[Sorcerer] Contest of Wills

[Roger Eberhart]

This is in regards to a post by Ron in a recent thread. Unfortunately I couldn't find the thread in question. The gist was players had opposing ideas so they resolved it with an opposed Will roll. The loser could still follow their course of action, but suffered penalty dice equal to the amount the other player won by. I was curious if this mechanic is covered anywhere in the Sorcerer books (I have the first three) or if this is a new use of the rules. It sounds a little like Contest of Wills in Burning Wheel and seems like a great way to avoid play getting bogged down when players argue over the correct course of action.

[Bill Cook]

That would be Sorcerer Freaked Us Out in Actual Play.

Pretty sure that's standard rules. Just an unconventional application. At least, to a D&D addled mind. (Referring to myself.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

It's standard Sorcerer rules, but in that way that Ralph Mazza likes to get all bent out of shape about.

1. Dice are always employed in conflict resolution ("That's what they're for"). Strong emphasis on always. Strong emphasis also on  resolution, meaning, once you've rolled something, then proceed to next thing, period.

2. Currency always applies, and equals signs operate in both directions.

3. Player-character behavior (announced actions) is subject to full player authorship.

Put all these together and you get the concept that Roger just inquired about. You can't arrive at any other concept when using all the rules, so ipso facto, that's the rule.

As I say, Ralph hates this. It's unclear. It's not explicit. It's confusing. It demands too much. It's too much to ask. It's all sorts of this kind of thing.

I can live with that criticism.

Best,
Ron

[hix]

In the "Sorceror Freaked Us Out ..." thread, Wes is trying to turn Danny into a secret police informant. Let's assume Danny says "No." They roll. Wes wins by 3 dice. Danny then goes to his boss and says, "Wes tried to turn me."

What do I as GM do? In pure role-playing terms, there's no conflict, therefore no dice roll to make and therefore no penalty.*

'Keeping his identity as a police informant secret' is one of the most meaningful things Wes would want out of his victory yet it seems unable to be penalised in the roll-over system.

Steve

* Maybe Danny could make a Will roll against his own Will – but that's disobeying the principle that "Nothing at all can "make" a player-character do anything."[/i]

[Valamir]

Why wouldn't you have Danny Roll against Wes's Will.  That's the conflict.  Does Danny have the balls to stand up to Wes knowing that trouble will ensue and the easier way out, in the short run, is to just keep his mouth shut and hope it goes away.  That's where Wes's victory comes in.

So what if Wes wins?  Does that mean that the roll dictates Danny's behavior and he can't inform on Wes?  No.  It just means that he isn't believed and Danny is now on the outs with his boss...which may wind up meaning that Danny has no where to turn BUT to go to the police for protection.

BTW:  Its not that I hate that the rules aren't clear and explicit. Its just that when the opportunity between reprints is there to make them clear and explicit there's no desire to do so that bothers me.

[Bill Cook]

I'm glad to see this thread stretching out a bit. It (and the source thread) have raised some questions in my mind.

'Keeping his identity as a police informant secret' is one of the most meaningful things Wes would want out of his victory yet it seems unable to be penalised in the roll-over system.

This confused me mightily until I realized by "his" he meant "Danny's."

Ron:

To me, what's revolutionary is not free and clear, currency (charming as it is) or player authorship; it's that conflict resolution allows impact from a Will-based approach in the face of player will.

The roll-over only applies to the very next roll that's relevant.

This answers part of a question I had about the limit of currency's influence. Free and clear, I think, is what establishes a target for currency .. which, come to think of it, is what (I think) is missing from Hix's quandry.

There's seems to be some hostility toward concerns over pacing, along with comments to keep expectations open for new media. Having story now instead of when or how whoever'd planned it doesn't bother me. But I am concerned about ending up with more session time than unresolved story material. (Passes Lore check to sense the imminence of an "in the ear" comment.) Part of the payoff for play involves quantity.

Ralph:

After the third read, I understand your reply to Hix. Kudos for thoughtfulness. This brings a point home: for the group mechanic to work, all sides involved must have something they're trying to do.

------------

In the "don't hit him" example, one character is trying to make another not do something. Not possible, as it turns out, though the rules do support contrary influence.

In the "be my informant" query, one character is trying to make another do something. I assume that this, also, is not possible. I further assume that there is no obligation to announce the action of deciding, in order to provide an application for currency.

So I'm confused. Accepting Ralph's declaration for the character, Danny, after some straining, I can see how "I tell on Wes" can be penalized to engender mistrust from Boss Pig, though the causality is getting thin. (That, I assume, is prioritized below exercising narrative force.)

I guess my only question is whether my assertion about the group mechanic is correct.

And to further stress, consider: Wes confronts Danny about threatening Home Run. He demands that Danny reveal Home Run's plans for heist. Danny demands the whereabouts of Greystone so he can pound the gambling cash out of him. They both roll! Now what the hell happens?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I'm going to focus on one little thing and see if it helps.

So -

Wes is trying to turn Danny into a secret police informant. Let's assume Danny says "No." They roll. Wes wins by 3 dice. Danny then goes to his boss and says, "Wes tried to turn me."

Good. Danny is working with a 3-die penalty. For what? This is what all my "roll!" comments were aiming at in the other thread.

We are now playing the next step in this drama, you see, between Danny and his boss. A key concept in Sorcerer is to play the NPCs dynamically - they are not furniture or clue-vaults. We don't know what the boss is going to do or say; the GM plays him like one plays a player-character.

Which means, the GM (i.e. the boss' player) decides what the boss wants out of this, and where he's coming from. The possibilities are literally endless and depend very greatly on the GM as a participant. Just a bare couple of the possibilities are as follows.

1. The boss has some reason for favoring Wes, and hence Danny's accusation is itself a source of conflict - does the boss believe it? In this case, Danny's roll toward the boss is what's penalized.

[Bill, if you like, interpret this simply as some kind of psychological impact or self-doubt that Wes was able to implant in Danny during their conflict. However, do recognize that in actual play, the various narrations tend to cover this "causality question" very very effectively.]

2. The boss has no particular stake in Wes, and therefore acts upon Danny's accusation with no roll necessary. That means Danny is still carrying that 3-dice penalty, to be exacted whenever he does anything that is opposed to Wes' nefarious ends.

Et cetera. The point is that we are not looking at the typical RPG experience in which the boss is a GM tool for turning the player around a corner toward a pre-planned (or even just-improvised) set-piece.

Roger, Bill, and Steve - does any of this help?

Best,
Ron

[hix]

It feels clearer. Ron, you're (literally) saying if there is no conflict then there is no dice roll. That comes out most clearly in Example 2.

But what about Ralph's suggestion, which I would never have thought of: Another dice roll against Wes.

Making a roll like that could be me (the GM) wanting to create an informant-based conflict, to put Danny's (and his player) undercover against the player's will. IOW,

the typical RPG experience in which the boss is a GM tool for turning the player around a corner toward a pre-planned (or even just-improvised) set-piece.

Thinking about it in those terms and I go, "Well, the player obviously isn't interested in playing an informant – despite my liking for those stories – he's interested in going somewhere else. So we follow the player."

But making another dice roll against Wes could also be following a general principle: Make sure you're rolling what you feel the conflict really is and then make sure that negative results don't constrain the player – they cause ramifications from the world or NPCs around them.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Steve, as far as I could tell, Ralph's point has backed up to the first roll, whereas the main inquiry for this thread was assuming that Wes had won the first roll, and we were discussing the existence/nature of the second roll (the penalized one).

You're talking about some kind of second roll regarding Wes vs. Danny? If so, what? It would have to be a new conflict entirely.

Or better, don't answer that. Instead, look back over the two or more threads that we have going about this, get an idea of what's happening ...

... and then decide what to do as a GM for your real & actual game. Your goal is not to consider what your two players might or might do. Your goal is to consider where all the NPCs are coming from, and be ready for the conflicts that will arise for any (all) of them, depending on what the players actually do.

By "be ready," I do not mean "pre-program." I mean, be ready.

Oh yeah, and don't let your players chicken out - do play the next session. I'm still kind of glaring at the lot of you, about that.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

No, actually I was suppossing a second roll and a second conflict.

Danny works for Da Boss.  Wes works for the Police.  Both are PCs.  Wes wants (i.e. Wes's player, etc.) to turn Danny into an informant against Da Boss for the Police.  That was the first conflict.

They Roll.  Wes Wins with 3 successes.  However, because Danny was a PC, the roll cannot force Danny's player to become an informant.  If Danny's player decides to go ahead and become an informant for the police I'd use Wes's 3 successes to give Danny a +3 Bonus to Danny's first Informant Related conflict.  In this case Danny's player decides not to become an informant, therefor he gets a -3 Penalty to his next Informant Related conflict.

Conflict #2 seems to me to occur when Danny decides to tell Da Boss about Wes.  Da Boss is an NPC and therefore, within the range of what is believable for that character, it is acceptable to allow the dice to determine Da Boss's actions.  Wes's earlier victory cannot force Danny to become a rat and can also not force Danny to not tell.  But there still is that -3 Penalty hanging over Danny's head waiting to bite Danny in the kiester.

That would be where this second conflict comes in.  Danny is telling Da Boss about Wes and the roll off is to determine whether Da Boss believes Danny and feels good that Danny came clean.  Or whether Da Boss doesn't trust Danny and despite Danny's honesty hangs him out to dry.

The question then is what to have Danny roll against.  In my quick response above I suggested Wes's Will because it is really the threat of Wes that is the conflict...although it could just as easily be Wes's Cover as a Cop or even Da Boss's Will or Cover depending on how the two encounters actually played out.  Regardless, the roll would be Danny's Will (or again, perhaps an appropriate cover like "Trusted Henchman") and Danny would be staring down the barrel of a -3 Penalty...making it increasingly likely that Danny will very shortly be on the run from Da Boss.


That's how I see it anyway.

[hix]

I'm still kind of glaring at the lot of you, about that.

LOL!

Yeah, I'm still processing all the information in these threads but - despite my hypothetical questions - the one thing I specifically want to avoid is 'playing before we play'.

[Bill Cook]

Ron:

That does help me. So the penalty is hanging over Danny, like a sword.

.. to be exacted whenever he does anything that is opposed to Wes' nefarious ends.

So if Danny tries to wring that eight-year old's neck, even though it's his next action, it's a different conflict; so the penalty wouldn't apply.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Ralph, I think using Wes' Will for the second roll is too abstract for Sorcerer. Da Boss and whoever else are indeed characters, "components" in Universalis terms, and they get to roll for themselves.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Bill,

So if Danny tries to wring that eight-year old's neck, even though it's his next action, it's a different conflict; so the penalty wouldn't apply.

That brings up a damn tricky question. Typically I don't let penalties or bonuses "skip" rolls, although in a case like what we're talking about, I probably would (hence my advice above). In other words, the rules are not clear about what exactly to do.

In practice, this issue turns out not to be a problem, for some reason.

Either

The "next action" usually turns out to be relevant to the previous roll in some fashion or another, i.e. the impact of the first roll can be seen to be debilitating enough to affect anything the character tries next.

Or

The penalty from the first roll turns out to be irrelevant not only to the next roll, but to practically anything the character does next - in other words, the player says, "That door is now closed," and takes the player-character in a different direction.

Best,
Ron