When does the conflict start - and why not roleplay it instead?

[GB Steve]

From this thread Capes Demo at DexCon 8:

With the recent profusion of social resolution mechanics I've seen in a lot of indie games, I've been worried that they might wind up getting overused.  There have been times where I felt I wanted to free-form roleplay something out a little, only to be told, "Okay, that's a conflict, let's resolve it."

This is something I've started to notice more and more with narrative games, when do you start a conflict? Dogs does give some strong guidance, i.e. the GM should generally agree to players proposals but if not there's a conflict (and presumably the same applies between players and their characters).

The issue raised in the other thread is that this tends to cut down on first person interaction between players. Given that this acting is one of my main interests in RPG, Dogs conflicts (for example) cut down on my opportunity to get into the role. Given that, at the moment anyway, I want to avoid drift in my Dogs games, the only alternative it seems is to resolve the conflict by fiat (i.e. "the GM says yes") which is in the rules but is not always suitable for resolving entrenched positions.

I suppose another issue that arises in Dogs is that conflicts are always resolved one way or another. There is no middle ground where characters face off, fail to resolve and skulk off to gird their loins for another day. Although, come to think of it, this could be done by using the tricks in the rulebook about the temporal aspects of conflicts, leaving it open and unresolved. You'd need a whole 'nother stack of dice though if you left many conflicts in suspense like this.

Any other suggestions?

[Jack Aidley]

My plan for the game I currently working on is to have a system whereby the player can call for anything that happens to be resolve by the dice but otherwise the GM just decides. Thus, we could get something like the following:

Player: I saunter over to the guard, "Hey, man, I'm in a bit of a pickle here. It's stupid, I know, but I've gone and left my papers in my room at the Golden Anchor."
GM: The guard eyes you suspiciously, "I'm sorry, sir, but I can't let you in without those papers."
P: "I know, I know, you're only doing your job but look at my clothes, mate, you can surely tell I'm from the city."
GM: "I'm sorry, sir, but with the recent troubles you know how it is; my necks on the block if I let you through."
P: Ok, can we roll for this now please?
GM: Of course, the guard's Guile is 4, make your roll.
P: Three twos.
GM: I got Two 4s and an extra. After a bit more discussion you manage to pursuade the guard to let you past, but - as that penalty - only if you give him your name and details of where you're staying. Ok?
P: Cool, but I'm giving a false name - "Andar Reaven"

I'm hoping that way to keep the fun side of the freeform style roleplay, but by letting the player choose when to roll allow them to refer the result back to the mechanics where they don't like where the GMs taking it. I'm unsure as yet whether, or when, to allow the GM to call for a roll.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

The issue raised in the other thread is that this tends to cut down on first person interaction between players. Given that this acting is one of my main interests in RPG, Dogs conflicts (for example) cut down on my opportunity to get into the role. Given that, at the moment anyway, I want to avoid drift in my Dogs games, the only alternative it seems is to resolve the conflict by fiat (i.e. "the GM says yes") which is in the rules but is not always suitable for resolving entrenched positions.

I call bullcrap on this.

Ok, so two actors and a director get together. The director says, "Ok, Phil, you're playing the part of Pim, and Brenda, you're playing the part of Betsy. In this scene, the two of you are arguing over where to take a vacation. We're going to improvise here, so I just want you two to riff off each other." Phil says, "Ok - but where do we end up taking vacation later? I mean, who wins?" The director looks at his shooting script. "You win, Betsy... I mean, Brenda. I mean, Betsy wins. Got it." They nod.

I played Dogs for a long while. And we had plenty of good improvised character on character interaction. I don't really get these objections, but I'd like to. Can anyone explain it to me - how not knowing the result of a conflict lets you act it out better?

[Simon Marks]

I played Dogs for a long while. And we had plenty of good improvised character on character interaction. I don't really get these objections, but I'd like to. Can anyone explain it to me - how not knowing the result of a conflict lets you act it out better?

I'm gonna fish for this one, with the proviso of "I don't agree"

I've had a lot of arguments with others regarding this, it seems to come down to a (misunderstood) application of the Method.

Basically the concept is that to really play a role, you must only *know* what the character knows - that is, you cannot play this character if you don't know it.
It is also further enhanced by the belief that "Roleplay" is "Being in character".

These two things combined mean that there is often an attempt to "roleplay" things out because it is the experience of roleplaying that is important, not the creation of the SIS.
And to accurately roleplay the character, you musn't know (or even think) about "realworld stuff"

I dunno, may be off base here - but thats what I can tell...

[GB Steve]

I call bullcrap on this.

I played Dogs for a long while. And we had plenty of good improvised character on character interaction. I don't really get these objections, but I'd like to. Can anyone explain it to me - how not knowing the result of a conflict lets you act it out better?

It's not about knowing the result of a conflict. It's that conflict in Dogs is ritualised and is not the same as every conflict you'd get in a game that doesn't have this conflict resolution method. It also breaks up the flow of the arguments. I'm not saying it's a bad thing btw, just it doesn't cover every eventuality. On the other hand, it's one of the best conflict resolution systems I've seen.

It could be that there are subtleties to the Dogs system that we haven't fully exploited but I'm not so sure.

And to take Simon's point as well, Dogs does tend to move you away from being in character. I've seen this with a lot of narrative systems. With other games, the being in character is not resolved by the system but everything else is. When you move to a system that can resolve the entirety of the roleplaying experience then you sometimes get the sense of pushing a piece around and that your in character input carries less weight. For example, in Dogs it doesn't really matter what you say, the argument is decided by the dice. You could almost be playing a board game. And the same goes for MLwM, for which I'd already suggested that it would be easy to make it a card game. That's not to say that I don't think Dogs and MLwM aren't wonderful games that I love to play but given this is about personal experience, I'm not sure the 'bullcrap' argument applies.

[Jack Aidley]

Clinton,

Because you've removed the exploration and discovery elements from the argument. Roleplaying is not acting, I'm not looking to put on a good show of a story I already know, or improvise details over a result I already know - in effect, what you describe is a microcosm of everything that I dislike about illusionism and participationism. I want my portrayal to be about the action and results not mere colour on a pre-determined show.

[simon_hibbs]

Just for context, Steve has played in my HeroQuest games, and I've played in his HQ and Dogs games.

For example, in Dogs it doesn't really matter what you say, the argument is decided by the dice. You could almost be playing a board game. And the same goes for MLwM, for which I'd already suggested that it would be easy to make it a card game. That's not to say that I don't think Dogs and MLwM aren't wonderful games that I love to play but given this is about personal experience, I'm not sure the 'bullcrap' argument applies.

There are a number of sides to this. Sometimes this effect is a problem, at other times it's an advantage. Here's the good side:

The GM can't always just say No (soem have a habit of doing this automaticaly, even otherwise good GMs and it can be very anoying), because the player can always say "I've got 3 masteries/whatever in Persuade, let's roll!" This is useful even with generous GMs. Sometimes you still find yourself putting up barriers to the players due to your own reconceptions. Having them throw you a curve bal, or at least have the feeling that they could get their way, is a Good Thing.

It empowers players whow haven't got such big mouths. Not all roleplayers are blessed with silver tongues, but this way you can still get to play a persuasive or influencial character.

In-character dialogue/player cleverness can still have an effect through ad-hoc bonuses or situational modifiers.

There is a potential problem, but I think it's manageable so logn as the players and Gm are aware of it, and agree on strategies for managing these situations.

As to the quoestion of conflicts always beign resolved, perhaps a disengagement mechanic, perhaps with an automatic modifier to follow-on conflicts might help. HQ solves this by having a lot of different degrees of success and failiure.

Simon Hibbs

[Simon Marks]

In-character dialogue/player cleverness can still have an effect through ad-hoc bonuses or situational modifiers.

Should they?

Forgive me for asking this, but acting/stratergising aren't required in RPG - especially Nar leaning ones.

It's not important (for example) in MLWM how well you stand up to the Master - but if you do and why.

[greyorm]

The issue raised in the other thread is that this tends to cut down on first person interaction between players. Given that this acting is one of my main interests in RPG, Dogs conflicts (for example) cut down on my opportunity to get into the role...Any other suggestions?

Suggestions for putting "role-playing" back into conflict resolution?

I don't know if you are amenable to this method: but resolve the conflict with the dice and then play it out. This is straight-up theater-style acting, and the method utilized in ORX. You determine what the conflict is (A), and how it turns out (B), but not how it gets from A to B, and you role-play that part. (It also lets you really play a role, and not use a role or be tempted to in order to try and get events in the game to go in the direction you as a player consciously or subconsciously desire.)

If you mean you miss and want to role-play the conflict and let the role-playing decide what the results are, I have no suggestions for you (I don't enjoy that method at all. Too much fiat for my tastes, and my numerous experiences with it over the years, both as a player on the recieving end and a GM on the giving end, have soured me on it).

So, would something like that work for you, or am I reading my lines from the wrong page?

[Andrew Cooper]

Why should my own personal ability at acting or "role-playing" put limiting constraints on my character?  Systems that simply rely on this role-playing to resolve in-game social mechanics mean that my character will never be more intelligent, witty, charming, et al... than I am.  That's a terrible limitation, unless I'm playing a character=me game.  Social conflict resolutions systems let me play any character with any personality and any level of competence and have that character have the appropriate impact on the SIS, regardless of my own abilities in those areas.  I'll note that Social task resolution systems would probably be capable of providing this also.

What's interesting to me is that this question doesn't get raised in combat situations.  It's perfectly okay to ditch the role-playing and whip out the dice and the resolution mechanics when combat rears its ugly head and no one (or not as many) jumps up and yells "The resolution mechanics are killing my role-playing!  How dare a dice roll determine how the conflict turns out.  It should be my ability at <insert combat skill here> that determines the outcome."  Personally, I'm glad I don't have to be a skilled martial artist to play one in a game and I don't understand the difference some people see between a resolution system that deals with Social issues and one that deals with Combat.

To push myself back to strictly on topic...

More skill (or guidelines) for determining exactly when to engage the Resolution system would probably cut down on the criticisms of this kind of play.  If the dice get rolled as soon as there is a Conflict noticed and then play moves on immediately, then opportunities to get in-character and engage in a little improv acting are going to be cut down seriously.  However, if in-character dialogue continues until "something has to give" in the Conflict and then the dice are rolled and then more in-character dialogue ensues that work out the results of the System, then I think the amount of in-character interaction is about equal to any other style of play.


***  I just reread my post and I noticed that someone could put an kind of negative spin on my tone.  Please, don't.  I don't intend anything I posted to be a slap in the face to others that disagree with me.  It's just that the written context doesn't convey my tone very well.  Sorry.  :-) ***

[Matt Snyder]

I offer up this excerpt from the revised rules text of Nine Worlds as an example of how a game text can help players recognize when and where conflict should start, and (hopefully) as a partial example of how "just role-playing it out" isn't an especially good idea, particularly in this style of game (often, but not always, Narrativism).

Conflict examined

By cooperating, players and game master can create an entertaining narrative as they talk among one another, describing what the Archons do and what happens to them. But, conflict is both necessary and inevitable for a good story.

Conflict occurs often during this game, and it is the most important event of game play. Conflict is the result of players disagreeing about "what happens next" during an important point in the story.

When at least one player declares a goal for his character, and at least one other player declares a conflicting goal, conflict has begun. Usually, this happens when the players try to fulfill their Archons' Muses and the game master complicates the process with his supporting cast. But, conflict can erupt between players' Archons as well, with no involvement of the supporting cast necessary.

...

Conflict can result in success or failure. But, the wonderful thing about this process is that players can narrate either success or failure in dramatic and enjoyable ways. Failure can be fun! The trick is recognizing what the players' real goals are in each conflict.

In the example above, the goal is not whether Alexander is able to create an aethership from scrap. The goal is whether Alexander can escape Mars. The rules in this game will help players resolve that goal. But, the fun part is describing how that goal resolves. Events may not happen as the player intends. But, they are often very enjoyable, surprising and exciting, even in failure!

[Bankuei]

Hi,

At what point do we call for ANY kind of roll in ANY rpg?  Consider that most rpgs actually have rules for Negotiation, Deception, etc. and people use them as often as not.  Not just Nar games, but a lot of games have these, it's just Nar games don't pussyfoot about using them. 

We use resolution when:
- It inspires creative possibilities through it's use
- It sets up a useful form of pacing
- We want it to have mechanical consequences
- It serves as a "negotiation tool" between two or more people at the table.

For example, if we're talking about Dogs- the Raise/See/Block/Take the Blow stuff all inspires cool action and pacing simply through using it, Fallout results in mechanical consequences AND also inspires followup conflicts.  Many other games do the same things.

We choose not to apply resolution (social, magical, combat, whatever) when it doesn't fulfill any of the above roles(unless we just happen to like rolling dice).

Chris

[GB Steve]

So the lesson seems to be, if I enjoy the acting part of roleplaying games, don't play narrative ones that heavily structure conflicts. I'm quite happy to act success or failure, that's not a barrier, as I enjoy exploring both and am perfectly happy to bring down the pain on myself.

For example, we were playing Enemy Gods on Saturday and I was playing a rather dim but very strong hero. There was a prophecy that Heraklion would die fighting the largest boar in the world so, when the boar appeared he hid on another island. We went to fetch him with the agreement that we would kill the boar and he would take the credit. So we killed the boar but when Heraklion was acclaimed, I had my PC exclaim, "What's all that about? I killed the boar!" (Unfortunately that was the last word in our one-shot but it would have set up nicely some future adventures).

MLwM and octaNe are two narrative game that don't have the minutiae of conflict structure that you get in Dogs, and hence interfere less with the natural pacing of acting (although the former has possibly still too many dice). I think I might try to modify the Dogs' system to reduce the burden of the system. That's not to say that the system isn't a good one (with all the cool things that Chris mentions), just to say that it doesn't necessarily deliver something that I want.

Taking Gaerik's point, for me, it's not so much about using dice to do something I can't. There are plenty of ways round that little problem such as considering what the player says as a modifier to the character's skill (or vice versa). Or just, as MLwM does, consider it to be interesting fluff. I'm not quite so worried that what I say has an impact on the system, more that I'm not so restricted in the way what I say is structured.

As I said before, there are possibly some more subtle ways of using Dogs that I haven't really considered, and certainly wasn't going to try in French on Saturday. But I might try some out in my UK group to see what happens.

[Doug Ruff]

My £0.02, for what it's worth, For all of the following, "players" includes the GM as well, and "characters" includes NPCs.

Disagreement doesn't directly and automatically lead to conflict. What actually happens at the table goes something like this.

(1) Disagreement
(2) Negotiation
(3) Conflict

The "disagreement" is fundamentally a disagreement about what happens next. Some of this can be roleplayed in character, some of it can't. (Example - "I jump the crevasse!") It's the conflicts which can be roleplayed that are causing the problem, so I'll focus on these.

i think the big deal here, is that there is always negotiation before conflict, and that the negotiation can remove the need for conflict.

Here's an example of how this works using "roleplaying it out" as a resolution system.

(1) Players identify a potential conflict between characters.
(2) Players negotiate in-character through roleplay.
(3) If negotiation breaks down, roll dice. (Or GM fiat, or another system.)

This works well to support immersion, as it's often possible to miss (3) out completely if the players can negotiate successfully in-character.

Here's a different example, using DiTV.

(1) Players identify a potential conflict between characters.
(2) "Say yes, or roll the dice." Players have a chance to give before rolling dice.
(3) If no-one gives, roll the dice. Characters narrate the outcome of the conflict, using in-character or out-of-character techniques.

Now, negotiation is always between players, but in the first system, it's more likely that it will be "roleplayed out" in character before dice get rolled. In DiTV, if an argument happens "in character", it's going to move quickly through negotiation to a conflict, because the system rewards players for using the conflict rules for "just talking".

(Plus, if you start to negotiate "in-character", and need to move into conflict, you've already used up most of your best dialogue.)

This isn't me saying that one way is better than the other. What I am saying is that, some systems move player focus towards the conflict at the expense of negotiation, especially if the conflict system is exciting in itself. And the negotiation step is always there, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged in play.

PS Edit for Steve's latest comments. You can drift DiTV to allow for in-character negotiation, but you risk losing the smooth escalation from "just talking" to more physical disagreement. Never mind moving from physical conflicts into talking.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

So the lesson seems to be, if I enjoy the acting part of roleplaying games, don't play narrative ones that heavily structure conflicts. I'm quite happy to act success or failure, that's not a barrier, as I enjoy exploring both and am perfectly happy to bring down the pain on myself.

I'm not trying to be incredibly dickish here, but I think you're using that word "acting" like Humpty Dumpty's vocabulary. Acting doesn't involve deciding how well your character does something solely by your own personal skills of negotation. That's, well, I guess it's "negotiation."

"Acting" happens all the time in structured games. I'd posit it happens more: you're given a scene and you act it out.

I'm absolutely not saying what you want is invalid. But if you use a term to define it that other games have as much of a claim on, then you do the argument a disservice.