[My As Yet Unnamed RPG] Skill system

[Nerethel]

Hey there. New poster here, but I've been following this thread with interest.

If I can get a clarification that might help out, is the major difference between task and conflict resolution basically in GMing style? How does one put rules around that kind of structure, aside from just saying in the book, "use your skills creatively, and give input to the story"?

I love the conflict resolution style of play, and have tried to put it into my game as I GM, usually with great success. Feng Shui introduced the concept to me, originally. I'm just not sure how one might integrate the concept into a system's structure.

[Frank T]

Hi,

maybe I can add another angle to this. The basic problem many people face when trying to grab conflict resolution is this: They take a scene from their task resolution game, like your "climbing the cliff", and ask: "How would that scene work with conflict resolution?" The answer is: It wouldn't. Because conflict resolution is not about that.

How climbing a cliff fits into conflict resolution totally depends on why you climb the cliff. With a conflict resolution system, you have a whole new way of approaching your negotiation of the shared imagined space.

So you have decided what your character wants. His goal. If your system is task resolution, the interesting part is yet coming up: How are you going to get it? So you try to climb up the cliff. If that doesn't work, you try something else.

Conflict resolution is different. It takes away the "how" and focuses on the "what". What do you want? And what are you putting at stake to get it? That's what gets resolved. How it happened is also established, but without using resolution mechanics. It doesn't matter whether you climb the cliff or not. All that matters is that you make it to the cathedral in time to stop the wedding.

Like Tony said, this has nothing at all to do with how to resolve the task or conflict at hand. If you use "skills", that means you seek for some kind of connection between the in-game probability of the fictional event desired, and the statistical chance of the desired resolution outcome. This is a very common approach.

However, you might just as well say: If it is at all probable with regard to in-game verisimilitude, then it can happen. Whether it does happen or not, as determined by the resolution mechanic, depends on something totally different. You might use "story points", "destiny ratings", or whatever else you come up with that suits the purpose of your design. In both task and conflict resolution.

Make sense?

- Frank

[John Griffith]

Thanks but that just serves to continue to confuse me. Callan's post was much clearler and I'm going to stick with that.

[Adam Dray]

If you're confused, try to explain what you understand and what you do not. We can answer your questions and correct your misunderstandings, but it is hard to teach this from scratch. This isn't Forge University. It's Forge Apprenticeship. You put in some work and we'll help you with it. We'll guide you along.

If you think -- based on your limited understanding -- that you want your game to have Conflict Resolution, why don't you toss out a strawman CR system for your game (this is the Indie Game Design forum) and we'll tell you if you've nailed it or if you're drifting. We want you to be successful, but right now we're talking in theoreticals and I think we've begun spinning our wheels.

Your homework:

• Name your game -- you can always change it later
• Decide if you want to try out Conflict Resolution in your game
• If so, design a simple CR system for your game -- just the basics -- and show it to us in a new thread
• If not, show us your Task Res system and we'll move forward with that
• If you want, ask me for some pointers to threads about CR/TR -- a current thread is A skill to cultivate: Setting Stakes -- I won't inundate you otherwise
• Refine your answers to the Big Three -- these should read like marketing copy on the back cover, not like a design document -- then post them to us

Does this approach work for you?

[xenopulse]

Here's a little hint that opened my eyes to the difference between task and conflict resolutions.

Everything players do is aimed at something. They have a goal, something that's at stake. They don't have their characters pick the lock for the sake of picking the lock, they want something behind it, and they want it to use it in a certain way; picking the lock is just one of the things they think will get them what they want. With me so far?

If you only have a resolution system for the particular tasks, but no mechanics that tie them into the goal, it's a task resolution ("TR") system.

If you have a resolution system in which every action you do contributes to resolving whether you get your goal or not, you have a conflict resolution ("CR") system.

Let's use the example of the office in which your character is trying to find something with which to blackmail the owner of the office. That's your goal as a player, no matter what system you're using. Now:

In TR, you may or may not share with the GM what your goal is. Often, people just start doing tasks in the hope that they will contribute to achieving the goal. "I search the desk." You make a search roll. You may or may not find something. There may never have been anything to find, and so you don't know if the task will actually help you achieve your goal. You go through task after task, and whether or not they somehow address that goal depends on the GM. If he already planned out that implicating documents are in the safe, you can waste a lot of time searching the other parts of the office, rolling tasks that don't matter for your goal. But the GM, in old-school task resolution systems, is not going to tell you that; that would be sharing out of character information with the player, and in those old-school TR systems, that's frowned upon.

Contrast this with CR. You explicitly tell the GM what your goal is. "I want to find something with which to blackmail the owner of this office." Now the resolution system determines whether you achieve the goal or not. The actual tasks could be made up by you, or the GM, depending on the particular system. The important point is that you now will not do tasks that have nothing to do with your goal, and further, you will have a resolution of your goal after you've used the system. There's no guessing which task is the right one. There's no wasting time doing things that you think might help you, but really never had a chance to.

You can see that some players will prefer TR; they don't want to break down that in-character versus out-of-character line. They want to simulate what a reasonable person would actually do, even if it has no chance of getting their goal done. Or they just want to have a "let's see what this does" approach to playing, where their characters just do tasks as they come up without tying them into particular goals. Maybe they come from a different angle altogether and believe that mind-reading, like Tony said, is a challenge for the players that gives them the opportunity to shine ("I knew it would be in the safe!").

Personally, I like CR systems because I don't have time for TR. I want my goal explicit and addressed, whenever something comes up in play. I don't like guessing or wasting time. But, as I said, that's me.

I hope that helped the issue. I'd suggest taking Adam's advice and figuring out how that works for your particular design.

[John Griffith]

That was a good example. It seems to me that any TR system out there can easily switch to CR by simply having players state their goals and then resolving the outcome. A couple questions for you:

1.) If there is an explicit statement made about the player's goal does it automatically make it CR.
2.) How does CR account for a situation where there is no incriminating evidence in the room? Is the resolution a failure, or does the GM simply say: "Sorry, there's nothing here."? And does that happen before or after whatever resolution mechanic is applied?

[xenopulse]

Excellent questions.

1) No. It will only be conflict resolution if there's a consistent way that, once the goal has been stated, the mechanics will directly contribute to addressing it. In my example, you could say, "I want to find incriminating materials." In old school groups, the GM will usually say, "Ah. Okay. Go ahead." But then you still have to guess whether or not searching the desk is a good thing to do. So, you're right in your first paragraph that to a certain degree, players can switch to a CR system by changing their play style, but you need both "state goals" and "resolve the outcome." I.e., if the GM said, "Okay. Make a search roll. If you make it, you get it. If not, you don't." If you do this reliably for every goal that comes up, you have CR. However, this leads into your second question:

2) Your options are:

a) The GM vetoes the attempt. Either the GM has other plans (and we're getting into railroading territory), or he has things figured out in advance and does not want to change them on the spot. The latter is the typical old-school pre-created dungeon style, and a lot of people like to play that way. However, to me that's very limiting in where you will allow the story to go. Basically you can still have a CR system, but you're giving the GM the power to frame which stakes are acceptable. That's actually a part of every system, because the player could say, "I'll build a weapon that instantly destroys the world," and in most systems (except maybe Capes) the other players (e.g., the GM) would have a way of saying, "That's not a reasonable stake, we won't do that." You need to make explicit in your game, if you use CR, how that process of selecting acceptable stakes works.

b) The evidence may not have been in the room until the moment the player wins the CR roll(s). That is, you're giving the players the power to enter facts into the story simply by introducing a conflict about it. This requires a shift in your idea on GM-player division of authority, but once you start thinking about it, you'll see how powerful that can be.

You cannot veto it after the roll, i.e., roll it and when the player succeeds, say, "Well, you do your best but there was no evidence." That violates the CR principles (above) that the stakes are determined before the rolls and resolved through them, because they're actually resolved through GM fiat.

[John Griffith]

Alright, if I accept your anser to (2.) then my next question is:

2a.) How does CR account for the player who wants the find the incriminating evidence dropped by the criminal in the street? How does CR use "setting" in the equation? Does requiring the character to go to the office and break in in order to find the evidence break CR?

[xenopulse]

I'll answer you in PMs, since we're drifting further and further from the point of this thread (which is your particular skill system).

[Callan S.]

I think were on topic, in terms of investigating the viablity of CR in relation to this design. We just need to avoid rambling.

That was a good example. It seems to me that any TR system out there can easily switch to CR by simply having players state their goals and then resolving the outcome. A couple questions for you:

1.) If there is an explicit statement made about the player's goal does it automatically make it CR.

Sharp observation! I think plenty of traditional roleplay games expect skills to be used in various ways - stealth might get you past five guards at one point, or let you spit out a disgusting meal without the warchief seeing you do so, at another point.

For the switch to CR, you need that explicit statement AND everyone else (especially the GM) agreeing to the players proposal as well, should the roll pass. In my stealth example, the GM may have decided that one roll would get you pass five guards. With CR, the player decides that stuff, usually with a goal in mind "If I pass my stealth check, I get pass the guards and start untie my girlfriend"

Also, IMO, the players job with CR is to have a goal which has exciting potential (yes, this being the players job for a change, not just the GM's!). In the above, all sorts of stuff could happen just after I untie her. But if my goal is "I get past the guards, untie her and get home to my concrete bunker" there's a lot less potential - the player isn't contributing something that will help the other players as much. That's where player skill comes in - rather than solving puzzles, they should think up goals with exciting potential.

2a.) How does CR account for the player who wants the find the incriminating evidence dropped by the criminal in the street? How does CR use "setting" in the equation? Does requiring the character to go to the office and break in in order to find the evidence break CR?

This is where that GM agreement comes in. The GM is just a player - and if you can't swollow what's happening, then you wont be happy (just like any other player). What usually happens is informal negotiations. For example, if they try and get the evidence out in the street, you might suggest that perhaps a streetwise roll is far more apt than a search roll.

Basically they are going to twist the story around - perhaps in ways which you just can't swollow (ie, you WANT them to find the evidence in the office - anything else just seems pale and empty). However, you can negotiate with them (you can even set up rules/points for negotiation) to change certain elements to something that you can swollow/enjoy. Like my search/streetwise example or further, like suggesting some streetpunk has the evidence because he broke into the office for drug money.

It's this sort of compromise that makes it a group activity - the compromise ensures you'll end up making something you couldn't have if the other person wasn't there. It's also bloody hard to predict what combined imaginations will come up with - thus exploring the game world just doesn't get predictable and boring!

[Warren]

Alright, if I accept your anser to (2.) then my next question is:

2a.) How does CR account for the player who wants the find the incriminating evidence dropped by the criminal in the street? How does CR use "setting" in the equation? Does requiring the character to go to the office and break in in order to find the evidence break CR?

I would suggest that it starts off with a goal, then a rough approach, and then the scene is framed. All three of these steps should involve GM/player negotiation until both parties think that this is a 'good' conflict.

Player: "I want to find some incriminating evidence on the mob boss."
GM: "OK, Cool. How do you want to go about it?"
Player: "Um... I'll break into his office and crack his safe. I'll use my Lockpicking Trait in this conflict."
GM: "Fine. You are hiding outside the home of the Mob Boss, watching him drive off into the rainy night. Dressed in black you prepare yourself to do a little B&E."
<Conflict is resolved using whatever mechanics. Narration continues by the Player and GM.>

OR

Player: "I want to find some incriminating evidence on the mob boss."
GM: "OK, Cool. How do you want to go about it?"
Player: "Um... I'll tail one of his goons until he drops something in the street."
GM (or any other player): "That's a bit lame, how about tailing him until he meets with the Boss after doing a hit?"
Player: "OK. That sounds good. I'll be in my car, so I'll use Driving."
GM: "OK. You've been following Jimmy the Wrench around as his drives back from doing a hit on a local drug dealer. He's jumpy and driving pretty erraticly, but the city is a maze of narrow streets, so you can't drop too far behind."
<Conflict is resolved using whatever mechanics. Narration continues by the Player and GM.>

Make sense?
[Sorry about the dodgy descriptions, but it's the best I could do off the top of my head.]

[John Griffith]

It's a collaborative effort with give and take. I like that. It means that you can construct the skeleton of a story, but how the plot unfolds is not predetermined. Nice. I believe I am gradually moving to understand how CR can be implemented in my game design. I don't have any other questions right now, but when I do I'll be sure to put them up in this thread.