A Design Checklist for FitM Conflict Resolution Rules

[lumpley]

For Conflict Resolution
- What does the winner get?
- What does the loser get?
- How do we know who's the winner and who's the loser?
- What do we need to establish before resolution begins, and how?
- What must we leave unestablished, for resolution to decide?

For IIEE
- How do I know when it's my turn to say what happens?

When I say stuff, other people will probably have said stuff before me:
- What must I absolutely accept and take into account?
- What am I allowed to question, interpret or change before I take it into account?

And furthermore:
- What should I establish for the next person?
- What should I establish but leave open to the next person's interpretation?
- What must I leave unestablished?

For Scope (including Director Stance)
- When I say what happens, what subject(s) are available to me?
- When have I said enough?
- How much in-game action should I talk about?
- How will I know not to say too little or too much?

Fortune and FitM
- During all this, when do I roll dice (or draw cards or whatever)?
- After I've rolled, what decisions can I make about my dice?
- If I don't like my roll, what are my options?

Some of the above decisions will depend on my roll. For each:
- Does the result of my roll a) limit me to one option only, b) limit me to one of a few options, c) provide me with one or a few restrictions but otherwise leave me open, or d) provide me with options otherwise unavaliable?

Some of the above decisions will affect this roll or future rolls. For each:
- Does what I say a) change an existing roll, mine or someone else's b) change a future roll, mine or someone else's?
- If such changes are open to interpretation or customizable, a) what are the options, and b) who gets to choose?

---

So that's those. I think your rule text should answer all of those questions.

This is kind of standard-rant-like, not in that I'm ranting, but in that a) I think this should be somewhere public where I can refer to it and b) if it spawns discussion, cool, if it doesn't, cool.

-Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Vincent,

Seems to me the issues of narration (how is this to be described, who gets to speak) and most especially the Buck (who gets rubber-stamp-done authority) both come into this as well.

Or rather, that narration/The Buck is the biggest issue; IIEE is the issue inside that; and finally, Fortune-in-the-Middle is a potential application or approach inside that.

Best,
Ron

[Michael S. Miller]

Hi, Vincent.

You were giving the With Great Power... Preview the hairy eyeball while working this up, weren't you? :) Guilty as charged, but the new text addresses your points.

I, also think the organization is a bit skewed. It seems to me that your IIEE, Scope, and FitM are more focused sub-questions of your big Conflict Resolution questions.

IIEE questions are subquestions of:

- What do we need to establish before resolution begins, and how?
- What must we leave unestablished, for resolution to decide?

Scope questions are subquestions of:

- What does the winner get?
- What does the loser get?

FitM questions are subquestions of:

- How do we know who's the winner and who's the loser?

You might also want to make more explicit the possibility that a person who has input into the SIS (i.e., who narrates) might be neither the winner nor the loser. Examples include Dust Devils, as well as interplayer combat in traditional games where the GM narrates everything.

Thanks for putting this together. I'll be printing it up in proper checklist format to use as a guide for self-editing my rules text, to make sure I write what I think I write.

[timfire]

FitM questions are subquestions of:

- How do we know who's the winner and who's the loser?

Actually, I agree with Vincent here, issues of winning/losing are a concern of, err, Conflict (/Task) resolution. FitM as a technique deals with when the dice come into the procedure.

I wanted to say that I don't think it would take much to broadened the checklist and make it into a comprehensive checklist that includes Task Resolution and Fortune-at-the-End.

[Eero Tuovinen]

This is kind of standard-rant-like, not in that I'm ranting, but in that a) I think this should be somewhere public where I can refer to it and b) if it spawns discussion, cool, if it doesn't, cool.

I've for a while now considered Vincent the secret master of conflict resolution. Good work!

Anyway, this outline brings to the fore an issue that I've myself worked with, and planned to take up here, too. The issue being simply that we know nowadays a helluva lot about conflict resolution. I find this the main fruit of the post-GNS years of the Forge: during this time the understanding has spread and crystallized to the degree that it can be built into simple checklists and conventional wisdom.

The point here is, what's next? The late years of games have largely concentrated on conflict mechanics, even to the exclusion of other possibilities. Games like Dust Devils, MLwM, PTA, DiV and such are a breed apart in their resolution to curtail everything into a matter of story control. The success has been resounding, and the meanings and methods of conflict resolution have become commonplace in indie design.

My augur tells me that the next new thing will be to focus on the oracle function of rules: instead of controlling who decides, the rules will control more elaborately what happens. This function is separate, yet close to the heart of the conflict resolution, and a natural accompaniment: the original task resolution does both, and even a great majority of the conflict games at least indicate positive/negative results.

Actually, I designed a game like this just last week: in my Christmas game there's no conflict resolution at all, only oracle function. The dice decide on bad and good fortune for the characters, and it's up to the players to interpret the results. The result is still unmistacably a roleplaying game, but of a bit different color than the conflict games.

Anyway, this is just random pondering inspired by Vincent's list. Carry on.

[Matt Wilson]

Hey:

By this one...

- What do we need to establish before resolution begins, and how?

I'm not sure what you mean with this one, exactly. Anyone want to feed me an example? Is this just about stakes? Or is it "which skill am I using?" and all that stuff?

If that's the case, what's an example of two games where the "how" is different?

[Eero Tuovinen]

- What do we need to establish before resolution begins, and how?

I'm not sure what you mean with this one, exactly. Anyone want to feed me an example? Is this just about stakes? Or is it "which skill am I using?" and all that stuff?

I read it as being the latter, as the stakes are dealt with in the points before that one.

Example 1: In D&D a fighting conflict is resolved through a series of task rolls in a combat round system. Before the resolution starts we have to establish where the participants are and what's their state of awareness as to there being a fight here. Also weapons, tools and memorized spells have to be known. A cynic reading the Dungeon Master's guide quickly recognizes that the result of the conflict should also be known beforehand, at least by the GM ;)

Example 2: In Dogs in the Vineyard a conflict is resolved through a round-by-round bidding of rolled values. Before starting we need to just know that there's some kind of conflict here. Especially we shouldn't know about the state of the participants as above, because that stuff is defined as being within the narration rights of the participants during conflict.

Example 3: In My Life with Master for a conflict to start we have to define it's nature towards the predefined list of possible conflicts. We have to also decide whether the conflict falls within the more and less thans of the participating characters.

Any clearer? Is that even correct?

[Emily Care]

The point here is, what's next? The late years of games have largely concentrated on conflict mechanics, even to the exclusion of other possibilities.

Another function of mechanics that I see in DitV and PtA is to structure and pace action in formal ways.  The spotlight mechanic in PtA is critical to the game, though it's not part of the conflict resolution system.  But the fan mail/bonus dice economy directly affects outcomes in ways that reflect the dramatic preferences of all the players involved. And of course, in Dogs, the conflict resolution mechanics allow players to ramp up conflict--or not--based on how they want it to flow.  

As I see it, mechanics like these not only give players power to determine what the outcome will be, but what direction they want the tension level in the game to go.  

yrs,
Emily

[lumpley]

Matt:

- What do we need to establish before resolution begins, and how?

In Dogs, for instance, before resolution begins you have to "set the stage" - where are you? who's there? any good landscape features? This is in addition to naming the stakes.

In Dogs, how you do it is: brainstorm until you're all satisfied. In lots of games, how you do it is: the GM does it. But I can imagine games where the "how" is formalized: go around the table and everyone contributes one prop to the stage, or something like that.

"What skill I'm using" might fall here, it might fall within resolution.

Emily:
Absolutely.

Eero:
I dunno about the future at large, but for myself, I intend to focus on all the many interesting things outside of conflict resolution for a while. My current kick is: I'm the GM, what on earth should I be doing?

Michael:
I'm not sure how well you can really organize them. All of my IIEE, Scope and FitM questions seem to me like a big jumble inside the unstated:
- How do we resolve what we need to resolve?

That is, in any particular ruleset they're going to have a particular organization - in Dogs, f'rinstance, what I say determines what happens with my dice, my dice determine who wins. But in some other ruleset they might have some other organization entirely - I can imagine rules, f'rinstance, where what happens with my dice determines what I want to say, and what I say determines who wins.

Digression
1. You say "if I win, my character rescues the princess from the dragon."
2. I say "okay, but a) you'll die in the process, b) the princess will get both her legs bitten off, c) your squire will be so traumatized that he'll go back and murder and cannibalize your parents, and d) the dragon will burn the capitol of the kingdom to the ground in revenge, killing thousands."
3. If you say "okay, good enough!" then you win.
4. If you don't want to say that, you can roll dice against me to reduce and eliminate my disastrous stipulations, taking appropriate character actions to do so.
5. Eventually, if you roll well enough, the consequences will be reasonable and you'll say "okay, I win!"

Your dice determine what you'll say, and what you say determines who wins.
End Digression

I think you can probably play such tricks with all of the combinations of what-depends-on-what.

In sum: Designing rules will absolutely entail putting your answers to my questions into order and hierarchy, but the order and hierarchy aren't an up-front given.

Ron:
Who's talking vs. who has final say. I'm not certain anymore that rules can specify who's talking. Conversations with you, actual play, reading your conversation about Code of Unaris' Hacking - I've come to think that the inescapable state of roleplaying is: everybody's talking.

Combine that with my longstanding insistence that the inescapable state of roleplaying is: the group has final say.

Result: "who's narrating" and "where does the buck stop" are ways one might (and probably should and probably will) coordinate what's happening - but I'm not inclined to build them in as certainties. Any more than I'm inclined to build a sole GM in as a certainty. The real certainties seem to me to be "how should I treat others' contributions?" and "how should I expect my contributions to be treated?"

-Vincent

[Sydney Freedberg]

Over in this thread,

I've been dealing a lot with mitigation of failure mechanics in Polaris recently, and I'd just like to suggest that:

1) There is a lot more to success and failure than just a target number, or even making sacrifices to get there.
2) This is a rich, meaty, unexplored vein in RPG design....

[and much more I won't reproduce here]

This was a eureka-inducing post for me, and as it's dead on target for the current thread I hope no one will mind me pointing everyone to it. (And damn, but this is distinguished company, here). Let me also suggest, somewhat inchoately:

Maybe "conflict resolution" in terms of who succeeds and who fails (even including "to what extent" and "at what price") isn't the real question, at all. (Isn't the cool factor of Dogs in the Vineyard that the Fallout can be far more important than the ostensible issue at stake? Isn't the cool factor of Prime Time Adventures that it explictly says, what matters isn't the moster-of-the-day or other problem at hand but how the characters approach it in light of their Issues?). Maybe the richer, underlying soil is "change resolution": How the characters try to change the world (including other characters), and how they change in the process.

{Edit for example: E.g. maybe the most important thing about the Big Battle between the heroes and villains isn't who wins or loses, or even what level of angst the winner must endure, or the painful insight into the world gained by the loser. Maybe the most important thing is the kid watching from the sidelines who witnesses something awe-inspiring and grows up to be a different person. TonyLB's Capes offers one way to handle this, by breaking the Big Battle up into multiple player-defined Complications, one of which could conceivably be "how the bystander kid grows up"}.

Note that if you could get a "change engine" to work, you wouldn't even need separate rules for character generation and conflict resolution. Every conflict would be explicitly about reshaping character, and every character could be built up by conflicts. It'd be the Holy Grail for Grand Unified Mechanic maniacs (e.g. me...).

[Callan S.]

Heya, Vincent,

Hope it's okay to respond to stuff aimed at Ron

Who's talking vs. who has final say. I'm not certain anymore that rules can specify who's talking. Conversations with you, actual play, reading your conversation about Code of Unaris' Hacking - I've come to think that the inescapable state of roleplaying is: everybody's talking.

Isn't it sort of like a group of people all pushing at a block of clay, each always applying some level of pressure to shape it? Yeah, their all pushing, but with different pressures and with different tools. Which is something you can start to measure in terms of what I note below.

Combine that with my longstanding insistence that the inescapable state of roleplaying is: the group has final say.

Result: "who's narrating" and "where does the buck stop" are ways one might (and probably should and probably will) coordinate what's happening - but I'm not inclined to build them in as certainties. Any more than I'm inclined to build a sole GM in as a certainty. The real certainties seem to me to be "how should I treat others' contributions?" and "how should I expect my contributions to be treated?"

I think that basically each user has to bite the bullet and either accept creative restrictions (for the benefit they bring) or consider themselves not playing/participating. Some wont, of course, and ignore restrictions...but much like someone who likes flipping over the gaming table (or whatever non game contribution to game play), this isn't a designers concern. It's something that just smashes into the game.

Thus I think you can define stuff like with whom the buck stops, as a certainty as much as its certain that someone either accepts the creative limitations or is not playing. I think the problem isn't there, but in informing the user the exact details of the creative funneling they need to commit to (to consider themselves playing). Not that that's easy or anything. :)

I may be off track. Ignore if so. :)

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I hope I'm not butting in on a coversation here, and if I am please forgive me.

Result: "who's narrating" and "where does the buck stop" are ways one might (and probably should and probably will) coordinate what's happening - but I'm not inclined to build them in as certainties.

But still, shouldn't your checklist of questions include one: "Where does the buck stop?" or something of that nature?  Eventually the group as a whole will have to stop deciding what is happening and agree on what happened.  So when does the process of FitM end in your checklist?

Peace,

-Troy

[lumpley]

(If this were the kind of conversation where "butting in" would be a problem, we'd be having it in private! Nobody needs to apologize for contributing.)

I think Eero, Emily, Sydney and Ben (vicariously) are getting at something very worthwhile. Which is: it's one thing to know how your FitM Conflict Resolution rules work, procedurally. It's quite another to know what they contribute to your game.

From the point of view of my checklist of questions, all FitM Conflict Resolution rules are equal. When they answer all my questions, they're done, more or less, allowing for the inevitable evolution of our understanding yadda da. What I mean is, my checklist can't tell the difference between Dogs' rules and Trollbabe's. But I surely can.

Followup question:
- I've got my FitM Conflict Resolution rules. They're done and they work. Are they the right rules for my game?

Followup answer:
- Play and revise. Play and revise. Play and revise.

Callan:
In some particular set of rules, you can for certain specify where the buck stops. But "in every set of rules, you should specify where the buck stops"? I'm not inclined to commit to that - because in every set of rules, the buck really stops with everybody. The buck the rules can speak of is not the true buck!

Just exactly as I wouldn't commit to "in every set of rules, you should specify who's the GM."

But this is me nit-picking. Really, if your rules provide an answer to "how do I know when to talk?", "what must I treat as already established?", and "what must I leave unestablished for the next person?", they'll have the buck covered.

Troy:

Eventually the group as a whole will have to stop deciding what is happening and agree on what happened. So when does the process of FitM end in your checklist?

It ends up above, with "- How do we know who's the winner and who's the loser?"

-Vincent

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Troy:
You wrote:
Eventually the group as a whole will have to stop deciding what is happening and agree on what happened. So when does the process of FitM end in your checklist?

It ends up above, with "- How do we know who's the winner and who's the loser?"

-Okay, I gotya now.  I had misinterpreted the meaning of that question.  It is clear to me now.  Thanks Vincent :)

Peace,

-Troy

[Callan S.]

Hi Vincent,

Sorry, didn't mean you always have to say where the buck stops, in a design. I realise what you mean now, but before I read your "I'm not certain anymore that rules can specify who's talking." and then I read the bit on the buck and mistakenly connected the two as one prob. Anyway, what I meant that even if the rules can't specify who's talking, they can go a long way/the full way to specifying who the buck stops with. This is still pretty good control of who's talking, in a round about way (IMO). If that's any help.