In discussing Dogs in the Vineyard, we came across a slight conceptual bump when it came to conflicts that included more than two parties all with mutally exclusive agendas. Dogs' conflict resolution system more or less assumes binary results -- either the player gets the results he wanted, or he doesn't. How he doesn't get his stakes, or what he gets instead, is left arbitrary and up to events in play. In fact, how he gets his stakes is also played out via the dice-spending mechanic (which I'm not saying is bad, mind). But the final result is still succeed/fail, whatever route you take to get there.
I don't think that Dogs is broken or deficient or anything, and in fact I don't intend for this thread to be about Dogs in specific. What I am interested in is the possibility of conflict resolution which is not binary -- that doesn't result in a 'you win'/'you lose' determination, but presents multiple options and picks between them. Something like "all players around the table propose a resolution, invest some of their currency in their proposal, and then (somehow) one of the proposals is selected". Or "all players suggest a piece of the final resolution, invest currency, and then the player and/or GM shops among the suggestions for what goes into the final resolution."
Before I start throwing more concrete ideas around, writing anything down, or (god forbid) rewriting another section of FLFS, I'd be curious to see if (a) this has been done in a completed project before, and (b) if anyone has played a game using such a system. Either way, I'd like to hear about any hang ups, boons, difficulties, and the like. I don't want to retread old ground if it's already been churned up sufficiently.
This was discussed not too long ago: [Conflict Resolution - varable efect] (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16973.0)
I just realized that you participated in that discussion, Joshua, so maybe I'm confused about what you're asking. Maybe you could elaborate? Are you specifically looking for systems where multiple people have a say in what happens?
Primetime Adventures uses multiple binary resolutions to build a complex, non-binary resolution. Is that the sort of thing you're looking for?
James
I've written about how to adapt Dogs' resolution to everybody-has-a-goal here (http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=86#2106) on my blog.
-Vincent
Tim --
I did? I did! That must have been percolating in the background of my brain for a bit. That thread was asking if non-binary results would make it not conflict resolution, and if conflict resolution would be diluted if it allowed non-binary results. I think that was satisfactorily answered in that thread -- no and no.
What I'd like to see here are examples on non-binary stakes and any known or experienced characteristics of the same.
Blankshield --
Indeed; using two binary conflicts, you get four eventual results. Three binary conflicts, eight potential results. That's certainly one way to attack it. But what if you have three interested parties all acting at once, all with a different prefered result? No doubt there are many different ways to model this, so I'm not asking for the 'right' way, only any methods that people have written and/or played. Like Vincent just did.
Vincent --
Interesting. When does a conflict end? Because with multiple stakes on the table, some characters will be winning their stakes before others. Do the others keep going, or is that conflict over? If they keep going, does the 'winner' stay in the conflict? Is there any way to help out someone else, rather than just blocking/reversing/taking the blow? And lastly, have you played this?
Josh,
This thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=13282.msg141723#msg141723) (don't miss its reference) handles a non-binary conflict resolution concept at some length, and I'm developing it into a full game in my Mere Sapnon ki Rani (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=13282.msg141723#msg141723) thread -- MSKR handles conflicts like a game of chicken, where each character may continue pursuing his goal until the risks are too great.
It hasn't seen any play yet, though.
Shreyas, it seems that the default assumption is that something bad is going to happen, which is not necessarily a bad assumption to make -- if nothing bad ever happened, there'd be no story. It also appears that more than one sword can fall in a given conflict/scene -- sure, the wave broke over the side of the ship and knocked over the PC, but the fight rages on! When is a given conflict/scene over? When and how does the system ever resolve in favor of the PCs?
The generic conceit I developed out of that situation is that you want bad things to happen to other people, and the danger of actually trying to bring this about is that it exposes you to counterattack along similar lines. So, the technique is that you define the dangers such that they block characters from acheiving their goals, or a goal is identical to "danger X befalls character Y"; in effect you are juggling multiple conflicts whose states of resolution affect each other, and you can fluidly add and remove sob-conflicts without interrupting the large-scale flow of the situation.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on October 27, 2005, 04:54:55 PM
What I am interested in is the possibility of conflict resolution which is not binary -- that doesn't result in a 'you win'/'you lose' determination, but presents multiple options and picks between them. Something like "all players around the table propose a resolution, invest some of their currency in their proposal, and then (somehow) one of the proposals is selected". Or "all players suggest a piece of the final resolution, invest currency, and then the player and/or GM shops among the suggestions for what goes into the final resolution."
I haven't seen non-binary conflict resolution systems (Negotiated Contests) in any of the games I've studied. However, non-binary Generalized Contests exist all over the place.
Any game including an initiative system that is selecting the turn order of more than two players is an example of this. Generally, the player that goes first is considered to have the greatest share of the win, the next player is the next best winner, etc. The stakes are all highly generalized and essentially the same from game to game, so we tend to ignore the fact that these are contests in and of themselves. In my opinion, there is no fundamental difference between binary and non-binary contests.
To modify these systems into Negotiated Contest systems, all you have to do is introduce the requisite negotiation. You could, for example, go around the table and have each player state his goals. Then, the players could negotiate amongst themselves as to the effects for each player if he should win or lose the contest. Then, roll (or bid, or whatever) to determine the winner. A "degree of success" value could be determined as the amount the biggest winner has over the biggest loser.
Capes lets you have any number of sides on a given conflict, although the default is binary resolution. N-cornered adversity comes up less often, I think, because people often have a hard time coming to grips with what it means. You don't have a clear "If I'm working toward my enemy's defeat I must also be working toward my victory" structure. Folks jump to that structure even when it's not accurate ... in games and in life (unfortunately).
I think the resolution for Pretender (from the No Press RPG Anthology) and its parent game Otherkind might qualify as a non binary system. You decide several factors about the conflict depending on where you put the dice that are rolled.
best
Trevis
Quote from: John Kirk on October 27, 2005, 08:53:10 PM
To modify these systems into Negotiated Contest systems, all you have to do is introduce the requisite negotiation. You could, for example, go around the table and have each player state his goals. Then, the players could negotiate amongst themselves as to the effects for each player if he should win or lose the contest. Then, roll (or bid, or whatever) to determine the winner. A "degree of success" value could be determined as the amount the biggest winner has over the biggest loser.
This sounds an awful lot like the "free and clear" stage of Sorcerer conflict resolution. Everybody at the table saying, and changing what they're attempting, not know when things are going to happen. Once everyone is set, the dice are rolled and essentially dictate "Consider this action and its success/failure before you consider this action and its success/failure." If you look at the scene as a whole as what's being resolved, rather than just a single character's action, that is.
Joshua, it seems to me that you're asking more about conflict res. w/ multiple-player input, rather than just "non-binary" which, to me, just means saying more than just "you succeed" or "you fail." Is that right? 'Cause if it's just "non-binary" and multiple outcomes generated by the same person are legit, I could talk about the FVLMINATA influence system.
Shreyas --
So do players propose possible outcomes, and then work towards their preferred outcome(s) while preventing the undesired outcome(s)?
John --
Thank you for pointing out initiative. With task and (most) conflict resolution as binary and generic damage rolls as scalars, I'm not sure what initiative would be termed as -- a weighted order, perhaps? Adding negotiation to that ordered result could be interesting. I think it would have to be pretty structured to enforce the winner's (leader's?) dominance. I can see a resolution mechanic where players contribute in order, able to add details and elaborations but unable to contradict statements made before them, or some such.
Tony --
So if there are three sides to a conflict, and then one side 'wins out' what happens to the two other sides? Are they completely negated, or can the winner of the conflict allow them some weight in the ensuing resolution narration? Or would you only enter into a non-binary conflict if you specifically did not want the other two results to play out? If blocking the other results was not a priority to you, it would be simpler to start a new conflict (especially since the other players' resources are already tied up in the original conflict).
I'm sure human nature plays a part in all this -- a simple me-or-them scheme is lots easier to grok than a multiple-agenda brouhaha. It's kind of the same as focusing fire on one enemy at a time in dungeoncrawling. So half the challenge in designing something non-binary would be presenting it in terms that the players can easily wrap their brains around. I think Shreyas' system might have that advantage.
Trevis --
Otherkind is sort of what I'm thinking of, but it still has that Motion die which is pretty success/fail towards your "Goal". The other dice certainly add some elaboration, much like Dogs dice elaborate the means by which the conflict's stakes are pursued, but there's still a single stated goal and the character will gain it or lose it. What happens if we take out the Motion die, or replace it with a couple dice representing parts of player objectives?
Tell me about FVLMINATA, Michael! How it works and how it plays, if possible.
QuoteJoshua, it seems to me that you're asking more about conflict res. w/ multiple-player input, rather than just "non-binary"
Not especially. The players at the table seem to me to be the most accessible source of alternate resolutions or pieces of that resolution. Those same contributions could come from charts and tables (critical hit tables, anyone?), printed on cards, or hell, stamped on the faces of a die. The advantage of player-suggested elements is that they will (tend to) be relevant to the situation at hand, whereas the critical hit table occasionally has you get a headshot on the guy whose head wasn't visible.
What I'm after is a more complex system than "I get what I want" versus "I don't get what I want." Dogs' system produces "What will you do to get what you want?" questions, which is great. If I wanted, say, a game of courtly intrigue with many different operators with many different agendas, where the question is "What will the conflict of our clashing agendas produce?" I'd need to configure the system differently. It occurs to me that this may not be
conflict resolution at all, though. After all, a conflict is constituted out of (a) what a character desires and (b) what prevents the fulfillment of that desire. As such, it may be that it is profoundly grounded in that first half, "what I want".
QuoteI haven't seen non-binary conflict resolution systems (Negotiated Contests) in any of the games I've studied. However, non-binary Generalized Contests exist all over the place.
Hmm. Depends on what Non-binary means. I'ts not, itself, binary. Take Hero Quest for example, it can definitely be used as Conflict Resolution (that's how I use it), and in addition to the binary pass-fail it produces a mechanical result, and the precise effects of the outcome are gradated by level of victory: Marginal, Minor, Major, and Complete (with mirroring levels of defeat for he loser). So winning a contest where the goal is to leap onto and catch somebody the levels may produce the following example results determined by the narrator:
Marginal - well, you're on him, but he's still moving, and sorta dragging you along.
Minor - got him. He's stopped, but not down.
Major - he's down and all but wrapped up.
Complete - as he looks up at you in disbelief, you both realize that he'll never make the mistake of trying to run from you again.
So is that non-binary enough?
Mike
Mike,
When I think of "non-binary" resolution, I think of that conversation you and I had at Origins. The idea that it isn't "I win/you lose" but "I win/you win too" (or maybe you sort-of win, whatever). I don't think HeroQuest qualifies because it really is pretty binary: A victory is always matched to a defeat, both sides can not achieve victory.
Joshua, is that what you're thinking?
Thomas
The resolution mechanic in my game,
The Mountain Witch, isn't binary at all. You have a number of different outcomes.
You win (they lose)---x4 different degree of success
They win (you lose)---x4 different degress of success
You tie (nothing happens)
You both win (Mutual success)---x3 different degrees of success
12 different possibilities. On top of that, the very broad narration rights of the game can add lots of nuanced meaning to all of these.
That said, I think you may not be giving the technique of Fortune-in-the-Middle enough credit here (which is utilized by almost all conflict resolution systems). While a given resolution system may seem "binary", in play, all the nuanced meaning that can be added to the narration of a conflict means that the conflict can change the course of play in many, MANY ways beyond what the resolution mechanic in isolation may seem to imply.
Let's use my game as an example. Two samurai are fighting a tengu. They win. One narration is that the two samurai fight together to defeat the monster. Outcome #1: Now the two samurai are better friends. But another narration may be that one of the samurai selfishly blocks the other from making any attacks, so that the first may take all the glory from the battle. Outcome #2: Now the second samurai is holding a grudge against the first. Two different outcomes with the same roll.
Are you following me here?
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby..."all players suggest a piece of the final resolution, invest currency, and then the player and/or GM shops among the suggestions for what goes into the final resolution."
This is done all the time, though its most often an informal technique. You should research is the idea of "the buck", as in "the buck stops here." When it comes to narration, in actual play, any player can suggest anything they want. But one player usually holds "the buck", that is, they get to decide what makes it into the official narration. In traditional gaming, the GM almost always holds "the buck." In many Forge games (mine included) the buck gets passed around the group. So, while this is most often an informal technique, what it means is that the narration of a conflict often includes input from multiple players.
Okay, quickie overview of the FVLMINATA influence system. In an effort to encourage social manuevering appropriate to our ancient Roman setting, I wrote the influence system to give the players some solid, game mechanical means of changing people's actions. When a PC is trying to influence an NPC, he rolls his appropriate skill (Rhetoric, Poetry, Seduction, whatever). If the roll succeeds, then the player names three potential outcomes: Agreement (what the NPC target will do & say if he completely agrees with you), Concession (what the NPC target will offer instead if he doesn't agree with you), and Neutrality (what the NPC target will do if he does neither). After these three are determined, the player rolls for his level of success. The higher the level of success, the more limited the options of the GM. At the highest level, the NPC must act according to the Agreement result, or the GM must award the player a Humour Point (like a hero point, drama point, etc.).
Also of note is Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits. Both players start by stating their intent, and each has a Body of Argument score. As they make Points, Rebuttals, etc. against one another, they reduce their opponent's Body of Argument. Whoever's Body hits zero first definitely does NOT get his intent. However, if they knocked any points off their opponent's Body, then the opponent must offer them a concession. If both sides hit zero in the same volley, then neither gets what they want, but both must make a concession.
Also, I think you dismissed Otherkind a bit too quickly. While there certainly is the Motion die that deals directly with the declared Stakes, one of the brilliances that Vincent hit on in Otherkind is that, by and large, players don't want just one thing in a conflict. They want a lot of things all at the same time. They want to "get the widget AND not get hurt AND look good doing it AND not have to kill anybody." By forcing the players to decide what they want more, you produce sixteen possible results from four binary categories. Plus, I find that the moment of decision, in play, far more interesting and dramatic than the working out of what it means afterward.
LordSmerf, yes, that's certainly one element of what I'm looking for. Apparently TMW offers a version of this, which is exciting.
Tim, yes, what I'm asking for is certainly done informally all the time. When we played Dogs, everybody was putting out suggestions for what should happen in the initiatory conflicts, and the GM put them together into what actually happened. It was really cool, but I get worried when anything informal like that happens, because there's no structure outside what the idiosyncratic play group's style allows for. What I'd like is something that takes that collaborative feel from our Dogs game and systemizes it so that it's reliable and sound, that players have guaranteed input not based on their social standing in the playgroup, and suchlike factors. So basically, yes -- now can we embed it into the game so that you can't take it back out?
In your example in TMW, how is it determined if Outcome #1 or Outcome #2 happens? Is it the decision of whoever happens to have the buck at the time? Is there anything that the downtrodden samurai's player might do to prevent his character from being shoved aside?
Michael -- FVLMINATA's system sounds very interesting. Do other aspects of the system, like combat, work like that? I can see parting shots and phyrric victories being very similar to concessions.
Otherkind and other fortune-in-the-middle systems certainly do offer a lot of options and permutations to play with in the ensuing narration, and the results are very much more complex than a simple binary result. I'm by no means dismissing that. They're still hitched to that success/fail of the 'main goal', however, and I'm curious to see if we can detach all those good, juicy details away from the 'main goal'. Another option may be to reduce the prominence of the goal by creating incentives for the other juicy details (I think Otherkind probably does this, but I have not been able to play it yet).
At this point, I should probably allow that what I'm looking for is no longer really conflict resolution, but other forms of resolution. By definition, conflict resolution will always resolve a conflict. I'm curious whether we can broaden the range of details and information that can be generated by the resolution system. (In some games with an emphasis on character conflicts, these details will be mere distractions and should be avoided; in games with different emphases, these details may be desired.)
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on October 31, 2005, 01:18:01 PM
At this point, I should probably allow that what I'm looking for is no longer really conflict resolution, but other forms of resolution. By definition, conflict resolution will always resolve a conflict. I'm curious whether we can broaden the range of details and information that can be generated by the resolution system. (In some games with an emphasis on character conflicts, these details will be mere distractions and should be avoided; in games with different emphases, these details may be desired.)
I think that you're right that you're looking at something broader than conflict resolution. This is a pretty specific concept of Narrativist play.
General resolution though is also an interesting topic. Obviously I come at it from a Matrix Game approach but I'll avoid Engle Matrix Game terms to keep it generic.
All the players have characters with descriptions (be they character stats, biographies, etc) which the player mentally adds to with their own creative agenda. If they are gamist they pick a winning condition, a sim player might add more detail to their history so they know more pyschology etc. The players are put together and given a world (another set of information). Play in that world will change this information.
Event resolution like you originally described is how world information is changed.
The method you described sounded a little like Universalis (bidding for control) but because you originally framed it about multi sided conflicts that analogy falls down. If one player controls the narration then one player will "win" the conflict. I think for multi sided competition it is good to take a step back from immediate conflict.
If one turn's worth of events will not settle a matter then the player's actions are about moving them towards their goal. A single action might benefit several people's goals. We will only know who it benefits the most as the story unfolds. This allows players to pursue indirect strategies - which can be very cool.
Say we pull the idea of bidding to take control of the narration. The description the player makes is what happens. In a Matrix Game, the narration they made is called an "argument" and must pass a die roll set for it by a referee. If it happens its effects are just like the previous method. The next player's argument builds on it. This can lead to judo flip outcomes.
There is a tribe of cavemen. Grok and Bluetoe are vying for control. The begin establishing facts as part of the narration.
Bluetoe is stronger than Grok.
Bluetoe has hair that cushions the blows of clubs.
Bluetoe has a keen sense of smell.
Grok says "Bluetoe is an animal!"
Animals are afraid of fire.
Bluetoe is afraid of fire.
Grok becomes cheif because Bluetoe will not join the tribe for supper.
This is clearly a competition in which Bluetoe was winning, but his own actions set him up for the flip about fire.
In present Engle Matrix Game rules players all make arguments. They only roll off against one another if their can not both logically happen. So multiple players can add to the story in the same turn. There are other rules for resolving individual fights (Grok hit Bluetoe on the head) but that gets back into binary resolution.
Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games
Mike's description of Hero Quest's outcomes is similar to Multiverser's, in which "relative success" and "relative failure" both use how close the roll is to the target number to determine the degree of success or failure.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on October 28, 2005, 02:15:41 PMSo if there are three sides to a conflict, and then one side 'wins out' what happens to the two other sides? Are they completely negated, or can the winner of the conflict allow them some weight in the ensuing resolution narration? Or would you only enter into a non-binary conflict if you specifically did not want the other two results to play out? If blocking the other results was not a priority to you, it would be simpler to start a new conflict (especially since the other players' resources are already tied up in the original conflict).
This reminded me of something from my teen years that might be interesting to try in the current context.
My cousin Ron was always the best Risk player anyone knew. For a long time he never lost. However, he played with his brothers so much that they got good, and eventually he came to the point that he didn't like to play anymore, because, as he put it, "I can never win, I can only decide which of them will win."
What if, in a multi-sided conflict, whoever the dice choose doesn't win himself, but chooses which of the
other sides wins, giving them the credibility to describe the outcome? Thus if I get the win on the die roll, it's established that I did not get the outcome I most wanted, but I can still choose from my adversaries whichever one I think will least disadvantage me if he gets what he wants.
Of course, I have no idea whether that does what you wanted.
Chris, I'm not at all persuaded that conflict resolution is necessarily narrativist. For example, in Multiverser if a player character is trying to persuade a non-player character to a particular viewpoint or course of action, the player rolls a check against his persuasion score and the non-player character rolls against his will power score. The higher successful roll wins. (That is, if neither roll is successful, it's a draw, if only one roll is successful that character wins, if both are successful the one who rolls higher wins.) This is clearly conflict resolution in a basic sense, as it says nothing about whether the character crafts a coherent argument or whether the non-player character gives him a compelling answer or any other
task involved in the matter, but only which side wins the argument. However, it is very much a simulationist mechanic in its essence. Nothing inherent in it points to addressing premise, and in one sense it could limit the ability to address premise as there's no way for the player character to change the mind of an NPC no matter how good his argument if the dice go against him.
I agree, though, that event resolution and conflict resolution are often inappropriately conflated, and ought not be.
--M. J. Young
MJ, that would "do what I want" in that I am mostly canvassing possibilities in this thread.
Secondly, what your describe is not conflict resolution in my book, because there is no conflict. There is a task (persuade the NPC) that is being attempted. Conflict requires key character desires and obstacles to those desires. It's possible that the same situation may be present a conflict, but unless the mechanic somehow addressed the key desires or the obstacle (whereas as it stands it addresses the character's abilities and the NPC's will), it's still task resolution applied to a conflict. But then I doubt my definition of conflict resolution is exactly canonical.