[Frostfolk, ] Carrying on

[Caldis]

I should have a better question to ask but my mind is still reeling from that amazing example of different dice rolls giving off different results for the game in Ron's second last post.  That whole sequence of different goals for the characters and different results for the SIS based on a few simple dice rolls is really rocking my world right now.   I'm realizing right now that's what I want dice to do in games that I play, that's what I want for a game to take out of my hands and put into the hands of fate.  I want something to come up that I wasnt planning, real resolution determined by the dice not manipulated by the participants.  We've put into the scenario what each of the characters want in the situation and now we want to see what happens. 

My question to Ron is can you think of any actual play examples of your own that really showed in this kind of intricate resolution to in action, what system were you using, how did the sytem hep or hinder that resolution and how does it compare to what you've posted here?

Maybe I'm just asking for examples of conflict resolution in action, and of course the trick is refining it down to what the actual conflicts are but I think I;m, looking more for systemic support for conflict resolution.  If that makes any sense.

[Joel P. Shempert]

I'm a bit confused about one aspect of the Exchange: what's the governing factor for multiple exchanges? How does it work in practice? I get the multiple passes and calling of traits, then of course rolling to see who wins. But what then? Bob's and my characters are fighting, we call traits, each get 4 dice, then roll--Bob wins, I lose, and take an injury. Then we're done? Or we have to keep doing exchanges until I get a 1,2,3,4 sequence of injuries? What if I decide it's time to flee, say after Exchange 2? And for non-combat conflict, it's still more unclear--at what point are we "done" debating, or whatever? If a goal has a "you either haven't or you don't" quality, like "I get the McGuffin before he does!" is it necessarily one exchange? Sorry if I'm being dense; I've read the document a couple times and I just ain't seeing it.

It does look like a really fun system. Just the kind of descriptive chargen I like, and a fun way to give the descriptive elements mechanical wieght and show off the character's coolness. And Ron's dice-results examples have also got me stoked. That's some decisive mechanical resolution. You can feel the crackling air of tension, and it's just a hypothetical. Way cool.

Peace,
-Joel

[Levi Kornelsen]

I'm a bit confused about one aspect of the Exchange: what's the governing factor for multiple exchanges? How does it work in practice? I get the multiple passes and calling of traits, then of course rolling to see who wins. But what then? Bob's and my characters are fighting, we call traits, each get 4 dice, then roll--Bob wins, I lose, and take an injury. Then we're done? Or we have to keep doing exchanges until I get a 1,2,3,4 sequence of injuries? What if I decide it's time to flee, say after Exchange 2? And for non-combat conflict, it's still more unclear--at what point are we "done" debating, or whatever? If a goal has a "you either haven't or you don't" quality, like "I get the McGuffin before he does!" is it necessarily one exchange? Sorry if I'm being dense; I've read the document a couple times and I just ain't seeing it.

You're not seeing it because it's implied in the paragraph on framing and stakes, rather than being a hard rule.  Players can set the stakes they want; "I kill you instantly if I win" is acceptable if both players want it that way (though the system assumes they won't).  Don't let the extra page space given over to traits and such distract you; those are a tool for player use.

The players set the stakes, full stop.

[Joel P. Shempert]

OK, gotcha. What about changing goal for a multiple-exchange conflict, as in, "I'm losing the fight and badly wounded, now I want to flee?" Do you just go to a new conflict "If I win I get away", or is there a formal constraint on "getting out" of the "fight to the death" conflict?

[Levi Kornelsen]

OK, gotcha. What about changing goal for a multiple-exchange conflict, as in, "I'm losing the fight and badly wounded, now I want to flee?" Do you just go to a new conflict "If I win I get away", or is there a formal constraint on "getting out" of the "fight to the death" conflict?

SCENARIO 1: Post-exchange:

"Frioth runs away."

"We're pretty closed in; how?"

"Uh, he ducks under the stage and runs into the crowd."

"Okay.  Kaleb mocks him as he flees."

SCENARIO 2: Post-Exchange:

"Frioth run away."

"We're pretty closed in; how?"

"Okay.  New exchange. My Stakes are: Frioth knocks Kaleb down, and flees past him."

"Groovy.  Mine are: Kaleb hurts him some more; injuries."

"My call?"

-----------

Both of these are just fine.

[Joel P. Shempert]

Cool, thanks.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi everybody,

I'm about done, I think. It's been a great pair of threads.

The only outstanding question to me is Caldis', and unfortunately, it's too general. I can only say, play all those games I mentioned, and you'll find that they and others are unique in the history of role-playing design for absolutely nailing IIEE to the wall. I think a lot of people don't know that when they try to play them, and thus miss or are confused by the rules, ending up punting and playing them like Over the Edge.

If you don't know or believe that such power can be achieved by dynamically-ordered resolution, then you won't look for it even when the rules are staring you in the face. This is probably the single most important factor in RPG design that actually works instead of requiring fudging, and most people in the hobby are pre-trained to ignore it.

To be clear: there are two solutions, both of which have been well-developed in the history of pre-Forge (but relevant to Forge) game design as well as early Forge-based design. Both solutions have roots in older games. One is to kick things up a level into resolving and narrating whole scenes. Good examples are Universalis, My Life with Master, and Primetime Adventures without dictating sub-outcomes via the mechanics. Narration therefore is free as a bird to say how the outcome occurs, whether someone got beat to dogshit and then turned around to triumph, or whether they just strode in and took the guy down. There are many variations within this category, which I'm not going into here.

The other solution is what I've been discussing in detail in this thread, and I probably ought to cite Zero as the real doorway game for it, designed by Lester Smith. It is amazing stuff, if I do say so myself, as it was Sorcerer which brought the idea started by Zero into more general recognition and use. You can see a recent discussion about exactly how it works in Sorcerer in [Sorcerer] Orthogonal vs. opposed conflicts.

I recommend that you play Zero, Sorcerer, Dust Devils, Trollbabe, Dogs in the Vineyard, HeroQuest, The Dying Earth, Burning Wheel (revised), The Shadow of Yesterday, Nine Worlds, Conspiracy of Shadows, Cold City, Covenant, Violence Future (if you can find it), Lacuna, Legends of Alyria, and The Princes' Kingdom. But play them in the knowledge that they do not fall down when it comes to these ordering/action/outcome mechanics. They aren't "freeform-lite" games at all. So that means really clearing your head when you sit down to learn the rules together.

Best, Ron

[Levi Kornelsen]

I'm about done, I think. It's been a great pair of threads.

I'd say the same.

I'm done here, though there will likely be a few new posts in the First Thoughts / Playtesting sections in future as I hit on various revisions to The Exchange.

Thanks, everyone, and especially Ron.