flavour, but they'll choose the most appropriate of the list. So, no randomness is neccesary to get to that goal.

I guess the only way to you could use it when you want to do Gamism in a world of which you are too lazy to develop or if you don't want to use a GM at all and still play a Gamism game.

Quote from: RemkoOn the contrary... why would you roll for this? You could see it as a way to eliminate a traditional GM or give him surprises, but why would you want such a random creation? When we take our GNS: For Gamism, you could do that to add more flavour, but you aren't really interested in real flavour.  For Sim: it's mucht to random, for most players want some consistency in their world. When you create a random world, you aren't exploring the world you as GM created, but you are exploring a random world. Nar: You can create conflicts in whatever situation you would like, but why would you use a table to roll on? People like to decide themselves what they want.

I'm not sure I buy this Remko.  Why wouldn't Gamism be interested in flavour?  Who says?  My group and I are pretty strong Gamists and we love flavour and would probably really groove with Tony's examples of the Elven woods.  I can also think of entire styles of Sim (especially Sim with a priority of Exploration of System) where having this kind of randomness would be good too.  Players would have some input... dice get rolled... see what comes out and Explore that.  I also can't see why Nar would care/mind if such Color elements were randomized.  It's not taking away their input into addressing the things they find truly important.

Remko:  Why would I do it?  Because often a good random system, combined with player input, makes for a better experience than player input alone and unstructured.

This isn't about eliminating the GM, any more than having him roll to see whether an orc hits or misses is.  It is about giving him tools that both empower and restrict him, to spark and structure creativity.

This is a weird thread to me because I came up in the seventies and early eighties, when this kind of random input was basically a normal thing to provide with a system or supplement, for fantasy games at least.

One of the earliest successful D&D supplements was a Judges Guild product called the Ready Ref Sheets that was nothing but tables for this kind of thing. Sure, the one everyone remembers is the absurdly sexist 'women' table, but then there's the 'ravaged ruins' table that tells you what kind of building it was, how it's buried, what state it's in, the texture of the mold, and so on. Weird flora and fauna tables for color and maybe hunting in every environment. And so on.

Likewise the AD&D DMG is full of this kind of color stuff, usefully charted, everything from the mystical significance of gems to random dungeon dressing tables. The Hackmaster GMG has a lot of solid tables of this kind too.

There are also great tools like this in old city adventures. If you look at the random city encounter charts in Gamelords' Free City of Haven and Midkemia Press' Cities you will find table upon table with dozens of evocative bits, flavorful happenings, and adventure seeds.

I meant to post this earlier but I kept feeling like I wasn't understanding the thread. Now though seeing the 'random elven forest color' idea supported by Tony I think 'well, OK, so these hotshots at the Forge just reinvented old school wilderness and city adventures'. Or if that's not it then what am I missing?

Well, do those tables have any player input, under the rules?  Or do the players only have input if they ignore the "roll on the table" rule and choose instead?

Hmm... I think I might know what you're getting at here, Tony.

Quote[list=1]

• murky
  
• foreboding
  
• green
  
• looming
  
• moon
  
• trees[/list:o]Roll twice from the table above, and be sure to include those words in your narration about the swamp you're travelling through.

Would the above qualify for what you're looking for?  Because while we know that we're going through a swamp, and we're probably all qualified to describe a creepy swamp, a little random input might guide us in a direction we might not have otherwise narrated.

It's... urgh.  I'm frustrated, not by the responses, but by my inability to articulate this clearly.  My bad.

Yes, that's random influence.  But it's purely random influence, which is just one possible way of building rules, and (to my mind) the least interesting.  There's no player influence, no ability for the player and the system to interact in any meaningful way.  That system isn't a tool like a screwdriver (which a carpenter can turn to his own purposes).  It's an independent machine, and it does what it does no matter what you'd like it to do.

By way of comparison, a slightly more elaborated swamp-system:

QuoteAtmosphere:
1. You wouldn't want to build a summer home here, but some of the trees are quite nice
2. Okay, this is not a comfortable place to hang out
3. The eyes are everywhere, watching, JUDGING, but you'll be damned if you let them see how scared you are.
4. It's all you can do not to gibber and cower... hiding your fear is out of the question.
5. You see something horrible, and completely break down.
6. You succumb to terror and flee for your life

Discomfort:
1. Your shoes get wet
2. It's hard to keep walking with the mud sucking at your feet
3. It stinks so bad that your eyes water and you're often stopped by coughing spasms.
4. You are covered in muck and mire, unable to move freely, and you won't be clean for days
5. You fall in quicksand
6. Toxic fumes choke you to the point of asphyxiation

Tactical:
1. I know everything there is to know about fighting in swamps... even a snake is at a terrain disadvantage compared to me.
2. You are well concealed, and likely to have advantage over enemies
3. Nobody can see much of anything, for all this fog
4. You get glimpses of something, but it can avoid you easily when you try to approach.  You're on its home turf, and you know it.
5. Things move in the shadows... you can't keep track of them, but you know they're following you.
6. Your enemies are watching you constantly, and can attack at their leisure

Roll three dice.  Choose which die to apply to which table.

There isn't much player input here, but even a little goes a long way.  Say you roll 1, 3, 6... what type of swamp do you end up in?  Note how the nature of the swamp now becomes an outgrowth of the player priorities.  More robust systems will provide even better tools for players to define their world.

I don't have Burning Wheel yet (waiting to get it straight from Luke's hands), but my impression is that the Lifepaths do much the same thing:  they're a game that you play in order to inspire and restrict yourself in creating a character.

Sounds Rolemaster-ish... with a little more freedom.  But, I like it.

Oh, wait... I see.  Player priorities.  Gotcha.  I think I see where you're going.

First, I'd like to just say that I think my example totally has more player input than yours does.  I just tell the player that he's gotta talk about the trees, not what he's gotta say.  :p

But, that aside, I'm thinking I may have a grasp on what you're saying.  Especially if the 1-6 scale for each one has some kind of corresponding scale for each of them.  Like, the higher the number the 'darker' it gets.

Which, now that I look closely at your charts, I see that you've done already.  If you rolled a mixed batch of numbers, like your 1,3,6 example, then you've gotta choose what's important to you from a flavor point of view, the darkness of the atmosphere, the comfort of your character, or the potential for danger.

Do I grok?

And do you think it'd be fair to say that what you're really looking for is something that forces players to make a choice, to see what they're really after in flavor?

-Eric

It certainly sounds like you are grokking in fullness, yes.

I'm not at the point yet where I'm thinking "These systems should force players to make a choice."  That's a design goal, I suspect.  I'm simply observing that the systems can force players to make a choice.  They can do many things.  There's potential power and structure and entertainment to be had from a well-designed system for non-conflict priorities, and comparatively few designers are exploring that in anywhere near as much depth as they do their conflict resolution.

Quote from: TonyLBBut I am ludicrously blocked on what those things would be.  Surely system can help people to choose between alternatives in the absence of conflict?  But how and why?

My first thought is that system could introduce an element of chance into the flow and pacing of the game. You could use it to determine when to introduce additional complications, for example.

On a very basic level, that's what wandering monsters are. Of course, back in those days I remember half the table saying, "Finally, some action!" and the other half going, "Groan... now we'll never get to the good stuff." (I also would imagine they originated as a way to "add realism" and  penalize dawdling, and the effect on pacing was a side effect.)

But I could see something like this being used to help a GM determine when to throw in a new Bang, or to cut from one scene to the next, or to slow down the pace for a bit, or start building to the next conflict. Then I think, "No way, that kind of thing needs to be left for the GM to determine", but then I think again, "Wait, that's what people used to say about things like social conflicts."

To use Ron's bass-playing analogy, maybe there's a time when you start switching tempo based on a random factor, not because you want to truly play random music, but because it sparks your creativity.

Hey Tony,

From that table you gave, I'd get the impression something like a list of entries like this would do it.

Entry #. (a description of your current position or state). Now go to either chart A or chart B, your choice. But you must choose.

And the player basically knows the contents of each chart and sort of goes with one on the feel he gets from either. These charts lead to other charts in the same way. Well, sort of sounds like a good start to designing for the goal.

Hi Tony,

I'm feeling a bit whimsical, so I can't help thinking of those psychological / employment tests you see all over the place (myers-briggs for example):

Quoteyou want to buy a pair of shoes.  Which pair do you choose:
A) comfy slippers
B) fashionable heels
C) combat boots

choice A might, for example, give you a -1 on the Discomfort table, B -1 for Atmosphere, and C -1 on the Tactical table.  Then you'd have perhaps 50 similar questions, designed in a devious way so that it wasn't always roaringly obvious which answer changed which table, and finally you'd tally the results and have a description:

QuoteYou have scored a 4 on the TonyLB atmosphere scale, it's all you can do not to gibber...

Charles

Quote from: Gaerik

Quote from: RemkoOn the contrary... why would you roll for this? You could see it as a way to eliminate a traditional GM or give him surprises, but why would you want such a random creation? When we take our GNS: For Gamism, you could do that to add more flavour, but you aren't really interested in real flavour.  For Sim: it's mucht to random, for most players want some consistency in their world. When you create a random world, you aren't exploring the world you as GM created, but you are exploring a random world. Nar: You can create conflicts in whatever situation you would like, but why would you use a table to roll on? People like to decide themselves what they want.

I'm not sure I buy this Remko.  Why wouldn't Gamism be interested in flavour?  Who says?  My group and I are pretty strong Gamists and we love flavour and would probably really groove with Tony's examples of the Elven woods.  I can also think of entire styles of Sim (especially Sim with a priority of Exploration of System) where having this kind of randomness would be good too.  Players would have some input... dice get rolled... see what comes out and Explore that.  I also can't see why Nar would care/mind if such Color elements were randomized.  It's not taking away their input into addressing the things they find truly important.

The part about gamism: sure, I guess you're right. Gamism could be interested in  bit flavour. Unless I don't understand the meaning of Sim, I can't agree with you. I think consistency is the core to exploration, because it then can feel real... isn't that what Sim's all about?

Nar perhaps wouldn't care, but Nar likes to give player freedom. Why bother making a chart when you simply can tell create the world and story you like to create yourself?

Remko:  Well, exploration requires consistent resolution of fights too, right?  But I don't hear people saying that combat systems, as a concept are antithetical to Sim play.  Bad, sloppy, Dream-breaking combat systems are antithetical to Sim play.

So I'm not sure why you naturally assume that any system for non-conflict issues will break the Dream.  Are you saying that it's impossible to make a system for non-conflict issues that is as consistent and dream-reinforcing as existing conflict systems?

Quote from: TonyLBRemko:  Well, exploration requires consistent resolution of fights too, right?  But I don't hear people saying that combat systems, as a concept are antithetical to Sim play.  Bad, sloppy, Dream-breaking combat systems are antithetical to Sim play.

So I'm not sure why you naturally assume that any system for non-conflict issues will break the Dream.  Are you saying that it's impossible to make a system for non-conflict issues that is as consistent and dream-reinforcing as existing conflict systems?

Perhaps it's something personal, but I find combat systems Dream-breaking, yes. Or at least when they require more than a mere roll to resolve.

Perhaps I'm just to big of a Dreamer.... Therefore, I always want to use conflict resolution systems. I think I could see myself as personal-sim, nar-oriented player.

I'm not saying that making a system for non-conflict issues is wrong... it's just that I can't understand your goal with such a system. Then again, perhaps I don't understand Exploration of System... Perhaps I'm only percieving Sim as Exploration of dreams...

But that all aside... I can't see the use of continuous randomisation. It adds some form of flavour for sure, but the time lossed with rolling could be invested in roleplaying. And I'm not sure if I find the tension gained by storytelling is worth to lose to a bit more flavoured telling as you propose in your example.

You lose the tension created by the story when you roll for such random factors.

Okay, two things:  First, this is in RPG Theory, not Indie Game Design.  Therefore I don't have to have a specific goal for designing a specific non-conflict system.  I'm talking about the general class, and any systems I've put forth are purely by way of example.

Second:  Conflict Resolution systems are random too.  So if that's what you like... why aren't they dream-breaking?  And whatever makes them acceptable, why can't it be applied to non-conflict issues?

You say that having a system for non-conflict issue would lose "tension".  But having a system for resolving conflicts doesn't?  Why?

Tony, you have to remember an entirely random set up, like I've seen in the examples so far, doesn't contain any causality. You just get the result that happens. Gamists vibe off it for a conflict, nar essentially do the same, while simulationists go 'eh? Where's my damn causality?"

Not a problem to me, but it may be at the root of any non groking here. But I think your idea could easily contain causality as well (if one wanted it), if it goes from chart to chart (or whatever) in a clear temporal progression.

Hell, I can imagine some simulationists rolling all day on some series of charts that just involves being in a bar, drinking, flirting, whatever, without actually using any of it to riff off of for some greater conflict. All as long as it nails their causality needs.

Quote from: TonyLBOkay, two things:  First, this is in RPG Theory, not Indie Game Design.  Therefore I don't have to have a specific goal for designing a specific non-conflict system.  I'm talking about the general class, and any systems I've put forth are purely by way of example.

Second:  Conflict Resolution systems are random too.  So if that's what you like... why aren't they dream-breaking?  And whatever makes them acceptable, why can't it be applied to non-conflict issues?

You say that having a system for non-conflict issue would lose "tension".  But having a system for resolving conflicts doesn't?  Why?

Tony...

1. Okey, kewl. I simply wondered why you would like to have such a system.

2. CR systems only roll when neccesary. On that moment, there is an surplus value to the fact you're rolling: you're rolling because you want to have a random factor to decide something really important and create tension by the randomness. How  do you create tension in this fashion? Because there is something at stake for your characters goals (Sim / Nar) or your players goals (Nar / Gam).

When you would like to roll for something not important, the roll wouldn't give any surplus value over simply deciding whats the situation, unless the roll would possibly create a situation in which something is at stake. In any other case, IMHO it's nothing more than a dice roll and a waste of time. When you're just rolling for the rolling, thoughts of the players are away of the story.

Quote from: TonyLBJohn:  The GM wants his fighter to spill Ripper's entrails.  You, as a player, don't want that to happen.  The fact that there are entirely different things that two of you aren't conflicted over... I don't see why that's relevant.

Sorry to go back a few days, Tony, but John is right. This is not about the referee wanting his character to spill your character's guts. This is about the referee determining that his character would act in this situation as if he wanted to spill your character's guts. The referee might be sitting there praying for a botch, so that the character will not succeed in finishing you. In a different context, you might be hoping that this next blow is going to be a really dramatic injury to you because it will increase the drama of the story, or will demonstrate the odds against which you are contending, or will seem so much more as if this is a powerful fighter you're facing (i.e., that desire is not necessarily creative agendum specific).

John made the distinction between a conflict involving disagreement between players at the table on the one hand and a conflict involving opposing imputed desires of fictional characters on the other. It's a valid distinction, and relevant to determining when mechanics are invoked.

To use the combat example, if the mechanics are invoked whenever there is a conflict between characters in the game, there are going to be rolls to determine who hits whom and how much damage is done, or some similar means of reconciling this. If on the other hand the mechanics are only invoked when the players conflict, then in this situation it's entirely possible for the narrated result to be, "He dealt you a nasty wound which will require bandaging, but you finished him off in your response." As long as we're all agreed that this represents the fight adequately, mechanics are not invoked, because the players aren't disagreeing.

Let me suggest a possible use of randomizers that would apply when players are in agreement as to what they want but does not involve task success or even really conflict success. The Multiverser general effects roll creates a bell curve ranging from the worst possible outcome to the best possible outcome, as perceived from the player's wishes. In one sense, this roll tells the referee whether he can give the player what the player wants, or has to oppose the player's desires. Of course, there's a degree to which causality-linked task resolution and outcome-linked conflict resolution do this as well, but this roll does it directly.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: Remko

Quote from: TonyLBWhen you would like to roll for something not important, the roll wouldn't give any surplus value over simply deciding whats the situation, unless the roll would possibly create a situation in which something is at stake.

Remember rules don't/can't force a player to feel something is at stake. Whenever you roll, at some level you decide if this has an important stake for you as a player.

Quote from: Noon

Quote from: RemkoWhen you would like to roll for something not important, the roll wouldn't give any surplus value over simply deciding whats the situation, unless the roll would possibly create a situation in which something is at stake.

Remember rules don't/can't force a player to feel something is at stake. Whenever you roll, at some level you decide if this has an important stake for you as a player.

Perhaps they can't, but they can create situations in which is something at stake.

Anyhow, I don't see any surplus value of rolling all sorts of so-called 'flavour stuff', while you simply can decide them by your own, which doesn't ask of you to roll endless dice.

The only situation you could use it to increase tension (an only when used sparingly), is when you use it as a role to create paranoia with your players. Especially with gamism and simulationism, this could work.

Quote from: Remko2. CR systems only roll when neccesary.

They're never necessary.  You can always negotiate, rather than referring things to a rules system.  You use the rules system because it adds something beyond simply deciding what will happen in a particular situation.

For instance, if two PCs disagree, the characters can talk it through in-game and the players can come to some sort of resolution without ever resorting to a rules system.  But if you use the conflict rules from Dogs in the Vineyard your conversation will be different.  If you're looking for escalation, give-and-take, and long-term consequences then running the conversation under DitV rules will probably generate a better scene than negotiating.  Certainly that's been the case in all the DitV games I've played and run.

So, why would you make rules for (for instance) narrative flavor?  Because a properly crafted system can help you to make better narrative flavor than you could without them.

Quote from: RemkoPerhaps they can't, but they can create situations in which is something at stake.

If I'm reading Tony right, imagine this:

No conflict is going on, so the player rolls on the flavour tables. He rolls that his character is picking his nose in public.

"Nah", thinks the player, "That's not going to go anywhere..."

Player rolls again...this time his character has apparently been binge drinking.

"Nah, that's...oh wait, Jim's PC hates alchohol since he lost his brother to a drunk driver. Oh, I gotta go with this...this is going to be a real stake!"


I just made up this example. What I think Tony wants is something that will produce even more interesting results one could work from.