[IaLC] Conflict & Resolution Structure

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Tim,

A few clarification questions, as I cant quite get a handle on the game and I am not familiar with the genre you are working with. I am aware that some of these questions may be a bit off the mark, so feel free to answer only those that help you.

In a given session, what do you see play focusing on? Are you still geared towards a "save the world" game, and do you see the ongoing conflicts as being aligned with these aims?

You describe a number of wide and unresolved conflicts existing in play, will it be possible for players to ignore some of these, or do they or the GM have the power to change their nature in order to demand resolution?

Your structure seems to focus on relationships being the major part of your reward cycle, how do these help with the overall aims for the game? You seem to imply they are a kind of resource, to help resolve conflicts, is this their primary function, or is it more about embedding the characters into a social framework?

If the characters are building a world full of social groups, connections and backstory as they go along, are they doing so for world building sake, i.e. is the primary exploration focused on these elements?

What exactly is the GMs job at any moment in time (regardless of whether GM duties are distributed)? Is it to take the players setting information and weave them into the existing world crisis, or is it to introduce new dramatic opposition to the aims of saving the world? (Or something else?)

How do these wider ideas inform your choice of mechanics? For instance, are the player characters built around stats and skill sets just for simulation sake, or do these inform the players choices and options? If so how? Is it just about making characters require help with unknown domains of knowledge or competencies, or is part of play focused on being a expert in certain fields?

[masqueradeball]

But lately I've been thinking of ways to make Traits and Skills different... Maybe, players pick one trait and one skill (multiple skills, maybe)? The Trait could determine the threshold of success (ex. 4+ on a d6) and skills could determine the number of dice, or maybe the type of die, if I want to use a step die mechanic. There's gotta be a system out there that already does this, how does play?

The only system I can think of that uses a character's skills as a threshold for success is Pendragon, where your if you roll your over your skill rating, you fail, but otherwise you have a degree of success equal to your roll, with higher being better (except for rolling a "1" which is a critical success). Still, there is no trait that determines what kind of die you roll. As far as dice-step mechanics go, my recent experiences with the Serenity roleplaying game make me think their an all around bad idea.

Back to your original question, about framing extended conflicts. I think you're thinking to much about what to do with scenes. While understanding scene framing and thinking of narrative time in scenes, theres something innately artificial about them. If I wanted a mechanic that represented extended conflicts that could be picked up or dropped, I would do the following: Starting with your Battlestar Galactica example: the two opposing commanders meet and the GM announces that there will be a conflict for who controls Galactica. He then places a token (a card, a pool of counters, anything) into play that represents the challenges "HP" and a second pool for the PC's resolve against the challenge. In the Galactica situation it would determined by what ever score or trait represented the two commander's willpower or resolve. Then, whenever a player choose,during the course of events in the game, with out any scripting, to take an action that might change the mental resolve of the two sides (such as testing how far their command power will go) then, after the immediate results of the action is resolved a second test is made with modifiers based on the outcome of the scene that depletes either the opposition or the players pool. This, in effect, creates a somewhat unnecessary structure, but I could see how it would give the players (and the GM) a more concrete sense of where they stand and what there goals are. It would be up to the players to choose what they would do and when, and up to the GM's discretion whether or not it would impact the long-term contact, but the PC's should be able to learn whats necessary through trial and error.

[timfire]

That's a big question, Jamie. I was planning on writing an essay that described the design of this game, but I'm not quite ready to write that. Do you have specific areas of confusion about resolution? I tried to lay out what I wanted for resolution in general and the system features that I needed to go into it in my previous posts. (I know I'm kinda working backwards here, I have the outer framework worked out before the actual mechanics.)

[Web_Weaver]

Looking through your skeleton design it does feel a bit hollow without the conflict system, but I can see where you are coming from now.

I will attempt to rephrase the problem.

You require a conflict and resolution system that drives the story forward in a structured manner. If we look at it as a black box, it must take the PCs and the initial situation as primary inputs, outputs of new situations and conflicts must be fed back into it, and the eventual output should be a rewarding "story chapter" with multiple story threads but where the story generation process itself must be both fun and engaging, and involve an ongoing struggle.

I think story escalation is already well handled by the overall chapter structure, ie dividing play into discrete escalating arenas (as you propose elsewhere). So the black box needs to focus on what happens within chapters.

In fact this story generation process is the heart of the game. Its the central explorative process that everyone will be engaged in. Therefore the black box must be a "story engine" but not in the Narrativist premise addressing way, as the whole story does this on its own with little need for attention from the players,. But instead in a deliberate crafting of self consistant story for its own sake, in a clearly defined direction.

I think what you are searching for is hinted at by Shooting the Moon. Which has discrete scenes, and plot direction, while accumulating a resistance that is applied in the final scene to inform resolution of the plot.

If within the back box, you have some way of "keeping score" in this way (players vs chapter level crisis) then in the final climactic scene for each chapter you could then use this to produce a resolution.

This way you don't worry too much about multi scene conflicts, they can be encouraged by setting low stakes in each scene, but instead how each scene will mechanically effect the final scene in the chapter.

i.e. Ok final scene, lets check the score: the girls homeland was laid waste, the bad guy in black is incredibly powerful, the cool smuggler with all the street savvy has gone home with his cash reward, the wizard is dead and the big deadly ship is closing in on our base, but on the positive side we escaped the deadly ship with its plans, we have identified its weakness, we have hope from the mysterious circumstances of the wizard demise, and a slim hope that love or honour will bring back the smuggler. So, 5 v 4, were loosing, we have gotta pull out the stops here.

Does this help at all? Am I at least rephrasing the question correctly?

[Simon C]

I'm a bit behind the 8-ball on how your game mechanics work as proposed, but I can definitely see the potential for resolving "macro" and "micro" conflicts in the same scene, as per the Adama/Cain conflict.  As the above poster mentioned, and I think it's key to this, almost every scene in the episode contributes to resolving the issue.  It's one of the strengths of the show that every scene feels important.  I don't agree though, that a scene needs to explicitly bring up the issues of the "macro" conflict, in order to help resolve it.  Adama talking to Lee feels like it's resolving the Cain/Adama conflict, even though neither of them mention it. 

Sorry, I'm having difficulty expressing myself here.  I'll approach it from a different angle.

Here's how I would do this:  Once a "Macro" conflict is established (The Adama/Cain thing, for example), players can call for scenes to resolve "micro" conflicts, (for example, Lee/Adama, or Starbuck/Cain).  When framing each scene, the players describe how the outcome of that conflict will affect the "macro" conflict.  Lee rejecting Adama's authority makes it more likely for Cain to prevail, Starbuck rejecting Caine's authority makes it more likely for Adama to succeed.  It is not necessary for the scenes to directly reference the "macro" conflict, the players must only describe how the outcome is relevant.  Once a number of "Micro" scenes have been resolved, the players can call for the "macro" conflict to be resolved, involving modifiers from the previous "micro" conflicts.

So, to use the BattleStar example:

Opening scenes: The GM sets up the "Macro" conflict - Cain is threatening to execute Adama's men.  If Adama can't find some way to stop her, they'll be killed.
The players call for a scene where Lee confronts Adama.  If Adama can secure Lee's loyalty, he'll be able to use that in the final conflict against Cain. 
Dice are rolled (your mechanic goes here).  Adama successfully brings Lee over to his side.
The players call for a scene where Starbuck confronts Cain.  If Cain can bring Starbuck on side, it'll help her against Adama.
Dice are rolled, Cain fails to win over Starbuck.
Finally, the "macro" conflict is resolved - There is a battle, and Starbuck and that other guy both go about their missions.
Dice are rolled, incorporating Adama's bonus for winning over Lee (the exact effects of this are narrated).  The result is a partial victory for Adama.  The men are saved, but Cains authority is intact.

I think the advantage of this method is that every scene feels relevant to the main issue, even if it doesn't directly reference it, and it builds nicely to a dramitic conclusion.  Also, it lends weight to the scene framing dynamic, where the players will try to frame scense which play to their strengths, while the GM can try to frame scenes which exploit weaknesses.  Also, I think leaving the final outcome in doubt to the end makes for a more dramatic game.

[Kami-no-Mark]

Now, my apologies if this ends up being irrelevant, and I have to admit that I haven't properly grasped the mechanics that you're looking at Tim.

Looking back at your first post, you talk about a conflict building up to a dramatic climax.  In both examples (BSG and Lost), you show the progression towards the final conflict.

In both cases, the outcome of that final conflict is undecided until its resolution.  Indeed, it often looks like a 50/50, regardless of what has been stacked on either side.

In the BSG case, Cain often looks to have the upper hand.  In the Lost case, everything lenas towards him carrying out the murder.

I guess all I'm saying is to be aware that, in an extended conflict, you can move towards a "steamroller" effect, where the odds are being stacked in favour of one side or the other, whereas in the dramatic (TV) situations you describe, it could go either way.

I wonder whether these "micro" scenes are actually adding in consequences to the "macro" scene?

Maybe you're getting an escalation of consequences rather than support/opposition, similar, in a way to TheTris' "Falling Leaves" game idea.

If that were the case, the final "win or lose" remains roughly as easy or difficult as it was initially, but the consequences stacked up on the various sides might cause ppl to assign their currency (if I'm using the term correctly?) in different ways, depending on what now looks more or less favourable.

I'll stop now before I completely derail everything by my mumblings.

[Filip Luszczyk]

Tim,

About the mechanics. Aside from your summary in this topic, how much of the original outline and flowchart is still actual?

Only players roll? The game is actually intended for GM-less/ful play. I'm thinking to keep things easier to manage, it would be nice if only the acting players rolled, and not the "GMing" players. This is not a requirement.

Could you clarify what you mean by GM-less/full play? GM function rotating in-between play units? (The whole time I've been assuming there is going to be a single central GM, and the outline seems to suggest that)

As for the idea of only acting player rolling, I like it, especially if the opposition will be simplified and budgeted. Systems that get rid of the whole NPC statting and out-of-air difficulty assessment appeal to me more and more these days. It's faster and easier when the mechanics focus exclusively on the central characters.

Conflicts are created using a currency: Just something to be aware of.

Do I understand it correctly that the currency used to create conflicts is debt incurred by the use of Connections?

But lately I've been thinking of ways to make Traits and Skills different... Maybe, players pick one trait and one skill (multiple skills, maybe)? The Trait could determine the threshold of success (ex. 4+ on a d6) and skills could determine the number of dice, or maybe the type of die, if I want to use a step die mechanic. There's gotta be a system out there that already does this, how does play?

It reminds me of Crystalicum, a Polish jrpg-inspired game. Personally, I find its standard mechanic kind of frustrating. Even not so big deviations of the threshold from average makes everything extremely predictable there - consequently the whole dice rolling often seems unnecessary lag in that game. But then, the number of dice rolled is rarely higher than 5 there, and there is almost no way to gain additional successes (and difficulties are measured in required successes). But then, the whole design is quite buggy, so it doesn't play well generally.

What about constant threshold of success, traits determined die size (e.g. d4 with no applicable trait, and d6-d12 for "class traits"), and skills/connections determining the pool size (probably with some minimum pool added even if no skill can be applied)? Then you can have rules that adjust the difficulty by increasing or lowering the threshold (probably with only a slight variation possible). The "damage" could then affect the threshold, or maybe reduce the minimum pool, or something.

(How to determine if the conflict is defeated overall? If the player gains more successes than failures?)

This is tricky, as shorter conflicts (with less currency in) would probably be more decisive than really long conflicts.

What about giving each conflict two values - one would be the number of successes needed to defeat it overall, the other would limit the maximum length of the conflict (e.g. X rolls total are possible in the conflict, possibly with some factors allowing for increasing X; possibly X could be based on Fallout/Hope, and fluctuate somehow during the conflict, making it more difficult to predict how much time is really left till the resolution).

But I don't have a provision for "damage", hmm...

You mean more like actual damage, or the Fallout/Hope thing?

If it's the latter, you can base the Fallout/Hope gains on the margins of success defeat (e.g. players needed 6 successes to win and failed with 3 successes - Hope raises by 3, or Fallout rises by 4 if they won with 10 successes total).

Or, dice without successes could generate "damage", making using big pools risky (the more you try, the more you screw things up).

Just some totally random thoughts.

[timfire]

I thought I would be able to discuss this stuff without bringing up the larger system, but I guess not. Here's the summary:
_______________

GM-less/-ful Play: Each player has a PC. Players switch back & forth between "Acting" and "Directing" Modes. Being an Actor means your PC has the spotlight. Being a Director means you are basically a GM.

So a given scene will have a certain number of Acting players and a few Directing "GMs". Who does what changes from scene to scene, based on... something, probably currency levels (Consequence, Hope, & Debt).

Each Actor plays their character, doing the stuff players normally do. Directors will each play a NPC, with the purpose of either pushing Conflict or offering the Actors dramatic support. (Director's PCs may be in the scene, optionally, but they don't get the spotlight, and can't engage in conflicts.)

Consequence & Hope: Winning a conflict incurs the Acting player Consequence (used to be called "fallout"), some sort of negative long-term consequense. Losing conflicts incurs Hope, some sort of positive long-term consequense.

Consequence is the currency Directors use to generate conflict. It is important to note that consequence is used to generate setting-based conflicts/adversity.

I should add that I want all, or at least most conflicts to be spun off of old conflicts. Everything has a consequence, and everything is the result of something that came before. I should add here that I don't want to mandate that the spinoff conflict be declared right away,  I want consequence to be a generic resource.

After Consequence & Hope get spent to create conflicts & magical/fateful events (hope), they convert to setting tokens which get spent to declare setting elements. Used-consequence is used to create grotesque/dark/evil elements while used-hope is used to create marvelous/positive elements. Thus there's a connection between PC actions and the color of the setting.

Connections & Debt: Connections are relationships, if I wasn't clear earlier. Invoking a Connection incurs Debt. Debt is a currency used to generate Connection-based conflict. In this regard, it is used similarly to Consequence (though it disappears after use).

Besides their use in Conflicts, Connections are also the primary mechanism for creating PC backstory.

Rewarding Directing: I want to reward the GM'ing aspects of the game. My current thought is a Fan-Mail-type thing. If an Acting player really likes one of the Director's bangs/conflicts (consequence- or Debt-based), magical/fateful event, or possibly one of their setting element creations, they can basically say, "that's cool".

If the thing was Consequence or Hope based, the Director then gets to elaborate (add a fact, etc) the setting's "Sin" or "Magic". If it's Debt based, the Director gets some sort of point that's credited towards buying more Connections.
___________________

That's the broader system as it stands, now on to people's comments...

[timfire]

Jamie & Simon: I think you're both suggesting the same basic thing. That the results of individual scenes contribute somehow to the resolution of the one, final "conflict" scene... That's definitely one way of doing it, I'm thinking it over in my head...


Mark: That was a very insightful post, I think! One problem, of course, is that drama doesn't always follow easily decipherable rules.

In both cases, the outcome of that final conflict is undecided until its resolution.  Indeed, it often looks like a 50/50, regardless of what has been stacked on either side...

I guess all I'm saying is to be aware that, in an extended conflict, you can move towards a "steamroller" effect, where the odds are being stacked in favour of one side or the other, whereas in the dramatic (TV) situations you describe, it could go either way.

Point taken. It's difficult to think how you could, mechanically, make each scene relevent to the overall conflict without it becoming a steamroller effect.

I wonder whether these "micro" scenes are actually adding in consequences to the "macro" scene?

Maybe you're getting an escalation of consequences rather than support/opposition, similar, in a way to TheTris' "Falling Leaves" game idea.

Hmmm... that's difficult to say... It certainly seems that way in the BSG example, but I don't know about the Lost example. (It might be worth adding that in the Lost example, the man Jin is suppose to kill is having an affair with his wife. Jin doesn't know this, but his father-in-law does. So the fight between Jin and his wife is about his wife worrying that Jin is going to kill her lover.)

That is certainly something I could do...


Filip:

What about giving each conflict two values - one would be the number of successes needed to defeat it overall, the other would limit the maximum length of the conflict...

This is certainly interesting in principle, I would need to think about how to actually implement in regard to the rest of the system...

You mean more like actual damage, or the Fallout/Hope thing?

I was thinking actual harm or injury for the PCs. Consequence & Debt is sorta about harm on others, not the PCs. As someone I was talking to about the game said, "you can't take the type of risks heroes do without the possibility personal harm." In that discussion the idea was proposed that damage could be something voluntary. I like that, but we'll have to see how the rest of the system pans out. (The propsed idea was that taking damage could allow a re-roll in exchange for some future penalty.)

If it's the latter, you can base the Fallout/Hope gains on the margins of success defeat (e.g. players needed 6 successes to win and failed with 3 successes - Hope raises by 3, or Fallout rises by 4 if they won with 10 successes total).

Or, dice without successes could generate "damage", making using big pools risky (the more you try, the more you screw things up).

Now this is a really interesting idea... I really need to think about it...
______________

Thanks guys, these are some really great responses!

[Filip Luszczyk]

Ok, I had a problem imagining game in which there is more than one GM at the time, but now I see it will work in a way slightly similar to Capes.

I should add that I want all, or at least most conflicts to be spun off of old conflicts. Everything has a consequence, and everything is the result of something that came before. I should add here that I don't want to mandate that the spinoff conflict be declared right away,  I want consequence to be a generic resource.

And since I'm already in Capes mindset, I see index cards before my eyes ;) Tracking Consequences and Hope like Inspirations in Capes (but treating them like a public resource) could work well here.

That the results of individual scenes contribute somehow to the resolution of the one, final "conflict" scene... That's definitely one way of doing it, I'm thinking it over in my head...

It's been a while since I've read Console Legends and I don't recall the specific mechanics, but I think similar issues where addressed there.

I was thinking actual harm or injury for the PCs. Consequence & Debt is sorta about harm on others, not the PCs. As someone I was talking to about the game said, "you can't take the type of risks heroes do without the possibility personal harm." In that discussion the idea was proposed that damage could be something voluntary. I like that, but we'll have to see how the rest of the system pans out. (The propsed idea was that taking damage could allow a re-roll in exchange for some future penalty.)

Damage could simply generate resources for Directing players then. Actually, since the Connections are central to the effectiveness of the characters, why not tie the damage to them? In my old, unfinished game I had something similar to Relationships, that could be either negative or positive - and the sign could be changed in result of conflicts, so that good Relationship could have changed into a problematic one (still usefull, but generating resources for the GM with every use). There could be an option of re-using Connections at the cost of incurring the Debt again, and changing the nature of the relationship. Or, dunno, increasing the Debt incurred by using the Connection after every re-use in the same conflict - e.g. normally Connection incurs 1 Debt, but after being re-used its Debt cost increases to 2, to 3 after the second re-use in the same conflict etc. As long as single Connection would be used only once per conflict, the nature of the character of the relationship would be constant, but straining the same Connection by using it more than once in the same conflict would worsen the relation and make depending on it more and more taxing (until the "damage" is somehow "healed", and the Debt cost resets back to one, at least - maybe as a result of winning a connection conflict).

[Web_Weaver]

Jamie & Simon: I think you're both suggesting the same basic thing. That the results of individual scenes contribute somehow to the resolution of the one, final "conflict" scene... That's definitely one way of doing it, I'm thinking it over in my head...

Yes, and no. It is perfectly reasonable for the previous scenes to merely inform the conflict, (and suggest actions from accumulated investment via currency and adding to the SIS) without actually mechanically loading of the resolution.

In other words, your currency; and what the players chose to spend it on, by adding to the background, or investing in hope, or whatever; is how the players frame and add to the scene, and the actual mechanical resolution remains neutral.

In black box terms, the existing feedback is the sole input, and the output is the deliberate tying together of many of the threads, and a resolution. The scene mechanics within the black box only need encourage thread tie-ins, and currency expenditure for feedback input.

Said the same thing three times there, let me know which wording makes most sense (if any), and I will stick to that style in future.