[Touch of Noir] Bidding to define conflict resolution

[Caesar_X]

In the Film Noir game I've been working on, I've been thinking more about how to define player vs. player conflict resolution.  Each character has certain stats such as "Face" (charm) and "Brains" (intelligence) that are used to resolve conflicts.  So for example, if my Femme Fatale tries to seduce your Stock Clerk, it's my 5d6 of Face against your 2d6 of Spine.

But the problem I'm seeing is, who gets to define what the conflict is?  If I'm an ex-boxer with Fists of 6d6 (max in the game), why wouldn't I just pound my way through every scene?  To resolve this, I started to think about letting players (and the GM if an NPC is in the scene), bid something towards conflict selection.  So in the above example, if the Stock Clerk "won" the bidding mechanic, he could choose to try and use his superior Brains to outsmart the Femme Fatale instead of allowing her to run rampant with her sexuality over him.

Any thoughts on this?  Should I simply be allowing the chosen narrative in each scene to define how the characters are in conflict? 

Chris
Caesar_X@yahoo.com

Real more about 'Touch of Noir' here: http://troupeberkeley.infogami.com/Noir

[JustinB]

I think yes, you should allow the chosen narrative for each scene to define the conflict.
But.
If the Stock Clerk has high Brains, he could use that to see through the Femme Fatale's attempts to seduce him. You'll need to figure out a way to define which attributes are in conflict in an ongoing manner, but allowing the scenic narrative to do the bulk of the work.

[Christoph Boeckle]

Hello Chris,

If I'm an ex-boxer with Fists of 6d6 (max in the game), why wouldn't I just pound my way through every scene?

There are numerous reasons why someone would or wouldn't do that, in my experience.

Often, it's plainly not appropriate to the character, even if he's a good boxer. And if there's no pressing urge to win every conflict at no matter the costs, players will value their character credibility over the "winning".
Other times, a player might not like the consequences the use of a trait might imply. There surely is a difference between punching someone in the face and begging for pardon after having offended someone, in terms of future relationships... (since you use R-maps, this would definitely be recorded)

Then again, maybe the player is really interested to see how far he can go with raw violence and expects to meet resistance and consequences, full blow. If I understand your game correctly, Guilt Points can be used for that.


I can see any of these three options as making great sense in your game (depending on the situation of course) and agree with Justin that the narrative should define the nature of the traits used.

[joepub]

Maybe there's a mechanic that urges players to use all of their attributes, instead of falling back on one or two?

This could be done in a few ways, but I reccomend:
Encourage players to lose some conflicts. In Capes, losing a conflict gets you Debt. Debt can be spent to do cool stuff in later conflicts. Sucking now means rocking later.

This would totally re-enforce what the game is about.
Plus... the Weathered Detective will totally intentionally lose an early-on conflict of "Find the Thief's Identity" so that he can gain some debt, so that later on... when he DOES find the Thief's Identity, he has the resources to find the thief AND punch his face in.

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hell CaesarX

Conflict among characters is often a result of the character not getting what they want in the game. Frustration with the game, campaign or GM can make the player turn against another player. Conflict at this stage requires a winner and a loser. Its better to reinforce that all players (characters) need to win. If the premise of the game is that players will compete against each other, then there must be a definite system to resolve this. As Joepub inferred, the winner must get something and the loser must get something. As long as the participation is complete, winning and losing just determine the kind of reward the player receives.

The player wants a reward and it may be the satisfaction of winning at any cost. Change the goal to resolving the situation without using 5d6 of punching is a good alternative. Giving in puts a new angle on the relationship between characters. The bidding is essentially how much penalty each player is willing to accept when their character attempts to coerce or harm another player's character. Example: the clerk truly wants to be gentle with the femme fatale and vows to use 1d6 of punching (only a love tap?) against her. The femme fatale only wants to play with the clerk, accepting the bid and countering with an appropriate 1d6 of face (just a flirt?). The situation is defused and the players can lose their suspicion and paranoia about the other.

Troy

[Caesar_X]

I really like Troy's concept of bidding dice for a conflict resolution.  And Joepub's comments reminded me of the excellent Fallout rules in DitV (I will check out Capes as well).   "Consequences" at the end of a conflict might be an interesting way to have characters increase their Guilt Level, with the corresponding accumulation of Desperation Points that can be used to help in future conflicts.

And I definitely take the point about letting the narrative define the conflict whenever possible.

Thanks for the good feedback, guys. 
Chris

Caesar_X@yahoo.com
Real more about 'Touch of Noir' here: http://troupeberkeley.infogami.com/Noir