Conflict resolution - varable effect

[Kaare Berg]

Right I got a quick one here.

Conflict resolution is as far as I understand it a pretty digital affair. You either make it or you don't. You could say a one bit resolution system.

But some rules have variable effects. Like Heroquest, which has four possible outcomes (or two bit if you like), Fail completely, Fail a little, Succede completely or Succede a little.

The question is: does having a variable effect dillute Conflict Resolution?

Or is it even conflict resolution if you have variable effect?

Kaare

[xenopulse]

Anything that resolves the conflict is conflict resolution. After all, whether you win by a bit or by a lot, the conflict is still over with and the main stake has been decided.  Think of it as resolving along these lines:

Yes, and
Yes
Yes, but
No, but
No
No, and

These are all possible outcomes of a conflict; it's resolved as yes or on either way, but there could be other effects that can come along with it. I would say it does not dilute conflict resolution, unless you try to resolve other conflicts with the "but" or "and" parts of it.

[Andrew Morris]

What do you mean by "dilute?"  It sounds like you mean it as just another way of asking the question whether or not the example is still conflict resolution, but I'm not sure.

I don't think this makes it any less CR than having (or not having) different levels of success makes something not task resolution. Degree of success is no part of either definition, as far as I'm aware.

[TonyLB]

The question is: does having a variable effect dillute Conflict Resolution?

No, it doesn't.  Capes for instance has massively variable outcomes:  you can have a conflict that resolves with a mere 1 Inspiration, making it practically meaningless in future play.  Then again, my character Zak ended a "Save the world" conflict with five inspirations, each valued at a 6.  Yeah, I was rockin'.  That conflict is going to indirectly drive play for months to come.

Conflict Resolution resolves that one conflict.  The end products of CR then help to affect other conflicts, and how they resolve.  This can be as little as "They don't, each conflict is independent," or as much as "Most conflicts are a foregone conclusion, because of the way previous conflicts led up to them, and the only question is what sort of end results they will produce to imply the next set of conflict resolution."

[timfire]

Hi,

"Varable effect" as you put it, doesn't affect Conflict vs Task Resolution at all. Actually, most Conflict Resolution systems that I can think of have a "variable effect" mechanism---"Fortune-in-the-Middle". That is, you state what you want to happen in a general way, and then after you roll the dice, you fine tune the narration of the Conflict. Narration in these sytems can vary alot. Is this the type of thing you're thinking of?

It sounds to me that what you're describing is what we might call "degrees of success." Is that right, or are you thinking of something else? "Degrees of success" is rather common, or at least, not unusual in Conflict Resolution games. My own game uses them.

Yes, and
Yes
Yes, but
No, but
No
No, and

Another way to describe this is:

Critical Success/Failure
(Regular) Success/Failure
Mixed or Complicated Success/Failure
(And also Tie)
 

[Josh Roby]

From my angle, Conflict Resolution isn't, but is often treated, as being basically binary.  Task Resolution is binary -- success/fail.  That success/fail can be elaborated on (critical failure, weak success, whatever) but either you succeeded or you didn't.

Conflict Resolution, on the other hand, can select from many different potential outcomes.  We're used to the success/fail so a lot of CR chooses between a success resolution and a fail resolution, but at least theoretically speaking, CR can select between any number of potentials.  Every player at the table might suggest one possible way of things going, for instance.

For instance, in your basic "Defend the Kingdom" conflict, the potential outcomes for Joe PC could be many:
- Joe defeats all the badguys in single combat and the next day the Kingdom goes on as if nothing had happened.
- Joe leads the armies against the badguys and takes some significant losses, but beats them back across the border.
- Joe defends the throne room and preserves the King's life, thereby defending the Kingdom, but much of the Kingdom's lands are occupied by enemy forces.
- Joe defeats the badguys and then some, conquering their neighboring Empire of Evil.
- Joe falls in combat and dies dishonorably.
- Joe falls in combat in the last desperate act of slaying the Lich King, after which all the infantry-ghosts dissipate and the Kingdom is saved.
- Joe has to sacrifice his mentor's life in order to buy enough time to get to the bridge so he can mount a defense, which is successful in holding back the badguys.
- Joe falls in combat and is taken as a slave; the Lich King takes over the Kingdom, which continues to exist as the local branch of the Empire of Evil.

The list goes on infinitely, for as long as the players can come up with interesting possibilities.  Conflict Resolution picks between these -- so part of CR should always be creating the list of possible results, and then picking one (or creating the end result by adding details, complications, and qualifications).  Lots of CR systems create a 'list' of two, but this isn't the only way, and does not make Conflict Resolution binary.

[TonyLB]

Joshua's example also reminds me (strongly) that you can resolve multiple conflicts separately but simultaneously:

• Does Joe survive? (Yes/No)
• Does Joe defeat the bad guys? (Yes/No)
• Does the kingdom survive? (Yes/No)
• Does the kingdom retain its honor? (Yes/No)

Take those four, and look at the possible combinations.  They're fun!

[timfire]

The list goes on infinitely, for as long as the players can come up with interesting possibilities.  Conflict Resolution picks between these -- so part of CR should always be creating the list of possible results, and then picking one (or creating the end result by adding details, complications, and qualifications).  Lots of CR systems create a 'list' of two, but this isn't the only way, and does not make Conflict Resolution binary.

I want to make sure we're all clear on this---"variable" vs "binary" effect is NOT part of the definition of Conflict/Task resolution. Conflict Resolution can utilize either.

If you look at my game, or Tony's game, or PTA or a whole bunch of other games, the post-Fortune narration can vary alot (aka "variable" effect). But if you look at Dogs in the Vineyard, Dogs is very binary. You state what you want to happen. You roll dice. If you're opponent gives, boom! What you wanted to happen happens. (DitV is kinda a complicated example, but I hoppe ou get the picture).

[Josh Roby]

Joshua's example also reminds me (strongly) that you can resolve multiple conflicts separately but simultaneously...

Indeed.  How you split up a "single" conflict, and how many times you do so, might be fertile ground for a system to exploit.

Player A proposes the basic conflict: "Joe Saves the Kingdom"
Players B, C, and D propose subsidary conflicts: "Joe Survives", "Joe Defeats Bad Guys", and "The Kingdom retains its Honor."
Dice (or whatever) determine the subsidary conflicts; if Player A 'wins' a majority of these, he wins the "big" conflict.

[Kaare Berg]

Thanks,

I see where my confusion stems from. My first real conflict resolution was with DitV. we have since then be playing around with TSOY, which IMO is pretty binary in its Conflict resolution.

K

[Arturo G.]

Look at this excerpt from the article of Applied Theory ( [url][http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/23//url] ):

Although it may sound strange to say that a resolution mechanic need not be resolute, for narrativist play it is often better that it not be. A gamist wants to know whether he succeeded or failed; a narrativist wants to know whether his efforts had an impact. In a combat mechanic for the use of guns, it is quite sufficient for a gamist system to determine whether the shot hit the opponent and how severe the injury is; for a narrativist system, things are probably a lot fuzzier (from a certain perspective). The shot should have the power to frighten the opponent and cause him to flee, for example. From the gamist perspective, that would be a miss; from a narrativist perspective, that's a success. Thus it helps narrativism if the resolution mechanic provides more of a degree of success rather than a strict success/failure determination.

Arguable?

Cheers,
Arturo

[lumpley]

As far as Dogs goes, you should consider fallout to be part of the resolved stakes. Thus, Dogs has all kinds of nuanced resolution, of the yes and, yes but, no and, no but sort.

-Vincent