Does Conflict Res = No Roleplaying?

[S'mon]

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.

Yup - IMO this makes highly detailed combat systems like Runequest often positively inferior simulation-wise to the more abstract systems - in a very abstract system the GM can easily describe a greatsword blow as the two warriors locked in a grapple, one using his pommel and striking the victim's back (which seems to be the most common blow in medieval sword combat from what I've seen!); whereas in Runequest or even 3rd edition D&D anything that isn't codified into the combat system feels 'wrong'.  Personally I love Heroquest's quick-conflict resolution system for combats (and most other tasks); it gets the rolling over quickly and lets the GM & players concentrate on the description and roleplay.  My only criticism would be that calculating the modifiers in HQ can be a pain, this was one of the things that discouraged the ex-HQ player in my group.  He didn't want to have to specify the 6 things affecting his attempt to convince some NPC, he just wanted to play out the conversation and maybe make a roll if called for, but a roll of d20 + some fixed number ("Diplomacy" or whatever), with any complicated calculating going on on the GM's side of the table.

[droog]

My only criticism would be that calculating the modifiers in HQ can be a pain, this was one of the things that discouraged the ex-HQ player in my group.

You could try seeing this as a feature, not a bug. Building augments in HQ is one of your big chances for 'roleplaying' and dramatic description. If you don't care about a conflict enough to be involved in that process, you probably shouldn't be in that conflict.

Conflict resolution in HQ works fine without any augments at all. If you don't want to bother, you can just roll a d20 vs the resistance. But if you play off the dice instead of against them; if you use the cues and opportunities that augmenting an ability throws up; you may discover a new and powerful source of creativity.

[Brand_Robins]

You could try seeing this as a feature, not a bug. Building augments in HQ is one of your big chances for 'roleplaying' and dramatic description.

Indeed it is, when done well.

There is a thread in the lumpley games forum about Dogs that also makes excellent advice about HQ augments right here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15532

[S'mon]

My only criticism would be that calculating the modifiers in HQ can be a pain, this was one of the things that discouraged the ex-HQ player in my group.

You could try seeing this as a feature, not a bug. Building augments in HQ is one of your big chances for 'roleplaying' and dramatic description. If you don't care about a conflict enough to be involved in that process, you probably shouldn't be in that conflict.

I don't necessarily disagree, from my limited experience playing HQ the simple conflict system worked well - playing reverse Pool where you get dice for failed attempts was different, it made for what I think inappropriate Gamism as I deliberately failed lots of conflicts so as to build up an invincible pile of dice I could deploy on anything that really mattered, or just hoard Fafnir-style.  :)  I didn't like the HQ extended conflict resolution system at all though, it seemed to get in the way of visualsing what was actually happening.

I didn't see the sessions that caused my D&D group ex-HQ player to stop playing HQ.  In my D&D game he plays Wizards and seems very happy to do lots of calculations re spell effects.  But he seemed very unhappy about HQ, that it was making things difficult that ought to be easy.  When I run my D&D game, significant character interaction is rolelplayed out in-character and the character sheets are rarely referred to; I'll request a Diplomacy etc check if I'm unsure how an NPC will react to some proposal but if it's clear I don't need to.  The player told me he enjoys the roleplaying in my current games a lot, that it was easy where roleplaying in HQ was difficult.  Hence the title of this thread reminded me of that - purely subjective of course, but it must have some basis in his perceptions.

[Alan]

The comment that Eggo/Darcy made about how the game "felt more like collaborative storytelling than roleplaying" was made by me. ...The conflict resolution found in The Pool doesn't allow the luxury of time.  ...I found myself constantly worrying about screwing up all the cool ideas that Eggo/Darcy had in the back of him sinister GMish mind.

Hi Glenn,

I think you're just going through an adjustment period, where you're realizing which rules are important to achieving what you want, and how to respond to them.

One thing you might not be aware of is that Conflict Resolution systems do not have to involve giving the player narration rights.  The two are separate techniques -- but they are often combined in narrativist designs because they both support narrativist goals well.

Part of the pressure you're feeling may arise from lingering expectations that whoever narrates is expected to do so solo.  As someone else mentioned, we find that "narration rights" actually work best when viewed as "final arbitration" rights.  The narrator can take all sorts of suggestions from other players and choose what to use.  This process takes the heat off.

Another part of the pressure you're expressing may come from the expectation that the GM has some pre-planned plot that you don't want to interfere with.  In a narrativist game, there is no pre-planned plot.  Story is being created now.  So when you have the final arbitration rights, you have a chance to make part of the plot -- and there's nothing to "screw up" because it isn't there.  You're stepping out into the void, creating a pathway as you go.  

That in itself can be frightening, but it can also be exhilarating -- once one learns to surrender to the process.

Another carryover habit that I've experienced from simulationist play is the belief that there's a "right way" to do or portray something.  This is a kind of perfectionism that can interfere with narrativist play.   While the results of different conflict results must remain "fact," many of the details, especially of character internal motivation, can be left for later interpretation.   Again, this can be counter to simulationist expectations, where the decisions are made largely based on the details, rather than the other way around.  In narrativist play, it's better to have some tolerance for unexplained details, allowing them to be filled in later.

Conflict Resolution does put what the player wants at stake, unlike strict task-based play.  From playing games like DnD and Hero System (not heroquest), I recall many times where the conflict that the players cared about was completely unrelated to any task success determinations.  Players could fail and fail, but if they persisted, the GM would find a way to let them win the conflict stakes.  Conflict resolution takes this option away.  It puts what I care about on the line.  

If you want smaller conflicts, try framing the activities more specificially.  So instead of "dock in time to get the important NPCs off the ship" you might frame this conflict as "dock in the general traffic bay without drawing attention."  With this objective, a failure only bars you from docking without drawing attention -- the options then are not docking at that particular bay, or docking and drawing attention.  Both of which produce situations that can be addressed with further conflict rolls.

I hope this is helpful.

[S'mon]

...I recall many times where the conflict that the players cared about was completely unrelated to any task success determinations.  Players could fail and fail, but if they persisted, the GM would find a way to let them win the conflict stakes.  Conflict resolution takes this option away.  It puts what I care about on the line.  

If you want smaller conflicts, try framing the activities more specificially.  So instead of "dock in time to get the important NPCs off the ship" you might frame this conflict as "dock in the general traffic bay without drawing attention."  With this objective, a failure only bars you from docking without drawing attention -- the options then are not docking at that particular bay, or docking and drawing attention.  Both of which produce situations that can be addressed with further conflict rolls.

Isn't this - using smaller conflicts - another way of letting players fail and fail, yet ultimately succeed in their real goal, though?

I'm not sure if there's a problem with allowing persistence to win out in the end.  It can make for a satisfying story - it's a very common story structure in non-heroic fiction (try watching Hallmark channel!) - and it's not even particularly unrealistic.

[Alan]

Isn't this - using smaller conflicts - another way of letting players fail and fail, yet ultimately succeed in their real goal, though?

I'm not sure if there's a problem with allowing persistence to win out in the end.  It can make for a satisfying story - it's a very common story structure in non-heroic fiction (try watching Hallmark channel!) - and it's not even particularly unrealistic.

Persistence can be pretty boring if the situation does not change.  Task resolution allows players to persist without much change of situation of progress in what we might call the "story."  On the other hand, conflict resolution requires players to progress from the failed conflict and create a new situation, with different details, before another roll can be made.  In a series of "sub" conflict rolls, the events created will accumulate until the players decide to roll to resolve the central conflict -- and once rolled, it is done.  In task resolution (or negotiation), this moment is chosen arbitrarily and is entered into the "facts" of play only by fiat (group or GM depending on group preference).  

Task Resolution and conflict resolution each offer some form of excitement for role-players.   Task resolution excels at generating events within prescribed boundaries, keeping them within certain important content standards and thus maintaining and exploring The Dream, which supports simulationist play.  Both task resolution and conflict resolution work well for Gamist play, where players stepping up to a challenge and player performance are the primary issue.  Conflict resolution, which makes the outcome of events precarious for the _players_ rather than their characters, works well for narrativist play.

So there is nothing "wrong" with either task resolution or conflict resolution -- unless they conflict with the creative agenda your group is  trying to support.

[droog]

When I run my D&D game, significant character interaction is rolelplayed out in-character and the character sheets are rarely referred to; I'll request a Diplomacy etc check if I'm unsure how an NPC will react to some proposal but if it's clear I don't need to.  

I make an analogy with doing theatre: it's fine when everybody gets up and does improv, and can be very amusing, but you get a better show if there's some direction in the process.

I've just finished playing in a game (SWd20--my inauspicious introduction to the world of d20) that sounds very much like what you've described. I found the amount of in-character dialogue they indulged in was rather pointless and tedious. Basically, it seemed to fill the interstices between tasks. Task-resolution can produce this sort of thing, because the performance of a task need not take up significant time nor advance the game. Whereas a good conflict-resolution system can give you an outline script to bounce off, giving you scenes to roleplay (by which I guess you mean 'act out') rather than slices. Characters are best shown off through doing things--making decisions--rather than talking about them (unless you have some real geniuses at the tale).

Which makes me wonder if Harold Pinter is really the theatrical model for many games.

The player told me he enjoys the roleplaying in my current games a lot, that it was easy where roleplaying in HQ was difficult.  Hence the title of this thread reminded me of that - purely subjective of course, but it must have some basis in his perceptions.

Naturally it has a basis in his perceptions. But maybe the GM and players didn't use the system to its fullest potential. It's easy to do that with HQ.

Alternatively, it is difficult to play this way. You're not allowed to 'free roleplay' so much, as the man with the hook is waiting to pull you offstage. Furthermore, your scenes tend to be a lot more focused, so the pressure is stronger.

[S'mon]

Hi Droog

>>I've just finished playing in a game (SWd20--my inauspicious introduction to the world of d20) that sounds very much like what you've described. I found the amount of in-character dialogue they indulged in was rather pointless and tedious. Basically, it seemed to fill the interstices between tasks. Task-resolution can produce this sort of thing, because the performance of a task need not take up significant time nor advance the game. <<

I only roleplay out important stuff - "challenges" - not trivial chitchat! :)  Generally, stuff that is less important or would be boring to play out is resolved abstractly, possibly using a skill roll.  Stuff that appears to be important and looks like it would be fun to play out, like high-level political negotiations, is played out.  Some stuff is roleplayed as an aid to character development, but only where there is something important at stake - possibly gaining an ally or enemy, say.


>>Whereas a good conflict-resolution system can give you an outline script to bounce off, giving you scenes to roleplay (by which I guess you mean 'act out') rather than slices. Characters are best shown off through doing things--making decisions--rather than talking about them (unless you have some real geniuses at the tale).<<

Agree 100%.  Most of what I roleplay out involves important decisions by the PCs re who they are, what they stand for, what goals do they prioritise.  I don't find any problem with using task-resolution to support such narrativist play though.

>>

The player told me he enjoys the roleplaying in my current games a lot, that it was easy where roleplaying in HQ was difficult.  Hence the title of this thread reminded me of that - purely subjective of course, but it must have some basis in his perceptions.

Naturally it has a basis in his perceptions. But maybe the GM and players didn't use the system to its fullest potential. It's easy to do that with HQ.<<

Well the GM is highly competent (Stalkingblue - see Heroquest forum).  AFAIK her other player is happy.

>>Alternatively, it is difficult to play this way. You're not allowed to 'free roleplay' so much, as the man with the hook is waiting to pull you offstage. Furthermore, your scenes tend to be a lot more focused, so the pressure is stronger.<<

That sounds right, I think that's what he didn't like.  He felt he was under pressure.  Your analogy sounds very pertinent - I think playing HQ he felt like he was 'on stage' and under scrutiny, that he could 'fail' to give a satisfactory performance.  Whereas in my game as long as he's willing to enter into character there seems much less risk of failure.  He did once 'fail' in a game of mine when he played a dwarf paladin and we were on different pages re what it meant to be a dwarf and what it meant to be a paladin, but the problem was obvious and easily rectified - don't play dwarf paladins, play a role you're comfortable with (eg elven wizards).  Whereas in HQ I think he found every bit of roleplay uncomfortable, such systems seem almost designed to take you outside your comfort zone.  I think many players don't enjoy that kind of challenge.

[droog]

That sounds right, I think that's what he didn't like.  He felt he was under pressure.  Your analogy sounds very pertinent - I think playing HQ he felt like he was 'on stage' and under scrutiny, that he could 'fail' to give a satisfactory performance.  Whereas in my game as long as he's willing to enter into character there seems much less risk of failure.  He did once 'fail' in a game of mine when he played a dwarf paladin and we were on different pages re what it meant to be a dwarf and what it meant to be a paladin, but the problem was obvious and easily rectified - don't play dwarf paladins, play a role you're comfortable with (eg elven wizards).  Whereas in HQ I think he found every bit of roleplay uncomfortable, such systems seem almost designed to take you outside your comfort zone.  I think many players don't enjoy that kind of challenge.

Fair enough. I can't hack the Gamist pace on most nights. I don't play the horses or the pokies. I don't show up for poker nights because I don't feel like giving my friends money.

But I find HQ very simple in that same area you said you have trouble with (D&D?). The dwarf paladin would have a pretty concrete code of conduct based on his deity. That would be supported by his traits, relationships etc. There would be no question as to how the character was supposed to act, or in what ways he had freedom to act.

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with resolution, but I think it does. What HQ provides is a conflict resolution system that stretches to include all possible conflict, depending only on the abilities used. Because of this, certain personality traits and various loyalties, become important in direct mechanical terms. Therefore, 'correct' character behaviour tends rather to be encouraged than prescribed. People know what role they are supposed to be playing, but they're also free to break that mold, bearing in mind that there are costs to pay for doing so.

[Mike Holmes]

Alan and Droog have covered things pretty well, from my POV, but there are a couple of things I'd like to interject.

First, The Pool doesn't tell the players well how to do narrativism structure overall. It shouldn't have to, really; players know it instinctively. But players of other RPGs will not be used to the general freedom. As such, it's quite possible for a group of gamers to pick up The Pool, and try to play it with a pre-planned plot. So it's not fair to say that they should have played differently - nothing told them to play differently. The Pool is largely silent on the matter of play structure, giving only the most general of comments.

But the observation about what makes it play best is correct. That is the GM should just have a situation into which the players step, and just make up the plot along with the players as things evolve. Because, if one does feel that there is some GM plot to mess up, then it will be odd having conflict resolution rights on the level that the pool gives.

Does that give you a vision on how to play that would work, Glenn? Basically you are, as much as the GM is, also responsible for creating the plot on the fly. The only question is who narrates.

Oh, BTW, you realize that if you make you're roll that, by some interpretations, you're allowed to narrate your character failing? By some interpretations of The Pool, the only thing that's determined by the roll is who gets to narrate, not whether or not one's character succeeds?


On the subject of doing resolution for conflicts that are primarily based on dialog - it'll have to suffice to say that this dichotomy is an age-old one for which I wish I had a name. It comes up frequently as a topic. And to the extent that it is a dichotomy, to the extent to which a roll must automatically take away some of the theoretical autonomy of the player to have the character act as they wish - it's an insoluble dilemma. That is, you're going to come down on one side of it or another, and not like the other sort of play.

But my point about this has always been that this is merely a matter of a false dichotomy, and tradition. That is, in most traditional styles of play, either you roll for something, or you "role-play" it out - meaning giving a first person account of the activity (often just speaking dialog). This, interestingly, leads to the falst "Role-playing" vs "Roll-playing" dichotomy, as well. That you can only do one or the other.

But it's simply not true. All the notes below on the subject say things like, "When we roll it tends to replace dialog." Well, when we play, we have both dialog and first-person presentation.

To spin things around a bit, one could just "role-play" combat. Seems an oxymoron, but, again, "role-playing" when analyzed simply means saying what your character does or says. Well, we could just say stuff like, "I hit it with my big sword, killing it dead," and not roll at all. In fact, freeform groups do exactly this. They "role-play" everything, and never resort to mechanics.

The point is that there's nothing a priori, that makes any particular action something that one needs to use mechanics with. So am I advocating freeform? Not a all. What I'm saying is that mechanics have uses in terms of determining outcomes of character actions. Especially when the character knows how to do things that we do not. It's particularly punitive to not allow a player to play an eloquent character, simply because they are not, themselves, eloquent. Do we prevent weak players from playing strong characters?

Now, the counterargument is that everyone can narrate the neccessary parts of a physical conflict, while it's unaesthetically pleasing to allow a player to narrate their character's dialog if it will not match the results. Well, actually I'd argue that most players can't narrate combat worth crap, either. Having a system in which, "I hit it," is an allowable description of their activity is, to me, not quite high art. Yet it's the RPG standard.

And it should be. RPGs are not about great acting. If you want that, join an improv acting group, and you'll be astounded at how much better they do. RPGs are about players making certain sorts of decisions that create a certain sort of action. And that involves, to some extent, abbreviations of the declarations of actions, where appropriate. Note that this doesn't mean that you can't be eloquent, if you feel like it and are capable. Simply that to require everyone to be so is to make RPGs into something that they're not.

So my conclusion (this ought to be a standard rant), is that, if a player is capable of giving even a cursory abbreviated idea of what their characters intent is in terms of dialog, it's no different than how combat is handled in most games. The equivalent to "I hit it" is "I charm her." Then roll and see what happens.

Does that prevent you from narrating more dialog before or after, or the group having higher standards? Not at all. In point of fact, we'd kick out of my HQ game and player who said, "I hit it" as a declaration of action (in fact, in HQ, that would probably be disallowed by the rules as it's not enough of a statement to get the system to really work). Similarly, if a player avoids narration of dialog without good cause, just because a roll is upcoming, they'd be wrong in my group.

The point being, we have both great IC dialog, and we have resolution. The key, in fact, if you want to look at it closely, is to watch the dialog for the conflict moments, and roll then. It's when the player finally says, "Either you're coming with me, or I'm calling the cops." At that point, if it's plausible for the target character to go either way, then you roll.

This is what conflict resolution is all about. If, in fact, everyone feels that the only result of the conversation is that X would happen, then there's no conflict, is there? So you don't roll. It is, in fact, only when there are these moments where it would be interesting to see which way the target goes that you do roll.

So does that give everyone a functional model? You don't avoid dialog, you engage in it heavily. And then roll when the moment of truth comes up. S'mon, this is precisely what you indicated with the use of Diplomacy skill. You are, already, automatically using conflict resolution. It is, in fact, only when one uses such rolls for task resolution, that you tend to see dialog go away. Because in that case, it really does replace both set up and resolution. Where as conflict resolution depends intrinsically on the players setting up the conflict first before resolution occurs. Meaning that you have to have the preliminary dialog (or some suitable replacement) to discover the conflict.

BTW, once you start playing this way, suddenly the HQ system all starts to make more sense. The player sees that, at the point that the conflict is discovered, just how their character "plugs in" to the conflict. The player reminds himself, and the other players about who they are, and why the conflict is important to them (even if, in some cases, it's to say that they're not particularly involved in this particular conflict - even that's interesting in HQ).

When seen from this POV, as long as the player is looking for their character's "plug ins" dilligently, they're doing their required "duty." That is, if they narrate to conflict, and then show their character's attatchment to it via augmenting, then they can and do feel that they've done their part. Basically they worry about fun before satisfiying anyone else - that part happens automatically.

HQ, played from this POV, has been remarkably effective for me.

Mike

[S'mon]

So does that give everyone a functional model? You don't avoid dialog, you engage in it heavily. And then roll when the moment of truth comes up. S'mon, this is precisely what you indicated with the use of Diplomacy skill. You are, already, automatically using conflict resolution.

Oh, ok... :)
I already knew I was doing something a bit different from either side of what's discussed as 'roleplay vs rollplay', this kinda makes me see things in a new light.  Thanks.  :)
So, in that case, my player doesn't have a problem with conflict resolution - he seems to very much like the way I run character interaction - but with something else, possibly the un-Gamist nature of Heroquest and its mechanics.  He enjoys success/fail very much in what I'd say were Gamist terms (ie step-on-up to beat the in-game challenge), and doesn't like or appreciate the enjoyable failure paradigm that's popular with the rest of his group.  That might be something to do with it.

[S'mon]

To spin things around a bit, one could just "role-play" combat. Seems an oxymoron, but, again, "role-playing" when analyzed simply means saying what your character does or says. Well, we could just say stuff like, "I hit it with my big sword, killing it dead," and not roll at all. In fact, freeform groups do exactly this. They "role-play" everything, and never resort to mechanics.

I've seen this work very well in PBEMs.  I think it may require certain talents that are a bit rarer than the ability to talk, though - almost every human being understands character to character interaction and the basics of how it functions, relatively few understand swordfighting at even the level necessary to replicate cool movie or literary battles.  So in freeform combat either it's totally abstracted (admittedly, plenty of literature takes this approach -even within S&S Moorcockian battles are a very different matter from Leiberish or REHish blood & guts) or only a minority of players can really participate.

[Mike Holmes]

So, in that case, my player doesn't have a problem with conflict resolution - he seems to very much like the way I run character interaction - but with something else, possibly the un-Gamist nature of Heroquest and its mechanics.

Well, if it's Kerstin's other player, then that's what she indicated previously. And actually this might be why he doesn't like conflict resolution for "role-playing" moments, actually. That is, what he really wants is more likely task resolution. Since task resolution can sometimes be used to replace dialog, as mentioned, then he worries that that there's that either/or dichotomy. That is, if you go to resolving, there's no way to have the player's skill come into play.

In fact, that's generally true. A lot of Gamism in RPGs comes down to using the correct series of tasks. Cast this spell, use this weapon with this maneuver. Then finish him off with a shove into the fire pit. Task, task task. When you resolve a dialog, there's just one step, meaning no chance for player tactical ability to come to the fore - you just roll the dice and see what happens. So the gamist, with dialog, often prefers to talk their way out of a situation as the way of demonstrating their skill. Basically these situations become technically "puzzles" which the player has to indicate his character as saying the right thing to get out of. Thus system is avoided in order to enable gamism.

This is generally the problem with conflict resolution and gamism. Too few steps means that there's no chance for the player to interject their decision-making skills into the process to determine whether or not they played well. If the dice just determine the result, then there's no test of skill.

To be very clear, conflict resolution in narrativism has little to nothing to do with "protagonism." That is, the players ability to make a character look good or generally to be a protagonist tends to come all before or after contests in the narrations leading up or following the resolution, or use of mechanics at these points. IOW, there's nothing at all that's terribly narrativism about HQ's basic resolution mechanic - alone it's a "get out of the way" sort of mechanism that doesn't take too much time with other stuff to get in the way. What makes HQ really narrativism enabling is the augmenting leading up to a contest (theoretically this is where one would find the gamism, too, but one can quickly see how, sans limits, this is a flawed way to play HQ), and the choice to spend HP following the roll.

As Ron says, FitM with "teeth." These are where the player shows their character's facets and decisions. Even in an extended contest, it's really all about color and the ability to change your mind last second, not about winning/losing.

Mike

[S'mon]

So, in that case, my player doesn't have a problem with conflict resolution - he seems to very much like the way I run character interaction - but with something else, possibly the un-Gamist nature of Heroquest and its mechanics.

Well, if it's Kerstin's other player, then that's what she indicated previously.

Yup, it's Ravi - I don't think I've read all of Kerstin's threads re her game.