Mechanical limitations to the scope of conflict resolution

[Andrew Morris]

Reading the recent threads on conflict resolution (here and here) reminded me of a question I have about defining stakes in conflict resolution. What mechanical methods currently exist for limiting the scope of conflict resolution stakes?

To create an example, let's say I'm playing a game that uses conflict resolution. The set-up is that there's an approaching army, and the player characters feel they need to stop it. They could define the stakes as "stopping the army," but, in this example, that's the whole game. After that's done, there's nothing left to the session. Yes, this implies some things about the specific example that won't be present in every game, but it's simply for illustrative purposes.

What games out there have rules-based limitations to prevent "we win/end the game" stakes? Is this a good or bad thing? Any thoughts on these, even if they don't come from any existing game would be welcome, as well.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Trollbabe is based very specifically on establishing the scope of the conflicts which may be directly resolved by the trollbabe's actions.

HeroQuest has an interesting adjustable method for doing so that involves the "levels" or plateaus of the resolution system (called "mastery"). That factors into the degree of risk you put your character at during certain resolutions as well.

Best,
Ron

[Jasper]

My game ABSQVE ROMA uses predefined scales as well, with 5 distinct levels. Generally, the group operates at a specific scale for a period of time and may shift up or down by stages. So if the scene is described in "large" terms, no one can define "minute" or "small" conflicts during it; they'd have to define a new, smaller-scale scene first.

Additionally, a big part of the game is spending resources to boost chances of success. But the cost for doing this (in resources spent) increases with larger scales. At the "minute" scale, a 2 points of "Animus" buys +12 successes, while at the "very large" scale, the same 2 points only buys +1.

(The rules are here.)

[MatrixGamer]

Matrix Games have this same potential problem. Players can say "I win!" I have two ways to deal with this.

1. A Bridge Too Far

In WWII Operation Market Garden tried to cross the Rhine by cutting north through Holland. It was ambitious - overly ambitious as it turned out. Big plans tend to fail. When a player makes an "I win" argument a referee can rule it very weak (happens on a 6 on a d6) or impossible (roll 6, 6's in a row).

Example: Bob argues "My guy storms the Dark Lord's castle all alone and rescues the princess!"

Referee rolls his eyes. "Very weak, roll a 6."

Bob rolls a 6 and beams "I win!!!"

Referee says "Not so fast...this triggers a conflict."

2. Conflict arguments: Matrix Game terminology differs from Forge terminology here. In MGs "argument" stands in for "conflict resolution" and conflict arguments are a tool the referee uses to slow action down, build dramatic tension, and highlight important conflict in the game. The referee decides who is in the strongest postion in the conflict and gives them the first crack at saying what happens.

"I think the Dark Lord is in the strongest position here. Tim, make an argument for him about what happens when Bob attacks."

"Oh this is easy. Bob is captured, beaten up, and thrown in the dungeon."

"Very strong, roll anything but a 1 on a d6." Tim rolls a 1. "Okay, the next strongest person in this conflict is the Dark Lord's Lieutenant. Dave, make an argument for him."

"Bob comes up to the walls and is spotted by the orc guards. They fire arrows at him till he leaves."

"Very strong!" Dave fails his roll. Harry fails his roll to have Bob ambushed. Chris fails his roll to have Bob get blind drunk in a bar and not even start the attack. Nancy fails her roll for Bob to be talked out of this act by his friends. In fact all the referee decides to give all the players conflict arguments before Bob. They all fail so finally the ref turns to Bob.

"Okay, the dice gods are clearly with you. Tell us how you do it."

"I just do it. That's all."

"Argh!" moans the referee. "If you'd give me any kind of description of how you do this I'd probably give you a good roll but this is a really unconvincing argument. VERY WEAK!"

Bob rolls a 5 and fails.

The referee turns to Tim once again. "Okay, tell me what really happened..."

This continues until some player succeeds in defining the outcome by an argument.

***

Mechanically the first argument states an intention. If it is not vital to the story then even if it is a fight it may pass with one roll. This limits the amount of time spent on periphery actions.

If a referee gives a player a weak or very weak roll and the person wins it is not an automatic win. Clearly this is a vital action and is worthy spending more game time on. The conflict arguments do that. They are another hoop to jump through (and possible multiple hoops since there is a conflict round for each "barrier" between the character and the prize (the number of barriers is set at the start of the game.)

In the end the player may win, but they do not get to deprive the other players of an enjoyable game. [This could be viewed as a game rule to cope with obstructionist play without kicking the person out.]

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Andrew Cooper]

To create an example, let's say I'm playing a game that uses conflict resolution. The set-up is that there's an approaching army, and the player characters feel they need to stop it. They could define the stakes as "stopping the army," but, in this example, that's the whole game. After that's done, there's nothing left to the session. Yes, this implies some things about the specific example that won't be present in every game, but it's simply for illustrative purposes.

What games out there have rules-based limitations to prevent "we win/end the game" stakes? Is this a good or bad thing? Any thoughts on these, even if they don't come from any existing game would be welcome, as well.

Okay, maybe I'm just being obtuse.  Why does any resolution end the game?  Let's use your example.  If the player chooses "stop the army" as stakes in the game, then that says to me that the player isn't as interested in playing out actually stopping the army and is more interested in playing out the consequences of success or failure.  Thus, "stopping the army" isn't the end of the game.  It's simply the beginning.  I'm pretty sure that holds true for the vast majority of conflicts.

Someone can tell me if I'm wrong but one of the points to Conflict Resolution is to allow the players to show what things they are interested in playing... or resolving.  So, maybe the players are doing that.  Instead of looking at the game ending conflict (not sure such a thing exists.  willing to be proved wrong) as the end, take it as a clue that the specifics to winning the conflict didn't interest the player(s) as much as getting to the stuff that happens afterwards.

[MatrixGamer]

This "end of the game" idea assumes that there is a goal that the game is working towards. In board game terms it would be "victory" or victory conditions. RPGs are not bound by that so the game could go on (as life does) but one has to ask "Is the game master ready to go on?"

In Matrix Games the answer would be yes. The referee is a functionary of the game, the players make things happen. They can if they choose move on to new goals easily. Not so many RPGs. If the game requires hours of prep time (making NPCs, drawing maps, etc.) then jumping to resolution means the game ends or goes into an ad hoc event that suffers for it's spur of the moment creation.

So stopping the army can be a game wrecker if that is all that the game host is prepared for. The player has spoiled the evening for the others. Bad player!

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Andrew Cooper]

Chris,

I agree with you.  I was assuming that the question was regarding a game where Conflict Resolution was the norm.  If you're shoe-horning Conflict Resolution into another game (like D&D) you might need to limit the scope some.  Most of the games I've seen where Conflict Resolution is the norm (The Pool, TSoY, FATE, etc) don't have huge prep times so skipping past one thing to get to the next wouldn't be a huge, hairy deal.

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

Conflict Resolution works by:

1) Establishing how a specific set of Stakes are resolved, such as D&D's Hitpoints, Dust Devil's devils, Sorcerer's Humanity,

or

2) Setting it up for the group to establish what the Stakes are from the outset, such as Trollbabe's Goals,

or

3) Pointing to who establishes how things get resolved, such as Universalis, Donjon, or Inspectres

The limits to "how far" may be established as part of system(as in #1, or Universalis' coins), or it may be contingent on group consensus (as in Inspectres, Donjon).  So a solid Conflict Resolution mechanic either is very specific, or works as a negotiation tool amongst the group to establish things smoothly.  In other words- setting stakes(and limits) is a requirement in order to HAVE conflict resolution.  

I mean, consider flipping the question- what are the mechanical limitations of Task Resolution?  If I want to convince the King to support my faction, is it 1 roll or 50?  Is it the best of the series, or does one failure screw the pooch, or do I get to keep trying until I get just one success?  Etc.

Chris

[Harlequin]

Coming from another angle, there are some tricks for accomplishing this based on communications protocols.  That is, the manner in which the stakes may be established comes with built-in limitations.

One could make a strong argument that Puppetland's engine is based on this.  The verb tenses and vocal POVs permitted for PCs and the GM respectively create automatic limitations on the scope of stakes.

During an extended cooperative example on Vincent's blog, I submitted a conflict resolution trick wherein the two sides get to describe their outcomes as images only - freeze-frame tableaux.  The explicit intent of this trick was to set the scope of conflict stakes, as well as prodding a more visually oriented and less abstract form of play.  Thus for instance "The city burning" is OK; "Looters ransacking city hall" is a different approach to a similar outcome; "The city government toppled" is not OK.  The quantity and complexity of information about the desired outcome is limited to the bandwidth of the picture you describe.

I'm sure there are other ways to arrange stakes to appropriate scale and scope.  This is just a neat way to do it.  I think Vincent's next edition of DiTV may contain one of his best tips on it I've seen yet: small stakes make (in that game) for good conflicts.  One of the GM's jobs in the negotiating process is to counteract players' natural inclinations to go for the gusto all in one conflict.  This isn't just for reasons of pacing and keeping the story running, though that's an important part of it; the other half of why this is recommended is that it makes Give a useful option, where if the stakes are too big it's simply out of the question.  Increases the diversity of outcomes and the validity/tension of the choices made.

- Eric

[Andrew Morris]

Okay, thanks for the game examples Ron, Jasper, and Chris.

Andrew, I'm looking at examples where the resolution of a conflict removes the reason the players are at the table. If the reason the players sat down was to address the war campaign, stakes like "I end the war" remove the central purpose of the game. Perhaps a better example (though extreme) would be "I end the world and all reality. Nothing survives or continues. Game over." I can't think of any situation where, if successful, this would be enjoyable or allow the players to do anything other than start over.

[Andrew Cooper]

Andrew (heh... nice name),

Okay.  I understand what you are saying but I'm not certain its really a problem.  I say that with the caveat that the players are all sitting down at the table in order to actually address some issue.  For example:

If the players are really sitting down to address the war campaign, then it is unlikely that any of them are going to propose stakes like "I end the war."  Why?  Because that doesn't address any of the reasons that they sat down to play.

Now, if one of the players is playing to address the consequences of the war while the others want to address the actual conduct of the war, then you might run into one player wanting to prematurely end the "war" conflict.  In this case, I find it easiest to handle it by making it so that players don't completely control the stakes.  The stakes must be negotiated and a consensus reached.  In my D&D campaign where I use Conflict Resolution for certain things, the stakes are determined by a discussion between me (the DM) and the player(s) involved.  That keeps what all the players feel is important on the table.  At least, I've never run into a serious problem with that method yet.

As for your extreme example, that's just an example of someone attempting to sabotage the game.  I'm not sure it's worth coming up with rules to even deal with it.  It seems to me that the issue there is more on the Social Contract level and the offending player simply needs to be asked to quit being a dildo or leave.

[Andrew Morris]

Hmm....what about in a game that is expressly competitive between players? I'd think mechanically limited stakes would be almost a requirement for this to work well, but that's just a gut reaction.

[Andrew Cooper]

I would think so but don't take that as gospel.  TonyLB's game, Capes, seems to be highly competitive between players and as far as I can tell there are little to no mechanical limitations on Stakes.  Of course, he or someone else that has played would have to chime in and tell me if that is accurate.

[Andrew Morris]

Sure, but in Capes, I could blow up the moon, then another player could bring it back, and I could blow it up again, then he could bring it back, and so on. That's not acceptable in other game settings. Also, that lack of limitation is a problem to many players.

Well, this is going astray, other-Andrew. If you feel like continuing this topic (whether stakes can "break the game" and how player competition fits in there), I'd suggest opening a new thread.

For now, I'm going to take a closer look at how other games have addressed this issue, but if anyone can recommend other examples or concrete theories on limiting stakes in conflict resolution, I'd appreciate it.

[TonyLB]

Well, the scale of your stakes also has to be relative to what your game is actually about.  For instance, if you're playing a game where your characters are photographers, vying to convey the color and pageantry of real history in the shadowy black and white of film, then saying "Okay, World War II is ending now," isn't even a conflict.  It's just setting the stage for a bunch of photographs of Berlin in flames, and the signing of the peace treaty with the Japanese, and like that.  But the invention of color photography... that's a big deal, probably game-ending.

So, here's an example:  Say you want to shame the mayor of a town into sudden religious fervor, so that he goes out and converts every single living soul to utter purity, cleansing the entire town of sin in a fortnight.

In My Life with Master, the scope of that is almost meaninglessly small.  Maybe it's a single Love overture, or maybe Villainy, but either way it's pretty inconsequential.  None of it lessens the power of the Master in the least (indeed, it probably makes the Master far more horrible).  There is no likely reason to object to such stakes.

In Dogs in the Vineyard, the scope of that is mindbogglingly large.  That's not quite "Game over," but it's certainly "Town is complete."  It addresses all of the things that Dogs are supposed to do, in one fell swoop.  You'd probably want to reject such Stakes.

And in Capes the player tells everyone how big the scope is, by how much is Staked on the Conflict.  But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.