Conflict Resolution System

[Oscar Evans]

Most importantly, the player needs to decide whether he's going to kill the girl, try to sneak past her, try to wait her out, or whatever. Each option has potentially negative consequences, and opportunities for further complications to be added. Once the player decides on an action, then the GM will undoubtedly call for an additional roll.

Which he will succeed if he feels its important, or fail if he sees it as a chance to take a loss to earn points. Im all for emphasizing player choice, but dont some of those options seem more dangerous or less likely to happen than others? I suppose one can just say that chances of success dont matter, only the players desire for the character to succed. That this is narrativism afterall and the actual chances matter less than a good story. One can also say that the more dangerous options are also the ones more likely to create negative consequences (Which will, themselves, be either an excuse to rack up the points or something to burn your brownies on).

Its sorta depressing, the idea that all the really good complications you wrack your brains coming up with that are the result of a long series of failures (And they CHOSE to fail, so its not bad luck) will just be steamrolled over by the players.

Which, I hope, would produce a steady downward spiral for the players, until the climax--when their luck would finally turn. Which is exactly the plot arc I'm trying to model.

Good! Phew. Reading your blog post i thought you were going for a greek tragedy where the players just get trashed to hell and die horribly! Hahaha. I agree, thats how it is in any good story. Not this slow climb up a scale of power but a gradual increase in tension until the final resolution.

You are right that your system will encourage that sort of saving up to the last moment (As long as it doesnt encourage the players to murder eachother). That is, If they players understand which are actually the important actions. But then if they dont understand which are important, i guess its fair that they be punished for it.

But why do so many GMs get it wrong?

I blame D&D! Hah. Its the old simulationist 'dice are king' hp and hit dice etc. Years of bad habits. Thankfully, i only ever played the red boxed set of 1st ed, and only once or twice when i was 6 or something. Then i played freeform systemless narrativism from that point on up until i was 13. Sure my games sucked. But i was prepubescent.

I think I do a pretty good job of it (partially because I lay awake at night worrying about these things). But, even so. There are those moments in a game where a player fails a roll, and I feel my stomach clench. I know what should happen--usually a horribly sticky death, or at least a maiming. I know things have gone horribly wrong. I flinch and  scramble to try and avoid that fate. In some ways the ability to take control of failures (by creating complications that cause the conflict to evolve) is more important than the player-controlled difficulties.

I admit, there was one point in the last game i played where the player could have blown himself to a million pieces while dismantling an enemy ship for salvage. Specifically, he decided it would be a good idea to remove the ships bomb from the firing mechanism and manually arm it, to destroy the parts of the ship he couldnt salvage. Luckily he did roll well and i didnt have to turn him into a cloud of red mist. Although honestly, i would have done it if he rolled low (Hey, it was pretty stupid and he knew what he was doing).

I know there's a trend on Forge inspired games to discuss the consequences before rolling. That doesn't fit well with my style of gaming. It's an unwanted intrusion of extra mechanics into the flow of the story. The more I can remove the discussions of mechanics, the better. And 90% of the time it's not necessary. Unfortunately, I sometimes don't realize it is necessary until it's too late.

Maybe you DONT need to discuss the consequences with the players before a roll. Besides, in most cases they are pretty obvious, as long as the player understands how deep the chasm is, how dangerous those snakes look, how spikey those spikes are or how big the orc is. Maybe you just need to discuss the consequences with yourself, and decide on appropriate outcomes.

Still. Im not trying to convince you to abandon your system. I was skeptical at first but i think you're refinining it nicely. It sounds like fun and if it suits your playstyle thats the important thing. All im trying to do is give you ideas on how to resolve your major gripe about GM-controlled fortune-based outcome resolution systems.

Oh well. Hope ive had something to say that helped. Its been a really interesting discussion.

[rikiwarren]

Maybe you DONT need to discuss the consequences with the players before a roll. Besides, in most cases they are pretty obvious, as long as the player understands how deep the chasm is, how dangerous those snakes look, how spikey those spikes are or how big the orc is. Maybe you just need to discuss the consequences with yourself, and decide on appropriate outcomes.

I think this sums up my feelings exactly. I do try to let the players know when I think they don't see the things the same way I do ("Let's see. You're character has worked as a warp-core engineer for 4 years? Oh, 5. Well, you think overriding the safety protocols are a very bad idea. If you don't align the injection coil perfectly (4 successes) you may scatter your atoms over 10,000 different dimensions.")

I get in trouble when I take it for granted that the character will succeed, but still call for a roll anyway. "Oh, what are the odds that the professional juggler won't catch the live bomb as it slides off the end of the table."

One of the things I like about letting players evolve the conflict on failed rolls, is that I don't have to establish the stakes as cleanly before the roll.

(engineering example)

Bob: "Ok, I deactivate the safety protocols and try to align the injection coils by hand."
Me: "Ok, roll."
Bob: "Oops..."
John: "What do you mean, Oops."
Me: "Ok, the ship expl--"
Bob: "Wait! There's a sudden flash from my console. I'm tossed backwards as main power shorts itself out."
Me: "Ooh, cool. OK, John. The last you saw, the two pirates were turning around, coming back for another pass. Then suddenly the bridge goes dark. Secondary power kicks in, washing the bridge in red light. Weapons, shields and sensors are still down."
John: "Engineering, I need power back. Now!."
Bob: "Working on it, Captian." (turns to me) How bad is it?
Me: "A couple hours work, minimum."
Bob: "Captian, we might want to prepare to be boarded."
...

Still. Im not trying to convince you to abandon your system. I was skeptical at first but i think you're refinining it nicely. It sounds like fun and if it suits your playstyle thats the important thing. All im trying to do is give you ideas on how to resolve your major gripe about GM-controlled fortune-based outcome resolution systems.

Oh well. Hope ive had something to say that helped. Its been a really interesting discussion.

You've given me a lot to think about. Thanks. I think its to the point where I need to flesh out the rest of the system and give it a try. See what actually happens with real players.  It definitely won't be for everyone. But that's OK.

One last question. Lets assume letting the players set the difficulty number works well for unopposed rolls. What about opposed rolls? One option would be to make all rolls just player Vs. difficulty (e.g. the way Buffy the Vampire Slayer works). But then, major NPCs should start at a higher baseline than other characters. Maybe the GM can set a number of successes needed (for any conflict) and assign bonus dice (for good roleplaying, etc). The other players each have one turn to chime in. And (finally) the player can spend any BPs before rolling. Most actions (including facing unopposed characters) would require just a single success. Only major conflicts require multiple successes.

Another option would be to have major NPCs use opposed rolls (with or without letting other players chime in and increase the rolling-player's difficulty).

-Rich-