Alright, so I've finally made the jump from task based resolution to conflict based resolution. Now I'm trying to classify the types of goals (the intent) of PCs seek out. This is not an attempt to limit or stifle creativity. Instead I'm trying to let the players (and GM) see all the options, in a enlightening way. I fell my game is pretty liberal so not all of these types need apply to all games. I looking for roleplayers with more experience and expertise to fill in what I'm missing or perhaps labeling wrong. Here is what I've got so far:

Blatant intent is something that obviously moves the player forward in a definitive manner. The blatant intent might kill a foe, destroy a dark castle, or even invent a new tool that lets the PC reach a destination. The important marking concept here is definitive- it has to be something final.

Subtle intent is something that moves the player forward, but not in a definitive matter. Subtle intents would be pinning a foe to the wall, sneaking into a dark castle from a secret entrance, or even discovering a new technology that makes a new tool possible. The subtle intent never achieves a final goal, but pushes a PC closer to it. This type might offer some kind of mechanical carry-over bonus to the next conflict.

Leading intents don't need to move the player forward at all. Instead they open new avenues of play for the PC. A leading intent could be searching a deserted asteroid field for a rebel base (with no pre-knowledge or hint of one), panning a river for gold, or seeking out a long lost friend in a seedy bar. The leading intent doesn't lead towards overcoming some challenge that faces the player, but instead carves out a new path for them. Obviously this intent would only work in games that allowed such DonJon like control.

Hmm, looking at the list I think I need narrower classification. Though that feels like a challenge.

Well, for what it's worth, I don't think you need narrower classification. I think, in fact, that everything you've said so far is under one classification of relevant Conflicts: "Getting things done."

Other 'categories' entirely outside of that one: "Deciding what's right", "Deciding what people think", "Controlling the consequences of what you get done", "Deciding who gets to do something."

I think that what you may still be getting hung up on is the idea that anybody inherently wants to oppose you getting things done. That's not always the case.

For instance, if you want to get into a castle, and someone else doesn't want you to get in, maybe you make "Storm the castle" as a Conflict. Or maybe you make "Sneak into the castle" as a Conflict.

But if everybody around the table wants to get into the castle then that's not a Conflict. So you probably want something like "While storming the castle, do you strike mortal terror into the forces guarding it?" or "Do you sneak into the castle in time to rescue the princess before Lord Fitzregis arrives to interrogate her?" And, of course, neither of those are about getting into the castle. Getting into the castle is a given.

Ok, I followed you until you hit the getting hung up on part. I feel 'm pretty clear about what is and isn't conflict. Perhaps I'm being unclear. I'm just trying to make some general classifications of goals or intents relative to some challenge, such that players/readers can see options they may not have considered naturally. I can already imagine one of my players only doing blatant intents and never considering others, if you can see what I mean. I feel like we have switch subjects. Perhaps I was just that unclear.

Thanks, the other 'categories' are along the lines of what I'm looking for.

Is there a reason you're classifying "conflicts relative to challenge," rather than classifying all conflicts?

All the conflicts I've had in The Noble Fiends of our Empire have been challenged derived, at least so far. While the game doesn't particularly limit conflicts to that mold, the game has so far fell into routine of: Emperor (GM) lays out a challenge, Nobles (players) seek to overcome said challenge. That's why I'm focusing on that type, though I'm open to any.

That being said I think I've come to realize I've just described the classic 'log in the road' scenario in other terms. You can leap it, climb it, or look for another way around. Nothing really new here.

Jason

I can see a reason to try to come up with an outside guideline of catagories for conflict - not to limit what the players can do - but to educate the players about what is possible. I can imagine a table like the following...

Start a fight
Get a date
Win a contest
Gather supplies
etc.

If your game rules gave indirect or small step moves a better chance of success than overt actions then this would encourage more indirect, incremental play. It would be a behavior mod token economy where the cookie is success in action.

The last item on my list "Gather supplies" might on the surface look like a task action. I don't think it is. "Conflict Resolution" seems to me to be about collections of actions that lead to a goal. Any process (a series of steps) can be seen as a conflict because saying "I gather supplies" ignores all the smaller steps and jumps to the conclusion.

Conflict Resolution is then an abstraction of life on a slightly larger scale than aks resolution.

The question I'm interested in hering you discuss is how you want to use conflict res rolls in your actual play. When do you stop talking with the players and start rolling dice?

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

MatrixGamer,

Thanks. Yes that is exactly what I was aiming for and most like my first categories were way to broad scoped to get what I needed.

My game does offer supplemental dice (a way to carry victory) for conflicts that are broken up into smaller steps with a climax. Your behavior mod token economy is right on the money.

"Conflict resolution is than an abstraction of life on a slightly large scale than task resolution." Hmm, I would argue that even tasks can be conflicts, but I think that has already been handled in other threads.

As my gameplay goes- I usually try and talk the players backwards, until I get to a scale that I feel really impacts the situation/challenges at hand. Then we roll, and use the mechanics to push the result up through more descriptive action/color. Does that answer your question?

I think it may be possible to claim: "a conflict is a game". That ise, any given conflict can/should be described as a game in its own right. Yes, I am harping on my sub-games theme again.

I have mapped out the basic game "getting from A to B"; its surprisingly complex. It is this sort of thing I believe could establish a set of classes of conflicts, by examining their necessarily relevant influences.

So we want to get from A to B, eh? The first thing we need to know is what kind of method we are going to use. These may be:
- a marked route, like a road that you just follow
- an indicated route, as when working from a map
- dead reckoning over a trackless waste

Having determined/decide our method, we can calculate the odds of success. This is important because we may get lost. So having determined the method, and thus the odds, we Resolve whether or not we become lost.

So, the first possible outcome is that we may be On Track, and all we have to do is wait for time to pass. Or, we may be Just Lost, in which we do not know EITHER where we are OR where we are going. Or we may be Totally Lost, knowing neither where we are or where we are going.

In the case being either Just Lost or Totally lost, we can then iterate further tests every so often to get back on track - possibly by starting the whole "getting from A to B" game from the top again.

This structure is a Game, in that it maps out predictable interactions and the influences that impinge upon them. It is not a game in the sense of a mechanical system; such an abstract game could be implemented in a wide variety of RPG mechanisms.

Jason Petrasko wrote: As my gameplay goes- I usually try and talk the players backwards, until I get to a scale that I feel really impacts the situation/challenges at hand. Then we roll, and use the mechanics to push the result up through more descriptive action/color. Does that answer your question?

So I say "I'm going to climb Everest!"

I think so. I stepped back by saying "we are not at the mountain, what do you want to do before we get there?" While you are wanting to know why they even want to go.

By looking at motivations and intentions you are getting at psychological elements that I ignored. This is an exploartion of the social matrix of the situation. by a dialog between players and game master you create an agreed upon shared imagined space. Then they can proceed to the dice rolling.

This could be difficult to teach to a new GM. The wide spread GM as GOD!!! games have taught a different pattern from this. In your game the flow of information is a two way street. I think you need to watch out for infinite regressions (aka Godel Escher Bach) Wish for more wishes and the djinni calls a meta djinni, who calls a meta meta djinni etc. How far back you step can go back to how a character was toilet trained (a facitious extreme admitted but you see my point.) This is what could be hard to teach - the judgement about how far back is worth stepping.

Behavioral psychology ducks this question by only looking at "behavior" and not reading too much into it. I tend in this direction because it leaves causation up to the players to tell in their game actions, but Matrix Games are structured differently from most RPGs so this can happen easily.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press