Last night marked our group's first kick at the Conflict Res can. We're playing an established Star Wars campaign under the Pool.

The evening was *FUN* but (unsurprisingly) it wasn't what we're used to. We've been pretty "tradiional" in our choice of games thus far (CoC BRP, Unknown Armies, Godlike, MSHAG to name a few), but all are systems that at their heart engage in task resolution.

We found that because you need to fram your stakes before rolling that the actual ROLE playing tends to get curtailed -- the how (where roleplaying typically happens) is now narrated as opposed to played out.

Is this a product of Con Res?

The Pool?

Us doing it wrong?

Can you give a specific example from your actual play?

Jumping the gun on seeing specifics, I'd speculate that it's a product of The Pool specifically. InSpectres doesn't have this problem, nor does Universalis, or Otherkind, or lots of other conflict-res games. Likely because they break down the conflict resolution into smaller, more manageable chunks.

InSpectres has its skills, Universalis has its individual traits and dice, Otherkind has its categories of narration. The Pool just has "the winner gets to narrate." That seems to imply that "I won, so the rest of you just shut up and listen." Did you play it that way? I'd suggest letting the winner of the roll have final authority over what actually happens, but encourage everyone at the table to contribute ideas. IIRC, PrimeTime Adventures does this. With Great Power... will, also.

If you're doing scene resolution then roleplaying after the point of resolution can feel a lot like going through the motions.

So, you set up the scene, lay out the stakes, roll then everything feels like it deflates and the rp feels like everyone is phoning it in?

So, magic 8 ball says: Scene Resolution plus Unfamiliarity equals Loss of Dramatic Tension.

I suspect conflict resolution with lots of intermediate rolls might feel more familiar (HeroQuest is probably canonical here).

Of course, my intuition could be way off. In which case, as Tony says, concrete examples are the key.

I'm with Tony in that I'd like to see some specific examples. But I also have some general notes specific to the pool.

Things depend heavily on how you were treating the narration "rights" element of The Pool. It has been stated around here for a while that any game that awards narration rights to a specific player usually means, "the buck stops with that player" and not "only that player speaks."

So let's say the player is in a heavy argument with an NPC. The way it usually flows for me is like this:

Step 1) A bit of "classic" roleplaying. In character, real-time, improv banter between the player and the GM.

Step 2) Realization by either the player or the GM that there's a conflict here. Followed by OOC discussion (fairly brief) of exactly what's at stake.

Step 3) System imployed to determine outcome of conflict.

Step 4) "Narration"

Now I'll elaborate on Step 4. Let's say the player decides to take a Monologue of Victory and let's say that the stakes were that he wanted to break down the NPC's resolve. The player might say that the NPC visibly slumps and develops a quiver in his voice. So, the GM starts delivering the NPC's dialogue in a weak manner.

So what ends up happening is that they still roleplay out the end of the argument but that roleplay is deliberately informed by two factors. First the actual outcome of the conflict and the player's narrative rights. So if the GM has the NPC do something and the player doesn't think iss right, the player just says, "No wait, do this first." And the GM says, "Oh, okay..." and so on.

However, when using conflict resolution regardless of narration rights, the amount of real-time, improv, dialogue (i.e. "free roleplaying") goes way down. Espcially if you employ the conflict resolution system for ALL conflicts including PC vs. PC (i.e. No long, drown out in-character arguments). The general conflict resolution pattern is:

GM or player frames scene -> brief free roleplay to establish scene -> OOC discussion of conflicts and stakes -> employ resolution system to determine outcome -> brief free roleplay informed by conflict outcome to establish resolution -> GM or player frames next scene.

The above also assumes there's only one conflict per scene and if you employ the "break it down" technique I described previously (Note: Capes is an example of a game that REQUIRES this) then it becomes more involved but it still involes units of roleplay to establish conflict, employ system to determine outcome, roleplay to establish resolution.

It makes for tighter, snappier games. So, in my opinion, you get MORE meaningful role-play not less. But you do get less of the improv, real-time, stuff that tends to dominate other forms of play.

Jesse

I wouldn't say you were playing wrong Eggo, but you were probably playing pretty deliberately.

Its new to you...you're not sure how to proceed...you want to make sure to get it write...it feels different. All of those things can take you out of your roleplaying stride.

If you play games like this long enough to where seeing things in terms of conflict rather than task becomes instinctive and you no longer have to dedicate brain cells to thinking about it, you'll find yourself getting into the role playing of a character without any trouble.

Probably the biggest adjustment you'll wind up making to gettin into character is that alot of your roleplaying will occur AFTER the dice are rolled rather than before.

I suspect that you're used to thinking in terms of being "done" when the dice hit the table. You roleplay first to set the stage and determine what to roll and what modifiers you get. Then you roll the task. Then you apply the results and move on.

In conflict resolution its not unusual (and pretty much built into the way the Pool is structured) that you first roll to determine the overall outcome of the conflict...THEN you roleplay the events out that led to that known result. Then you move on.

It tends to be a little more like "Whose Line is it Anyway" where the audience throws out a topic and then the Improv guys act it out. In this case the topic is the result of the Conflict..."You just failed to stop the villain from escaping and now the city is in flames...go" and then, like the Improv guys, you act that out.

Ralph: Technically wouldn't it often be "You're about to fail to stop the villain, and the city will burst into flames... go"?

It could be. Depends on how the conflict was framed and where in the process you rolled the dice.

If you framed the conflict around the villain escaping and the city bursting into flames, then rolled to resolve and failed. Then you'd know that you failed and could move into roleplaying based on that outcome.

Most often, of course, players truly comfortable with conflict res will be roleplaying all along during the before, during, and after parts.

Terminology police here. What we're talking about is not good to call Role Playing for several reasons. It's more accurate, I'm guessing, to say in this case that the players didn't do much "first person" portrayal? Instead using a lot of third person?

First Person: "Hey, barkeep, get me a drink!"
Third Person: Ragnar asks the barkeep for a drink.

So play was more the latter than the former is the "problem?" Keep in mind that this isn't really a problem, it's just a different style of play. And, second, as others are pointing out, you can "correct" this problem if you want.

But I would agree that Conflict Resolution and other techniques do seem to support the use of the third person more. That is, it's easier to think of the result as the "storyteller" when you have a story result than it is to then come up with the first person description of what's going on.

Mike

Eggo von Eggo wrote: We found that because you need to fram your stakes before rolling that the actual ROLE playing tends to get curtailed -- the how (where roleplaying typically happens) is now narrated as opposed to played out.

Is this a product of Con Res?

Mike Holmes wrote: But I would agree that Conflict Resolution and other techniques do seem to support the use of the third person more.

I'm still new to this myself, and after just starting out with conflict resolution myself, (DitV, if it matters) after years of task-based gaming it does feel odd, as you do use the third person more.

I guess this appears as less "Role-Playing" is going on, as less immediate characterisation is going on -- I think the proper term is Actor stance -- and I think a lot of "old-school" (what would be the correct term?) roleplayers consider that as a fundamental part of roleplaying, i.e.

First Person:
Bob the barbarian: "Hey, barkeep, get me a drink!" is different in tone from:
Eric the cleric: "Excuse me, kind sir, but could I trouble you for some wine?"

Whereas Third Person could be seen as just saying:
"Bob asks the barkeep for a drink." isn't very different from:
"Eric asks the barkeep for a drink."

Which I think 'removes' the roleplaying to a lot of the Task-oriented roleplayers. I certainly found it odd. But, that being said, I have found the way that Jesse describes working very well. I found that your character is shown by what they do and what decisions they make, in a very focused, productive way, rather than silly voices and (usually bad) acting the minor points of sitting in the bar.

Warren

Now, maybe we should wait for a reaction from Eggo before we speculate any further. Reading Eggos post carefully, I would guess that he is not just about first person versus third person.

the how (where roleplaying typically happens) is now narrated as opposed to played out.

Yeah, Frank. I suspect that's exactly what he's referring to.

Which makes Jesse's response above pretty much the key entry in this thread at this point.

I'd like to note, for the record, that I just used Jesse's post on the subject to convince a player whose been scared off of conflict resolution for as long as I've known him to give a game with it a try.

Thanks Jesse.

I think Conflict Res does cut down on a *little* bit of "role-playing." For example, let's say you want to convince a guard to let you through a locked door. With stock Task Res, the players essentially have to convince the GM (or whoever) to let them do what they want. If the GM isn't going for it, the players can just keep going for as long as they want, or until the GM gives in.

With Conflict Res, players can just call for a roll and be done with it. On the down side, this means conflicts will occasionally be played out in a "meta-game" sort of way. But on the up side, it prevents a certain amount of unproductive play.

timfire wrote: I think Conflict Res does cut down on a *little* bit of "role-playing." For example, let's say you want to convince a guard to let you through a locked door. With stock Task Res, the players essentially have to convince the GM (or whoever) to let them do what they want. If the GM isn't going for it, the players can just keep going for as long as they want, or until the GM gives in.

You're right, Andrew. And what they're using is negotiation. The argument is "If my character said X, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the guard would let me pass?" It's a valid sort of resolution - any sort can be abused.

Mike

Negotiation, yeah, that's what I meant.

My point was that IME many people call that sort of IC negotiation "role-playing," because they don't realize that's what they're doing. And I think mainstream games (most w/ task res) assumes that sort of negogiation will happen, while most Forge-type games (most w/ conflict res) assume those same situation will be covered by the dice. As such, you'll see less "role-playing"/IC negotiation in Forge-type games.

What it comes down to, largely, is the association of narrative voice with certain stances and styles. To get "immersive" sim, it's assumed that you need to "be" the character, meaning most importantly that you speak for the character.

Nar play doesn't require this, just that you get to create themes, so you can do this fine with third person produced by conflict resolution.

Note that there is no automatic link between these things, just player preferences in how they effect the sought after modes and stances. Warren, for instance, is making this connection - but it's not a priori the case.

Mike

I might be wrong, but I thought conflict resolution used to give you material to roleplay about, rather than roleplay anything that was involved in the conflict?

So if you were digging up dirt on your enemy and you wanted to get it from his safe, you might sneak past his security, search the place for the hidden safe, then go on to crack it. Usually this requires a whole bunch of task rolls. Here you'd resolve it with one conflict roll.

After one conflict roll, you can then start intensely roleplaying about what are you going to do with this dirt, how to best lay it on him...or oh crap, I've just been caught in his house and there's no hope of getting that dirt!

Have I gotten conflict resolution wrong? Why would you roleplay/narrate sneaking in, searching, etc after you've done the roll. I thought conflict resolution revolved around essentially skipping all that so you get right to the interesting part (having the dirt). That's where the roleplay should really begin.

Because sometimes the How is every bit as entertaining (or more) as the what.

Because it provides depth and detail and the opportunity to generate new points of contact with the setting that might otherwise have been ignored.

Or simply because given the opportunity to roleplay something cool...why wouldn't you?

Sorry to start the thread and then bail, but RL intervenes.

Opening caveat: I/we don't necessarily see what happened at the game last night as a problem (we had a hoot). We were just really surprised with how much the feel of the game changed. As the eternally paranoid GM, I wanted to make sure that our results weren't an aberration.

To try and tackle everyone's queries, I'll start with an example and then expound with some anecdotal evidence.

Example: the story thus far --

PCs have discovered a plot to attack a diplomatic conference. Several important (to the PCs) NPCs are at this conference, which is being staged on a huge starliner orbiting a nearby planet.

After some shennanigans involving being denied docking privileges (because they're piloting a pirate corsair...), the players decide to try docking on the starliner using the actual attack as cover. We frame the stakes as "dock in time to get the important NPCs off the ship". The pilot character rolls and flubs.

I narrate that the pirate attack cripples the starliner, and that it starts breaking up as its orbit decays.

The players elect to pursue it to the surface, hoping that there will be some survivors.

>cut ahead several scenes<

The players elect to split up on the surface, with 2 character boarding the starliner and the third remaining on the corsair to resuce survivors (the planet is 95% water, and the starliner went down in the ocean).

Character A's stakes are to find the Abbot (the local Jedi spiritual leader) before the starliner sinks.

B's stakes are to find her foster father (also a Jedi) with the same time restraints as A's.

C's stakes are to rescue as many survivors as possible. [side note, this felt a little weak in terms of being a true conflict. conflict against what? why are these otherwise purely colour NPCs worthy of a conflict? there was no internal conflict for the PC, etc...but I wanted to encourage player involvement, especially first time out, so for metagame reasons I let it slide as a conflict]

A & C succeed, B fails. However, A's pool is down to 2 dice, so he elects to go for the extra die, leaving the narrative rights to me. C takes the MoV.

Here's where things get a little hairy. I pretty much exhort C that "he better make the narration worthy of a conflict roll. Don't just give us a wanky little colour scene" I'm also simultaneously dealing with the fact that A&B have separate results but actually boarded the ship together.

The narrative(s) didn't unfold exactly as I'm about to outline, as I was using the cinematic technique of cutting between narratives as they unfolded, but I think I've got the guts of them.

A (success narrated solely by me, with a little input regarding "character style" from the player) -- unexpectedly, he leaves B at the entry point stalking off down a hallway. As he enters the turbolift, he turns to B and utters "this place is strong with the dark side".

B (failure narrated solely by me) -- stands aghast, confused as to why A has left her alone. Wanders aimlessly, looking for her father

C (success narrated by the player) -- quick colour of various people being rescued from escape pods. THEN she has the opportunity to rescue an NPC from his past -- someone who he hates *a lot* --

A -- (my narration continues) finds the abbot in what appears to be the aftermath of a battle. The abbot is wounded, and a well-dressed man is hunched over him. It appears as if the well-dressed man is tending to him.

here endeth the example. obviously, in the moment it was full of more embellishments, colour, and description. we all enjoyed throwing lots of star wars stuff (electing on the fly to make the interior of the starliner very similar to the blockade runner at the beginning of ep IV, frex) and exercising our creative muscles.

some comments that came out of the game:

"It doesn't feel like roleplaying. It feels like we're just doing interactive storytelling."

"The system really doesn't do much but say who gets to talk"

"Maybe we don't need the system except during fight scenes"

I really dig the idea that the rolls themselves merely dictate the general outcome of the applicable roleplaying scene.

Again, I need to stress that *no one* was saying that the game was bad. Personally, I really enjoy big sweeping stuff -- If it were up to me, every game would be like last night's. However, I know that several of my players have different preferences. Two are fairly "character first" types, who really enjoy getting into their characters' shoes. One really enjoys "winning" (I guess it sounds like I've got two simmers and one gamer?) -- but *everyone* still had fun. We really liked how the story moved and progressed, and I found it incredibly rewarding to be forced to work with the players on the fly to deal with stuff. However, I think that it's part of my job as GM to find a way to inject as much of the kind of stuff that my players enjoy, too. That's what I'm looking for.

Also, I've heard several people say something to the effect that "conflicts don't have to be big".

I still can't wrap my head around that one. I understand the basic difference between conflict and task (stipulating stakes as opposed to stipulating methodology), but I can't see how multiple conflicts can be nested within a larger conflict.

Isn't conflict res inherently 'chunkier' in scope than task? Can't task res (theoretically) be broken down into smaller and smaller chunks (Recon anyone? did the bullet deflect off of your watch?), whereas there is a "lower end" to the conflict res scale?

How could I have broken "get to the Abbot before the starliner sinks" into smaller conflicts without it smacking of task res?

Well, there's two things. First, how you work multiple overlapping conflicts. Let's look at the example: Here's a way that I can see breaking down the idea of getting the Abbot off the starliner before it sinks:

• Goal: Abbot doesn't get hurt
• Goal: Get Abbot away from starliner
• Goal: Get Abbot back to our space-ship
• Goal: I don't get hurt doing this

Any of those can either succeed or fail, independently of all the others. If you succeed at: 1 and 3, then you get the Abbot back to the space-ship unharmed, but get hurt doing it. Then you learn that you cannot get the space-ship away from the starliner. Which is, y'know, a problem... but a fun one.

If you succeed at 2, 4 then the Abbot gets hurt, and you can't get him back to your ship. But you manage to escape without a scratch, and get him away from the liner, presumably by some other means (escape pod? cleverly rigged food cannister?) Which is still a problem, and again a fun one.

So that's how you can deal with multiple conflicts. The second thing is how many choices (on the part of the players) go in between declaring the stakes and resolving the conflict.

It sounds (though I don't know the Pool well enough to be sure) like there were no in-character decisions or actions being taken between declaring the stakes and finding out the resolution of the conflict. And, frankly, it sounds like that more than anything was the cause of your concerns.

Rest assured that's only one way of doing Conflict Resolution. Dogs in the Vineyard and Capes (just to grab two systems I know well) have most of their action take place between declaring stakes and knowing who wins. Resolving a Conflict is often just a matter of saying "Okay, now we stop taking actions, because that last action there cinched it."

Anyway, I'm not sure that I've correctly guaged your concern. But if the lack of intermediate steps is, in fact, what is robbing you of fun then you should check out some of the systems that have more intermediate steps.

Mike Holmes wrote: What it comes down to, largely, is the association of narrative voice with certain stances and styles. To get "immersive" sim, it's assumed that you need to "be" the character, meaning most importantly that you speak for the character.

Nar play doesn't require this, just that you get to create themes, so you can do this fine with third person produced by conflict resolution.

Note that there is no automatic link between these things, just player preferences in how they effect the sought after modes and stances. Warren, for instance, is making this connection - but it's not a priori the case.

No, it's an important point, Warren, not really a detour. You're quite right that this is the standard for most players, or at least the perception of the standard.

What's interesting is, if you watch "Standard" play, you'll often note how people switch up using voices, despite the standard being in place. Sometimes it's a "mistake" (meaning really that they found a use for a different voice that violates the standard without realizing it), or sometimes they do it deliberately as an artistic move.

In any case, as far as a need to "unlearn" it, two points. First, there is no imperative - as I've pointed out, you can, in fact, continue with your original standard just fine. It's a bit more difficult, I'd say, but it might be very rewarding. Second, if you do want to "unlearn" it, I think that, as Darcy notes, it happens pretty naturally. All you have to "unlearn" is the feeling that this is not "roleplaying." Or, rather, just to stop worrying about whether or not it is "roleplaying" or not.

It is what it is (as my carpenter often said while building my addition on my house). You either enjoy it or you don't. What's interesting is that, being distictly different, what I've found is that I now have two forms of the hobby (more really) that I enjoy. It's just something to mix up and do alternating with the other form.


Callan, when playing Hero Quest, which is distinctly Conflict Resolution oriented (the text has some of the best non-technical descriptions of how to organize Conflict Resolution, including stating that the player must state their characters goal), there is also a rule that you must, in fact, narrate the details of everything that happens. It uses some interesting language to say this ("Hero Quest is a talking game..."), but it's pretty clear that you must narrate.

So, let's look how a HQ simple contest (I'm using the harder example, using extended contests is like shooting fish in a barrel) works with the example you give. The goal is to get past the various security methods to get the dirt on the guy. You make the roll with a marginal success. Per the HQ rules, the narrator narrates (I'm not too fond of this restriction on who narrates, but it's how the rules are written). So, in this case, the narrator might say:

You manage to get past the guard, and open the safe, getting the files that you're looking for. But on the way out, the guard sees you sneaking away, and starts to chase you.

Why narrate the results? Well the narrator has to say something. He could just go to the conclusion, sure: "You stand now, outside of the building with a smug look on your face, holding a file with the information you need inside of it. A guard sees you as you're leaving, however and gives chase."

And that's fine in certain cases. But why not narrate the intervening action? It doesn't have to take any longer - in fact my version was shorter detailing how it was done. In either case, you end up at the same point after the resolution is complete. You do, in fact, "Get to" the interesting part quickly.

Because you don't have to resolve each individual task step separately. The Narrator is free to make up the results of each step as they make sense in delineating the outcome.

See, this is Fortune in the Middle in action. FitM doesn't say that you ignore the "how" it says that you come up with it post determination of success by the fortune step. Meaning that you can narrate anything that's interesting, so long as you end up with the right mechanically indicated result.

Which is awesomely empowering. One huge problem, IMO, with most task-based resolution, is that they break things down into tasks by the mechanical rolls that the system offers to make. So, looking at the example case, players will tend to see a "sneak" roll, followed by a "safecracking" roll, and then another "sneak" roll. And that provides a fine and sensible solution. But the resulting narrations are typically "you sneak by" and "you open the safe." With the FitM resolution, I might say something like:

You distract the guard with a phone call, and just walk by his station when he's not there. Then you use acid to dissolve the safe's hinges, and take the file you need. On the way out, the guard is back from the call, and catches you.

Not a great example. But the point is that using FitM, I've changed my narrations from "typical" in result each time, to very creative. Nowhere is this more visible than in "combat." I don't have "combat" any more, for which I'm eternally greatful to conflict resolution. Instead, I have cases where one person wants a bauble, and the other doesn't want them to get it, as their goals, and they're both willing to use their fighting abilities to prevent the other from succeeding.

Isn't that a combat? Well, what it won't look like is an exchange of blows that's typical of combats in other RPGs - which all tend to look a bit like large-scale abstractions wargames brought down to an individual level (since that's where the rules come from). I'll end up describing people grunting in the dirt, pressing each others faces into their blades. I mean, you've seen this a hundred times in the movies, but how many times have you seen it in an RPG? The reason you haven't seen it is because the task-based resolution can't be varied enough to account for it.

Oh, sure, a GM can force task-based rule systems to do this. But with Conflict Resolution, it's just the fun sort of narration that naturally occurs from statintg the outcome of a roll. You aren't constrained by the "what would occur" outcome indicated by the task system. For instance, in say, GURPS, you're instructed to roll to hit, and then for damage, and then for hit location. There's no chance that you accidentally disarm your opponent as the result of trying to stop them. There's no result on the charts that say that the character used the pommel of the sword instead of the sharp end (which according to Mr. Norwood is actually quite common in certain close circumstances, IIRC). There's no result that says that you just scare the other guy off with your skill. Well, actually there is, if you use a whole slew of optional rules. But the point is that all of the realistic and dramatically interesting things that could be narrated in a fight can happen using conflict resolution. With Task resolution, at best you have to "bend" the normal interpretation of the result to get such interesting things to happen.

Note that, yes, I even make people narrate dialog in many cases. Not all - I'll accept, "Fahja says a few choice words, and scares them off," sometimes. But just as often I'll narrate something like:

Fahja says, "Begone you curs, before I make eunuchs of you!"


Why would I want to pass up an opportunity to have cool lines (well, as cool as I can make them), in the game?

Note in the example with the guard, too, how because of the marginal nature of the success, I took that as an opportunity to create new conflict. This is another feature of careful narration of conflict resolution. Done right, resolving a conflict doesn't have to bring an end to the series of conflicts that are currently happening. You can use the narration to open up other conflict. Even on a marginal success. With task resolution, since it only resolves that one element as pass/fail, in most cases, the result indicated seems to speak agains this happening. That is, if I succeed at my sneak rolls, then having the guard chase me seems to be the GM messing with my rolled success - voiding it, really. With conflict resolution, it doesn't say precisely how the goal was acheived, leaving the narration open to such interpretation (depending on the system as a whole).

So, why narrate the results of Conflict Resolution? Because it rocks! I wouldn't have it any other way.

Mike

For the breaking down big conflicts into little sub-conflicts without losing sight of the big conflicts may I recommend examining the following mechanics:

Trollbabe - A Goal for the Trollbabe is stated at the top of the conflict. The the scale for the resolution system is chosen. The scale is basically how small of a chunk you want to break the uber-goal into. One to three rolls of the dice (note: that each of these involves up to three re-rolls). So that's a range of 1 to 9 actual rolls of the dice and "exchanges" of sub conflicts within the uber Goal. If any of the sub rolls fail, the whole Goal fails.

Capes - Similar to Trollbabe in that the uber-goal is written down on an index card. Dice are rolled multiple times on either "side" of the goal. Each die roll rosolves sub-conflicts within the uber goal.

HeroQuest - The Extended Conflicts rules. Basically the uber-goal awards a number of points for each side depending on the "how" of tackling the conflict. Sub-conflicts move points back and forth representing advantage. When one side runs out of points the uber-goal is decided.

The Shadow of Yesterday - The Bringing Down The Pain rules. Very similar to HeroQuest. An uber-goal is stated and then a series of sub-conficts are rolled out until one side "collapses."

The problem with The Pool is that it contains no formal mechanics for breaking down the conflicts. You have to do that youself. The group has to decide where they want to draw the line. Do you want to resolve finding and rescuing the Abbot in one go? Or do you want to break it into two conflicts, first finding then rescuing. If the finding fails, well then, the rescuing is moot.

I think if you look at the mechanics in the other games I've discovered you'll get a feel for how big conflicts get broken up into smaller conflicts formally. Then you can probably do it with ease without the formal structure in place.

Jesse

As one of the aforementioned players in Eggo/Darcy's Star Wars game (Character A, to be exact), I think I can throw in a few comments of my own. First, let it be said that we all enjoyed the game, regardless of whether we were floundering helplessly without a clue as to what we were doing or blazing through the storyline at lightspeed. Having said that, I, for one, had a very hard time grappling with a number of things.

The comment that Eggo/Darcy made about how the game "felt more like collaborative storytelling than roleplaying" was made by me. I actually enjoy collaborative storytelling, but it's not what I was expecting and I don't believe that it's what was intended. Collaborative storytelling usually allows for lots of time to think about where you want to take the story. The conflict resolution found in The Pool doesn't allow the luxury of time. You roll...you succeed...you make something up on the fly. Improv can be fun, but I found myself constantly worrying about screwing up all the cool ideas that Eggo/Darcy had in the back of him sinister GMish mind. As such, I preferred to hold back and let him do the narration as much as possible--in fact, I found myself actively trying to avoid taking control of the action at times.

I also struggled with finding ways to roleplay around the conflict resolution. For example, at one point in the story we wanted to contact the luxury liner to ask for permission to dock with her, but I didn't want to give away too much information with respect to our identity until I had some idea of what might be happening on board the ship. Our attempt to gain permission to dock was framed as a simple conflict; however, since it was early in the session and I didn't think this was a make it or break it roll, I chose not to risk any dice and suffered a miserable failure. As a result, that avenue of gaining entrance to the ship was barred to us. In a more traditional RPG I might have been asked to simply make a Fast Talk or Persuasion roll based on some attributes or skills. Or, following the conventions of our style of play, Eggo/Darcy and I would have roleplayed most of the sequence and my success or failure might have been based entirely on the results of that (or he would have called for a roll at some point but given me bonuses or penalties based upon how well or poorly I talked my way through it). The big difference, as far as I can see, is that I would have had an opportunity to work towards success in a more fluid fashion using the traditional roleplaying method rather than conflict resolution (i.e. I could alter my "angle of verbal attack" based upon the sort of reaction or information that I receive from the GM during the course of the roleplay which allows a lot more leeway in terms of being able to screw up a little and still succeed in the end instead of letting it all come down to one big roll).

I wanted to comment on something that Mike brought up. Here it is:

You manage to get past the guard, and open the safe, getting the files that you're looking for. But on the way out, the guard sees you sneaking away, and starts to chase you.

Hey Glenn, thanks for popping in and adding another perspective on the session.

(as a sidenote to all -- eggo is the handle. feel free to use my real name, too. thanks Mike. Not a lot of people call Ralph "valamir", so it kind of feels weird -- is there some sort of Forge initiation rite that I have to pass to get the same treatment as everyone else who carries a handle & a rn? but I digress...)

I hadn't considered how much conflict res can put the players "on the spot" -- as our groups usual GM, I'm used to being in those shoes (we all know that in most "oldskool" games, the players invariably leave your well-laid plans reeling after about 2 seconds)

I want to type a bit more on this issue, but I just heard some thunder in the not-too-distant distance, so I'll have to log off to save what's left of my decrepit computer.

Judging by a player of mine in my D&D campaign who recently quit another GM's Heroquest game, the answer is definitely "yes". He said he enjoyed roleplaying in my game because he didn't have to worry about it, he could just speak in-character and do what came naturally, ie roleplay and have fun. Whereas playing Heroquest he had to concentrate on the conflict resolution mechanics and worry about what he was doing, what the goal was, etc. I've had a similar experience with Nar gaming as a player, with Heroquest and The Pool - once the dice come out the roleplaying falters. It's even a danger in D&D/d20 now because of the character interaction skills, where a "Diplomacy roll" can substitute for actually playing out a conversation, but this is much easier to elide by the GM only calling for rolls when he feels like it, and only using them as a rough guide to NPC reaction. Whereas with Nar games they seem fundamental to the systems.

Mike Holmes wrote: Isn't that a combat? Well, what it won't look like is an exchange of blows that's typical of combats in other RPGs - which all tend to look a bit like large-scale abstractions wargames brought down to an individual level (since that's where the rules come from). I'll end up describing people grunting in the dirt, pressing each others faces into their blades. I mean, you've seen this a hundred times in the movies, but how many times have you seen it in an RPG? The reason you haven't seen it is because the task-based resolution can't be varied enough to account for it.

S'mon wrote: My only criticism would be that calculating the modifiers in HQ can be a pain, this was one of the things that discouraged the ex-HQ player in my group.

droog wrote: You could try seeing this as a feature, not a bug. Building augments in HQ is one of your big chances for 'roleplaying' and dramatic description.

droog wrote:

S'mon wrote: My only criticism would be that calculating the modifiers in HQ can be a pain, this was one of the things that discouraged the ex-HQ player in my group.

You could try seeing this as a feature, not a bug. Building augments in HQ is one of your big chances for 'roleplaying' and dramatic description. If you don't care about a conflict enough to be involved in that process, you probably shouldn't be in that conflict.

hermes wrote: The comment that Eggo/Darcy made about how the game "felt more like collaborative storytelling than roleplaying" was made by me. ...The conflict resolution found in The Pool doesn't allow the luxury of time. ...I found myself constantly worrying about screwing up all the cool ideas that Eggo/Darcy had in the back of him sinister GMish mind.

Alan wrote: ...I recall many times where the conflict that the players cared about was completely unrelated to any task success determinations. Players could fail and fail, but if they persisted, the GM would find a way to let them win the conflict stakes. Conflict resolution takes this option away. It puts what I care about on the line.

If you want smaller conflicts, try framing the activities more specificially. So instead of "dock in time to get the important NPCs off the ship" you might frame this conflict as "dock in the general traffic bay without drawing attention." With this objective, a failure only bars you from docking without drawing attention -- the options then are not docking at that particular bay, or docking and drawing attention. Both of which produce situations that can be addressed with further conflict rolls.

S'mon wrote:
Isn't this - using smaller conflicts - another way of letting players fail and fail, yet ultimately succeed in their real goal, though?

I'm not sure if there's a problem with allowing persistence to win out in the end. It can make for a satisfying story - it's a very common story structure in non-heroic fiction (try watching Hallmark channel!) - and it's not even particularly unrealistic.

S'mon wrote:
When I run my D&D game, significant character interaction is rolelplayed out in-character and the character sheets are rarely referred to; I'll request a Diplomacy etc check if I'm unsure how an NPC will react to some proposal but if it's clear I don't need to.

The player told me he enjoys the roleplaying in my current games a lot, that it was easy where roleplaying in HQ was difficult. Hence the title of this thread reminded me of that - purely subjective of course, but it must have some basis in his perceptions.

Hi Droog

>>I've just finished playing in a game (SWd20--my inauspicious introduction to the world of d20) that sounds very much like what you've described. I found the amount of in-character dialogue they indulged in was rather pointless and tedious. Basically, it seemed to fill the interstices between tasks. Task-resolution can produce this sort of thing, because the performance of a task need not take up significant time nor advance the game. <<

I only roleplay out important stuff - "challenges" - not trivial chitchat! :) Generally, stuff that is less important or would be boring to play out is resolved abstractly, possibly using a skill roll. Stuff that appears to be important and looks like it would be fun to play out, like high-level political negotiations, is played out. Some stuff is roleplayed as an aid to character development, but only where there is something important at stake - possibly gaining an ally or enemy, say.


>>Whereas a good conflict-resolution system can give you an outline script to bounce off, giving you scenes to roleplay (by which I guess you mean 'act out') rather than slices. Characters are best shown off through doing things--making decisions--rather than talking about them (unless you have some real geniuses at the tale).<<

Agree 100%. Most of what I roleplay out involves important decisions by the PCs re who they are, what they stand for, what goals do they prioritise. I don't find any problem with using task-resolution to support such narrativist play though.

>>

The player told me he enjoys the roleplaying in my current games a lot, that it was easy where roleplaying in HQ was difficult. Hence the title of this thread reminded me of that - purely subjective of course, but it must have some basis in his perceptions.

S'mon wrote: That sounds right, I think that's what he didn't like. He felt he was under pressure. Your analogy sounds very pertinent - I think playing HQ he felt like he was 'on stage' and under scrutiny, that he could 'fail' to give a satisfactory performance. Whereas in my game as long as he's willing to enter into character there seems much less risk of failure. He did once 'fail' in a game of mine when he played a dwarf paladin and we were on different pages re what it meant to be a dwarf and what it meant to be a paladin, but the problem was obvious and easily rectified - don't play dwarf paladins, play a role you're comfortable with (eg elven wizards). Whereas in HQ I think he found every bit of roleplay uncomfortable, such systems seem almost designed to take you outside your comfort zone. I think many players don't enjoy that kind of challenge.

Alan and Droog have covered things pretty well, from my POV, but there are a couple of things I'd like to interject.

First, The Pool doesn't tell the players well how to do narrativism structure overall. It shouldn't have to, really; players know it instinctively. But players of other RPGs will not be used to the general freedom. As such, it's quite possible for a group of gamers to pick up The Pool, and try to play it with a pre-planned plot. So it's not fair to say that they should have played differently - nothing told them to play differently. The Pool is largely silent on the matter of play structure, giving only the most general of comments.

But the observation about what makes it play best is correct. That is the GM should just have a situation into which the players step, and just make up the plot along with the players as things evolve. Because, if one does feel that there is some GM plot to mess up, then it will be odd having conflict resolution rights on the level that the pool gives.

Does that give you a vision on how to play that would work, Glenn? Basically you are, as much as the GM is, also responsible for creating the plot on the fly. The only question is who narrates.

Oh, BTW, you realize that if you make you're roll that, by some interpretations, you're allowed to narrate your character failing? By some interpretations of The Pool, the only thing that's determined by the roll is who gets to narrate, not whether or not one's character succeeds?


On the subject of doing resolution for conflicts that are primarily based on dialog - it'll have to suffice to say that this dichotomy is an age-old one for which I wish I had a name. It comes up frequently as a topic. And to the extent that it is a dichotomy, to the extent to which a roll must automatically take away some of the theoretical autonomy of the player to have the character act as they wish - it's an insoluble dilemma. That is, you're going to come down on one side of it or another, and not like the other sort of play.

But my point about this has always been that this is merely a matter of a false dichotomy, and tradition. That is, in most traditional styles of play, either you roll for something, or you "role-play" it out - meaning giving a first person account of the activity (often just speaking dialog). This, interestingly, leads to the falst "Role-playing" vs "Roll-playing" dichotomy, as well. That you can only do one or the other.

But it's simply not true. All the notes below on the subject say things like, "When we roll it tends to replace dialog." Well, when we play, we have both dialog and first-person presentation.

To spin things around a bit, one could just "role-play" combat. Seems an oxymoron, but, again, "role-playing" when analyzed simply means saying what your character does or says. Well, we could just say stuff like, "I hit it with my big sword, killing it dead," and not roll at all. In fact, freeform groups do exactly this. They "role-play" everything, and never resort to mechanics.

The point is that there's nothing a priori, that makes any particular action something that one needs to use mechanics with. So am I advocating freeform? Not a all. What I'm saying is that mechanics have uses in terms of determining outcomes of character actions. Especially when the character knows how to do things that we do not. It's particularly punitive to not allow a player to play an eloquent character, simply because they are not, themselves, eloquent. Do we prevent weak players from playing strong characters?

Now, the counterargument is that everyone can narrate the neccessary parts of a physical conflict, while it's unaesthetically pleasing to allow a player to narrate their character's dialog if it will not match the results. Well, actually I'd argue that most players can't narrate combat worth crap, either. Having a system in which, "I hit it," is an allowable description of their activity is, to me, not quite high art. Yet it's the RPG standard.

And it should be. RPGs are not about great acting. If you want that, join an improv acting group, and you'll be astounded at how much better they do. RPGs are about players making certain sorts of decisions that create a certain sort of action. And that involves, to some extent, abbreviations of the declarations of actions, where appropriate. Note that this doesn't mean that you can't be eloquent, if you feel like it and are capable. Simply that to require everyone to be so is to make RPGs into something that they're not.

So my conclusion (this ought to be a standard rant), is that, if a player is capable of giving even a cursory abbreviated idea of what their characters intent is in terms of dialog, it's no different than how combat is handled in most games. The equivalent to "I hit it" is "I charm her." Then roll and see what happens.

Does that prevent you from narrating more dialog before or after, or the group having higher standards? Not at all. In point of fact, we'd kick out of my HQ game and player who said, "I hit it" as a declaration of action (in fact, in HQ, that would probably be disallowed by the rules as it's not enough of a statement to get the system to really work). Similarly, if a player avoids narration of dialog without good cause, just because a roll is upcoming, they'd be wrong in my group.

The point being, we have both great IC dialog, and we have resolution. The key, in fact, if you want to look at it closely, is to watch the dialog for the conflict moments, and roll then. It's when the player finally says, "Either you're coming with me, or I'm calling the cops." At that point, if it's plausible for the target character to go either way, then you roll.

This is what conflict resolution is all about. If, in fact, everyone feels that the only result of the conversation is that X would happen, then there's no conflict, is there? So you don't roll. It is, in fact, only when there are these moments where it would be interesting to see which way the target goes that you do roll.

So does that give everyone a functional model? You don't avoid dialog, you engage in it heavily. And then roll when the moment of truth comes up. S'mon, this is precisely what you indicated with the use of Diplomacy skill. You are, already, automatically using conflict resolution. It is, in fact, only when one uses such rolls for task resolution, that you tend to see dialog go away. Because in that case, it really does replace both set up and resolution. Where as conflict resolution depends intrinsically on the players setting up the conflict first before resolution occurs. Meaning that you have to have the preliminary dialog (or some suitable replacement) to discover the conflict.

BTW, once you start playing this way, suddenly the HQ system all starts to make more sense. The player sees that, at the point that the conflict is discovered, just how their character "plugs in" to the conflict. The player reminds himself, and the other players about who they are, and why the conflict is important to them (even if, in some cases, it's to say that they're not particularly involved in this particular conflict - even that's interesting in HQ).

When seen from this POV, as long as the player is looking for their character's "plug ins" dilligently, they're doing their required "duty." That is, if they narrate to conflict, and then show their character's attatchment to it via augmenting, then they can and do feel that they've done their part. Basically they worry about fun before satisfiying anyone else - that part happens automatically.

HQ, played from this POV, has been remarkably effective for me.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: So does that give everyone a functional model? You don't avoid dialog, you engage in it heavily. And then roll when the moment of truth comes up. S'mon, this is precisely what you indicated with the use of Diplomacy skill. You are, already, automatically using conflict resolution.

Mike Holmes wrote: To spin things around a bit, one could just "role-play" combat. Seems an oxymoron, but, again, "role-playing" when analyzed simply means saying what your character does or says. Well, we could just say stuff like, "I hit it with my big sword, killing it dead," and not roll at all. In fact, freeform groups do exactly this. They "role-play" everything, and never resort to mechanics.

S'mon wrote: So, in that case, my player doesn't have a problem with conflict resolution - he seems to very much like the way I run character interaction - but with something else, possibly the un-Gamist nature of Heroquest and its mechanics.

Mike Holmes wrote:

S'mon wrote: So, in that case, my player doesn't have a problem with conflict resolution - he seems to very much like the way I run character interaction - but with something else, possibly the un-Gamist nature of Heroquest and its mechanics.

Well, if it's Kerstin's other player, then that's what she indicated previously.

Mike Holmes wrote: That is, what he really wants is more likely task resolution. Since task resolution can sometimes be used to replace dialog, as mentioned, then he worries that that there's that either/or dichotomy. That is, if you go to resolving, there's no way to have the player's skill come into play.

In fact, that's generally true. A lot of Gamism in RPGs comes down to using the correct series of tasks. Cast this spell, use this weapon with this maneuver. Then finish him off with a shove into the fire pit. Task, task task. When you resolve a dialog, there's just one step, meaning no chance for player tactical ability to come to the fore - you just roll the dice and see what happens. So the gamist, with dialog, often prefers to talk their way out of a situation as the way of demonstrating their skill. Basically these situations become technically "puzzles" which the player has to indicate his character as saying the right thing to get out of. Thus system is avoided in order to enable gamism.

Mike Holmes wrote: To be very clear, conflict resolution in narrativism has little to nothing to do with "protagonism." That is, the players ability to make a character look good or generally to be a protagonist tends to come all before or after contests in the narrations leading up or following the resolution, or use of mechanics at these points.

almost every human being understands character to character interaction and the basics of how it functions

Leaving out autistics, infants, and others who I am sure we will agree we're not talking about, who do you have in mind? Remember, he's talking about the basics of human interaction.

If 'basics' is opening your mouth and letting something come out, then I agree. But I've seen a lot of dysfunctional communication both in games and out. I don't think that being able either to speak well or to act is something that comes by nature. Neither is it easy to empathise with a different mindset; ie it takes sensitivity and training.

Hence, the SWd20 game I just played; not to mention many games I've been in in the past. What passes for IC dialogue in many cases would get the rotten tomatoes flying elsewhere.

Have you seen the latest SW movies? My guess is that the dialogue is right on target. :)

Well, my point was that a lot of people have no more idea how to interact with others than to swing a sword. So 'roleplaying' or 'IC dialogue' is not necessarily an ideal I strive for. That said, I agree with Mike (obviously) that HQ's conflict resolution by no means precludes dialogue.


And no, I gave up after The Phantom Menace. Actually I gave up after Return of the Jedi, but I was drunk in the city late one night and ending up going to a 1am screening of tPM....

Moot point.

As I say, it all comes down to the group's level of requirement. Which can be anywhere from simple description ("I get him to give it to me by talking to him") to improv Shakespeare.

The relevant point for the thread is that there's nothing about conflict resolution - or even task resolution, for that matter - that forces players not to do dialog. It's all in how the rolls are called for. If the player is allowed to call for a role to replace dialog, then it may happen. But one can still require dialog, and then roll at the key moments, if one wants.

Note that the groups that I play in have moved, if I might be so presumptuous, beyond this dichotomy. That is, sometimes they do, in fact, narrate around dialog, and not do it. But they do so only when it's, for lack of a better term, artistic to do so. For example, I remember this scene in the show Six Feet Under where at one point one character tells another that he's terminally ill. But we don't hear the dialog. The camera is pulling back, and they're "out of range" of hearing, and all we see is the looks on their faces. A very moving moment done this way. Well, my players will often do things something like this, describing the conversation instead of actually doing the dialog. Done thoughtfully, I think this is actually better in many ways than actually doing dialog that we all know how it's going to go.

The best example that I can think of is the "buying a sword" dialog. Sure we could do the haggling back and forth, but, I don't know about you, but I've done that scene enough times in my life that I don't have to do it anymore. Especially if it's tangential to the plot - the player just getting a power boost before moving on. In fact, using these techniques, you can say stuff like, "You haggle for no less than four hours before settling on a price - now roll." Don't know about you, but I don't want to hear the actual four hours of haggling.

Characters speak a whole lot more than what comes out in actual play, on the whole. We gloss over hellos spoken to travelers on the road, the pardons spoken to people on the street, the thank you's to the servants, etc, etc. What you choose to speak is, well, a choice; not the product of doing the dialog for absolutely everone you run across. As such, I think that it's just fine to use all sorts of narrative voices to describe such interactions.

Put anther way, the imperative to speak dialog first person seems to stem from the desire to try for the sorts of immersion that come from actor stance play. The point being to realize what your goals are, and play to them actively instead of doing so based simply on tradition.

Mike

Not to sound like a whiny whinerson, but I'm so confused (about a great many things, but also specifically some stuff in this thread).

And before worrying about the whole big picture, I'd really like a little clarification on one topic that has me really befuddled. (An "example of play" or similar explanation would be great).

Mike made allusion to the fact that you can "roleplay" a scene along, speaking in character (or narrating away, or whatever vehicle your group uses), and then "everyone will realize that it's time for a roll". I just can't wrap my head around how this works. What elements pop up to notify you of the roll? Is it strictly a "feel" thing?

Arg!

Take this link first, as an example of the *IC* portion of play:

http://random.average-bear.com/ShadowWorld/Session38

Take a look at the first scene. Scroll down a bit...

Okhfels goes over to his men.
Okhfels: "You are thinking, now, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to join up. You're thinking, maybe, it's time to go back to your old comrades."
Okhfels: "Think hard about that."
Fahja stands looking at the man bleeding his life out on the ground. His robes rustle slightly as he clears his sword hilt.
Okhfels: "Think what it is that makes you think that."
...
Okhfels: "Because if you think it could be you over there someday... I don't WANT you here. This band is for MEN. Not dogs. So if you want to go... go now."
...
Okhfels glares at his men. "No?"
...
Holmes: One of the men in Okhfels line wavers for a moment, considering taking off. But in the end, they all stand, all committed to the Hero Band.

The response Mike made there, last, was a result of a conflict... "Will Okhfels men desert as a result of this discipline, or will they be stronger for it?" I was the one who called for the conflict.

Does that illustrate things better?

droog wrote: If 'basics' is opening your mouth and letting something come out, then I agree.

Mike Holmes wrote: Moot point.

As I say, it all comes down to the group's level of requirement. Which can be anywhere from simple description ("I get him to give it to me by talking to him") to improv Shakespeare.

originally posted by Mike Holmes:
The best example that I can think of is the "buying a sword" dialog. Sure we could do the haggling back and forth, but, I don't know about you, but I've done that scene enough times in my life that I don't have to do it anymore. Especially if it's tangential to the plot - the player just getting a power boost before moving on. In fact, using these techniques, you can say stuff like, "You haggle for no less than four hours before settling on a price - now roll." Don't know about you, but I don't want to hear the actual four hours of haggling.

To me the problem with the sword-buying is that it's not inherently interesting; usually nothing much hinges on it, therefore it should be abstracted. A desire to play _everything_ in character seems as undesirable as a refusal to play anything in character. I've just spent the last 4 hours or so roleplaying sundry kings & emperors negotiating with PCs High King Sigurd & Archmage Elaith as they try to gain vital knowledge and forge alliances that will determine the fate of Humanity (and Elfdom) - which was big important stuff, but we still abstracted large chunks of it. And if I hadn't been so tired it would have been nice to RP some more of the little stuff, like the Archmage Elaith's blossoming friendship with the elven king's female Paladin-champion. The requests for magic items from the elves, OTOH, were resolved with me reading out what was available and asking the PCs if they wanted it or not.

Eggo von Eggo wrote:
Mike made allusion to the fact that you can "roleplay" a scene along, speaking in character (or narrating away, or whatever vehicle your group uses), and then "everyone will realize that it's time for a roll". I just can't wrap my head around how this works. What elements pop up to notify you of the roll? Is it strictly a "feel" thing?

Hi guys,

In d20, we see the equivalent effect when a player rolls a skill at the end of a narrative description, without declaring it in advance or being asked, and then says "I got 23 on fast talk." In situations when I've seen this, there's a tacit acceptance that the GM can ignore the roll, but in an experienced group the player can usually guess when a roll will be required.

The development of skill and understanding is what Mike is refrerring to. After playing with a conflict resolution system for a while, players develop a better sense of when to use it and how goals should be defined. As this happens, they find less explicit discussin is necessary to handling each resolution.

One of the neat things about HQ conflict resolution is the idea of "augments". You have a wide variety of attributes on your character sheet, and when you're in a conflict you pick one to roll on, but can gain support (or in the case of flaws, the opposite) from other attributes. This gives a rich set of influences on which to base the narration and/or dialogue that comes after the dice hit the table.

Alan wrote: Hi guys,

In d20, we see the equivalent effect when a player rolls a skill at the end of a narrative description, without declaring it in advance or being asked, and then says "I got 23 on fast talk." In situations when I've seen this, there's a tacit acceptance that the GM can ignore the roll, but in an experienced group the player can usually guess when a roll will be required.

Okay, but you know that that's only rude in the context of a social contract where the GM has total power over the dice and rules, right? And that that's only one possible social contract.

Frankly, I think it's usually a very dysfunctional one. If the game rules are meant (at least in part) to arbitrate disputes, how can they work if one of the disputants has complete control over when and whether they'll be used?

It does, however, underline your dependence on negotiation as a source of player power, since that's the only method of resolution you can go to of your own will.

(Edit: was targeted for PM.)

There's a variety of cheating where a player will idly "fiddle" with a die at the table, as he's RPing along, and if a good roll comes up, declare that that's his bluff/diplomacy/whatever check. Since it's my job as DM to keep an eye out for that kind of thing, a roll only counts if a player declares it FIRST.

"I'm going to roll bluff now."

"Go ahead."

Everyone looks over and sees what he rolled.

The "I'm going to roll bluff now" declaration is subject to validation, the same as ANY declaration is.

Hello all,

Interesting stuff in this thread so I've decided to share a few examples from my Pool games.

As to Darcy's doubt of how you know when it's conflict resolution time, in my games it is pretty straight forward. We will simply roleplay the game as usual until someone (either the GM or another player) states that something will happen or that character X will do something and another player (GM or not) feels like saying "No he's not" and call for a roll.

Example:

GM: As Bob the PC is walking in the middle of the crowd, he sees a man pushing an old lady and running for it with her purse.

Bob's player: Bob immediately runs after the culprit yelling "Hey! Thief! Somebody stop that man!"

GM: People don't react quickly enough and the thief has a good start. Looks like he will outrun Bob and escape.

Bob's player: No, he won't. (And calls for a roll)

But the scope of conflict resolution in the Pool can go way beyond that.

For instance, some time back we've played a Pool Game called X-Riders where two bikers would roam the countryside of Brazil facing all kinds of supernatural challenges. The two bikers were pretty much a Mulder-Scully pair in the sense that one of them was a total believer in the supernatural while the other was the total skeptic.

Very well, what this meant was that many conflict resolution scenarios developed in attempts of each player forcing his character personal view on the game world.

An example:

In the very first session, they were in a small town full of rumors about the recent night attacks to cattle by a "creature" that the locals thought to be a werefolf. During the whole session, when facing evidences of the attacks the two PCs each developed his own theory about them. While one totaly believed in the werewolf theory, the other one was trying to prove that the attacks were made by some very mundane wild animal.

At one point, the Mulder type PC was alone at the countryside when he heard noises of cattle being attacked. The PC raced towards the noises and the player asked for a roll in order to "finally see who is the responsible for the attacks". The roll succeeded and he got to narrate how he saw the werewolf attacking a cow (however, he never managed to actually prove it later to the Scully type PC, but that's another story).

In the next story-arc of the campaign, they were faced with mysterious lights believed to be UFO's. This time the Scully PC was in a situation to finally discover the truth and when his roll succeeded, he found out a drug smuggling operation using the town's UFO fame as a cover, Scooby-Doo style.

In this particular game, when the dice decided that the GM (me) should narrate the outcome, I would always do it in a ambiguous way in order to feed the mistery and the competition between the players. It was lots of fun.

Hope this adds something to the discussion ...

Andreas

PS: Off-topic, Darcy are you the same Eggo/Darcy that was playing the Diplomacy game "Smith" a while back?

Hmm. The "how you know" when to roll is what seems to be the crux here. And here's the rule with conflict resolution that should solve the problem for everyone. You roll when the players feel it would be cool to roll. So, S'mon, you'd probably not personally call for many rolls about diplomacy, and instead just narrate them out. That's how you "should" do it. There are no cases, none, where the in-game circumstances mandate a roll. It's only when the players (and not that I include the GM as a player here) think it would be cool. In The Pool, the GM has final say on this. But, again, it has to at the very least be interesting to him to have the possibility of failure on such a roll before he calls for one.

Otherwise you just "roleplay" everything else out.

If you happen to use this rule, and find that you never roll for anything, then you've just proven that you ought to be a freeformer.

Mike

I do something similar to Mike when I GM The Pool. Mine's a little meaner though. I, as the GM, never call for a roll. I tell the players at the beginning of the game that I won't ever call for a roll. This essentially gives me complete control over what is added to the SIS until one of them calls for a roll and wins the right to add what they want to the SIS. In order to get them to do this I won't resolve anything in their favor without a roll. I keep piling up complication on top of complication on top of complication with no resolution in favor of the PCs until one of them goes, "Hey... if I call for a roll and win, I can resolve this conflict in my favor the way I think would be cool." Once one of them does that, it's amazing how quickly they start figuring out when to roll and how often.

Here's a question, that I hope is somewhat related to this thread....

If you RP everything like diplomacy in D&D then why spend the points in it as a skill? What if you as a player have no diplomatic skill, but want to play a character who is diplomatic? How does one compenstate for these things?

I suggested to my GM that there be some roleplay and based on the roleplay, a character can get modifiers to their roll.

Oh and I usually ask the GM if he wants a roll from me before rolling.

Trish2 wrote:
If you RP everything like diplomacy in D&D then why spend the points in it as a skill? What if you as a player have no diplomatic skill, but want to play a character who is diplomatic? How does one compenstate for these things?

Hey folks,

This thread has grown all sorts of excrescences and no longer knows whether it is standing or swimming. So let's close it here and take discussions of specific topics into new threads of their own.

Best,
Ron

TonyLB wrote: Okay, but you know that that's only rude in the context of a social contract where the GM has total power over the dice and rules, right?

TonyLB wrote: Frankly, I think it's usually a very dysfunctional one. If the game rules are meant (at least in part) to arbitrate disputes, how can they work if one of the disputants has complete control over when and whether they'll be used?

*oops*