[TROS] How to Achieve Conflict Resolution

[Yokiboy]

I want to use Conflict Resolution in The Riddle of Steel (TROS) while the rules seem to imply Task Resolution. I hope to steal some ideas from DitV, Sorcerer and apparently BW (which I have never played or read) to accomplish this feat.

My thinking goes that we first declare Intent, thereby coming up with What's at Stake. Then we declare the Task undertaken to accomplish the intent, which tells us what to roll against (pure ability or skill). This is straight out of BW Revised according to Thor, but in BW it still seems to be up to the GM to interpret the outcome of the rolls, by comparing it to the stated intent, and narrating the outcome. I'm not sure I want to end there though.

Instead I'm thinking that the GM now sets a Conflict TN (CTN), i.e. a final number of successes required to win the conflict.

We then make an opposed roll, with the winning side adding their MOS to their Conflict Victory Total. If the Victory Total now equals or exceeds the CTN the conflict ends. If not, add your MOS as a Roll-Over Bonus to the next roll (ala Sorcerer), and state a new Task fitting to the narrative (I'm after the escalation mechanic in DitV, but I find it hard to apply to TROS) and roll again.

Each side in the conflict either keeps track of their own independant Conflict Victory Totals, or a sliding scale could be used where one side wins at negative Conflict TN, and the other side at positive CTN. The final narrative could be handled by the GM or player according to preference.

I think this conflict resolution mechanic could be fun and am about to test how well it works tonight. An alternative to "keep rolling to reach the target" would be to let the conflict end after the first exchange of rolls, and insteadlook for follow-up conflicts ala Dogs. The narrative would then strictly be based upon the winner's MOS.

The latter solution feels more in line with Alyria and HeroQuest, where comparing Success vs Botch, Success vs Fail, Higher Success vs Lesser Success, Fail vs Fail, and Botch vs Botch becomes important.

How do other seasoned TROS'ers handle the resolution mechanic? I would also enjoy feedback and critique on my suggested Conflict Resolution mechanic.

TTFN,

Yoki

P.S. I'm leaving the combat system as is, and only applying this system to the use of skills and ability checks, this could of course complicate matters. However, I will allow Roll-Over Bonuses in combat (why is explained in this thread); if you score a Wound Level 0 on your opponent, you receive a number of bonus dice equal to your MOS good for an attack on the next exchange only.

[Luke]

been reading Burning Wheel Revised, eh?

;)

[Yokiboy]

been reading Burning Wheel Revised, eh?

;)

Nope, unfortunately not. I'd like to, but I was just quoting Thor from some discussion over on Vincent's site.

I am not convinced that I need another fantasy system, but BW Revised is first in line, and honestly I will probably give in eventually.

TTFN,

Yoki

[Thor Olavsrud]

My thinking goes that we first declare Intent, thereby coming up with What's at Stake. Then we declare the Task undertaken to accomplish the intent, which tells us what to roll against (pure ability or skill). This is straight out of BW Revised according to Thor, but in BW it still seems to be up to the GM to interpret the outcome of the rolls, by comparing it to the stated intent, and narrating the outcome. I'm not sure I want to end there though.

Hey Yokiboy,

I just wanted to clarify something: it's not really up to the GM to interpret the outcome of the rolls. This is straight-up IIEE we're talking about here. The player states his Intent in terms of the Stakes. That means that the player states up front exactly what he wants to accomplish with his roll. We call this the Intent. Generally, it is a good idea at that point for the GM to RESTATE the Intent in terms of what he sees as the Risk of the roll. When the GM does this, it's not fiat, it's negotiation. The idea is to get everything on the table so that everyone understands the ramifications. The player can suggest an alternate Risk, if the GM is amenable.

So:
Player: I want to pick the lock on the door before the guards arrive.

GM: Okay. It seems to me that the Risk is that the guards arrive before you get through the door. If you succeed, you get through the door before the guards spot you, if you fail they arrive before you can slip through. Cool?

Player: Let's roll!

[Yokiboy]

I'm just not familiar enough with Burning Wheel or its mechanics. From your posts in Vincent's anyway blog I thought that the GM interpreted the roll(s) before narrating how well the conflict went for the protagonist. What you're saying now is spot on with how I do it myself.

I was trying to implement this in TROS, but using some of my other favorite inovations, such as Sorcerer's roll-over bonuses, and Dogs in the Vineyard's raising/calling mechanics.

I might just go with the BW mechanics for IIEE, and try to keep the conflicts small enough for one roll to decide the outcome. With interesting stakes it is usually easy to come up with follow-up conflicts anyhow, and that still gives me what I think I'm after in trying to emulate DitV.

Nice of you guys to drop in, I'm sure I'll eventually cave in and get BW.