Task vs. Conflict; Eroding the "whiff factor"

[Matt Snyder]

I've been thinking about all kinds of game design schtuff, lately. While writing notes to myself in my little "game design journal," I came upon some ideas that surely have been covered before (?), and I wanted to see if anyone can identify their existence in other games.

First, I was thinking about task resolution vs. conflict resolution. Are there mechanics that empower players to elevate a scene to conflict resolution, even though the game "defaults" to task resolution?

The one example I thought of was Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play's Fate Points mechanic, which is basically a conflict "panic button" for characters near death. However, I'm much more interested here in whether there are other mechanics that aren't "oh shit" kinds of things -- mechanics that instead empower the player to elevate task to conflict at their discretion. Another example that I'm only slightly familiar with -- doesn't Shadowrun allow players to "burn" a point from their karma pool for automatic success? I think this comes close to elevating task resolution to conflict resolution, but the karma-burning actually is just guaranteeing success in the task, correct?

Obviously, these are relatively "mainstream" games, and both have been around for a while. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, so that's why I'm posting!

Second, does anyone have examples of games in which the mechanics overtly decrease the "whiff factor" as a character advances (i.e. increases in effectiveness)? Pretty clearly, most games improve the whiff factor simply by making it less probably to whiff. However, that "whiff" possibility remains. Are there mechanics that remove the effect of the whiff, such that even in failure, a more advanced/more effective character can avoid frustrations of the whiff factor precisely because the character IS more advanced/more effective?

[Paul Czege]

Hey Matt,

First, I was thinking about task resolution vs. conflict resolution. Are there mechanics that empower players to elevate a scene to conflict resolution, even though the game "defaults" to task resolution?

Ron put you up to this, right? Trollbabe sales sagging Ron?

Paul

[Jared A. Sorensen]

doesn't Shadowrun allow players to "burn" a point from their karma pool for automatic success? I think this comes close to elevating task resolution to conflict resolution, but the karma-burning actually is just guaranteeing success in the task, correct?

Yeah, as does the Storyteller System. But both backtrack on the concept of auto-successs by making demands that there often needs to be more than one success to succeed. Or the opposition gets some kind of rebuttal (ie: I roll to hit, you roll to dodge, I roll to damage, you roll to soak, etc.).

[ethan_greer]

Well, Jared's octaNe has a paragraph about the so-called whiff factor, and the statement that octaNe's mechanics all but eliminate the whiff factor.  I haven't played it yet, but near as I can tell from reading it the claim holds water... Basically "success" and "failure" don't exist in the game - its task resolution is just a system of selecting who narrates outcomes.

[Matt Snyder]

Hey Matt,

<FONT COLOR="RED">First, I was thinking about task resolution vs. conflict resolution. Are there mechanics that empower players to elevate a scene to conflict resolution, even though the game "defaults" to task resolution?</FONT>

Ron put you up to this, right? Trollbabe sales sagging Ron?

Paul

Doh! <slaps forehead> Of course. I told you I was missing the obvious. Ok, excellent example, Paul. Thanks.

[Matt Snyder]

Well, Jared's octaNe has a paragraph about the so-called whiff factor, and the statement that octaNe's mechanics all but eliminate the whiff factor.  I haven't played it yet, but near as I can tell from reading it the claim holds water... Basically "success" and "failure" don't exist in the game - its task resolution is just a system of selecting who narrates outcomes.

Yes, octaNe pretty much does that. What I'm more interested in, however, is whether a game explicitly makes the whiff factor go away as characters become more effective. (You know, go up levels, advance, earn XP, whatever. Yeah, I realize that asking it that way makes assumptions about how characters work in games, namely by "going up" or "getting tougher" or whatever. This is an assumption I'm making very much on purpose.)

In other words, are there metagame mechanics that make PLAYERS more effective or more in control of their character's whiffing as that character "advances"?

[Christoffer Lernö]

In other words, are there metagame mechanics that make PLAYERS more effective or more in control of their character's whiffing as that character "advances"?

Are you reading my mind Matt? I've been thinking of just such a mechanic recently.

As for examples, I don't know if Torchbearer (by Shreyas Sampat) qualifies. It has as a fundamental rule (if I read things right in his rules) that if a person has a Myth that is higher in rank than the opposing side he automatically wins a conflict. Would that count?

As for Warhammer FRP you have (if I remember correctly) fate points that are used up and gained as awards. In AHQ (boardgame) set in the same universe you instead have fatepoints that are regained after an adventure (=when you get out of the dungeon to restock). The maximum of those fatepoints slowly goes up as they get more experienced. In effect that makes them more and more immune to whiffs. (This is different from the Shadowrun/WFRP feel where fate is actually continously gained and lost)

[Matt Snyder]

The maximum of those fatepoints slowly goes up as they get more experienced. In effect that makes them more and more immune to whiffs. (This is different from the Shadowrun/WFRP feel where fate is actually continously gained and lost)

How so? That is, how does accumulating more and more fate points in AHQ make the character more immune to whiffs? I just am not familiar with the game's mechanics at all. What do the fate points do?

I ask because I want to make the distinction between a game that makes you better at, say, a skill, so therefore the probability of whiffs is smaller. However, in those small probabilities, the character still whiffs -- he misses, he fails, whatever. I'm more interested in examples of mechanics that not only improve that character's skill via "advancement," but also earn the players rights to control events when that character DOES "whiff." The players then alter the scene such that their more "heroic" character isn't falling all over himself due to probabilities. Instead, complications might get introduced, etc.

(By the way, Christoffer, I think you understood this distinction -- not accusing you here. I just wanted to pose it again for clarification for everyone)

[J B Bell]

Hero Wars does this, in one of the most elegant ways I've ever seen (I'm working on a dice-pool way of doing it using "trump dice").  Degree of success is handled by looking up your roll differential (there are no unopposed rolls, I think) on a chart, which has Fumble, Failure, Success, Critical Success (again IIRC).  For each "mastery" (skills roll over after each 20 points), you may "bump," that is, go up one level on the chart.

In short, if you outmatch an opponent or obstacle by a certain degree, it is literally impossible to fumble, and if you outmatch them a lot, you literally cannot fail, and are quite likely to have a crit success.  This eliminates the "peasant vs. Sir Gawain" problem, while still allowing fumbles when people of similar skill level compete.  It requires a two-tiered lookup to determine success, but it's damned pretty.  Robin Laws does it again.

--JB

[Christoffer Lernö]

How so? That is, how does accumulating more and more fate points in AHQ make the character more immune to whiffs? I just am not familiar with the game's mechanics at all. What do the fate points do?

You escape damage or whiffed rolls falling into pits and such.

Apologies if this is not what you had in mind but you mentioned Warhammer so...

Let me quickly recap so you get a clearer picture of AHQ:

Bopper the dwarf is a beginner character. That means he has 2 fate points. Which essentially means he can survive a "lucky hit" by some monster or surviving a failed "resist poison gas" or making "jump over a spiked pit" even after the roll is made by paying a fate point. In an adventure, Bopper can avoid two whiffs. Then he's out of fate points.

After a whole lot of successful adventures Bopper might have 5 fate points. That means he has to have a lot of bad luck (use up a lot of fate points) before he's gonna have to accept a bad roll.

In addition keep in mind that Bopper's player can choose exactly when he wants to use a fate or not for Bopper. Maybe Bopper accepts that really bad damage, or falls into the pit because the player feels it's prudent to save the fate for later (because the player feels it's more tactically sound to save it perhaps)
Anyway as long as the player has a fate point he can veto certain bad results that would affect his character.

Now since AHQ is a boardgame the whole thing is pretty simple as far as situations where you can use fate goes. However it's more or less compatible with WFRP so I think you could make it work in WFRP.

The difference here lies in how you regain fate points. In WFRP they are used up which means you'll never have a character with 11 fate which consistently adventure after adventure never fails. Instead in WFRP you have to save up by not whiffing!
In AHQ on the other hand you can gladly use up all fate to save you from disgrace because you get everything back in next session.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Matt,

I assume you're looking for direct mechanics, rather than a practical reduction in/elimination of whiff due to the availabilty of more resources.  Though I have been in games where players used CASH as the ultimate whiff-proofing:

(Player finds NPC with the knowledge the PC's want)
"I want him to tell me where to find Gino"
(GM contemplates the high difficulty of the task)
"What skill do you use to persuade him?"
(pointing to his "Millionaire Playboy" character type)
"I use my Money skill!"

Or maybe you're looking for "take it back" mechanics?  Where the system establishes one (whiffed) resolution, then gives the players a way to reverse that, if the charcaters are "advanced" enough?

That said, in certain specific instances, the Feat system in d20 might be seen as a direct anti-whiff mechanic that is acquired as the character advances.  E.g. (and if I remember correctly), you've got your saving throw against, say, the classic damage spell (Fireball or whatever).  If you succede at that roll (don't whiff), you take half damage.  But if you've acquired the Evasion feat, you take zero damage.  Make it all the way to where you can get Improved Evasion, and you reduce it to half damage even if you whiff.  Heck, there may be Epic feats that get even better - 1/4 damage, whatever.

Kinda reactive - whiff-proofing an "avoid damage" mechanic.  Cases could probably be made for other Feat progressions, but most do tend to be more of the "decrease the likelyhood of whiff" rather than a direct "cancel/mitigate the whiff."

Though I'd say, depending on the system and particular play circumstance, sometimes decreasing the likleyhood is effectively the same as a canceling of the whiff.  In Gamist play, it's often (IMO) the objective to get yourself into a position where you've effectively eliminated the chance of a whiff, using mechanics that only ever use the "indirect effect through probability" approach.

I'm drawing a blank on anything else from "mainstream" games that isn't Fortune based.  Hmmm . . .  that's another way to ask this question, isn't it?  Drama-based "I don't whiff" mechanics that are acquired through character development?  Because if it's Fortune, by definition you're doing the eliminate (or effectively-if-not-actually eliminate) through reduction of probability thing.  I guess Nobilis is an interesting case, as essentially all the resolution mechanics spring from a pool of Drama-points, and more advanced characters have more of 'em.

Anyway, that's my thoughts,

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Matt,

I've found that playing most published games requires a lot of social negotiation over failed rolls. Just what they mean - and to step back, as you did - what any roll means, often shows up as a gaping void in terms of the text, once you start looking for it.

I think Gordon is right that people turn to "non-standard" skills or abilities to give themselves whiff-defense, and I think how a given group handles this (in a game like Call of Cthulhu, whose text is silent on the matter) says a lot about their Social Contract.

Two other games bear mentioning, both primarily authored by the same person. Prince Valiant introduces a Drama-based metagame mechanic, in which a player might receive a Certificate that says, say, "Win this fight," among many other options. When a fight comes up and the player wants to win it, bam - spend the Certificate (which goes away). This operates alongside a more traditional metagame mechanic in which one has "stars" pasted on one's sheet, which give bonus coins (i.e. increases the chance of success in the basic resolution system).

Hero Wars is definitely the poster child for the thread topic, I think. Christoffer points out the "mastery-plateau" resolution system, but I also think the augmentation mechanics are stupendously important as well - the more abilities a character has, the more potential he or she has for boosting "favored" abilities in a variety of situations. One definite trend in our Hero Wars play was to see a massive increase in character breadth, with a few slightly-favored abilities and a tendency to improve across the board, rather than a max-out in the favored abilities because they were the "effective" ones.

As for Trollbabe, it's set up to increase a character's non-whiff potential by permitting a wider number and variety of re-rolls during play. The more relationships the character establishes, the less of a whiffer she becomes. But since relationships in application have a tendency to crowd one another, she has to decide what combination of relationships will work for her. I'm looking forward to some long-term play of Trollbabe that will highlight this "eventual" conflict that's embedded in the game design.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

Hero Wars is definitely the poster child for the thread topic, I think.

I suspected it might be, based on the precious little I know about that game. I do not own Hero Wars, and for no good reason I've been putting off picking it up (I think there's a copy at my local used book store, of all things). I'm going to have to check this out. I was kind of waiting for Hero Quest before dipping my big toe in the vast sea that is Glorantha, but so it goes!

That insight about Prince Valiant is great, too. I've always heard about that game from posts by you and GM Skarka. You both cite it as a big influence. I haven't seen that game in my local store since '97 or so. Alas.

Also, Trollbabe really addresses both my points, Ron. That is, scaling from task to conflict in resolution, and mitigating whiff factor. A real "duh!" moment on my part, even after I raved about the re-rollling mechanics in Trollbabe when I read 'em. Sheesh.

[Valamir]

Ron's opinion of Prince Valiant I think is substantially higher than my own.  I suspect that it holds such a high place in Ron's regard because it was one of (or perhaps the) game that contributed to his first eureka moment on gaming.

Having picked it up long after the fact I personally found it to be not nearly as enlightened, revolutionary, exotic, or (really very interesting) as say Extreme Vengeance or some of that ilk.  

It likely deserves a position of prominence simply for its pioneering role, but I wouldn't spend alot of energy trying to get your hands on a copy looking for inspiration.  You already know all of the tricks PV could teach you.