Conflict Resolution - is there neccessarily a clear victor?

[R00kie]

I'm looking at the resolution method for a game I'm working on called Pursuit.

Each scenes is framed by one of the player. At the same time the player dictates the expected conflict within the scene. Each conflict must have two sides (although it isn't neccessary for both sides to have actual players on them - one side might be 'the storm' or 'an NPC cop'). The scene is played out until the point where the players agree that the conflict needs to be resolved. At this point the conflict may be redefined - its entirely possible the assumed conflict no longer makes sense based on whats actually happened in the scene and something slightly different now makes more sense. It is also possible that no conflict will result (although from a game mechanics point of view this is bad for the framin player, so they will probably try to frame scenes which will lead to conflict).

When conflict does occur Dice are then rolled, and a certain player is given narrative control over the rest of the scene although each player is still responsible for their character.

The thing is with minor tweaks I could allow the system to:

a) Always produce a victory for one side or the other
b) Allow for the possibility that both sides fail
c) Allow for the possibility that both sides succeed and tie

I cannot immediately see how options b and c fit a lot of conflicts. For example: If one character is trying to steal another characters car keys then they either succeed or fail. The details could be worked out in the narrative, but it looks to be a win/loose scenario.

Similarly if two players are gambling against each other, is there any real difference between them both failing and a tie?

I know some games allow for both fail or both succeed options. What are the benefits of offering these options and how could they consistently be interpretted?

[Krippler]

If you have a system were both sides have resource pools that can be depleted during the course of a conflict you can reach quote satisfying ties. Like, you have a resource that you transform into dies on your rolls, and the other side gets to oppose the rolls with their own resources. If both sides are out of resources and none have achieved their goal it can be seen as a tie, like: both gunfighters have run out of ammo, stamina and will to fight or both people competing over an auctioned item run out of money and a third party gets it.

[Marshall Burns]

Sometimes when both sides succeed, it's not exactly a tie; f'rinstance, when two people are both trying to hurt each other, and both succeed, so both get hurt.  It's hard to call that a tie, at least for me.  I've got a game I'm working on called The Rustbelt that handles combat and several other things that way, and it gets a lot of mileage out of the mutually-assured destruction that sort of system creates.

But I don't think that sort of thing is appropriate for all games; it depends on the style you're going for.

-Marshall

[R00kie]

Thanks. That gives me enough detail that I feel happy throwing together my Power 19. I feel I have a clear grasp on the mechanics I need.

I'll design the system to allow both both fail scenarios, but due to the fact that conflict is tied into a wager system I don't think both succeed works for this game.

Cheers,

R00kie