[IaLC] Conflict & Resolution Structure

[timfire]

As some of you might remember from old threads, I'm working on a game tentative titled "In a Land Called". I'm getting close to a playable alpha, but I'm still having issues working out exactly how resolution works. So I'm humbling myself and asking for feedback and advice.

For the game, I'm really interested in making eveything a sort fo extended conflict. There were two TV shows that solidified this for me [slight spoilers ahead]:

The first was an episode of Battlestar Galactica from the second season. Setup: The Galactica had encountered another human battlestar that was commanded by a superior-ranking officer. Conflict: Cmd. Adama (sp?) and the superior ranking officer begin struggling for control of the Galactica and crew (this is one of Adama's major issues).

What followed was a series of scenes were Adama and the other commander struggle back and forth, but the issue is never revolved. First the officer says she has no interest in beaking up Adama's crew. Then she does, and Adama gives. Then she takes a few of Adama's crew prisoner (there was some other stuff that went down), and Adama gives. The she condemns the men to death, without telling Adama first. Adama sends out his fleet of jet fighters & marines to rescue the men and the other officer does the same. But still, the issue isn't resolved (at least not in that episode).

The second was the flashback sequence from a recent episode of Lost. Jin, who was a sort of intimidator for his wife's mob-boss father, is told to go kill a man, something he's never done. At first he refuses, but then the father calls him son, something he's never done. He goes home and tells his wife, and they fight about it (she's not very supportive in this scene). Then, in the third and final scene, he goes to the guy's hotel room, points the gun at the guy's head and... (dramatic pause)... promptly lowers it and tells the guy to flee town.

Important to note, in both shows, this series of scenes is broken up and interspersed with other scenes. In Battlestar Galactica, it should also be noted that each scene was an escalation of the conflict. In Lost, I'm not sure if you want to call that an escalation (maybe it was, just not an heavy one).
_____________

OK, so I'm interested in emulating that sort of a sequence for IaLC. So resolution seems scene-based. It also seems that there will need to be some list of conflicts that's floating out there (like "the opposing commander wants control of the ship and crew"). When you roll, you add a point to some measure that says whether the conflict is defeated or not in the end.

So here's a question---it seems that a scene will need to be framed with a specific conflict in mind. But I kinda want to hold on to that feel of "the PCs go out and do stuff, and based on that stuff we formulate the conflict."

Mechanics aside, do you think it possible to reconcile these two (in my mind opposing) goals? To both have a pre-determined list of general conflicts/issues and still let specific conflicts/resolution rolls be determined in play?

I guess one issue I have is that I still want conflicts to be driven by PC action & player desire, but I don't neccessary want to prescibe what the scene will be about ala PTA or MLwM. But I want pre-defined conflicts/issues for a variety of reasons--mainly so that players can engage in multiple conflicts simultaneously, or different characters can engage the same conflict/issue in seperate scenes.

Is this a real issue or am I just over-thinking things?

I guess one solution might be just formulate a conflict and roll, and then when the scene is over let the player or whoever dictate which conflict/isssue the point of success/failure is credit towards (as appropriate to the scene).

Thanks! I just wanted to talk with out with people.

[Steven Stewart]

Tim,

Not sure this will help or not, but I will throw it in the ring so to speak. First, in  a draft for a game I have on hold, the game was about big events and people either believing in them coming to pass or not coming to pass. But there was a mechanic that made it either happen or where it would never happen. Sort of a meta-game conflict. When the event either happened or was made impossible to happen, the fallout would impact the characters based on their belief of it.

The way it worked was every conflict that was related to the event, the player had a choice, they could put a die in the "great event pool or not". And at the end of every scene, the players could all roll the number of dice in the great event pool. If it came up 3 1's it didn't happen, if it came up 3x6's it did. If they weren't rolled either, well then it was still undetermined. In the one or two minor tests of the game, it created a big tension every roll when someone would choose to roll. Espically since every character would change in some way or another based on it being a set of 3x1's or 3x6's. Which is also why sometimes people didn't roll, they liked the status qou.

Again, maybe that is missing the mark of what you are talking about and if so, please ignore. But I think what you are saying is possible, and very interesting an overarching story arc with scenes within it. Somehow the scenes within impact the overall arc. 

Cheers for now,

Steve

[Filip Luszczyk]

I've been looking forward for this game - it's good the project closes to the end.

Mechanics aside, do you think it possible to reconcile these two (in my mind opposing) goals? To both have a pre-determined list of general conflicts/issues and still let specific conflicts/resolution rolls be determined in play?

I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be possible, and your solution seems reasonable to me.

Also, somehow InSpectres and gathering of the franchise dice in result of smaller conflicts comes to my mind, although it's not exactly this.

Actually, I've been thinking about something slightly similar in relation to my Exalted Heartbreaker (which is in concept stage, and I'm not yet sure if I want to complete it). The idea was to reinforce the fact that every, even the smallest, action of the protagonists affects the world at large in a kind of a butterfly effect. One of the means of that would be Destinies/Fates/However-I'll-Call-It-In-The-End - pre-determined global-scale events that hinge over the world. My current concept is that one Destiny is "attached" to every aspect (physical, mental, social and emotional) of each character, one of them completely tragic, one negative with some trace of hope, one positive with some bad side, and one entirely positive. Also, four Destinies are "unattached" to the characters at any moment, and in result of conflicts it is possible to move the Destinies between the characters and switch them with the free ones. Whenever the character engages in any conflict using a specific aspect, he adds points to the Destiny currently attached to that aspect - and when enough points is gathered on the Destiny, the player resolves this particular global event, retroactively tying the character's actions to the stakes if needed.

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello Tim,

What you've described is a very difficult situation to resolve. Not so much the details, but how to manage an extended conflict that keeps the parties involved. The hardest part is determining the criteria for winning the conflict. After I spend several sessions on a conflict that has overwhelming importance, I don't want it to be random. Neither do I want to follow a script nor invite an arbitrary decision.

I would like to look at conflicts and know exactly what they are. The easiest ones are win/lose situations. You fight something and either win or lose. Other situations let you try again. The guardian will remain until I vanquish him or the door does not open until I pick the lock. Some are conflicts with various levels of winning and those are the most difficult to define.

RPGs normally don't have variable or dynamic conflicts. Its all or nothing, no second place, no consolation prize and no room for defeat of any kind. But life isn't like that. Its all about request, opportunity, compromise, tactics and strategy. Maybe a way to look at conflicts is to look at the different possible results and how you would achieve them. I find its easier as a GM and for players to have three possible outcomes for a conflict, and they don't necessarily involve death. And these three outcomes are directly related to the effort of the players and the success of their characters. So, they can completely win the conflict, partially win it or completely lose it. The partial win takes some creativity to design. Often the goal is accomplished with some repercussions: the enemy flees but doesn't complete his evil scheme, the vault is opened but the TNT blows up the cash, you acquire the weapons but forgot the energy paks, the vaccine works but there are only two doses, you stop your commander's continued indiscretions but must keep the incident a secret. Its actually wise to have partial successes to conflicts. It keeps the players coming back for more as there is still tension regarding the conflict without facing utter defeat.

In your first example referencing Battlestar Galactica, I don't see a conflict between the admiral and commander. That is the proper chain of command and there is no conflict because he follows the orders. Only when he sees injustice does the conflict begin. So, I don't think that is an extended conflict. The second example definitely is one, but it latches onto internal conflicts and is more complicated.

Players definitely want to do something with their characters besides go into a bar and raid a keep of some sort. Let the players come up with some plans and then break them down into specific objectives. Let the players brainstorm what defines complete success, partial success, try again scenarios and complete success. This will put things in perspective and the players will be able to direct their characters with intelligence and skill.

Each objective must be completed to realize the goal. When an objective is completely satisfied, the players get something (knowledge, item, resource) that can help them with the next objective. If they complete the objective in an average way then they get nothing special. If they fail but don't botch the plan, then they can try again...with greater opposition. If they completely fail and just do something stupid, then the plan fails too. However, completing the objectives still has validity and reward. Essentially, they are salvaging the wreckage.

Random results are great to represent the fog, karma and chance of chaotic situations. In extended conflicts, there is an expectation that intelligence, planning and careful execution are involved. Take advantage of this and reward the players by showing a true evaluation of their characters actions. They'll love you for it.

Troy

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Tim,

Are you familiar with the HW/HQ extended contest mechanic. It does a lot of what you are seeking, with explicit mention in the rules for using them over a long period to model just this kind of issue.

I really like the system, but it has many opponents due to it being mathematical and in some peoples mind a game in itself, I am struggling with adapting it myself to make the strengths of the system more evident, but you may find it interesting as a stepping off point.

The key is that starting skills set Advantage Points for each participant, and the relevent level of these AP reflects who has the upper hand in the conflict. Players then make statements of intent each round and the riskiness of the action is assigned a number of AP represented as a proportion of the currently held AP. Skill rolls result in multiples of the AP bid being lost gained or transferred to the opponent.

Importantly, a mini resolution of how well each party is doing is reached each round, but a full resolution is only achieved by driving the opponent down to zero or below, with the amount below zero relative to the starting points giving an over-all success level.

The negatives can be that the players may focus on the maths of the situation especially when driving their opponent below zero, but a solution is to leave actual quantities up to the GM, with negotiation based on refining the action and intent when disputes arise not the bid level. In other words don't dwell on the maths of the bid and emphasise the relative AP only as an indicator or who has the advantage and bids as a function of risk.

Variants could include defining starting points based on dramatic impact not skill, or defining a bid quantification mechanic to take the abstract maths away.

I find that as long as you focus on the drama of the situation, and map any quantity used back onto the dramatic situation via narrative then the system works excellently.

[timfire]

I am familiar with the principles of HQ and its extended conflict mechanic, but have never played it. Here's a question---within the context of an extended conflict, how is it decided in HQ what a scene & a roll will be about?

Once a player engages an extended conflict, are they automatically locked in that contest until it resolves (they can't do anything else)? Or can they set it aside and engage other stuff? If they can set it aside, how is it decided what a scene/roll will be about? Does the GM or player say, "I want this scene to address the on-going extended conflict," before the scene is framed? Or is the scene framed and in the middle of it someone goes, "hey, this situtation would be a good time to make a roll for the extended conflict"?

Thanks! This is the sort of thing I'm having trouble imagining right.

[Web_Weaver]

How is it decided in HQ what a scene & a roll will be about?

An extended contest need not entail a whole scene but it most often does in my case. There is no real mechanic for deciding on scenes or conflicts in HQ, as it is an "abashed narrativist" game. I personally impose an extra scene bidding stage but that is probably outside the scope of this discussion.

Once a player engages an extended conflict, are they automatically locked in that contest until it resolves (they can't do anything else)? Or can they set it aside and engage other stuff?

That depends which form it takes. The most common usage is to resolve the conflict there and then, and any other action is related to the contest as an "unrelated action". But, this is not the only way one can run it. In your case you could choose the less used option of only running one round of the contest in a scene, picking up the contest as and when it becomes relevant.

Note: once engaged a contest should be completed, it shouldn't just be left hanging unresolved, but as the goals can change each round it is easy to refocus a conflict that becomes stale or irrelevant.

In fact your question makes me realise that I could use this option more in my scene framing style.

If they can set it aside, how is it decided what a scene/roll will be about? Does the GM or player say, "I want this scene to address the on-going extended conflict," before the scene is framed? Or is the scene framed and in the middle of it someone goes, "hey, this situation would be a good time to make a roll for the extended conflict"?

It would be equally easy to do either, all one needs is to keep a note of the AP for each participant, and maybe keep notes on the context and original goals of the conflict.

Of course you could decide on a mechanic to allow such framing, either asserting that a scene has to be pre-arranged as part of the conflict, or a mechanic or protocol that grants the right for a player to re-initiate the conflict.

[Web_Weaver]

Skimming through your on-line documents on In a Land Called, it strikes me that you could combine the AP concept with the dice pool, loosing or gaining dice each time one engages in the conflict. I guess the player would need to record the conflicts (and their possibly changing goals) currently engaged in on the char sheet, but this is actually quite a neat idea, bringing the character focus onto the long term conflicts engaged in.

[timfire]

Once a player engages an extended conflict, are they automatically locked in that contest until it resolves (they can't do anything else)? Or can they set it aside and engage other stuff?

That depends which form it takes. The most common usage is to resolve the conflict there and then...

If they can set it aside, how is it decided what a scene/roll will be about? Does the GM or player say, "I want this scene to address the on-going extended conflict," before the scene is framed? Or is the scene framed and in the middle of it someone goes, "hey, this situation would be a good time to make a roll for the extended conflict"?

It would be equally easy to do either...

"It would be" or "it is"? I don't mean to keep pushing here, but this gets to the heart of my current issue. I would really like some actual play experience on this, if you have it.

For some reason, I keep having troubling imagining play where there are both pre-defined generalized conflicts AND the specific rolls get decided by PC action. I find it real easy to imagine play where the conflict or focus of the scene is decided at scene framing (ala MLwM or PTA).

Part of the trouble here is if conflicts are decided by PC action, how do you ensure that the specific roll will relate to one of the pre-defined conflicts? I guess I've been trying to imagine play where most if not all of the conflicts are pre-defined.

So, I would love to hear about Actual Play experience where it gets decided mid-scene that the PCs' actions seem to be addressing an extended contest, but that was not the intention before hand.

Thanks! I'm mulling over the comments so far.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Tim,

I'm going to risk a slapping down here since you asked for actual play, and I don't have empirical knowledge to provide you with that. I've only got reason for this one. It seems to me that if you build a reward mechanic that gives some type of bonus for tying in the overarching extended conflict that you don't necessarily have to predefine a scenes purpose to have that continuing tie-in to happen. Players will find inventive ways to tie that extended conflict into the middle of a scene if they get dice for it. If you also allow that bonus, or a different bonus, for setting up a scene that is intended to directly engage and add to that overarching conflict you then have two tools you can use to address that continuous conflict.

Think of the Mountain Witch, it could be argued that fate cards are an extended conflict that players tie into existing scenes, to get the mechanical reward of narration.

[Web_Weaver]

So, I would love to hear about Actual Play experience where it gets decided mid-scene that the PCs' actions seem to be addressing an extended contest, but that was not the intention before hand.

I don't actually do this very often, so the only clear example I can give is where a player had expressed a desire to increase their wealth rating during play. It does not quite fit what you ask for but I will detail anyway:

I was concerned that it was not really a priority of my game, and that other players would not want to see this played as a major priority, so I decided upon a long term Extended Contestant. Whenever the more normal priorities of play coincided with this aim, I turned to my pad and checked the current APs for his character and the resistance, and we applied the current situation with reference to my notes, decided on skills and bids, rolled the dice and altered the AP accordingly. It wasn't really framed as a scene, more as a side issue. A little like Pendragon winter phase rolls.

But you appear to be asking for something else, I have some idea how to answer but I am not sure if it would fit exactly, so I will seek some clarification, to avoid wandering down the wrong road.

Is this an example of what you are asking:
In a scene framed as Adama confronts his son over a rumor of insubordination, how do you switch context to the Commander Adama v Admiral Cain conflict in mid scene?

Also, I get the impression that you may be using a very specific definition of a scene, do you define a scene in terms of the embedded conflict, or do you define it in terms of situation and character?

I personally use scenes in my game based on explicit and enumerated character goals on their sheet, (a departure from HQ rules) in this context it could be said that all scenes in my game are part of a predefined conflict, that of the struggle to achieve goals.

It may be helpful if we could zoom-in to the conflict box on your spreadsheet. Do you envisage all conflict to be contained within this box? i.e. would fallout only be generated once the overall conflict is over, or would fallout occur after each scene that addressed the long term conflict?

[Web_Weaver]

It seems to me that if you build a reward mechanic that gives some type of bonus for tying in the overarching extended conflict that you don't necessarily have to predefine a scenes purpose to have that continuing tie-in to happen.

I am not sure we are at the mechanics stage of this discussion, I think that Tim is looking for a model for multi-scene conflicts within the context of player led exploration. I suspect that the actual mechanic would be easy to formulate (bonuses/advantage points/dice pools/whatever), once the structure of play is clarified.

I do agree that the reward cycle is vital here, but it may be implicit in the actual conflict if such conflicts are spread out over scenes and sessions, and become the focus of the game itself.

[timfire]

Is this an example of what you are asking:
In a scene framed as Adama confronts his son over a rumor of insubordination, how do you switch context to the Commander Adama v Admiral Cain conflict in mid scene?

Also, I get the impression that you may be using a very specific definition of a scene, do you define a scene in terms of the embedded conflict, or do you define it in terms of situation and character?

It could be... Let's say that there are two pre-existing conflicts: "Can Adama reconcile with his son Apollo?" & "Adama and Cmd Cain struggle over control of the Galatica and crew".

The scene starts with Apollo being ushered into the room to discuss rumors of insubordination with Adama (ignoring for the moment who framed the scene). Adama and Apollo start arguing, and Apollo goes, "Cmd Cain doesn't treat her pilots this way." Now, at the start of the scene, it seemed like a Apollo-reconciliation conflict. But suddenly, with the mention of Cain, Adama totally changes subject and starts arguing about Cain---a signal that the conflict is now about Cain. The players then roll based on Cain-related stats or whatever.

My definition of a "scene"... For this discussion, I have been assuming that a conflict will be embedded with each scene. Does that clarify things? The way "non-conflict" scenes will work, if they're even possible, will depend on how the resolution framework works, I think.

And Jamie's correct that right now I'm just looking for a framework to hang resolution on. I have some other considerations that will have to find their way into the actual mechanics. But I do recognize that the mechanics themselves might end up being the solution to my issues, so I don't mind people suggesting mechanical solutions.

Also, the documents I posted in the past (that are posted on my website) are out-dated. I've been working on a new draft, but I haven't made them public yet. But my working assumption is that all Conflicts will be defined using "Consequence" (a new name for "Fallout"), and that Consequence will be earned after each scene where the Conflict is addressed. I haven't decided on the exact mechanism for deciding when a conflict is either defeated or victorious (though I'm leaning towards the number of scenes/rolls beings determined at the Conflict's creation based on the number of Fallout pumped into it).

[Web_Weaver]

Cool, I still see HQ extended contests (EC) as a useful example, I will try and detail a structure assuming you used a like mechanic. In HQ you can have simple and extended contests, and the outcome of each is the same. But, the essential difference is that with ECs this outcome is not calculated until the contest is over.

Sure each dice roll provides an outcome which informs the narration and adjusts the Advantage Points (APs) which act as a "Who's winning indicator", and the dice mechanic is very similar to simple contests, but the actual outcome cannot be estimated from the current situation as the APs can swing, to model the way that fortunes shift back and forth in fiction.

So in HQ the equivalent of Consequence is only calculated in EC once the APs reach a winning condition, and then the current state of the losers AP (zero or below) is used to calculate the Consequence.

Using the HQ model but without the specific mechanics, you frame a scene with a conflict, and at the point of resolution you decide if it should be Simple or Extended:

Simple
relative skills and resistances are calculated, the dice are rolled, the conflict is resolved and narrated and consequences are calculated.


Extended (new conflict)
Relative skills and resistances are selected, from these starting APs are calculated, AP bids are calculated based on intent and risk, the dice are rolled, APs are adjusted to indicate the change in fortune, this change is narrated.


Extended (ongoing conflict)
APs are brought forward from previous scene, new relative skills and resistances are selected based on current situation, AP bids are calculated based on intent and risk, the dice roll, APs are adjusted to indicate the change in fortune, this change is narrated.

If after APs are adjusted, in either extended contest, one party has been driven to zero or less AP the negative value is compared to that parties starting AP and consequences are calculated.

Note: for Extended contests details of current APs and starting APs are kept until the conflict is resolved.

Now, you may wish to modify this to allow consequences to emerge in the process of the conflict, or maintain a more elegant way of keeping the current state of the contest and or winning conditions, but the essential thing to remember is that the full consequences cannot be understood until the conflict has been resolved. After all, that is what resolution means in this context.

[timfire]

I've been thinking about all this and I wanted to give an update.

In the beginning, I was using the assumption that ALL conflicts would be pre-defined. I don't think this would work, I think this would lead to artificial shoe-horning of situation. I think that there always has to be the possibility of starting new conflicts. So my current assumption is that there will always be a certain number of conflicts floating out there, and new ones will be declared from time to time.

I think with scene resolution you probably do need to be a bit more focused in your scene framing. (Occasionally, when I've played PTA, scenes have sorta floundered a bit when the GM & player doesn't know where the scene should go.) So I think scene framing should probably focus more on the GM agressively setting up the situation, rather than letting the players set up things up themselves. In other words, the GM will have primary responsibility/authority in scene framing, rather than it being more cooperative. It could have gone the other way, with the player taking a large role in defining the current scene, but I think giving the GM responsibility here jives more with what I wanted for the game.
____________________

So with that settled, I would like to discuss actual mechanics a bit. These are the things that must be considered in resolution:

Character Skills & Traits: Traits are gained from the character's personality archetype (ex. Strong, brash, quiet, cute, etc). Skills from their Skill Set (ex. martial arts, special weapon, magic spells, etc). PC will have 3-4 of each. Originally, I intended them to have the same mechanical function---they both would just give dice. But it doesn't have to be this way.

I'm thinking Traits & Skills will actually be fairly narrowly defined, because I actually *don't* want characters to succeed all the time. Also, these numbers will NOT change at all during play.

Connections: Players have the option of calling on their Connections for some sort of advantage/bonus in conflicts. Right now I'm thinking Connections will come in different levels, meaning some will be stronger than others. Connections are meant to be the primary method of "character advancement", and the number/levels of Connections will grow over play.

There are consequences to invoking Connections, however, so they won't be a thing that's used all the time.

Multiple conflicts in a scene: I'm thinking I want the possibility of having multiple conflicts in a given scene.

More than one PC in a scene: You know, group conflicts.

Players address different conflicts scene-to-scene, different players address a given conflict scene-to-scene: I would like flexibility in who can address what conflict.

Only players roll? The game is actually intended for GM-less/ful play. I'm thinking to keep things easier to manage, it would be nice if only the acting players rolled, and not the "GMing" players. This is not a requirement.

Conflicts are created using a currency: Just something to be aware of.
____________________

So my original idea was just that players would pick a number of applicable Traits & Skills, which would grant a number of dice, which would be rolled against some number that would determine binary success/failure for that scene. The amount of currency pumped into a conflict would determine how many successes would be neccessary to defeat it (as well as how many failures determine PC defeat).

But lately I've been thinking of ways to make Traits and Skills different... Maybe, players pick one trait and one skill (multiple skills, maybe)? The Trait could determine the threshold of success (ex. 4+ on a d6) and skills could determine the number of dice, or maybe the type of die, if I want to use a step die mechanic. There's gotta be a system out there that already does this, how does play?

It would also be nice if there was a way to augment conflict difficulty. This number could either be fixed (meaning different conflicts would have different difficulties, but they would always be the same for a given conflict), or it could vary (the same conflict is different every time you face it).
____________________

So here's a proposed system:

• Traits determine the threshold of success---let's say we're using d6. There will be color consequences for which Trait is chosen as well.
• Skills determine the number of dice a player rolls. For a given roll/scene, players can select multiple skills.
• Conflicts are given a pool of points, based on the amount of currency pumped into the conflict. In a given scene, the "GM" takes a number of points. This number determines how many successes the player needs to win. The conflict is over when all the points are spent. (How to determine if the conflict is defeated overall? If the player gains more successes than failures?)
• Connections will be rated like Skills, indicating a number of dice. Connections, I think, can be declared after the roll, to boost up a failed roll. When they are in invoked, players are granted their number in extra dice. An individual Connection can only be invoked once a scene, but multiple Connections can be invoked.

The advantage to this system is that multiple players can combine their successes to win. Or inversely, players can be forced to divide their successes between multiple conflicts. Book-keeping is kept to just recording how many points each conflict has.

But I don't have a provision for "damage", hmm...