Conflict in Crux

[taalyn]

Well, I wouldn't mind going for brave and groundbreaking (as much as this can be said to be groundbreaking at all). Let's just go with the freeform, and if people don't like/get it, they can use houserules - they're probably going to anyway, so let that be. In the meantime, let's go where our vision is - wide open, freeform, and universal.

Aidan

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm.

I suggest putting a critical eye to this before making a decision. I believe my principles are sound, but this is a case of principle in action, and there may be mitigating circumstances. We can't just assume that we're right in this case without analysis.

Now, it may just be a preference thing, and maybe this is too small a sample (I suggest a playtest on IndieNetgaming). But I found the objections to be interesting. I mean it wasn't just, "I don't like it," or "it's weird," but in addition there were some very specific complaints.

The suspense thing is a particularly interesting comment. I think that may have been in part your particular application of the rule, Aidan. That is, you took all the Draws, figured all the results, and then narrated them all at once when you had the big picture. I'm wondering if you were trying to avoid any feelings of "unfairness" by going this way? Because it's not neccessary.

How about this, instead? After declarations and Drawing, just go around the table one by one resolving each. Or just select them based on feel (players will probably try to cajole you into selecting a certain order at times). But resolve one and then the next, and the next. Nobody announces their results until their resolution comes up; in fact they can delay the Draw until it's their turn if they really want to keep the suspense up (though this will delay play unneccessarily). This does make things happen in an "order" in terms of descritption, but I'm not sure what that order matters. In fact the resolutions can be happening simultaneously, they're just described one by one.

In fact, that's how my example above was done. Anyhow, this would put the suspense back to where it normally is, and keep it all fairly simple in terms of keeping things straight (you don't have to worry about forgetting to incorporate some part).

OTOH, what I find so interesting is that often players make the claim that going in "rounds" is boring. That is, sure, there's suspense, and it's cool while it's your "turn", but while you wait for things to come around to you, it's a drag. But there's another couple of alternatives to this.

First, there's a method described in the game Run Out the Guns. Hawkins calls it Cascading. Instead of doing "Combat Rounds" where everyone gets their turn, instead, you focus on an entire conflict from beginning to end for one character before moving on to another. So, let's say that in our example that one character gets into a firefight with another. The GM focuses on the player until his character has completely resolved that firefight. Then he moves on to the next player.

There are a couple of important effects of this. Since there's no break in the description of the action except to draw, things are much more contiguous and intense. Not only is this good for the player, but it allows the rest of the group to fall into Audience mode while this occurs. Meaning that they are now not thinking in terms of their character (since their characters can do nothing), but in terms of the character acting as a protaginist. So everyone is more entertained. Also, things go more quickly as you can focus on less sets of stats, etc. So in fact things like combat take less time overall than they would otherwise.

This also goes to the real simplifier. And that would be to move completely to Conflict resolution per the Forge definition. What you have is still Task resolution. I shoot, you miss, I shoot again. Task. Conflict resolution is more like, I want to kill him, you fail, hmmm, now what do I do.

That is, in Conflict resolution, once the Draw has been made, there's no more drawing for that same Conflict. One draw decides the entire Conflict as described, and the narration lists all the tasks that are performed in the interrim. Combat? "You shoot back and forth each popping up over the crates to shoot. At one point you frantically reload, and as you pop back up, you note that your target has fled."

So, just some ideas there. Anything jog loose on any of that?

Mike

[taalyn]

Heya Mike, Jack,

I've been thinking through your thoughts, Mike, and also referring to Nobilis' conflict system, as it's one of our inspirations. Here's back at ya:

- on resolution: you're right - I may have skewed my results by trying to be "fair" and incorporating it all at once. I'll give it another go. Since I keep forgetting to include the mooks' turn, I'll just pick a new person each round, and the mooks will go after that person goes.

- on the Cascading thing: I can't get my mind around how that would work in complex conflicts, where several characters are attacking a single (or many) other characters at the same time.

- on Coflict vs. Task resolution: yes, what I've been describing is Task resolution. But that doesn't mean conflict res (in Forge terms) isn't in there too. In my mind, conflict resolution is for less important or dramatic events - there are 5 guards to get through, but the guards themselves aren't terribly significant, nor is getting through them. It's Underworld-like, in this regard - broad or narrow scope as important or relevant.

All that said, I think maybe the best way to handle it in the rules is simply by implication, a la Nobilis. There is no direct reference to how to organize conflicts. Damage is explained, and the effects of various sorts of miracles, and that's it. The examples tend towards what you're describing, and what we seem to be aiming at, but there's no overt explanation. I like that. This seems to be the most freeform and open option.

Aidan

[taalyn]

I've spent the evening discussing these conflict issues with some of the playetsters, and come to some realizations.

- it's one player who is violently opposed (at least, he seemed that way to all of us) to the freeform system. But he's a powergamer, and his actions must always be a) before yours and b) cooler than yours. No wonder it would bug him.

- I misremembered how it went down a bit. As it turns out, I did do resolution instantly a lot of the time (but not all of it), which together with the powergamer, really screwed up opportunities for the other players to do stuff.

So, they're all for the freeform, but suggest that I make sure to get draws, but not narrate results until everyone has declared, and that I apply the 5-second rule always ("what do you do? one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three...").

Another thing that will help that they suggested - drop that story, because it's using characters made based on the complicated system - return to the "wide-open", they say. Since tonight was standard game night and 2 of the players canxed on us, we went through and made new characters (members of a band!) and started a new story, and the new stuff worked great. I think conflict will too...

Aidan

[Mike Holmes]

- it's one player who is violently opposed (at least, he seemed that way to all of us) to the freeform system. But he's a powergamer, and his actions must always be a) before yours and b) cooler than yours. No wonder it would bug him.

I don't want to be all PC, but don't marginalize his style of play. Gamism is valid, and this doesn't leave much for a Gamist of any stripe to do. So it's simply a matter of GNS preference problems. The question you have to ask is whether or not you are making this game for that preference set or another.

- I misremembered how it went down a bit. As it turns out, I did do resolution instantly a lot of the time (but not all of it), which together with the powergamer, really screwed up opportunities for the other players to do stuff.

One character would "take out" an opponent before others even had a shot at him? That sort of problem? I have comments about that below.

So, they're all for the freeform, but suggest that I make sure to get draws, but not narrate results until everyone has declared, and that I apply the 5-second rule always ("what do you do? one thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three...").

Huh? I do not understand the above paragraph at all. You're saying that players should not be allowed to get draws until the other players have all declared? That sorta makes sense. I mean, if the character is present, they should have the opportunity to attempt anything at any time. Such that they should be able to get involved if they want to do so.

But this is all very simmy. I mean, it suggests that time is being distributed in some sort of "real" in-game time. Instead of dramatically. Let me describe how Cascades work in terms of what I'm talking about. Let's say we have three good guys A, B, C, and two bad guys 1 and 2. A and B declare that they are attacking 1, and C declares that he is attacking 2. You simply play out the entire fight between A, B and 1 first to it's conclusion, and then do the other fight (or vice versa). Then you narrate something like, "As 2 drops, C, you look over and see that A and B have just finished with 1."

Time doesn't have to flow in discrete chunks at all where players have an opportunity to do "just as much" as other players. See, you're operating off the old model that says that to balance "screen time" in play (what the players want for their characters), that you have to do the discrete chunking thing. Turns.

But when the PCs are in different rooms, say, talking to different people, and you flash back and forth between them, there's no "rounds" or "turns", are there? So why shouldn't that be true in any conflict? What makes combat so different? I mean, would we be talking about this if the subject of the Conflict was something like cooking?

Cascades take the cinematic approach. If there's a mass combat scene, and player A attacks the leader of the enemy forces (after a roll to get there by, I dunno, by swinging on a chandellier), they duel it out all by themselves as the battle rages about them. Then as A defeats the leader, we flash to a scene where character B duels the "six-fingered man who slew his father," and they duke it out until they're complete. Then as character B finishes up, the GM describes him backing up into character A comically nearly attacking each other. What has character A been up to all this time? Why killing nameless mooks, of course! No need to narrate it in any detail; it wasn't caught "on-camera". Next conflict roll, they turn together and beloow menacingly at the opposing rabble in an attempt to make them run.

The point is that, as GM, one of your biggest responsibilities is to ensure that each player's character gets their fair share of screen time. And Combat is no different. Did one PC take down the foe, leaving the second PC without a way of getting to act like a protagonist? Well then, give him something to shoot at too! Have an even bigger example of the same baddy accost that PC. Or have some other Conflict occur for him.

Think of play like this. You (and/or the player) are simply selecting a series of conflicts for the character to overcome. Sometimes they'll have help, sometimes not. But in any case, each character must have conflicts in which they are the center of attention, and these must be distribued roughly evenly. As long as that's being done, players won't complain about not getting their "shot".

Mike

[taalyn]

Heya Mike,

I get you, and that's definitely some great advice. This thread has become more of "GM eductaion" than directly addressing conflict system issues, but that's all good as far as I'm concerned!

What I meant in that confusing paragraph is that I would give each player 5 seconds to declare what they're doing, then tell them to draw while I move on to the next player's actions. Once I've got everyone's actions, then I get draws all at once and combine them into story.

On Cascading - I get it, and that does work well. I think there will still be some sort of interruption, do some cascading for a bit with one character or gang, then to the next. In a sport event, cascading might not work so well.

To be honest, though, having you see my GM style when we playtest will be the real deal - you'll be able to see first hand what I'm doing wrong and/or right. I'm looking forward to it.

Aidan