Yet, More On Conflict

[jburneko]

Hello,

In another thread Ron wrote:

There's really no such thing as rolling against "no defense." If there's truly no defense, then the only constraint on the announced action is the internal physics of the game-world as represented by the GM. There's no roll.

But that requires me to explain, too, that rolling in Sorcerer is about conflict, not "can I or can't I do this" in terms of in-game physics ...

So (a) check if there's a conflict, and if so, roll. One die might be the only defense. (b) If there's no conflict, and only then, check with in-game physics as determined by the GM.

You will very often find that this distinction (which is not represented by most RPG rules at all) is incredibly easy to make during play. And again, as long as there's a conflict, there will be rolled at least one oppositional die.

"Conflict" in this sense does not mean either (a) disagreements among the real people of any kind, nor (b) conflict-of-interest among the characters, e.g. the helpless guy "wouldn't want to die." It means conflict like you would associate with Lit 101 classes.

By that, I mean, "Alternate outcomes carry different thematic messages." When that's the case, then you have a conflict.

Sigh, I really hate going around in circles about this but theoretically I get this but in practice something just intuitively feels wrong when I try to apply this logic.

I think the confusion has to do with this.  Sorcerer was deliberately designed to have no IIEE holes.  However, from my perspective a lot of IIEE has to do with establishing in-game physics, "can I/can't I before X happens" situations.

Example from my current Asylum game:  Gudykunst (a PC) is crawling around in the air ducts trying to break into another patients cell.  Her Demon, Farnsworth smashes a hole in the ceiling and jumps down.  Farnsworth is a very large, hairy and naked man.  The sight of this individual causes the patient to start screaming.  Gudykunst's players says, "I jump down and try to calm her down before anyone can hear."

So?  Die worthy conflict yes or no?  

I went ahead and rolled dice.  Gudykunst failed and I said that she hears someone running down the hall.  Gudykunst's player says, "I ask Farnsworth to take her out of here before whoever's coming arrives."

Again, worth a die roll or not?

Another thing my player's like to do is set themselves up in positions of power and then have NPCs do a lot of work for them.  I almost never know how to handle this situation.  Both with regards to an NPCs willingness to carry out the PCs instructions and with regards to how to resolve the now off-screen situations the NPCs are sent to handle.

It's almost like a couple of my players have figured out that all conflict even social conflict is resolved via die rolls.  But they've discovered that they can force me to resolve conflict via Drama if they send an NPC off to do it for them.

Thoughts?

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

Example from my current Asylum game: Gudykunst (a PC) is crawling around in the air ducts trying to break into another patients cell. Her Demon, Farnsworth smashes a hole in the ceiling and jumps down. Farnsworth is a very large, hairy and naked man. The sight of this individual causes the patient to start screaming. Gudykunst's players says, "I jump down and try to calm her down before anyone can hear."

So? Die worthy conflict yes or no?

I went ahead and rolled dice. Gudykunst failed and I said that she hears someone running down the hall. Gudykunst's player says, "I ask Farnsworth to take her out of here before whoever's coming arrives."

Again, worth a die roll or not?

Yes and yes.

Another thing my player's like to do is set themselves up in positions of power and then have NPCs do a lot of work for them. I almost never know how to handle this situation. Both with regards to an NPCs willingness to carry out the PCs instructions and with regards to how to resolve the now off-screen situations the NPCs are sent to handle.

Nothing's wrong with that! But first, roll Will or Cover rolls to see whether the NPCs do it or not, for whatever reason, and also, roll for NPC success. Do not handle these situations using Drama, ever.

What that does is clear: sometimes the tactic works, and other times it results in confused, contradictory feedback (i.e. the hitmen show up), and still other times it results in ... silence. Scary silence.

It's almost like a couple of my players have figured out that all conflict even social conflict is resolved via die rolls. But they've discovered that they can force me to resolve conflict via Drama if they send an NPC off to do it for them.

Why would they "discover" that unless you somehow catered to it. Just don't do it that.

Final point: I have no idea what your example (which I've responded to) has to do with the text you quoted.

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

Thanks for the clearification.  For some reason this Asylum game has really put my "gut" and my "brain" at war.  This didn't happen with the other Sorcerer games I ran.  I don't know why.

Another point of clearification: I didn't realize that you would roll for NPC off-screen success.  I thought all off-screen NPC action was resolved via Drama.  I vaguely remember a thread where someone was talking about NPC Sorcery and I thought the consensus was that if an NPC wants to summon a new demon off screen (i.e. not in (direct) opposition to any of the player's actions) then it was resolved it just happened according to whatever the GM wants.  I just extrapolated that out to all off-screen (i.e. no chance of PC interference) NPC-to-NPC conflict is resolved via Drama.

As for what my example had to do with the section I quoted.  This line is what really caught my attention:

"But that requires me to explain, too, that rolling in Sorcerer is about conflict, not "can I or can't I do this" in terms of in-game physics ... "

Because my mind went, "but can I/can't I situations comprise almost HALF of all the die roll situations in my games."

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

The trouble is that a person can always squint and convince himself that Conflict X is really a "can I or can't I" thing. Because it's an imaginative, as-yet-unresolved situation.

Don't think either conflict or task. Think conflict vs. no conflict. It's really easy unless you try to start pleasing someone, and if that someone starts flustering you.

Yeah, I figured the source of that trouble was the whole "resolving off screen through Drama" thing. Fact is, I hardly ever do that; in fact, I love springboarding off Fortune almost all the time. But sometimes I do, especially when it would be flat boring without X happening, and if X vs. not-X cannot be seen as a conflict.

I dunno, Jesse. It seems really obvious to me during play - if using Drama railroads thematic character choices for me to impose anything, then I don't do it; if it instead provides thematic player choices, then I do.

Best,
Ron

[Michael S. Miller]

I vaguely remember a thread where someone was talking about NPC Sorcery and I thought the consensus was that if an NPC wants to summon a new demon off screen (i.e. not in (direct) opposition to any of the player's actions) then it was resolved it just happened according to whatever the GM wants.

Hey, Jesse. Maybe it'll help to think about it this way: rephrase your i.e. above to read "not of immediate relevance to the player's conflicts." Summoning the demon doesn't affect the players' conflicts at all. Once it steps out of the summoning circle, yeah, but not before.

Looking at it this way, when the players if the players send a lackey off to do their dirty work, that poor smuck, and all he does, is still intimately involved with the conflicts that the players are interested in, so it's Fortune for him.