Does Conflict Res = No Roleplaying?

[Andrew Cooper]

I think Conflict Res does cut down on a *little* bit of "role-playing." For example, let's say you want to convince a guard to let you through a locked door. With stock Task Res, the players essentially have to convince the GM (or whoever) to let them do what they want. If the GM isn't going for it, the players can just keep going for as long as they want, or until the GM gives in.

Not too take this too far off topic but I don't see Task Resolution doing this.  Standard D&D 3e (which is Task Resolution) would have the character make a Bluff or Diplomacy check in this instance and then succeed or fail off that roll.  Those folks who use the "role-playing" method that you describe aren't really using Task Resolution at all.  In fact, I'm not sure what they are using.

[Mike Holmes]

You're right, Andrew. And what they're using is negotiation. The argument is "If my character said X, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the guard would let me pass?" It's a valid sort of resolution - any sort can be abused.

Mike

[timfire]

Negotiation, yeah, that's what I meant.

My point was that IME many people call that sort of IC negotiation "role-playing," because they don't realize that's what they're doing. And I think mainstream games (most w/ task res) assumes that sort of negogiation will happen, while most Forge-type games (most w/ conflict res) assume those same situation will be covered by the dice. As such, you'll see less "role-playing"/IC negotiation in Forge-type games.

[Mike Holmes]

What it comes down to, largely, is the association of narrative voice with certain stances and styles. To get "immersive" sim, it's assumed that you need to "be" the character, meaning most importantly that you speak for the character.

Nar play doesn't require this, just that you get to create themes, so you can do this fine with third person produced by conflict resolution.

Note that there is no automatic link between these things, just player preferences in how they effect the sought after modes and stances. Warren, for instance, is making this connection - but it's not a priori the case.

Mike

[Callan S.]

I might be wrong, but I thought conflict resolution used to give you material to roleplay about, rather than roleplay anything that was involved in the conflict?

So if you were digging up dirt on your enemy and you wanted to get it from his safe, you might sneak past his security, search the place for the hidden safe, then go on to crack it. Usually this requires a whole bunch of task rolls. Here you'd resolve it with one conflict roll.

After one conflict roll, you can then start intensely roleplaying about what are you going to do with this dirt, how to best lay it on him...or oh crap, I've just been caught in his house and there's no hope of getting that dirt!

Have I gotten conflict resolution wrong? Why would you roleplay/narrate sneaking in, searching, etc after you've done the roll. I thought conflict resolution revolved around essentially skipping all that so you get right to the interesting part (having the dirt). That's where the roleplay should really begin.

[Valamir]

Because sometimes the How is every bit as entertaining (or more) as the what.

Because it provides depth and detail and the opportunity to generate new points of contact with the setting that might otherwise have been ignored.

Or simply because given the opportunity to roleplay something cool...why wouldn't you?

[Darcy Burgess]

Sorry to start the thread and then bail, but RL intervenes.

Opening caveat: I/we don't necessarily see what happened at the game last night as a problem (we had a hoot).  We were just really surprised with how much the feel of the game changed.  As the eternally paranoid GM, I wanted to make sure that our results weren't an aberration.

To try and tackle everyone's queries, I'll start with an example and then expound with some anecdotal evidence.

Example: the story thus far --

PCs have discovered a plot to attack a diplomatic conference.  Several important (to the PCs) NPCs are at this conference, which is being staged on a huge starliner orbiting a nearby planet.

After some shennanigans involving being denied docking privileges (because they're piloting a pirate corsair...), the players decide to try docking on the starliner using the actual attack as cover.  We frame the stakes as "dock in time to get the important NPCs off the ship".  The pilot character rolls and flubs.

I narrate that the pirate attack cripples the starliner, and that it starts breaking up as its orbit decays.

The players elect to pursue it to the surface, hoping that there will be some survivors.

>cut ahead several scenes<

The players elect to split up on the surface, with 2 character boarding the starliner and the third remaining on the corsair to resuce survivors (the planet is 95% water, and the starliner went down in the ocean).

Character A's stakes are to find the Abbot (the local Jedi spiritual leader) before the starliner sinks.

B's stakes are to find her foster father (also a Jedi) with the same time restraints as A's.

C's stakes are to rescue as many survivors as possible.  [side note, this felt a little weak in terms of being a true conflict.  conflict against what?  why are these otherwise purely colour NPCs worthy of a conflict?  there was no internal conflict for the PC, etc...but I wanted to encourage player involvement, especially first time out, so for metagame reasons I let it slide as a conflict]

A & C succeed, B fails.  However, A's pool is down to 2 dice, so he elects to go for the extra die, leaving the narrative rights to me.  C takes the MoV.

Here's where things get a little hairy.  I pretty much exhort C that "he better make the narration worthy of a conflict roll.  Don't just give us a wanky little colour scene"  I'm also simultaneously dealing with the fact that A&B have separate results but actually boarded the ship together.

The narrative(s) didn't unfold exactly as I'm about to outline, as I was using the cinematic technique of cutting between narratives as they unfolded, but I think I've got the guts of them.

A (success narrated solely by me, with a little input regarding "character style" from the player) -- unexpectedly, he leaves B at the entry point stalking off down a hallway.  As he enters the turbolift, he turns to B and utters "this place is strong with the dark side".

B (failure narrated solely by me) -- stands aghast, confused as to why A has left her alone.  Wanders aimlessly, looking for her father

C (success narrated by the player) -- quick colour of various people being rescued from escape pods.  THEN she has the opportunity to rescue an NPC from his past -- someone who he hates *a lot* --

A -- (my narration continues) finds the abbot in what appears to be the aftermath of a battle.  The abbot is wounded, and a well-dressed man is hunched over him.  It appears as if the well-dressed man is tending to him.

here endeth the example.  obviously, in the moment it was full of more embellishments, colour, and description.  we all enjoyed throwing lots of star wars stuff (electing on the fly to make the interior of the starliner very similar to the blockade runner at the beginning of ep IV, frex) and exercising our creative muscles.

some comments that came out of the game:

"It doesn't feel like roleplaying.  It feels like we're just doing interactive storytelling."

"The system really doesn't do much but say who gets to talk"

"Maybe we don't need the system except during fight scenes"

I really dig the idea that the rolls themselves merely dictate the general outcome of the applicable roleplaying scene.

Again, I need to stress that *no one* was saying that the game was bad.  Personally, I really enjoy big sweeping stuff -- If it were up to me, every game would be like last night's.  However, I know that several of my players have different preferences.  Two are fairly "character first" types, who really enjoy getting into their characters' shoes.  One really enjoys "winning" (I guess it sounds like I've got two simmers and one gamer?) -- but *everyone* still had fun.  We really liked how the story moved and progressed, and I found it incredibly rewarding to be forced to work with the players on the fly to deal with stuff.  However, I think that it's part of my job as GM to find a way to inject as much of the kind of stuff that my players enjoy, too.  That's what I'm looking for.

[Darcy Burgess]

Also, I've heard several people say something to the effect that "conflicts don't have to be big".

I still can't wrap my head around that one.  I understand the basic difference between conflict and task (stipulating stakes as opposed to stipulating methodology), but I can't see how multiple conflicts can be nested within a larger conflict.

Isn't conflict res inherently 'chunkier' in scope than task?  Can't task res (theoretically) be broken down into smaller and smaller chunks (Recon anyone?  did the bullet deflect off of your watch?), whereas there is a "lower end" to the conflict res scale?

How could I have broken "get to the Abbot before the starliner sinks" into smaller conflicts without it smacking of task res?

[TonyLB]

Well, there's two things.  First, how you work multiple overlapping conflicts.  Let's look at the example:  Here's a way that I can see breaking down the idea of getting the Abbot off the starliner before it sinks:[list=1][*]Goal:  Abbot doesn't get hurt
[*]Goal:  Get Abbot away from starliner
[*]Goal:  Get Abbot back to our space-ship
[*]Goal:  I don't get hurt doing this[/list:o]Any of those can either succeed or fail, independently of all the others.  If you succeed at: 1 and 3, then you get the Abbot back to the space-ship unharmed, but get hurt doing it.  Then you learn that you cannot get the space-ship away from the starliner.  Which is, y'know, a problem... but a fun one.

If you succeed at 2, 4 then the Abbot gets hurt, and you can't get him back to your ship.  But you manage to escape without a scratch, and get him away from the liner, presumably by some other means (escape pod?  cleverly rigged food cannister?)  Which is still a problem, and again a fun one.

So that's how you can deal with multiple conflicts.  The second thing is how many choices (on the part of the players) go in between declaring the stakes and resolving the conflict.

It sounds (though I don't know the Pool well enough to be sure) like there were no in-character decisions or actions being taken between declaring the stakes and finding out the resolution of the conflict.  And, frankly, it sounds like that more than anything was the cause of your concerns.

Rest assured that's only one way of doing Conflict Resolution.  Dogs in the Vineyard and Capes (just to grab two systems I know well) have most of their action take place between declaring stakes and knowing who wins.  Resolving a Conflict is often just a matter of saying "Okay, now we stop taking actions, because that last action there cinched it."

Anyway, I'm not sure that I've correctly guaged your concern.  But if the lack of intermediate steps is, in fact, what is robbing you of fun then you should check out some of the systems that have more intermediate steps.

[Warren]

What it comes down to, largely, is the association of narrative voice with certain stances and styles. To get "immersive" sim, it's assumed that you need to "be" the character, meaning most importantly that you speak for the character.

Nar play doesn't require this, just that you get to create themes, so you can do this fine with third person produced by conflict resolution.

Note that there is no automatic link between these things, just player preferences in how they effect the sought after modes and stances. Warren, for instance, is making this connection - but it's not a priori the case.

Whilst I am making this connection, I do realise that it's not essential. The point I'm trying to make is that non-Forge types, IME, used to a Sim/Actor stance with Task Resolution will often make the same assumption that I (and it sounds like Eggo's group as well) did when confronted with Narratvist Conflict Resolution for the first time. Is this a known issue that just needs to be 'unlearnt', or are there ways and means to introduce this?

Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread slightly -- now back to your normal programming.

[Mike Holmes]

No, it's an important point, Warren, not really a detour. You're quite right that this is the standard for most players, or at least the perception of the standard.

What's interesting is, if you watch "Standard" play, you'll often note how people switch up using voices, despite the standard being in place. Sometimes it's a "mistake" (meaning really that they found a use for a different voice that violates the standard without realizing it), or sometimes they do it deliberately as an artistic move.

In any case, as far as a need to "unlearn" it, two points. First, there is no imperative - as I've pointed out, you can, in fact, continue with your original standard just fine. It's a bit more difficult, I'd say, but it might be very rewarding. Second, if you do want to "unlearn" it, I think that, as Darcy notes, it happens pretty naturally. All you have to "unlearn" is the feeling that this is not "roleplaying." Or, rather, just to stop worrying about whether or not it is "roleplaying" or not.

It is what it is (as my carpenter often said while building my addition on my house). You either enjoy it or you don't. What's interesting is that, being distictly different, what I've found is that I now have two forms of the hobby (more really) that I enjoy. It's just something to mix up and do alternating with the other form.


Callan, when playing Hero Quest, which is distinctly Conflict Resolution oriented (the text has some of the best non-technical descriptions of how to organize Conflict Resolution, including stating that the player must state their characters goal), there is also a rule that you must, in fact, narrate the details of everything that happens. It uses some interesting language to say this ("Hero Quest is a talking game..."), but it's pretty clear that you must narrate.

So, let's look how a HQ simple contest (I'm using the harder example, using extended contests is like shooting fish in a barrel) works with the example you give. The goal is to get past the various security methods to get the dirt on the guy. You make the roll with a marginal success. Per the HQ rules, the narrator narrates (I'm not too fond of this restriction on who narrates, but it's how the rules are written). So, in this case, the narrator might say:

You manage to get past the guard, and open the safe, getting the files that you're looking for. But on the way out, the guard sees you sneaking away, and starts to chase you.

Why narrate the results? Well the narrator has to say something. He could just go to the conclusion, sure: "You stand now, outside of the building with a smug look on your face, holding a file with the information you need inside of it. A guard sees you as you're leaving, however and gives chase."

And that's fine in certain cases. But why not narrate the intervening action? It doesn't have to take any longer - in fact my version was shorter detailing how it was done. In either case, you end up at the same point after the resolution is complete. You do, in fact, "Get to" the interesting part quickly.

Because you don't have to resolve each individual task step separately. The Narrator is free to make up the results of each step as they make sense in delineating the outcome.

See, this is Fortune in the Middle in action. FitM doesn't say that you ignore the "how" it says that you come up with it post determination of success by the fortune step. Meaning that you can narrate anything that's interesting, so long as you end up with the right mechanically indicated result.

Which is awesomely empowering. One huge problem, IMO, with most task-based resolution, is that they break things down into tasks by the mechanical rolls that the system offers to make. So, looking at the example case, players will tend to see a "sneak" roll, followed by a "safecracking" roll, and then another "sneak" roll. And that provides a fine and sensible solution. But the resulting narrations are typically "you sneak by" and "you open the safe." With the FitM resolution, I might say something like:

You distract the guard with a phone call, and just walk by his station when he's not there. Then you use acid to dissolve the safe's hinges, and take the file you need. On the way out, the guard is back from the call, and catches you.

Not a great example. But the point is that using FitM, I've changed my narrations from "typical" in result each time, to very creative. Nowhere is this more visible than in "combat." I don't have "combat" any more, for which I'm eternally greatful to conflict resolution. Instead, I have cases where one person wants a bauble, and the other doesn't want them to get it, as their goals, and they're both willing to use their fighting abilities to prevent the other from succeeding.

Isn't that a combat? Well, what it won't look like is an exchange of blows that's typical of combats in other RPGs - which all tend to look a bit like large-scale abstractions wargames brought down to an individual level (since that's where the rules come from). I'll end up describing people grunting in the dirt, pressing each others faces into their blades. I mean, you've seen this a hundred times in the movies, but how many times have you seen it in an RPG? The reason you haven't seen it is because the task-based resolution can't be varied enough to account for it.

Oh, sure, a GM can force task-based rule systems to do this. But with Conflict Resolution, it's just the fun sort of narration that naturally occurs from statintg the outcome of a roll. You aren't constrained by the "what would occur" outcome indicated by the task system. For instance, in say, GURPS, you're instructed to roll to hit, and then for damage, and then for hit location. There's no chance that you accidentally disarm your opponent as the result of trying to stop them. There's no result on the charts that say that the character used the pommel of the sword instead of the sharp end (which according to Mr. Norwood is actually quite common in certain close circumstances, IIRC). There's no result that says that you just scare the other guy off with your skill. Well, actually there is, if you use a whole slew of optional rules. But the point is that all of the realistic and dramatically interesting things that could be narrated in a fight can happen using conflict resolution. With Task resolution, at best you have to "bend" the normal interpretation of the result to get such interesting things to happen.

Note that, yes, I even make people narrate dialog in many cases. Not all - I'll accept, "Fahja says a few choice words, and scares them off," sometimes. But just as often I'll narrate something like:

Fahja says, "Begone you curs, before I make eunuchs of you!"


Why would I want to pass up an opportunity to have cool lines (well, as cool as I can make them), in the game?

Note in the example with the guard, too, how because of the marginal nature of the success, I took that as an opportunity to create new conflict. This is another feature of careful narration of conflict resolution. Done right, resolving a conflict doesn't have to bring an end to the series of conflicts that are currently happening. You can use the narration to open up other conflict. Even on a marginal success. With task resolution, since it only resolves that one element as pass/fail, in most cases, the result indicated seems to speak agains this happening. That is, if I succeed at my sneak rolls, then having the guard chase me seems to be the GM messing with my rolled success - voiding it, really. With conflict resolution, it doesn't say precisely how the goal was acheived, leaving the narration open to such interpretation (depending on the system as a whole).

So, why narrate the results of Conflict Resolution? Because it rocks! I wouldn't have it any other way.

Mike

[jburneko]

For the breaking down big conflicts into little sub-conflicts without losing sight of the big conflicts may I recommend examining the following mechanics:

Trollbabe - A Goal for the Trollbabe is stated at the top of the conflict.  The the scale for the resolution system is chosen.  The scale is basically how small of a chunk you want to break the uber-goal into.  One to three rolls of the dice (note: that each of these involves up to three re-rolls).  So that's a range of 1 to 9 actual rolls of the dice and "exchanges" of sub conflicts within the uber Goal.  If any of the sub rolls fail, the whole Goal fails.

Capes - Similar to Trollbabe in that the uber-goal is written down on an index card.  Dice are rolled multiple times on either "side" of the goal.  Each die roll rosolves sub-conflicts within the uber goal.

HeroQuest - The Extended Conflicts rules.  Basically the uber-goal awards a number of points for each side depending on the "how" of tackling the conflict.  Sub-conflicts move points back and forth representing advantage.  When one side runs out of points the uber-goal is decided.

The Shadow of Yesterday - The Bringing Down The Pain rules.  Very similar to HeroQuest.  An uber-goal is stated and then a series of sub-conficts are rolled out until one side "collapses."

The problem with The Pool is that it contains no formal mechanics for breaking down the conflicts.  You have to do that youself.  The group has to decide where they want to draw the line.  Do you want to resolve finding and rescuing the Abbot in one go?  Or do you want to break it into two conflicts, first finding then rescuing.  If the finding fails, well then, the rescuing is moot.

I think if you look at the mechanics in the other games I've discovered you'll get a feel for how big conflicts get broken up into smaller conflicts formally.  Then you can probably do it with ease without the formal structure in place.

Jesse

[hermes]

As one of the aforementioned players in Eggo/Darcy's Star Wars game (Character A, to be exact), I think I can throw in a few comments of my own.  First, let it be said that we all enjoyed the game, regardless of whether we were floundering helplessly without a clue as to what we were doing or blazing through the storyline at lightspeed.  Having said that, I, for one, had a very hard time grappling with a number of things.

The comment that Eggo/Darcy made about how the game "felt more like collaborative storytelling than roleplaying" was made by me.  I actually enjoy collaborative storytelling, but it's not what I was expecting and I don't believe that it's what was intended.  Collaborative storytelling usually allows for lots of time to think about where you want to take the story.  The conflict resolution found in The Pool doesn't allow the luxury of time.  You roll...you succeed...you make something up on the fly.  Improv can be fun, but I found myself constantly worrying about screwing up all the cool ideas that Eggo/Darcy had in the back of him sinister GMish mind.  As such, I preferred to hold back and let him do the narration as much as possible--in fact, I found myself actively trying to avoid taking control of the action at times.

I also struggled with finding ways to roleplay around the conflict resolution.  For example, at one point in the story we wanted to contact the luxury liner to ask for permission to dock with her, but I didn't want to give away too much information with respect to our identity until I had some idea of what might be happening on board the ship.  Our attempt to gain permission to dock was framed as a simple conflict; however, since it was early in the session and I didn't think this was a make it or break it roll, I chose not to risk any dice and suffered a miserable failure.  As a result, that avenue of gaining entrance to the ship was barred to us.  In a more traditional RPG I might have been asked to simply make a Fast Talk or Persuasion roll based on some attributes or skills.  Or, following the conventions of our style of play, Eggo/Darcy and I would have roleplayed most of the sequence and my success or failure might have been based entirely on the results of that (or he would have called for a roll at some point but given me bonuses or penalties based upon how well or poorly I talked my way through it).  The big difference, as far as I can see, is that I would have had an opportunity to work towards success in a more fluid fashion using the traditional roleplaying method rather than conflict resolution (i.e. I could alter my "angle of verbal attack" based upon the sort of reaction or information that I receive from the GM during the course of the roleplay which allows a lot more leeway in terms of being able to screw up a little and still succeed in the end instead of letting it all come down to one big roll).

I wanted to comment on something that Mike brought up.  Here it is:

You manage to get past the guard, and open the safe, getting the files that you're looking for. But on the way out, the guard sees you sneaking away, and starts to chase you.

This can all be narrated, as Mike pointed out, by the result of a single conflict resolution roll.  My problem is that I'm just not comfortable with the idea of lumping all of that together into one roll.  I readily admit that I prefer to break it down into smaller components specifically because that allows chance to determine where the dramatic elements occur.  I might succeed at my foll to get past the guard and may also break into the safe without too much trouble.  But what if I then fail my roll to locate the files I need?  That's when I, as a player, need to improvise and come up with another solution in a hurry.  I am playing in a reactionary mode--something that I think I enjoy and tend to thrive on.  The conflict resolution model doesn't really allow for that in the same way.  It suddenly becomes a big (here it is again) make it or break it roll.  With conflict resolution I am put in a position where I have to tell the story.  With a more traditional system, the GM is the one telling the story and I am reacting to it and trying to affect it in a far more limited fashion.  I find this easier because I am acting and thinking for myself and not for the rest of the game world (leaving that task to the GM).

Anyway, I'm rambling at this point so I'll leave off here and allow my brain to mellow for a bit.  I probably shouldn't post after a long day of work.  :)   Suffice it to say, a good time was had by all, but we're still trying to get a handle on The Pool and this whole concept of conflict resolution...well, I am anyway.

Hermes/Glenn

[Darcy Burgess]

Hey Glenn, thanks for popping in and adding another perspective on the session.

(as a sidenote to all -- eggo is the handle.  feel free to use my real name, too.  thanks Mike.  Not a lot of people call Ralph "valamir", so it kind of feels weird -- is there some sort of Forge initiation rite that I have to pass to get the same treatment as everyone else who carries a handle & a rn?  but I digress...)

I hadn't considered how much conflict res can put the players "on the spot" -- as our groups usual GM, I'm used to being in those shoes (we all know that in most "oldskool" games, the players invariably leave your well-laid plans reeling after about 2 seconds)

I want to type a bit more on this issue, but I just heard some thunder in the not-too-distant distance, so I'll have to log off to save what's left of my decrepit computer.

[S'mon]

Judging by a player of mine in my D&D campaign who recently quit another GM's Heroquest game, the answer is definitely "yes".  He said he enjoyed roleplaying in my game because he didn't have to worry about it, he could just speak in-character and do what came naturally, ie roleplay and have fun.  Whereas playing Heroquest he had to concentrate on the conflict resolution mechanics and worry about what he was doing, what the goal was, etc.  I've had a similar experience with Nar gaming as a player, with Heroquest and The Pool - once the dice come out the roleplaying falters.  It's even a danger in D&D/d20 now because of the character interaction skills, where a "Diplomacy roll" can substitute for actually playing out a conversation, but this is much easier to elide by the GM only calling for rolls when he feels like it, and only using them as a rough guide to NPC reaction.  Whereas with Nar games they seem fundamental to the systems.