[Anarchy] Dice pools and conflict resolution

[Geoff Hall]

Right, having not garnered much of a response in my first thread about Anarchy (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=22078.0) because, I assume, it was rather too long and lacking in focus I thought that I would try a different approach.  So, having taken some of Andrew Kenrick's suggestions on board this is a post about the Anarchy/Order pool and how it relates to conflict resolution.

I've thought a lot about some of Andrew's comments in the previous thread and have decided to make the Anarchy/Order pools even more central and base the conflict resolution system around them.  From what I've read what I'm doing bears some resemblance to Don't Rest Your Head; however I am (sadly) too poor to check it out yet so can't make any meaningful comparisons or draw any useful inspiration from that particular source.  (I will promise Fred that I shall get a copy when my finances improve though ;o) .)

Anyway, that said my new way of thinking is as follows:

Characters have a fixed pool of 5 dice; these are your Anarchy and Order dice.  Player characters begin with 4 Anarchy Dice and 1 Order Die.  The 3 stats remain as before (i.e. Mind, Body and Soul, distribute 10 points between them, minimum 1 point and maximum 5 points per stat) and still give you your target number for relevant conflicts.  However, now the players will roll their entire dice pool with any successes counting as a success for the conflict.

More Anarchy successes allow the player to narrate the resolution of the conflict based on the stakes as set before the dice were rolled.  More Order successes allow the GM to do so and allow the introduction of a minor obstacle to the character.  A failure also gives the GM license to narrate the outcome of the conflict and allows the introduction of major obstacles to the character.  The GM will require buy in from the rest of the group that the introduction isn't completely unfair and remains thematically appropriate.

In addition to this more Anarchy successes convert 1 Order Die into an Anarchy Die and visa versa with the limit that there can never be less than 1 die in each half of the pool (so you can never end up with either 5 Anarchy Dice or 5 Order Dice.)

Aside:

I intend to tie traits into this as well with the thought that positive traits could grant extra (temporary) Anarchy Dice for a specific situation and negative traits could add temporary Order Dice.  However, whilst that would increase the chance of the flavour of the conflict and the narration rights coming out badly for the player it would still increase the likelihood of them succeeding in whatever it is they are trying to do.  I'm not certain if that's a good thing or not but I might need to leave it to play testing to figure it out.

End aside

For the case of opposed conflicts, which I am envisaging would actually be quite common, It would be a straight roll off, most successes wins, all successes counting towards narration rights (so it's entirely possible for the GM to succeed in the conflict and have one of the players gain narration rights).  In the case of draws I guess it would go to highest stat initially and then scene flavour after that.

So, a couple of questions at the end of that:

1) What to do in the case of a 'flavourless' result (i.e. equal numbers of Anarchy and Order successes)?

2) In opposed conflicts how would you suggest handling a draw if the above 2 methods don't resolve it (such as could be the case in a conflict between 2 players)?

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

More Anarchy successes allow the player to narrate the resolution of the conflict based on the stakes as set before the dice were rolled.  More Order successes allow the GM to do so and allow the introduction of a minor obstacle to the character.  A failure also gives the GM license to narrate the outcome of the conflict and allows the introduction of major obstacles to the character.  The GM will require buy in from the rest of the group that the introduction isn't completely unfair and remains thematically appropriate.

-About this.  I think your game would probably work better if players (including the GM) declared their characters' intentions first, then rolled, then narrated the resolution/outcome.  By setting the stakes before the roll, you're kinda putting the cart before the horse.  You're saying what's going to happen before you know whether or not it will have a chance to happen at all.  PLUS, you're limiting the players' narration choices quite a bit by setting the Stakes before the roll.  Who knows what could happen once the dice get rolled.  It could be a very close victory or a narrow defeat.  Why rob the players of incorperating that into their narration of the resolution?  Essentially, the way you have it now, the players have to narrate the outcome twice (once before the roll and once after).  Here, let me try to illustrate:

-Right now your system works like this: Declare Intentions -> Propose Outcome (set stakes) -> Roll -> Restate Stakes

-I propose you have it work like this:  Declare Intentions -> Roll -> Narrate Outcome

-It's simpler and avoids one-up-manship that can plague games that set stakes before dice are rolled.  That make sense?

1) What to do in the case of a 'flavourless' result (i.e. equal numbers of Anarchy and Order successes)?

-I suggest that you have another round of rolling but with some extra consiquence for all involved.  Say, if they lose the conflict now they also lose some other resource.  By the way, do the players have an option to give up?

2) In opposed conflicts how would you suggest handling a draw if the above 2 methods don't resolve it (such as could be the case in a conflict between 2 players)?

-First, what kind of conflict wouldn't have opposition?  You talk about opposed conflicts, what is an unapposed conflict?  I'm not sure I even understand what you mean here.  And if you mean "draw" as in a "tie" I suggest you never have any such thing.  Ties are lame; be difinitive.  :)

Peace,

-Troy

[Geoff Hall]

Heya,

-About this.  I think your game would probably work better if players (including the GM) declared their characters' intentions first, then rolled, then narrated the resolution/outcome.  By setting the stakes before the roll, you're kinda putting the cart before the horse.  You're saying what's going to happen before you know whether or not it will have a chance to happen at all.  PLUS, you're limiting the players' narration choices quite a bit by setting the Stakes before the roll.  Who knows what could happen once the dice get rolled.  It could be a very close victory or a narrow defeat.  Why rob the players of incorperating that into their narration of the resolution?  Essentially, the way you have it now, the players have to narrate the outcome twice (once before the roll and once after).  Here, let me try to illustrate:

-Right now your system works like this: Declare Intentions -> Propose Outcome (set stakes) -> Roll -> Restate Stakes

-I propose you have it work like this:  Declare Intentions -> Roll -> Narrate Outcome

-It's simpler and avoids one-up-manship that can plague games that set stakes before dice are rolled.  That make sense?

Indeed it does and, upon consideration, I think that you're right.  So, intention followed by rolling followed by narration it is!

1) What to do in the case of a 'flavourless' result (i.e. equal numbers of Anarchy and Order successes)?

-I suggest that you have another round of rolling but with some extra consiquence for all involved.  Say, if they lose the conflict now they also lose some other resource.  By the way, do the players have an option to give up?

2) In opposed conflicts how would you suggest handling a draw if the above 2 methods don't resolve it (such as could be the case in a conflict between 2 players)?

-First, what kind of conflict wouldn't have opposition?  You talk about opposed conflicts, what is an unapposed conflict?  I'm not sure I even understand what you mean here.  And if you mean "draw" as in a "tie" I suggest you never have any such thing.  Ties are lame; be difinitive.  :)

Hmmm, give up?  That isn't something that I had considered to be honest.  As to opposed and unopposed conflicts I'm talking about the difference between the player trying to see if the character can do something with no active opposition from another player or an NPC (i.e. there is no opposing dice pool to roll) and the case where there is active opposition to a player action such that either another player or an NPC is rolling their dice pool.  In the former case the player either succeeds or fails, there is no chance of a tie as there is only one dice pool.  The question instead arises as to what to do if the outcome is flavourless.  I've had the thought (literally as I type this) that it could just go to the dominant flavour of the dice pool being rolled.  So if the player rolling has 3 Anarchy and 2 Order Dice and gets 1 success of each flavour the narration rights would go to them, however if they had 2 Anarchy and 3 Order Dice then the narration rights would go to the GM.

In the case of an opposed conflict with 2 dice pools being rolled then I think that a re-roll will be necessary if neither stat nor flavour of overall result is definative in the case of an initial tie in the number of successes (and yes, by 'draw' I meant 'tie').  However I quite like the idea that either participant could, prior to re-rolling, choose to forefit.  That could put an interesting twist on it...  I'll need to think about that.  Of course (just so we're clear) such a thing could only occur if the outcome of the oppossed roll were either flavourless or being contested by two characters of the same 'flavour.'

Erm, my train of thought has been slightly derailed by various breaks in the middle of writing this response so I think I'll leave it at that for now and go and realign my brain whilst contemplating the 'give up' option (and the possibility that successes on the losing side of an oppossed conflict could give the loser a partial success rather than just a failure.)

[andrew_kenrick]

Now I think this is a nice use of the order/anarchy mechanic. Good to see it being moved from a peripheral system to the very core. Potential for all sorts of coolness.

The 3 stats remain as before (i.e. Mind, Body and Soul, distribute 10 points between them, minimum 1 point and maximum 5 points per stat) and still give you your target number for relevant conflicts.  However, now the players will roll their entire dice pool with any successes counting as a success for the conflict.

So successes will be very common then, but the outcomes will quite easily be bad for the players, even with a success?

In addition to this more Anarchy successes convert 1 Order Die into an Anarchy Die and visa versa with the limit that there can never be less than 1 die in each half of the pool (so you can never end up with either 5 Anarchy Dice or 5 Order Dice.)

Ok, so the pool will fluctuate quite a lot then? Maybe you could implement an additional mechanic to allow a player to convert order dice into anarchy dice for a benefit, or vice versa to gain a complication?

Are you still planning on having some sort of trust/treachery mechanic? Maybe you could screw someone else to turn your order dice into anarchy dice, by turning their dice the other way?

1) What to do in the case of a 'flavourless' result (i.e. equal numbers of Anarchy and Order successes)?

You could do it one of two ways. Firstly, maybe have it so that you could pick which way you wanted it, for a bonus. So you might decide you want to narrate the outcome, but to do so you have to take a hit by gaining an order dice. Or, you might let the GM narrate the outcome, but gain an anarchy dice for your troubles.

Or, like Troy suggests, you could employ a reroll with escalation. Things could get more desperate, more nasty, each time the outcome is tied until it finally goes one way or another.

2) In opposed conflicts how would you suggest handling a draw if the above 2 methods don't resolve it (such as could be the case in a conflict between 2 players)?

Handle it in the same way! Either have the players agree one way or another (sweetening the deal for the conceding player), or have the stakes escalate each time.

And Troy is right about being able to "walk away" or give up a conflict, and accept lesser consequences. Take a look at DitV for this, or Burning Empires/Wheel. You shouldn't necessarily force a player into a contest that could (potentially) continue escalating and escalating indefinitely!

[Geoff Hall]

Now I think this is a nice use of the order/anarchy mechanic. Good to see it being moved from a peripheral system to the very core. Potential for all sorts of coolness.

The 3 stats remain as before (i.e. Mind, Body and Soul, distribute 10 points between them, minimum 1 point and maximum 5 points per stat) and still give you your target number for relevant conflicts.  However, now the players will roll their entire dice pool with any successes counting as a success for the conflict.

So successes will be very common then, but the outcomes will quite easily be bad for the players, even with a success?

Yeah, successes will be pretty common and, at the beginning, they will go in the players favour.  However (hopefully) the situation will swing towards Order as the game progresses, especially as the players get into conflicts with NPCs who have high numbers of Order Dice¹.  When the GM gets narration rights the players success will be able to be twisted against them in some way.  Maybe they leave incriminating evidence behind or the fix they were attempting is only temporary, anything that gives the goverment that extra edge in trying to find them and foil their plans.  Of course if they fail then it gets notably worse...

Ok, so the pool will fluctuate quite a lot then? Maybe you could implement an additional mechanic to allow a player to convert order dice into anarchy dice for a benefit, or vice versa to gain a complication?

I'm expecting there to be a lot of fluctuation, yes.  I hadn't really considered a separate mechanic for conversion of dice but it might make sense.  I'll have a think about that one.

Are you still planning on having some sort of trust/treachery mechanic? Maybe you could screw someone else to turn your order dice into anarchy dice, by turning their dice the other way?

Yes, I'm still intending to include a Trust/Treachery mechanic, I just hadn't come up with any ideas yet about how to relate it to the new system so hadn't brought it up yet.  Saying that though I like your idea.  I think that it would need to be balanced in some fashion though.  Perhaps you can only do it under certain circumstances such as failing a conflict?  Again that's something that will require consideration.

1) What to do in the case of a 'flavourless' result (i.e. equal numbers of Anarchy and Order successes)?

You could do it one of two ways. Firstly, maybe have it so that you could pick which way you wanted it, for a bonus. So you might decide you want to narrate the outcome, but to do so you have to take a hit by gaining an order dice. Or, you might let the GM narrate the outcome, but gain an anarchy dice for your troubles.

Or, like Troy suggests, you could employ a reroll with escalation. Things could get more desperate, more nasty, each time the outcome is tied until it finally goes one way or another.

See, it was around here in replying to Troy that interruptions started and my brain got a little side tracked.  I'm going to attempt to reply in such a way that I'm not repeating myself overly whilst covering what you suggest.  Or something.  Ahem, yeah, anyway...  That first option is quite good actually.  I quite like that one, at least for the case of unopposed conflicts.  I might be able to tie it in with what I suggested in my reply to Troy.  Say you have more Order Dice when the successes come up flavourless in total but instead of the narration rights going to the GM you could sacrifice an Anarchy Die to reclaim narration rights for yourself.  Of course that would only be relevant if you had 3 Order Dice as with 4 you couldn't convert the last Anarchy Die and with 2 the player would gain narration right anyway.  Thinking about it like that I don't think that it's really compatible after all.  Not with a pool size of only 5 dice.

The second suggestion feeds into the talk on opposed checks so I'll cover it below²

2) In opposed conflicts how would you suggest handling a draw if the above 2 methods don't resolve it (such as could be the case in a conflict between 2 players)?

Handle it in the same way! Either have the players agree one way or another (sweetening the deal for the conceding player), or have the stakes escalate each time.

And Troy is right about being able to "walk away" or give up a conflict, and accept lesser consequences. Take a look at DitV for this, or Burning Empires/Wheel. You shouldn't necessarily force a player into a contest that could (potentially) continue escalating and escalating indefinitely!

Okay, the more I think about escalating the conflict the more I like the idea.  Flavourless ties mean that, whilst success is achieved, the nature of the scene still hangs in the balance.  At that point you can either choose to walk away, taking a lesser success somehow in the process, or escalate to see which way the balance will tip, possibly granting the other participant success instead (I envisage successes stacking between rounds of dice rolling) and, either way, making the benefits/loses more extreme (so perhaps allowing the narrator of the outcome to make more extreme additions/changes to the scene?)

¹Note that I'm intending on having 2 classes of NPC, Citizens and Agents.  Agents will be fully formed in the same way as PCs with 5 dice in their pool, although how they're distributed before they get into conflicts will be up to the GM (and I'm contemplating allowing NPCs to start with all of their dice in one pool or the other, i.e. having no chance of altering their relative pool sizes.)

²Note that I AM considering the 'escalation' mechanic for unopposed conflicts as well.  In fact I'll likely go with it in the end simply because I'd prefer to keep the mechanics consistant and having a separate way of dealing with 'flavour' ties for unopposed and opposed conflicts feels a little clunky to me.

[Geoff Hall]

Okay, it's been awhile since my last replies here and I've done a fair bit of thinking on the possibility of escalation and the nature of oppossed/unopposed rolls.  Admittedly I've not done anywhere near as much as I'd like but that's a generic feature of my life due to work/kids/wife so ~shurgs~ I'm used to it.  Anyway, I have a notebook, it had notes in it that focused my current intentions for the resolution system.  Naturally I can't find the bloody thing now that I come to post here.  So, what follows is from memory/made up as I go along ;) .

Oppossed/Unoppossed Conflicts:

By definition there can't be a 'conflict' if it's unoppossed, however I do want it to be possible for the characters to fail at certain, difficult actions (successfully wiring a bomb, etc.) that have no direct opposition.  So I'm making a distinction between checks and conflicts.  Checks are made when a character is attempting a task with no, direct opposition.  Conflicts occur when there is a dice pool to roll in opposition to the characters dice pool.  A conflict should always be used in preference to a check when there is some ambiguity in the minds of the players/GM as to which is relevant.

Ties:

The potential for ties is an issue at the moment, especially as there are two ways to 'win' a conflict, successes and flavour.

I want checks to be simple.  They are unopposed so there can never be a tie for successes, you wither succeed or you fail, plain and simple.  There can, however, be a flavour tie.  In that case it goes to the dominant flavour of the dice pool being rolled.  There are 5 dice in the pool so there will always be either more Anarchy Dice present (player narrates) or more Order Dice present (GM narrates.)

Conflicts are a little more complicated.  You could have a successes tie, a flavour tie or both could be tied.

I

• n the case of a success only tie the person who 'won' the flavour side of the conflict can choose to hand narration rights to his opponent in exchange for succeeding at the conflict.  If not then the conflict is Escalated.
• In the case of a flavour only tie the person who 'won' the successes side of the conflict can choose to grant his opponent success in exchange for gaining narration rights for the conflict.  If not then the conflict is Escalated.
• In the case that both successes and flavour are tied the conflict must be Escalated.

Escalating Conflicts:

When a conflict is escalated the opposing dice pools are rolled again and successes and flavour outcome are added to the previous rolls (so in the case of a tie that was only successes or flavour the original 'winner' of the other aspect of the conflict can end up losing that advantage, which is why they get the choice as to whether or not to escalate in those 2 cases.)  Success and dominant flavour are worked out in the same manner as previously (and further ties lead to the same Escalation options).  Also, each side in the conflict is allowed to add an additional stake to the conflict to 'up the ante.'  It is only in this instance that character death can become an option for stakes (and then only if the players agree that it is appropriate.)  The other twist is that if an escalation occurs (and ONLY if an escalation occurs) there is the player will gain traits, based upon the nature of the conflict.  These traits will either be positive (adding an additional Anarchy Die) or negative (adding an additional Order Die) depending on the outcome of the conflict.  In the case of the player succeeding the trait will be positive, in the event of the opponent succeeding it will be negative.  The precise nature of the trait is defined be the winner of the flavour portion of the conflict.  So if the player succeeds but Order Dice dominate the GM decides on an appropriate positive trait for the character.  All traits should get the buy in of everyone at the table in terms of being thematically appropriate and being relevant to the conflict that has just occurred.  In this manner gaining traits always makes a player more likely to succeed in relevant circumstances, however the success can be flavoured negatively, making Order more likely to dominate the conflict outcome.

Now, I know that just putting something 'out there' and asking for comment isn't the best way to illicit responses here (specific, focused questions are rather better) but I really would like to hear some comments on this idea.  Does it seem workable?  Are there any obvious, battleship-sized holes that I've missed that should be evident even without playtesting?

Once I have a mechanic worked out I'll start working more on the setting how to promote the kind of game I'm hoping to create using the system.

[andrew_kenrick]

1. Tell me more about simple contests. Are they just a straight dice roll and any successes are a success? How do you simulate more difficult circumstances? Could you have it that the GM rolls opposition regardless of an actual opponent, like in Dogs, to simulate the difficuly of the test?

I'm a fan of streamlined mechanics that all work the same way, and this would be one way to assure that.

2. I like the escalation mechanism, but i'm not sure if each time you escalate you gain a trait. Escalating/tieing seems to be something that will happen a lot, so this could get a bit excessive!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Geoff,

Regarding opposed vs. unopposed conflicts, I suggest this perspective instead.

All rolls are opposed (in your terms, conflicts). But notice that sometimes inanimate objects or adverse conditions act like characters in fiction - the cliff really does try to disorient you and throw you over, the sword clatters fiendishly away, the gun lies mockingly just beyond reach, the stairway trips you.

If you think about it like that, then the whole idea of non-opposition rolling vanishes for good (and good riddance). It's shockingly easy to do in practice.

Best, Ron

[Geoff Hall]

Argh, cross posting one 2 boards with the same poster, my brain might implode ;o)  Still here are the answers that I gave over on The Collective Endeavour so that this thread can remain complete!

1. Tell me more about simple contests. Are they just a straight dice roll and any successes are a success? How do you simulate more difficult circumstances? Could you have it that the GM rolls opposition regardless of an actual opponent, like in Dogs, to simulate the difficuly of the test?

I'm a fan of streamlined mechanics that all work the same way, and this would be one way to assure that.

2. I like the escalation mechanism, but i'm not sure if each time you escalate you gain a trait. Escalating/tieing seems to be something that will happen a lot, so this could get a bit excessive!

1. They would just be straight rolls, yes. Equally, however, I agree with you about streamlined mechanics and I'mn ot entirely happy with the idea of checks/conflicts as separate things. In fact (in line with what you've said) I've pretty much decided to do away with the idea of checks (or unopposed conflicts) altogether. I figure that I just need tor edefine conflicts slightly in terms of the game. The conflict is making a bomb to plant in a given place, opposing it could be those you are trying to purchase components off of or, in a broader sense, the security working at the venue you've chosen to make go boom. If a reasonable conflicting dice pool cannot be envisaged by the GM/players then, well, the task obviously isn't difficult enough to warrant a roll in the first place ;o) .

2. You might be right there. I think that's something that will probably fall out in playtesting. However I think that too many traits could lead to the game becoming too easy for the players. I might have to work in a rather different kind of escalation mechanic. Some kind of 'inevitable failure' mechanic. You just know that, eventually, the government is going to win and you are going to die. It's all about how much good and change you can accomplish before then.

[Geoff Hall]

Hi Geoff,

Regarding opposed vs. unopposed conflicts, I suggest this perspective instead.

All rolls are opposed (in your terms, conflicts). But notice that sometimes inanimate objects or adverse conditions act like characters in fiction - the cliff really does try to disorient you and throw you over, the sword clatters fiendishly away, the gun lies mockingly just beyond reach, the stairway trips you.

If you think about it like that, then the whole idea of non-opposition rolling vanishes for good (and good riddance). It's shockingly easy to do in practice.

Best, Ron

Cheers Ron,

I agree that I dislike the idea of separate methods of handling animate and inanimate opposition (as it were) and have (partially at least) addressed it in my response to Andrew's last post.  Perhaps inanimate objects could have a dice pool like human NPCs, only this one would be a flavourless pool (pool size determined based on the difficulty of the task?)  If not flavourless then, given that the objects are acting in opposition to the characters then I would flavour their dice pools towards Order (say 3O/2A if it were a 5 dice pool.)

[andrew_kenrick]

When the GM is rolling, why not make his entire roll Order based?

[Geoff Hall]

When the GM is rolling, why not make his entire roll Order based?

I had considered that and figure that, when creating Agents, the GM should be able to define their starting dice pool split anyway he likes, ranging from 5A/0O to 0A/5O and anywhere inbetween.  I think that the split should represent the political and ideological stance of the NPC on a broad level (so you could have other members of the Anarchy Movement as NPCs with 5A dice and 0O dice) and, even if you assume that a cliff (or whatever) is working out of malice/bloody-mindedness/whatever I find it hard to attribute political affiliations to it... of course that could be turned around for, say, automated security systems.  Maybe the dice pool could be determined based on what the opposition was, if it was truly neutral (like the aforementioned cliff) the pool would be flavourless, if it was something set-up by a specific NPC/character it would have a pool equal to the pool at the time it was created (the relevant character's pool could, of course, have fluctuated further to Anarchy or Order in the meantime) and if it was a generic 'Anarchist' or 'State' facility/defence/whatever is would have a pool of either 5A or 5O.  Or does that sound too complicated?

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

When the GM is rolling, why not make his entire roll Order based?

I had considered that and figure that, when creating Agents, the GM should be able to define their starting dice pool split anyway he likes, ranging from 5A/0O to 0A/5O and anywhere inbetween.  I think that the split should represent the political and ideological stance of the NPC on a broad level (so you could have other members of the Anarchy Movement as NPCs with 5A dice and 0O dice) and, even if you assume that a cliff (or whatever) is working out of malice/bloody-mindedness/whatever I find it hard to attribute political affiliations to it... of course that could be turned around for, say, automated security systems.  Maybe the dice pool could be determined based on what the opposition was, if it was truly neutral (like the aforementioned cliff) the pool would be flavourless, if it was something set-up by a specific NPC/character it would have a pool equal to the pool at the time it was created (the relevant character's pool could, of course, have fluctuated further to Anarchy or Order in the meantime) and if it was a generic 'Anarchist' or 'State' facility/defence/whatever is would have a pool of either 5A or 5O.  Or does that sound too complicated?

-I think you're on to something there, bro.  I'd try that for a while and see how it goes.  At least get in one gaming session with wired that way, then see how it works in actual play. :)

Peace,

-Troy

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Geoff,

Perhaps inanimate objects could have a dice pool like human NPCs, only this one would be a flavourless pool (pool size determined based on the difficulty of the task?)  If not flavourless then, given that the objects are acting in opposition to the characters then I would flavour their dice pools towards Order (say 3O/2A if it were a 5 dice pool.)

Sure, but I think you're making it too complicated. Treat'em like any NPC - flavor them as you would any character, using Order or Anarchy as best suits the object-as-character.

I mean, I've dealt with computers which for damn sure seemed to me to be rolling Anarchy dice, the fuckers.

Trust me on this. It's really easy. The distinction to remember is that things which pose no conflict of interest are of no dice-importance, I don't care if they're fictional beings or objects, whereas things that do post such a conflict are of dice-importance, and again, I don't care if they're fictional beings or objects.

Once you get past that hump, thirty years of tortured bullshit about opposed/unopposed resolution just ... go away.

Best, Ron