Mental Conflict

[Jay Hatcher]

Nice timing soundmasterj, I was just about to post this when I saw your post linking to Vincent's article.  I've read the part you pointed out and a few of the following posts.  I have added to the end of my post to reflect this, but if there are any breaks in the flow of thought because of this, I apologize in advance, and also for the length.

We may have to agree to disagree regarding task resolution, but I want to be clear as to why it appeals to me for my game.  What you're describing sounds (to me at least) like it's trying to support a pure Narrativist Creative Agenda.  My game is more along the lines of a Nar/Sim hybrid, and I feel that task resolution fits the simulationist angle better than conflict resolution.  If you want an example of a successful Nar/Sim hybrid, check out The Riddle of Steel.  You may already know of it, but I thought I'd mention it for any other new people reading this.  Ron has a review of it in the reviews section.

So anyway, that's where I'm coming from.  I don't want pure storytelling/narration.

As to why preplanning could be overpowered, I think its a matter of scope, not just who wins the roll.  If the puncher wins, he gets to describe how and where he punches, and how that affects the other player.  If the preplanner wins, she gets to describe... what exacly?  As far as I can see, ANYTHING SHE WANTS so long as it affects her opponent.  In a high trust pure NAR game, this is probably not an issue, but I'm expecting a lower trust environment (e.g. chat rooms) as a potential audience for my game.  Simulationism can help to provide believable limits on what players can do so they don't start narrating things like "you fall through a trap door and die!" without death being both dramatically appropriate AND believable in the setting.  I can tell this isn't your position, but please try to see it from my perspective if you can.  Pure NAR games can be a lot of fun and many successful games are pure NAR, it's just not what I'm looking for regarding my own project.

Vincent is right that determining what is at stake is important to resolution, and that task resolution can give the GM unnecessary narrative power and kill collaboration.  He is also right that conflict resolution need not be large-scale and and task resolution need not be small scale.  I have realized that from the beginning.  However, I'm consciously choosing to use conflict resolution for large- and medium-scale conflict, and task resolution for small-scale conflict.  While task resolution can certainly create the possibility for GM abuse, I do not believe it follows that it must.  In my game, task resolution is only used for vary detailed aspects of a conflict.  "Does my sword strike hit, and where?"  "Does my offhand remark about his family bother my opponent?"  Note that this is not the same as "Do I kill him?" or "Do I ruin his reputation?"  I don't know what will be effective against my opponent at this smallest scale.  I do not have enough information to be able to narrate that "if I win this, then this will happen."  This is true chaos, not just uncertainty.  I do not know what my opponent is going to do this very instant or how they are feeling at this very time.  I'm fishing for a weakness.  Keep in mind that at this level, we are dealing with SIM underpinnings of the system, not the NAR guiding influences.

Remember that in my game, a GM is optional.  If you succeed at a task, you get to narrate what the result is, not the GM.  If you fail, your opponent gets to narrate what happens, not the GM, unless she is the opponent.  In my game, even the environment is a character, so there is no such thing as trying to open a safe, succeeding, and finding it empty, or failing, but it containing something critical that ruins the plot if you fail.  Vincent points out that task resolution creates uncertainty, and this is only one of many possible sources of suspense.  I want that particular source of suspense.  I believe that at the smallest end of the scale, task resolution reinforces a simulationist agenda because at a small scale, life is unpredictable.  When you are in the middle of a fierce sword fight, you don't have time to think about what your goal is for each individual sword swing (task res), but you can have a goal in mind for a particular maneuver (conflict res), such as "I want to throw him off balance."

Note that every example of task resolution I've given could be replaced with conflict resolution, but conflict resolution determines the stakes ahead of time.  I want the stakes at the very smallest end of the scale to be unknown, but small, in terms of import.  I WANT that effect.  That is the ONLY time I use task resolution.  The Riddle of Steel follows a similar pattern in that individual attack exchanges use task resolution, but your overall odds of winning are greatly improved by setting the stakes with your Spiritual Attributes.  Individual attack exchanges have unknown stakes, save in general (I hurt you), because you don't have time to determine your detailed intent.  You don't have time to think, if I hit him with this next attack, I'll knock him down and have him trapped.  You may want that, but who knows what will actually happen.  You just think "Swing, dodge, thrust, block!" etc.  This is starting to veer off topic somewhat.

So (to everyone reading), regarding the main topic, do any of the approaches we have already mentioned (or any new ones that you can think of) allow mastermind characters to do their thing?  Does restricting a mastermind's influence to big picture influences rather than small scale battles make sense?  Is this facilitated by separating where conflict resolution (using narration) comes into play and where task resolution (using more chaotic simulation) comes into play make sense?

[soundmasterj]

re:, task/conflict resolution- and this again touches the main discussion- there is a lot of suspense in CR. What creates suspense in CR (and generally, I think) is not, do you succeed? But, what does it cost you?

I also think that a game with clearly distributed narrational rights should be optimal for a chatroom style game, but that, of course, is another discussion. One thing though: you want believable stories? Tell the players to make up believable stories. "Rules emulating physics" won´t do that, appealing to common understanding will. If someone wants to fuck things up, he will find a way, whatever agenda you are persuing.

I am pretty sure though that a succes earning you narration rights is more or less conflict resolution - noone will narrate "I manage to open the safe, but it appears to be empty!" if he doesn´t have to. So you earn narrative authority through your character succeeding in a physical task.

Well, back to "mental conflicts"

What do you want to "simulate"? If you actually want one focus of your game being on large-scale battles of wit, I´d say this nice metagame mechanic would be appropriate.

[Jay Hatcher]

re:re task/conflict resolution: I never said there wasn't suspense in CR.  I plan on using the "What will it cost?" suspense in CR often.  I just want to also include the only kind of suspense that is not in CR, the kind where you are only vaguely sure what something will cost.  I like the bound unpredictability of small costs determined by the dice because the stakes are soft instead of hard for details.  From what I've read, CR doesn't do that; you set the stakes beforehand.  CR works great for the large-scale mental conflicts we've been talking about, but in terms of very fine detail, I like it when the players can be surprised by an event they would not have thought of that follows the structure of the world they are in.  This does not in the least mean that they must sacrifice control of bigger issues that affect the story more directly.

If success earning narration rights is CR, then forgive me for misunderstanding.  My thinking was that CR is when the result of a success is predetermined (at least in general), with detail filled in after, and TR is stating intent (but not the desired result) and narrating the results after.  Vincent's examples also seem to lean toward my understanding of CR when defining stakes.  The player is clearly saying what she wants to accomplish and what it will cost if she loses ahead of time.  Sorry for any confusion.  My attraction to TR is that you don't always know what you can or will accomplish upon success.  For small scale events, the dice replace the GM or player and tell you what happened.  The rules don't know about the conflict, only the task, so they tell you how you succeeded or failed at the task, and you interpret the effect on the conflict.  You may not like this, but I actually enjoy it, and I know I'm not the only one.  I'm pretty sure that fits with a SIM agenda.

Back to Mental Conflicts,

The focus of my game is individuals involved in a large scale conflict.  Thus, these individuals are able to direct or influence the large conflict (mastermind), and also participate in a small segment of it.  One example might be a general and his staff who influence the war but also fight in the field.  I want everything to be under the control of the players (who can also share the GM roles between them) except for fine details of moment by moment interactions.

[soundmasterj]

Key, I think, is this bit:

The rules don't know about the conflict, only the task, so they tell you how you succeeded or failed at the task, and you interpret the effect on the conflict.

So, if rules give you the right to interpret the effect on the conflict, it is basicaly conflict resolution.
Say what I want is my character getting those secret documents (stakes), what I do is I have my character try cracking that save (intent, you would say). I roll, my character succeeds. Now if I may interpret the effect upon success, what I will narrate is how the character finds the secret documents. I could, of course, have him not find any documents; but if I want him to find them, I am now authorized to have him find them. That´s CR and I like it. Dice decide the result of the conflict (= dice decide the result is what I want it to be).
If rules always give the GM the power to interpret results, it´s TR (and meaningless): I want my character getting those docs, I have him crack the safe. Rules/Dice decide if the safe is open, GM decides if he gets docs. Concerning my stakes, what I roll is completely meaningless.

I really don´t like TR to be honest. It never worked out for me. I think differently from the various creative agendas, which all work, CR is simply better than TR in every way. I could argue why, but 1., this is not the place, 2., what you are doing avoids typical TR deprotagonizing anyways.

Did you ever try CR? It´s v. good. We could talk theoretically for ages, but just... USE it. It´s v. good.

Concerning your game, I´d write up some HeroWars - alike thoughts and just try it with some guys. Like, opposed rolls shoveling some kind of "hit points" around until some threshold is reached. You could make up traits like "logistics", "connections", "charming personality". Currently, I like this scale of increasing "hit point" stakes the most: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89... You win if you have won MORE than twice your opponents number "hit point" reserves as well as MORE than twice his current points won OR if you win the last round (whereafter both pools are empty). So in order to win, you need to win either at least twice in a row or win the last round.
Alternatively: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32... You win if you have won MORE than twice your opponents number "hit point" reserves as well as MORE than twice his current points won OR if you win the last round (whereafter both pools are empty). So in order to win, you need to win either at least twice (once at the beginning, a second time as soon as stakes are half as high as the remaining pool) or win the last round.

I am thinking about how different kinds of grand-scale skills relate to each other. One could argue that "overpreparation" was a good defence against "hidden cards", "loyality-inspiring" worked great against "betrayal", "redundancy" countered "attacking weak spots"... But actually, I wouldn´t treat them any different; any and all move works against every other move (if dice fall well). "Loyality" works against "attacking weak spots", too (your weak spots are less weak if your men are loyal).

What do you think?

[chance.thirteen]

My apologies, I had an idea and haven't read everyone's contributions yet.

To me, key points of this conflict are discerning your oppositions traits (techniques, values, whatever), taking risks with a given approach, using your own traits to help your conflict, using your oppositions traits against them to best choose a tactic. Tension is over risks taken, and uncertainty if you really understand your foe.

Resolution comes like this:

Each player gets a chance to identify vulnerabilities and strengths in their opposition.

Each player gets a chance to put out false information about their vulnerabilities and strengths.

(It would be better if you could gain both false and real info about anyone, not just cancel out one another's identify and obscure ratings)

A player initiates an conflict, calling upon a weakness of their target. Using this weakness gives you a chance at better results (eg extra cards in a poker hand, more dice to roll to get a good result, but not a pure additio n of success, uncertainty of results is important). Success grants you progress. This round goes to you.

If the player uses a trait that is false, the targetted player can use that as additional bonus in a later round. They accept the setback, but get to add it to one of theor own efforts later.

Ideally, each round would have a real gain or loss in it, unless there effort totally fails, which probably should protect the given vulnerability for a while.

I would also suggest there be at least two tracks for measuring progress in the contest, so there is variation in flavor of techniques and results, but also to again add uncertainty as to what about you your opposition will attack. Changing the dimensions of the conflict is common. (3d manuevers vs 2d in Wrath of Khan, switching between attacks on determination to attacks on person or vice versa, making a sacrifice that results in a larger loss for the opposition).

I am trying to think of how to leave a booby trap, literal or otherwise. I could see it as a sepcial version of a false vulnerability, or perhaps as an action taken against the oppositions strength.

Narrating this would be tricky I think. Most examples have a flurry of actions that are countered, with just the final few being truly telling blows that resolve the conflict. I am thinking of Yojimbo, or the lies in Mousetrap, or the betrayals at the end of Four Dogs Playing Poker, or the shifting trusts and alliances in Shallow Grave.