Complications Instead of Failure

[xenopulse]

Due to several recent discussions, I realized that one of the things I really like about most conflict resolution mechanics (e.g., Primetime Adventures' system) is that you can have interesting outcomes either way. It's not success or failure, where failure means that the situation does not change. I usually see task resolution as that second kind, though not always (failed stealth rolls tend to change the situation, for example--so I guess most opposed checks do this already).

Now, I realized that one can achieve the same goal in a task resolution system by replacing "failure" with "complication" even in unopposed tasks.  That seems to be something that can be done in any game as long as the GM sets it up that way.

For example: Let's say you're playing a Sci-Fi game. The PCs are trying to get into a military fleet installation. They decide they want to modify car fuel cells to blow up the installation's protective energy shield (anyone who knows which game the example is from gets an electronic cookie).

In a traditional task resolution approach, one would roll demolitions to see if the modification is successful. The PCs set it up, place it, try to detonate it. If it works, they're in. If it doesn't, the bomb doesn't go off, the situation has not changed; they're still at the same point they were before, minus one option. That's what I'd like to avoid (because this could go on for several attempts and a lot of play time).

Now, if you replace failure with complication, the GM could phrase it like this: The thing will definitely blow up the shield (thereby advancing the game and changing the situation). If the player makes the roll, it will look like a power failure to the guards (the demolition wasn't too big, it was well-timed, etc.). If the roll fails, the guards will realize something's up and the PCs are soon going to be in big trouble. Or else: It will blow up, but it might hurt a PC or a bystander, or it might cause a flicker that will allow them to go in but not come back out, or...

In all of those complication cases, both outcomes advance the situation, but the roll is still based on the task, skill level, etc., so it seems like it's still a task resolution roll (especially when it's unopposed).

My questions:
Is this drifting toward conflict resolution after all, and if so, does that disturb some players who aim to simulate "actual events" including people who just fail at stuff?
Does it interfere with Stepping On Up to almost always allow success, even though complications are still possible?
What are other possible drawbacks of using complications instead of failures?
What games are explicitly using this approach already (I think Burning Wheel Revised does in at least two instances)?

[ScottM]

The discussion about "yes, but" and the like remind me of this thread, where Thor explains how to end a scene.  Paul's response later in the thread (his contact on the police force example) shows an example of failure introducing consequences. At the end of the thread, Thor gives a good example of the technique.

I suspect that the technique you lay out would work well, even for players who are devoted to causality, for characters who are supposed to be supremely skilled.  To my mind, James Bond's actions would usually resolve this way.  I suspect that Step on Up wouldn't be interfered with, since the players can still brag about their successes (I broke in without setting of the alarm) and can display their skills at defeating the complications that come up from their "failures".  That's supposition from me though.

I'm interested in seeing what drawbacks other people forsee.
Scott

[Silmenume]

Hey Christian,

This going to be very brief and I apologize for not being more clear.  (Who knows given my record on posting this might end up being a huge plus!)

Now, if you replace failure with complication...

...Is this drifting toward conflict resolution after all, and if so, does that disturb some players who aim to simulate "actual events" including people who just fail at stuff?

Actually success should also come with a complication.  Every (or nearly so) CA relevant choice a player makes, with regards to conflict, should bear a (potential) cost (complication). ... and no it isn't necessarily drifting towards conflict resolution at all!

If we look back on Chris' thread on Bricolage APPLED (finally!) he uses the term entailment – which in game terms basically boils down to complications.  Whatever decision you make should carry some cost because the choice then becomes that much more interesting – and revealing.  No, this does not inherently interfere with the Sim CA.  Truth be told, you can't really effectively express any CA without entailments/complications.  Without entailments the decisions become effectively meaningless, as they no longer bear a cost.

In your example of the military fleet installation look very closely at the excess baggage that is assumed into the demolitions roll.  Demolitions "blowing things up!"  The typical entailment/complication is a very loud noise, a bright flash, and stuff flying everywhere.  The above are generic complications without even touching on the scene specific ones you effectively demonstrated.  So successes can have failures and failures can have successes.  An example of the later could be that a person rolls a critical failure while running away from a foe in a grassy field.  He falls and breaks his ankle in a gopher hole because he couldn't react fast enough – however the arrow that was racing towards his back now flies harmlessly over his head.  (Sorry about the switch to fantasy setting – but I think you get the general drift.)

Causality is not broken with complications.  Actually it is enhanced because the fallout from actions is really where causality shines brightest.  We know the mechanics work – that's nothing new.  But the complication that arose – now that's interesting!

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

You might be interested in this older thread: Wiff factor, specifically my comments about Aragorn on the steps of Helm's Deep.

Best,
Ron

[xenopulse]

Scott,

Good point about the bragging rights, and that example gave me some more food for thought. Thanks!

Jay,

I get your point, and I think you're completely right about complications supporting a Sim agenda. I've been thinking recently that the emphasis on the mechanics modeling specific tasks and their isolated outcomes actually gets in the way of addressing the Dream in many ways... but that's probably a topic for another thread. It seems that it would not be an easy thing to sell to people who want a specific thing figured out, and who are already so entrenched in this success/failure mode of thought.

Ron,

I completely agree with the points you make in that thread. Having Hero Wars (or HQ) mechanics helps out a lot there. Now, I was thinking about how to achieve the same thing without changing the mechanics. It's difficult to do when the mechanics model specific actions (as was mentioned in that thread), but I think explicitly agreeing within your group that you can substitute complications for pure failure in the interest of keeping the game going (and enjoyable) takes at least a little step in that direction.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I hope we're communicating successfully ... my point is that it is sometimes useful and "the best thing" to retain the failure, rather than literally replace it with complication.

In other words, instead of:

(a) failure = whiff = pain in our asses OR (b) replace failure entirely, use complication instead,


go for:

(c) missed roll (or whatever) = hero doesn't get what he wants, but whatever happens is neat, and may include failure as appropriate to the moment

Best,
Ron

[timfire]

You may also want to think about degree of success as well. Without "criticals", there are four basic degrees:

You fail outright.
You fail, but there's some benefit.
You win, but with a complication.
You win outright.

[Jason Lee]

Just in case you haven't seen Vincent's Chalk Outlines, concessions are the shit.  They''ll work with task resolution if you so desire, and you can still get complications, outright failures/successes, and partial failures/successes.  I do think this naturally drifts into conflict resolution as people encode their intent into the concessions, but not so much that it actually forces conflict resolution.

[Silmenume]

Hey Jason,

I do think this naturally drifts into conflict resolution as people encode their intent into the concessions, but not so much that it actually forces conflict resolution.

Emphasis added by me.

While I fully agree that concessions are a really cool idea in Narrativst play (I'm not sure about Gamist play), player created concessions are at direct odds with the core action of the Sim Creative Agenda.  IOW while the technique is extremely useful, but it is not a one size fits all.

[Jason Lee]

While I fully agree that concessions are a really cool idea in Narrativst play (I'm not sure about Gamist play), player created concessions are at direct odds with the core action of the Sim Creative Agenda.  IOW while the technique is extremely useful, but it is not a one size fits all.

I agree, it certainly won't work for everyone, but it is very flexible.  There is no conflict between concessions and causality, because their is no conflict between player intent and causality - causality is itself a player intent.  If you mean something other than causality/exploration/fidelity/verisimilitude/etc by Sim, then honestly I'll just have to take your word for it, because I don't believe in Sim.  My belief or disbelief doesn't have anything to do with this thread, I'm just wanted to be clear as to why I can't respond specifically to how this would affect Sim play.

[M. J. Young]

While I fully agree that concessions are a really cool idea in Narrativst play (I'm not sure about Gamist play), player created concessions are at direct odds with the core action of the Sim Creative Agenda.  IOW while the technique is extremely useful, but it is not a one size fits all.

I will agree that it is not a one-size-fits-all technique, but I don't at all see why it is "at direct odds with the core action of the Sim Creative Agenda".

In my view, that core action is discovery, the drive to learn about the current world. Creating that world is as much learning about it as having it revealed to you, and both are included in the Big Model's concept of Exploration. I think there is absolutely nothing inimical to players using concessions to make the world what they want in simulationist play.

Even if I take Jay's to me rather confusing notion of bricolage as the core action of simulationism, I still don't see the conflict. In fact, I see it less. Bricolage, as I understand it, is about putting pieces together to create something. There is no reason in the world why it could not include the negotiation process of "I will allow this piece if you will include that piece." That, in fact, is what the negotiation is most of the time. Concessions only make it explicit.

I can see concessions being an obstacle to immersion, but I do not count immersion a primary element of simulationism. I have seen play in all three agenda that was immersionist, and play that was not, again across the board. I prefer my gamism and narrativism more immersed and my simulationism more abstracted, but those are just my preferences. Let us not confuse our preferences with central aspects of ideas to which they are only peripherally related.

--M. J. Young

[Balbinus]

While I fully agree that concessions are a really cool idea in Narrativst play (I'm not sure about Gamist play), player created concessions are at direct odds with the core action of the Sim Creative Agenda.  IOW while the technique is extremely useful, but it is not a one size fits all.

This is interesting, and I'm not sure I agree with it.  Sim is not immersion necessarily, and depending on the nature of the sim game concessions may indeed be appropriate.

Chalk Outlines for example is expressly and by intent a game about recreating a particular cinematic experience at the gaming table.  It is sim in a very literal sense, it is about simulating those kinds of movies in actual play.  Concessions are a tool to that end, the players are not immersed in their characters (they're closer to being both audience and directors for their characters) but players are immersed in the movie they're creating together.  The concessions become a sim tool by directly assisting in exploring that dream.

Concessions can I think be a powerful sim technique, I don't want to reiterate what's already in the thread Ron linked to but for many sim game sessions it can be deeply disruptive to have a whiff occur.  Yes, whiff's may be realistic, but sim is not always about realism and if your particular game is aimed more at a particular genre emulation whiffs may be wholly counterproductive.  If you're running a sim prioritised Tom Clancy style game then whiffing, simple blunt failure, will often be inappropriate.  Player driven concessions may help the whole table get the feeling that the story they are creating together is Tom Clancyesque in feel and so actively support their sim play priorities.

Naturally it can also be useful for narrativist focussed play, perhaps even for gamist (though examples of how escape me right now), but I would argue that concesssions and complications have a real role to play in enhancing sim play.

MJ touches on this well, but I thought it worth expanding with actual examples.  I can if useful post actual play examples of how I have used similar techniques in sim driven play but I'm not sure how necessary that is or if MJ and I have communicated why we think this is a potentially valid sim tool already.

[Balbinus]

If you mean something other than causality/exploration/fidelity/verisimilitude/etc by Sim, then honestly I'll just have to take your word for it, because I don't believe in Sim. 

Jason, this may be a topic for another thread (and I suspect already is though I haven't seen anything relevant) but you seem to be conflating sim with realism.  Where would you place a desire to achieve genre emulation in actual play?  For me that is a classic manifestation of sim, indeed I would argue that realism is simply another genre to emulate, but my impression is that you are seeing it as not falling within a sim agenda.

If this is a discussion you are interested in and has not already been exhaustively covered elsewhere please quote me in a new thread so as not to derail this one, I would have done so myself but if the topic has already been done to death or you are not keen to discuss further I didn't really want to make a big thing of it unnecessarily.

[Josh Roby]

You can also attack this issue by way of Stakes -- setting the stakes for both success and failure in interesting terms that include complications gets you one of those interesting results either way.  It also makes failure interesting, rather than a dud experience.  Okay, big confrontation with the Big Bad, I try to hit him with my sword, I... miss.  Blah.  I swing my sword, overcompensate and expose my back to him?  Ah, now we've got some meat to chew on.

This can be applied to Task and Conflict Resolution in exactly the same way, it doesn't make it one or the other.

As has been implied but not explicitly stated, complications can be added to failure just as easily as to successes, so adding complications does not turn everything into successes.

Drawbacks to complications -- you've got to determine who gets to set up the stakes.  Who creates those complications?  The player rolling the dice?  The GM?  Other players at the table?  Are there limits or constraints to (very fuzzy) complications and their significance or magnitude?  This can open up a big can of conflict around the table (and not the good kind) unless it's very precisely laid out.

And lastly, Orkworld is a good example of adding complications by way of setting the stakes -- each side of a conflict takes turns pointing out why they'd win and their opponent will lose, then they roll dice.  The ensuing articulation of the die result incorporates the given reasons.

[Silmenume]

Hey Mark!

I will agree that it is not a one-size-fits-all technique, but I don't at all see why it is "at direct odds with the core action of the Sim Creative Agenda".

...

Even if I take Jay's to me rather confusing notion of bricolage as the core action of simulationism, I still don't see the conflict. In fact, I see it less. Bricolage, as I understand it, is about putting pieces together to create something. There is no reason in the world why it could not include the negotiation process of "I will allow this piece if you will include that piece." That, in fact, is what the negotiation is most of the time. Concessions only make it explicit.

Emphasis mine.

Actually you only have about half of Bricolage.  Yes, you are correct in saying that Bricolage is "about" putting pieces together to create something.  However the really important, distinguishing element of Bricolage as opposed to Engineering is that the Bricoleur uses only that which is already available to him.  The Bricoleur must deal with the entailments (in role-play – complications) as they exist.  The moment the Bricoleur starts mindfully designing the entailments (in role-play – negotiating concessions) he has left the Bricolage process and entered into an explicit Engineering process – i.e., he is no longer engaging in the Sim CA process.

The Bricoleur does not design the complications, he makes choices among what he has available specifically to deal with them while maintaining the integrity of the whole.  Therein lies the skill and the creative task of the Sim player.  Thus the player negotiation of concessions (read entailments) is inimical to the Bricolage process.

The thing is, any structure like this is a horrible mess if it takes into account every single potential meaning, because every thing we use has a huge raft of potential meanings, i.e. is structured densely.  This isn't true with engineering, because you design things to have one meaning and little else, but in bricolage you're stuck with the vast entailments of actual things as they really are.

Bolding added by me.

I can see concessions being an obstacle to immersion, but I do not count immersion a primary element of simulationism.

Neither do I!  Oh that ill-defined tar baby "I" word!  I was never talking about "immersion."  I was speaking of methodology of play (process), not Technique.  To me discussion of "immersion" is at best a red herring and at worst a train wreck waiting to happen.  Bricolage does not equal Immersion (whatever it means) – nor do I claim such.  Bricolage is not a preference – it's the central aspect of Sim play.

Hey Max,

You're conflating concession with complication.  A complication is an entailment.  A concession is a player negotiated complication.  Thus while all concession are complications, not all complications are concessions.  One can and must have complications in Sim play, for without complications there is no Bricolage.  So I would say that "Complications (not concessions) are a central Sim technique."  My position is not that complications shouldn't happen or are irrelevant in Sim play, but rather that they should not be player created in Sim play.  Or perhaps better said that the Player who is facing the decision should not design his own complications.