A Conflict Resolution System

[Keith Senkowski]

Hey,
I have been floating this idea for a game for a while in my head and finally wrote it all down.  I figured I would post it here and see if anyone had any sort of interesting input for me.

Keith
------------------

The Bob Goat Conflict Resolution System That Rawks! (a mouthful I know), or as I like to call it, Fix It Your Own Damn Self (another mouthful, but funnier) is designed to be used for any sort of Role-Playing Game.  It is simple to use and revolves around resolving conflicts, not tasks.  Also it has not numerical values and relies strictly on what I call Descriptors.  It can be used with any die type, but I prefer six sided dice so I use them in the rules.  Just make sure you have at least two different colors for the dice.  

Conflicts
According to the dictionary, a Conflict is a state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests.  What this means for the game is a Conflict occurs whenever there is trouble which will effect the shared imagined space of the group.  

When this occurs, everyone who is involved in the Conflict, be it physical, mental or spiritual in nature declares if they are involved.  Each Player takes D6 for each Positive and Negative Descriptor that is appropriate to the conflict.  The Game Master roles dice for anybody involved in the Conflict that is not a Player.

Once everyone has rolled, each person totals up their roll, adding their Positive Descriptors and subtracting their Negative Descriptors and compares it against the other side in the Conflict.  The highest number wins.  This can lead directly to the Conflict Resolution or the loser can call for a Raise the Stakes roll.

Raise the Stakes
If a character loses he can choose to Raise the Stakes.  This means he takes the damage and any penalties that come with it but there is another Conflict Roll.  If he wins this roll, Conflict Resolution is called for.  

If he fails, he can try and Raise the Stakes again or call for Conflict Resolution. This can be only called for three times.  If he loses the Conflict after three rounds of Raise the Stakes,  he takes the damage from all rolls and gains a new Negative Descriptor for each lost round appropriate to the situation.

Conflict Resolution
When a Conflict Resolution occurs two things have to be determined.  First is the damage dealt.  This is determined by taking the difference between the rolls for each side of the conflict and comparing it to the following chart:

Difference / Degree of Success

[*]0 / Tie: Automatic Raise the Stakes on both parts
[*]1 - 2 / Loser is Bruised (no penalties)
[*]3 - 4 / Loser is Battered (1D6 penalty die)
[*]5 - 6 / Loser is Bloodied (2D6 penalty die)
[*]7 - 8 / Loser is Broken (3D6 penalty die)
[*]9 + / Loser is Incapacitated/Dead (unable to take actions)[/list:u]
Once damage is determined, the winner gets to narrate how the Conflict was resolved.  He must take into account all the appropriate Descriptors were used.  The only thing he cannot do is kill one of the characters used by the Players.  Only that Player may decided if his character dies or is simply Incapacitated in some manner.

Healing Damage
After each Scene, a character heals one level of damage.  This continues until he has no damage levels.  The ending of a Scene is determined by a shift in focus from one issue to another.  In most cases this is controlled by the Game Master, but can be dictated by a Player when he calls upon Destiny.

Calling Upon Destiny
A Player may introduce a narrative element at any time during the game by calling upon Destiny.  This can completely shift to a new Scene, adjust facts or introduce new facts.  There are only two restrictions to this.  It can only be done once per game session for each Negative Descriptor the character has and it can never be used to resolve any form of Conflict.

Creating Characters
Character creation is very simple and revolves around assigning Descriptors to a character.  These Descriptors are broken into three categories.  They are the character's Drive, Traits and Characteristics.

Drive
A characters Drive is his primary motivating force in the story.  It is why he is involved at all and always has an ultimate resolution.  Once it is resolved, the Player can choose a new appropriate Drive or he can retire the character from the story.

Sin City, A Dame To Kill For Example:

[*]Dwight's Starting Drive: Desires to save Ava from her abusive husband.
[*]Dwight's Later Drive: Get back at Ava for what she has done.[/list:u]
Traits
Each character has four traits that need Descriptors assigned to them.  They the character's Guts, Grit, Graft and Background.  His Guts are his physical characteristics, his Grit is his general mental strength, his Graft is his cunning and his Background is generally a relevant occupation.

Sin City, A Dame To Kill For Example:
Dwight

[*]Guts: He can take a lot of abuse.
[*]Grit: Can't stand to see those he cares for be harmed.
[*]Graft: He knows his way around the seedy parts of Basin City.
[*]Background: Photographer for a private detective.[/list:u]
Characteristics
Each character has three additional Descriptors.  These are general things that help round out who the character is and can cover just about anything, from the physical, the mental, the spiritual or even additional background information.

Sin City, A Dame To Kill For Example:
Dwight

[*]When he drinks, the monster comes out and he can lose control.
[*]He knows how to handle guns.
[*]He once saved a young girl from the Tongs.[/list:u]
Gaining and Changing Descriptors
At the end of each story, the Players and Game Master list down changes they think should be made to any of the named characters.  This includes the antagonists controlled by the Game Master.  Once a list is compiled, they are voted on.  Any ties that arise the Game Master gets an additional vote.

[TonyLB]

Before I answer, I call once more upon the great Mantra Of the IGD forum:   What are you looking to achieve with this system?


In anticipation:  I think you've got a vanilla conflict resolution system here which does not (yet) have any drive or structure to push players toward a behavior they wouldn't have achieved on their own.  

As such it's going to be a great hit with the folks who just want a system that will provide unity of vision with a minimum number of Points of Contact.  If that's what you're looking for, you're good to go.

[Keith Senkowski]

Like I said in the post, I wrote it up with the idea of it being used for any sort of game/genre, which answers the mantra.  

My example is obviously noir and that is what I would likely use it for myself (running Sin City).

I think you've got a vanilla conflict resolution system here which does not (yet) have any drive or structure to push players toward a behavior they wouldn't have achieved on their own.

This puzzles me a bit.  I'm not sure I get the statement (but I am a little off today).  The behavior that I guess it is trying to achieve is one of freedom in shared imagined space creation.

Keith

[Keith Senkowski]

Tony,

I suppose I should have asked, does it promote is the freedom of all involved to influence the shared imageined space... I am soooo off today.

Keith

[TonyLB]

Yes, I think it does promote the freedom of all involved to influence the shared imagined space.

I think there are a few hiccups:

[*]It seems from your description as if someone who loses the first roll has three rolls to react to it, whereas if they win on their first "Raise the Stakes" the people on the other side have no opportunity to react.  This encourages losing the first Conflict, in a way that I wonder if you intended.
[*]You don't make it clear whether Damage is cumulative (i.e. if you lose bigtime when you're already Broken, does it mean you now have 3d6 plus another 3d6 in penalties until you heal it die by die?)
[*]I see plenty of incentive to add Negative descriptors to the character ("Calling upon destiny") but little or no incentive by the player to bring them into a roll.  Are they supposed to be on the honor system for this?
[*]Voting... oy... playtest that.  That's passing the buck to a whole mess of social complexity.[/list:u]

[Keith Senkowski]

Yes, I think it does promote the freedom of all involved to influence the shared imagined space.

I think there are a few hiccups:

[*]It seems from your description as if someone who loses the first roll has three rolls to react to it, whereas if they win on their first "Raise the Stakes" the people on the other side have no opportunity to react.  This encourages losing the first Conflict, in a way that I wonder if you intended.
[*]You don't make it clear whether Damage is cumulative (i.e. if you lose bigtime when you're already Broken, does it mean you now have 3d6 plus another 3d6 in penalties until you heal it die by die?)
[*]I see plenty of incentive to add Negative descriptors to the character ("Calling upon destiny") but little or no incentive by the player to bring them into a roll.  Are they supposed to be on the honor system for this?
[*]Voting... oy... playtest that.  That's passing the buck to a whole mess of social complexity.[/list:u]

Argh.  Need to clarify.  The idea was anyone can raise the stakes in a conflict up to 3 times.  So if I win the first roll, you raise the stakes (taking the damage) and win, I can raise the stakes on my side (taking the damage) and so on until both sides are effectively out of "raises" and shit hits critical mass.

Oops.  Good call.  Damage would be cumalitive, sort of.  I think I would make it an equal or greater value on the damage scale would move your ass down a notch.  So if you are Bloodied and you get Bloodied again, your ass moves down to Broken.

Oh I was thinking negative descriptors are brought into the roll by the situation.  So for instance, if you have say one eye and you are in a knife fight with two goons, your ass gets the penalty die for that conflict.

As to the voting, I use a similar mechanics in CoS rather effectively to govern character advancement.  It is also used in BW for traits.  I look at it this way, if the folks you are playing with can't deal with each other in a democratic fashion, fuck 'em and move on.

Keith

[TonyLB]

Oh I was thinking negative descriptors are brought into the roll by the situation.  So for instance, if you have say one eye and you are in a knife fight with two goons, your ass gets the penalty die for that conflict.

Okay.  As decided by who?

[Keith Senkowski]

Tony you are a sneaky monkey.  That is a good question.  The easy answer would be the GM, but I'm not sure I like that.  The answer I like, but I'm not sure is practical is that the conflict itself, through common sense, will dictate.  Maybe something inbetween?

Keith

[TonyLB]

"Sneaky monkey"... I like that.

I'm mostly thinking about the difference between Champions Disads ("Hunted 11< by an organization the GM detests and would never include in the story") vs. Nobilis Restrictions ("I get an MP every time my restriction comes up... and my restriction is OBNOXIOUS!")

I worry that you're giving people both the power and the incentive to describe negative traits so appallingly inapplicable and focussed that they won't add much to the story.

You can remove the power systematically (a la Champions point balancing) or by GM fiat ("Dude, fear of pink pygmy elephants is not a negative trait").  But isn't it gentler and easier to remove the incentive instead?

[Keith Senkowski]

Hmmm.  I'm not sure how to address it.  Some sort of predetermined set of parameters agreed upon by the group before game play begins for starting Negative Descriptors?  During Play they would be dictated by the loss of the conflict (like Fallout in DitV).  How does that sound?

Keith

[TonyLB]

Sounds fine.  You may get some arguing in the social phase, but hey, what game doesn't?