[My As Yet Unnamed RPG] Skill system

[Adam Dray]

Okay, a lot of different things that need replies. Lemme try to organize this.

Task Resolution

There's nothing wrong with using Task Resolution, but it has some pitfalls you'll want to design for.

In your locked-door example, the motivations of the players seems clear enough: "They want to move through the door with as little fuss as possible," as you say. That's their intent. Lockpicks are only one way to accomplish that goal. Others include: They produce the right key. They use engineering knowledge to remove bricks or the hinges. They use magic to make the door open. They break down the door with a strong shoulder. They cut the door open with a laser. All of those things are valid, but the players don't really care if they pick the locks, per se; they just want the damned door open.

Then there's the "whiff factor." Task resolution can cause players to fail at critical moments and really take a crap on the story, to use a colorful term. Basically, if you stat up a character who is supposed to be great at picking locks, you don't want to fail that encounter because you couldn't pick the lock. Task resolution forces your hand there, but conflict resolution would let you deal with the whole door issue at a high level, still let the player bring in lockpicking skills, but let the player or GM narrate failure in a creative way ("There's something blocking the door on the other side" or "A guard comes before you can finish.")

Setting Difficulty Numbers

There are lots of ways to do this. For example, my Verge RPG actually has the player himself tell the GM how difficult the conflict is. He can make it as easy or hard as he wants but his chances of experience-point rewards are proportional to the risk he takes.

It sounds like you're going the traditional route, such as that used in D&D 3E, where the GM is the arbiter of everything outside the character. Really, such a GM is free to make the situation as hard as he wants. Be sure to give strong guidelines for what is a "fair" situation. You can't account for every situation in your rules though. What's the modifier for performing open heart on a rooftop in the rain? Or even in a hospital? How do you know? (Or, as you ask, "Why?")

What Kind of Game?

All I know about your game is that you want super-detailed characters. I don't know what players are gonna do with them though. Maybe you don't even need them that detailed. Let's step back.

These are the standard three questions we ask everyone about their new game design:

1. What's the game about? That is, what would you say is the most important aspect of the game?
2. What do characters do? What's the "core story" of the game? D&D's is "A group of adventurers travel to a dangerous dungeon, kill all the monsters there, and take their stuff, thus rising in power to tackle more dangerous dungeons."
3. What do players do, and what tools does the game give them to do those things?

I've got to say this is tough to do but revealing and useful. I suspect you've done this more than once with a budding gung-ho designer :)

I think, if you read other similar posts from new designers in Indie Game Design, you'll find that your situation is not unique. I've done this a couple times. I've been through it myself once or twice. I've seen it done by others countless times.

[TonyLB]

To be honest I'm not sure that there is an answer to the subjective decision question as it seems that it would be up to the GM.

Giving the GM a structure to guide those subjective decisions is part of what you can do as a game designer.  If you throw up your hands and say "It's impossible!  I'll just leave it to people to figure out what they should be doing from their past experience playing other RPGs" then you will join the large company of games that have punted on this question.  But if you knuckle down and create an answer. and stick to it, then you will know exactly what your mechanics need to support, and your game design will benefit.

[John Griffith]

Task Resolution

If you could go into a little more depth regarding the pit fall of task resolution? If I understand your example correctly you are saying that while task resolution says "You failed to pick the lock so you can't get through the door because it is still locked", conflict resolution says "You failed to pick the lock because a guard approached and you had to stop what you were doing and duck for cover". Does that more or less encapsulate the difference?

If it does, what is the intended potential difference between the two outcomes? In the task resolution outcome the character wasn't up to scratch, whereas in the conflict resolution we don't know whether they are up to scratch because they never got to complete the task. Does this mean that the attempt to open the lock is unresolved or is the act of the guard interrupting the task intended as an alternative way of saying "it's not going to work, try a different approach"?

Setting Difficulty Numbers

I have to say I rather like the idea of the player setting the difficulty number, it's an interesting take. How does it operate in situations where there is a lot at stake vs. very little or nothing at stake?

I agree that there need to be well defined guidelines indicating how difficult any given task should be.

What's the game about?
I would say the most important aspect of my game is as you say super detailed characters.

What do characters do?
A character reflects their player's desires. If their player wants to play a do-gooder then the character will reflect this in what they do. If the player wants to play a villain then the character will reflect this in what they do. Ultimately in order to achieve this goal the character must do two things: (a) stay alive, (b) seek out challenges to conquer in order to grow more powerful. (The more challenges a character faces and overcomes the more powerful they become, and the more powerful they become the more convincing they will be as the do-gooder or the villain.

What do players do, and what tools does the game give them to do those things?
Players create and guide characters who can do things that they can not and will not ever be able to do. Through their character's, players fulfill a fantasy or desire to behave as someone who is larger than life. The game gives players the opportunity to build (an ongoing process) a character that embodies their fantasy someone. I would hope too that players view the game as cooperative social interaction. i.e. I help you and you help me and we have fun doing it.

[Mike Sugarbaker]

What's the game about?
I would say the most important aspect of my game is as you say super detailed characters.

This is kind of a non-answer... it's as if I were writing a computer program, and in response to being asked what it was for, I said, "It's important that it create documents with lots of data." That's fine, and no doubt it's important, but if I never say what data and why, who's going to be interested in my program? Games are similar in that there's usually something they are for.

But you did kind of answer the question here:

Ultimately in order to achieve this goal the character must do two things: (a) stay alive, (b) seek out challenges to conquer in order to grow more powerful. (The more challenges a character faces and overcomes the more powerful they become, and the more powerful they become the more convincing they will be as the do-gooder or the villain.

So, it sounds as if the game is either about power, or about becoming who you are. What does describing a person in detail have to do with those things?

That's the question your design should answer.

[Callan S.]

Hi John,

If the GM had previously determined that rooftops in this town are flat and made of coarse slate

I think what you have in mind is that the GM previously sets up alot of factors but doesn't know which will get used. Lets take the thief example and see how it could come about.

1. The GM declares it's raining, but has no idea that the player will eventually get out onto a roof and run across it. When the GM declared it was raining he had no secret agenda in doing so. Thus his declaration of the penalty is impartial.

2. The GM declares it's raining, and has written the story in such a way that the players will either end up running across the roof or suffer major penalties. In this case the GM does have a secret agenda and his penalty declaration is not impartial, its conspires to support the story ending up exactly as the GM wants it.

3. The GM declares it's raining, but has no idea that the player will eventually get out onto a roof and run across it. When the GM declared it was raining he had no secret agenda in doing so. Thus his declaration of the penalty is impartial. However, the players manage to force their opponents to also run across the roof. The GM would dearly like to see these opponents engage the players rather than just fall of the roof goofily. He feels his impartiality waiver, when it comes to the penalties the bad guys face. This is a middle ground between 1 and 2.

The problem is, is that the GM would enjoy certain stuff happening. And he should, he's gaming to have fun to. But basically he's got no way to get what he wants, except by GM fiat. Alot of people say 'What can you give the GM, he's got everything!?'. But that's like saying a millionares accountant has lots of money. No, the accountant doesn't own the money, he only shuffles it (or steals it). When the GM is put in the position of determining difficulties, he's just an accountant.

Can you see the conflict of interests? The accountant who is supposed to just book keep the money, but can see a way of stealing it. The GM who is supposed to just book keep the difficulties, but can see a way of getting what he wants out of the game by manipulating them.

One quick idea could be called 'bias' points. The GM has an unlimited amount of these, but when he uses them the players affected get some sort of compensatory reward. This way the GM can be explicit, like if it were used in example 3 "Well, the bad guys would fall off the roof, but screw it, 5 bias points say they pass  get to you all!". They players greedily write down their reward and then enjoy the fight with the baddies, as does the GM.

In this case the only thing that stops the use of bias points is the GM trying to keep the player rewards flowing at the right rate.

[John Griffith]

Yes I do see the conflict of interests. And if you'll excuse my language this is some interesting s**t. I'm not ashamed to say that y'all are shaking up my world. And that's a good thing because I think it needed shaking.

So the idea with these bias points is to allow the GM to affect an outcome to his specifications by compensating the players in exchange. That way its a win-win situation. A neat idea. It allows the GM to become an explicit participant rather than pretending to be a passive observer.

[Joe Zeutenhorst]

Task Resolution

If you could go into a little more depth regarding the pit fall of task resolution? If I understand your example correctly you are saying that while task resolution says "You failed to pick the lock so you can't get through the door because it is still locked", conflict resolution says "You failed to pick the lock because a guard approached and you had to stop what you were doing and duck for cover". Does that more or less encapsulate the difference?

Hey John,

I don't think your example is really encapsulating conflict resolution (although it could be a possible outcome from a conflict resolution roll). Dig this:

http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html

Scroll down to Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution.

[John Griffith]

That was the first thing I read and it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me at first but I think I am slowly catching on:

Task resolutiong: task is important
COnflict resolution: goal of task is important

A little closer perhaps?

[Adam Dray]

Yes. There are a bunch of recent threads that try to nail down the difference. The essence is that in Conflict Resolution, you nail down what is really at stake before you roll.

[Frank T]

Some claim that the distinction in John Kirks excellent Design Patterns in Roleplaying Games (zip download) between negotiated and generalized contest is more helpful. In this post, Brand Robins points out some interesting references regarding the issue.

But John, I think you basically have it figured out.

- Frank

[John Griffith]

I read Ben's blog and the conflict resolution discussion made sense--more or less--but the task resolution discussion went right over my head. Is there are good place on hte forum to post questions about this--I mean are we trying to keep questions in one thread--or is it okay to splatter them all over the place?

Now that I am beginning to come to terms with the distinction I'm wondering a few things:
1.) Is it possible to use conflict resolution to solve tasks? Maybe a silly question, but...
2.) It seems to me, and even Ben's article seemed to suggest, that conflict resolution is in of itself just the end result of a string of results from one or more task resolutions. Am I way off base here?

[Adam Dray]

I think the difference is easier to demonstrate than explain. Here are some examples. They're just examples, not the paragon of everything that is Task Resolution or Conflict Resolution. That is, there may be some other examples that do not resemble these that demonstrate a different kind of Conflict Resolution or something.

Task Resolution

Bob: We need to find the map to the secret base. Do we see those in the room?
GM: Make a Search roll.
Bob rolls some dice but doesn't get enough to find the secret papers in the file cabinet.
GM: You dump the contents of the drawers and file cabinets on the floor. You don't find any plans but you do find a safe but it is locked. You're running out of time before the janitor comes back though.
Bob: Can I crack it?
GM: Do you have a skill in that?
Bob: My Criminal Background skill should let me.
GM: All right. Roll it at difficulty 6.
Bob rolls some dice and gets a big failure.
GM: Nope. That isn't enough. You can't get the safe open.
Bob: Can I use explosives to blow it open?
GM: Sure, but the janitor will be back any minute.
etc.

Conflict Resolution
Bob: We need to find the map to the secret base. Do we see those in the room?
GM: How about we make your stakes, "You find the location to the secret base without getting caught by the janitor." Sound good?
Bob: Excellent.
GM: How are you going to find the base?
Bob: I'll search the room first. I have Search 7.
Bob rolls some dice but doesn't get enough to win the conflict.
GM: You dump the contents of the drawers and file cabinets on the floor. There's no clue to the base's location there. You do find a safe though.
Bob: I can crack that with my Criminal Background!
Bob rolls some dice and gets a big failure -- enough to end the conflict against his favor.
GM: Bummer. Well, you manage to get the safe open, but it takes longer than you thought. There's a map inside and as you pull it out of its envelope, the janitor opens the door, seeing the mess you've made of the room. He calls Security on his radio!

[John Griffith]

Okay, based on your example:

The Task Resolution prevented Bob from getting the map.

In the Conflict Resolution example the stakes were finding the map without getting caught by the janitor. So the important factor here is not whether Bob can crack the safe but whether or not he can do it before the janitor returns?

[TonyLB]

The Task Resolution prevented Bob from getting the map.

I'd say "No, not exactly."  The Task Resolution prevented Bob and his GM from communicating directly about the map.  Bob thinks that (for instance) cracking the safe is an important step toward finding the map, while the GM knows that the map isn't in there and the safe-cracking has no bearing on the map.  They are not on the same page, and the rules are not providing them with any tool to get on the same page.  So now Bob hopes that he's rolling to find the map, but he can't know, because they're not talking to each other.

Consider this possibility:  You could have that same conversation with the character in an office in which there is no map.  So, in terms of "find the map," there is no roll, no matter how spectacular, that can possibly make a difference one way or the other.  But Task Resolution rules don't let you communicate that.  The office has locks, and drawers, and your Task is to open them ... even though it can't possibly serve your goals in the story.

Conflict Resolution, by contrast, cannot begin until people are talking about the map.  When a player says "Okay, I'm in the office, I'm going to start picking locks on the drawers," the GM in a CR system has to actually stop them and say "Okay, what's you're intent?"  Then the player says "I'm trying to find a map to the enemy headquarters," and the GM either says "Okay, let's roll to see if that happens," or "You should definitely find that map, but let's roll on this complication of whether you find it before the janitor shows up," or "No, that map isn't in here."  Communication has been established, and the conversation is now about whether the player accomplishes their goal, not whether the character can pick a lock.

Does this make sense?

[John Griffith]

Yes it makes sense. It is fearsomely hard for me to wrap my head around. I find myself liking the possibilities presented by conflict resolution more and more.