I want to roll more dice!

[TonyLB]

Okay, two things:  First, this is in RPG Theory, not Indie Game Design.  Therefore I don't have to have a specific goal for designing a specific non-conflict system.  I'm talking about the general class, and any systems I've put forth are purely by way of example.

Second:  Conflict Resolution systems are random too.  So if that's what you like... why aren't they dream-breaking?  And whatever makes them acceptable, why can't it be applied to non-conflict issues?

You say that having a system for non-conflict issue would lose "tension".  But having a system for resolving conflicts doesn't?  Why?

[Callan S.]

Tony, you have to remember an entirely random set up, like I've seen in the examples so far, doesn't contain any causality. You just get the result that happens. Gamists vibe off it for a conflict, nar essentially do the same, while simulationists go 'eh? Where's my damn causality?"

Not a problem to me, but it may be at the root of any non groking here. But I think your idea could easily contain causality as well (if one wanted it), if it goes from chart to chart (or whatever) in a clear temporal progression.

Hell, I can imagine some simulationists rolling all day on some series of charts that just involves being in a bar, drinking, flirting, whatever, without actually using any of it to riff off of for some greater conflict. All as long as it nails their causality needs.

[Remko]

Okay, two things:  First, this is in RPG Theory, not Indie Game Design.  Therefore I don't have to have a specific goal for designing a specific non-conflict system.  I'm talking about the general class, and any systems I've put forth are purely by way of example.

Second:  Conflict Resolution systems are random too.  So if that's what you like... why aren't they dream-breaking?  And whatever makes them acceptable, why can't it be applied to non-conflict issues?

You say that having a system for non-conflict issue would lose "tension".  But having a system for resolving conflicts doesn't?  Why?

Tony...

1. Okey, kewl. I simply wondered why you would like to have such a system.

2. CR systems only roll when neccesary. On that moment, there is an surplus value to the fact you're rolling: you're rolling because you want to have a random factor to decide something really important and create tension by the randomness. How  do you create tension in this fashion? Because there is something at stake for your characters goals (Sim / Nar) or your players goals (Nar / Gam).

When you would like to roll for something not important, the roll wouldn't give any surplus value over simply deciding whats the situation, unless the roll would possibly create a situation in which something is at stake. In any other case, IMHO it's nothing more than a dice roll and a waste of time. When you're just rolling for the rolling, thoughts of the players are away of the story.

[M. J. Young]

John:  The GM wants his fighter to spill Ripper's entrails.  You, as a player, don't want that to happen.  The fact that there are entirely different things that two of you aren't conflicted over... I don't see why that's relevant.

Sorry to go back a few days, Tony, but John is right. This is not about the referee wanting his character to spill your character's guts. This is about the referee determining that his character would act in this situation as if he wanted to spill your character's guts. The referee might be sitting there praying for a botch, so that the character will not succeed in finishing you. In a different context, you might be hoping that this next blow is going to be a really dramatic injury to you because it will increase the drama of the story, or will demonstrate the odds against which you are contending, or will seem so much more as if this is a powerful fighter you're facing (i.e., that desire is not necessarily creative agendum specific).

John made the distinction between a conflict involving disagreement between players at the table on the one hand and a conflict involving opposing imputed desires of fictional characters on the other. It's a valid distinction, and relevant to determining when mechanics are invoked.

To use the combat example, if the mechanics are invoked whenever there is a conflict between characters in the game, there are going to be rolls to determine who hits whom and how much damage is done, or some similar means of reconciling this. If on the other hand the mechanics are only invoked when the players conflict, then in this situation it's entirely possible for the narrated result to be, "He dealt you a nasty wound which will require bandaging, but you finished him off in your response." As long as we're all agreed that this represents the fight adequately, mechanics are not invoked, because the players aren't disagreeing.

Let me suggest a possible use of randomizers that would apply when players are in agreement as to what they want but does not involve task success or even really conflict success. The Multiverser general effects roll creates a bell curve ranging from the worst possible outcome to the best possible outcome, as perceived from the player's wishes. In one sense, this roll tells the referee whether he can give the player what the player wants, or has to oppose the player's desires. Of course, there's a degree to which causality-linked task resolution and outcome-linked conflict resolution do this as well, but this roll does it directly.

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

When you would like to roll for something not important, the roll wouldn't give any surplus value over simply deciding whats the situation, unless the roll would possibly create a situation in which something is at stake.

Remember rules don't/can't force a player to feel something is at stake. Whenever you roll, at some level you decide if this has an important stake for you as a player.

[Remko]

When you would like to roll for something not important, the roll wouldn't give any surplus value over simply deciding whats the situation, unless the roll would possibly create a situation in which something is at stake.

Remember rules don't/can't force a player to feel something is at stake. Whenever you roll, at some level you decide if this has an important stake for you as a player.

Perhaps they can't, but they can create situations in which is something at stake.

Anyhow, I don't see any surplus value of rolling all sorts of so-called 'flavour stuff', while you simply can decide them by your own, which doesn't ask of you to roll endless dice.

The only situation you could use it to increase tension (an only when used sparingly), is when you use it as a role to create paranoia with your players. Especially with gamism and simulationism, this could work.

[TonyLB]

2. CR systems only roll when neccesary.

They're never necessary.  You can always negotiate, rather than referring things to a rules system.  You use the rules system because it adds something beyond simply deciding what will happen in a particular situation.

For instance, if two PCs disagree, the characters can talk it through in-game and the players can come to some sort of resolution without ever resorting to a rules system.  But if you use the conflict rules from Dogs in the Vineyard your conversation will be different.  If you're looking for escalation, give-and-take, and long-term consequences then running the conversation under DitV rules will probably generate a better scene than negotiating.  Certainly that's been the case in all the DitV games I've played and run.

So, why would you make rules for (for instance) narrative flavor?  Because a properly crafted system can help you to make better narrative flavor than you could without them.

[Callan S.]

Perhaps they can't, but they can create situations in which is something at stake.

If I'm reading Tony right, imagine this:

No conflict is going on, so the player rolls on the flavour tables. He rolls that his character is picking his nose in public.

"Nah", thinks the player, "That's not going to go anywhere..."

Player rolls again...this time his character has apparently been binge drinking.

"Nah, that's...oh wait, Jim's PC hates alchohol since he lost his brother to a drunk driver. Oh, I gotta go with this...this is going to be a real stake!"


I just made up this example. What I think Tony wants is something that will produce even more interesting results one could work from.