Complex Conflict That's Not Combat

[Bill Cook]

Hello. I read two things recently:

The failing in the Sorcerer book is to talk about a "combat" system at all. There is no combat system. There is a group resolution mechanic.

I happen to think it's the best group resolution mechanic currently available for Fortune-heavy play, especially when the aesthetic goal includes the potential for savage repercussions for failure. It's kind of like a HeroQuest extended contest that requires high Action Point bids. I use it for non-combat non-action scenes all the time.

(1) the above, from Alternate Combat System; and (2) a Forge member (Alan Haley) wrote in a manuscript review of a game I've written that what I call complex conflict is really just combat. (BTW, I'm very grateful to receive his feedback.)

I'd like to understand this better. What is the difference between simple and complex conflict? Could somebody express a complex conflict mechanic and provide a non-combat example?

[Lxndr]

I would consider a 'simple' conflict to be resolved through a small number of steps, generally only one "process."  A complex conflict, conversely, likely would take multiple steps (see the generic D&D combat, where generally you make multiple rolls, over and over, tallying damage and so on, until finally one or the other falls dead).  That said, I'm sure there's a BETTER explanation than mine, which someone will hopefully supply.

Fastlane's conflicts might all be considered complex - the first step is relatively simple, since everyone bids on the table and collects their chips at the same time, even if it's on a different number.  After collecting chips, there's the choice of how to distribute them vs. the opposition (being both players and the GM).  That part might be COMPLICATED, but not complex.  Complexity might be in the 'burning' mechanics that happen in the same conflict, but I'll leave that to people better versed in such things to answer.

Whether a single conflict in Fastlane is complex, I can give a particular example of a complex conflict in a Fastlane game.  It was a conflict that resulted in 'doing damage', but wasn't combat, per se, and I hope the example can show other non-combative combat potential.

The situation was this:  Character A was breaking into a starship owned by Character B, which had been commandeered by the main villain of the piece, who had kidnapped Character A's sister.  The player of Character B was escaping the planet on a transport ship,and wanted to activate a self-destruct on the ship.  Due to Fastlane's damage rules, if the self-destruct activated on the first spin, it would have barely managed to damage anyone - not very spectacular.  So what happened instead, Character B started banking up chips in a 'self-destruct' pool while Character A went through various simple conflicts (including at least one combat situation, which was resolved simply, through one spin instead of multiple spins).  Finally, when the 'self-destruct' pool was high enough to give the desired effect, the countdown was finished and the kaboom happened.  Character A wound up with enough points left over to manage a heroic escape out of the collapsing starship (the bastard).

Sure, that's a very simplistic example of a complex non-combat conflict, and still resulted in doing damage to people, but I'm sure you can imagine it in other situations.  Imagine a complex political plot that, when complete, could result in the deposing of a king.  Each turn could be dedicated to racking up enough points to achieve that goal (which is the rough equivalent of "doing damage").  

Fastlane's ability to affect other characters certainly includes wounding and killin them, but focuses on non-combat damage - you can off-balance another player character with a few sharp words (reducing their Nerve), or affect their reputation with a public gesture (reducing their People), and things like that.  I really think that's key to any sort of generic complex conflict mechanic - the ability to affect things in a multiple-conflict sort of way, other than simply hurting and killing.

I'd be happy for people who understand this more than I to chime in, however.

[jdagna]

To my mind, a complex conflict is one that involves multiple steps, but (more importantly) multiple choices as you work through it.

Combat is almost always a complex conflict because of this - not only are you making many attack and damage rolls, but you have choices.  Use the axe or the bow?  Spells or physical attacks?  Keep attacking or withdraw to a tactically stronger position?  Use the healing potion now or later?  And on yourself or your friend?

In fact, I'd argue that the typical D&D combat (swing, hit, swing miss, swing hit, until someone dies) isn't really a complex conflict, just a lot of simple conflicts.  You have to have meaningful choices in there - the potential for two or more valid strategies.  Likewise, many games would have you roll many tests to climb a cliff, but ultimately, there aren't any real choices - you just keep rolling until you get there, give up, or fall.  (Note that GMs can be the ones who make the conflict complex or simple - it isn't just a rules issue.  A GM could very well describe climbing a cliff in a way that allowed for choices and strategies, for example).

For a more concrete example of a non-combat complex conflict, I'd offer up social interaction mechanics from my own game.  Basically, you can do this in a simple manner - you walk up, ask an NPC for something and make a roll.  Or, you can combine these kinds of rolls and whittle away at the opponent by reducing negative modifiers in five areas (the targets impression of you, the target's consequences, the target's payment/costs, the target's chances of being caught and the target's preparedness for the situation).

Let's say you want to get into a guarded bank vault.  

You could walk up to a security guard and say "Let me into the vault - I want to rob you."  This is a lousy approach - he doesn't like you now, the punishments are high, the rewards are nil, he's prepared for it, and he's likely to get caught. (in fact, system-wise, you may have a -250 modifier on a d100 roll, making this approach outright impossible))

Alternatively, you might dress up as someone who works there and approach the guard with a line like "I left my briefcase in the vault.  Here's $20 if you let me back there to get it."  Now, I've not only illustrated a choice in tactics here, but this kind of thing requires several rolls (specifically - to impersonate the person, to be believable in your request and to be not offensive in offering money).  Since each of these three tests is easier, this is a good strategy.  Depending on the results of your rolls, you might try different strategies.

There are other approaches too.  For example, dress up as a maintenance guy.  Now, make small requests of him that are reasonable, but push the limits just a little each time (thus slowly increasing his trust of you and pushing him further from what he's prepared for).  Then, when you've got him buttered up, ask to check, say, the fire alarm in the vault.  Now you've really got him - he's not supposed to let you in the vault, but he is supposed to help workmen, and if he hinders you, he could get in trouble for it.... and so on.

You could also seduce him, distract him, threaten him (perhaps by impersonating the police) or any of a number of more or less valid options.  And combinations of these strategies could also work.

Hopefully those examples and definitions make sense for you, though I'm sure there are some other definitions out there that might even be better.  In terms of what makes a system combat or not... I'd probably have to look over your system to see why the reviewer said that.  I do know that I made a similar comment about someone's system because the social stuff used the same rules as physical stuff (i.e. you rolled dice, and subtracted points from attributes and when someone hit 0, they lost... regardless of whether you were fighting, negotiating, cliff-climbing or what have you).

[Bill Cook]

Lxndr:

I've never played Fastlane before, so some of that's hard for me to follow. I do, however, grasp your non-life character resource examples.

jdagna:

What's interesting to me about your example is that successive rolls stake one of five modifiers vs. being links in a chain, where any failure becomes total failure.

** ** **

So you guys' criteria for complexity includes: multiple points of prevalence, iteration of procedure and meaningful choices.

I think I got what I wanted. I appreciate the input.

[M. J. Young]

Out of curiosity, isn't this thread blurring a legitimate distinction between complex conflict and complex resolution?

Given the D&D combat example, we've got a simple conflict--each guy wants to kill the other, one on one. We're using a complex resolution for it, taking the attacks one at a time and gradually working toward the outcome. We could as easily set a target number adjusted by factors and roll d1000 against it--win, lose, or draw established in a single roll. We don't because it's too abrupt in its consequences, so we play it out.

I would expect a complex conflict to be one in which there are multiple aspects to the problem that all must be addressed, but which could be addressed in multiple ways. Robbing the vault seems to approach that, I think. The players might try to get the guard to join them, for example, resolving that aspect of the conflict in a way that helps them in the next step.

But maybe that's not what you wanted.

--M. J. Young

[Bill Cook]

M.J:

As long as it's conflict (and not task), I was looking for (1) contrast between simple and complex and (2) examples of complex non-combat. Whether the complexity arrived as input or resolution mechanic, I wasn't so concerned.

Which, I sort of get it. I'm using Csikszentmihalyi's definition of complexity: optimal differentiation and integration. i.e. Are we dealing with stuff we care about, and does it work together to produce results we are interested in.

I think everyone's had the experience of a combat scene dragging on too long. And it's generally because the detail of the final duel in Rob Roy is being applied to the scope of the final battle in The Last Samurai. Likewise, I think most people have at some point lamented the lack of nuance to a blasé skill check; in my case, this generally results in the GM spontaneously imposing Drama to enliven the exchange.

[vision]There is a design goal for a conflict resolution mechanic forming in my mind. Something that would allow the group to assign their own factors, their relationships and the range of outcome. I sense the effect of damage and mechanics that result in measuring it as becoming nameless and applying to resources with counts equal to investment.[/vision]

[timfire]

I think MJ's distinction between complex conflicts & complex resolution is a good one. Making that distinction solves some problems I was having with this thread.

I think MJ's example of DnD combat as simple conflict/complex resolution is also good. I also believe The Mountain Witch is an example of complex conflict with simple resolution. Fist off, as jrs pointed out, the complexity in MW's conflicts is about how the character interact with one another. It's subtle but not simple. But the actual mechanical resolution system is very simple.

Also, outside of PC interaction issues, the resolution mechanic can be used to boil down complex conflicts into simple resolution. While my latest playtest has had lots on non-combat conflicts, unfortunate all of the really complex ones have been combat. For example, my character was being pulled down into a pit by a zombie. I wanted to simply escape the zombie's grasp. 2 (maybe?) other PC's said they wanted to kill the zombie. A fourth PC said they wanted to help me, but they needed to jump a small pit (or something) to do it. Even though all that was going on, the conflict was resolved with a single roll. Everyone rolled their dice and the highest roll (me) narrated what happened (while making sure to account for all that was going on, of course).

[Bill Cook]

.. reading 2(a). CONFLICT RESOLUTION ..

Cool. That is simple resolution. How can you not like it? ;) I particularly like the option for dependent group action.

Everyone rolled their dice and the highest roll (me) narrated what happened (while making sure to account for all that was going on, of course).

So the highest roll narrates for the whole group?

(Hear record needle yanked away.) Oops. Getting OT.

** ** **

Looking at how you preface combat with conflict resolution really clarify's Alan's comment.

I think the "simple" in your resolution is snake's belly low handling and a uniform metric of success. I think the "complex" in your conflict is the sequencing and aggregation of multiple character actions.

** ** **

Just re-read. I wanted contrast between simple and complex conflict. Resolution can also be simple or complex. That's starting to sink into my head a little better now.

[Jonathan Walton]

How's this for complex conflict:

So you're playing Nobilis, where all the characters are godlike beings with a limited resource pool with which to power their miraculous magic powers.

The conflict is: there's a very important visitor coming to visit the group's home and everybody wants to host the visitor in their own section of the domain, to gain prestige and the visitor's ear.  So each godling has to do their best to make their own piece of territory the most attractive, given a few known facts about the visitor's tastes.

This conflict is potentially open-ended: there are no exact requirements, but you still have a limited resource pool with which to make whatever preparations you want to make.  Sure, you could create a lake of blood, a volcano of ice cream, turn the sky bright pink, and create an amusement park full of rabid walruses (walrusi?), but the goal would be to make the (subjectively) best use of your creativity and limited resources.

End the end, there's some sort of mechanical judgment or maybe the GM or even the entire group could just decide who's done the best job.

There you go.  Complex.  Based in mechanics.  Definitely not combat.