In one of Mike's Standard Rants, he bashes on systems that have more than one resolution system pretty hard. Especially ones that have 1 system for what are genereally called "dynamic" or "opposed" conflicts versus "static" or "unopposed" conflicts. I find myself in general agreement with him. I did however have a question for him. (and for anyone else who wants to venture an opinion on it)

TSoY and my game I'm working on (amoung others) have multiple resolution systems but not divided by the static/dynamic classification. Both games I mentioned actually divide their systems along the lines of more important conflict / less important conflict, where the players decide what is more or less important. There's a simple and quick resolution method for matters of less import and a longer more dramatic method for places where we want to focus our attention.

Now the question... In these cases do you feel like multiple systems are more/less justified than in the case of "static" vs "dynamic" systems? If not, how would you achieve the same affect of focusing the game on specific conflicts which we achieve through our resolution (or attempt to achieve)?

Hi Andrew,

I may not be the most experienced to answer this, but I feel dual resolution systems is not a bad idea at all, as you have broken down the usages of different systems based on narrative concerns. If the game you are writing is crunch heavy (like mine) then codifying rules-of-thumbs to reduce handling time for non-dramatic scenes is a good idea - it saves the GM inventing house rules or rolling random numbers, or worse yet, making an arbitrary decision, instead.

Perhaps the trouble comes when it is based on defining 'more important' - who makes that decision, the GM or the players? The static/dynamic system difference may be arbitrary, but in my experience it is a system that players and GMs usually can agree upon. If the GM is always deciding what is important and what isn't, how can the players affect the game if the GM deems anything apart from his central storyline as unimportant? In other words, it can lead to potential railroading on the part of the GM. This is a problem I am still working on.

Of course, the really good RPGs, at least the lighter ones, seem to be able to keep the rules simple so that handling time is small in either dramatic or peripheral scenes.... however if you like detailed rules like I do, the system is not only useful, it is almost essential (for the above reasons).

My 2 mao's worth.

I'm not sure I see the necessity: You can make a single system that will both resolve small and unimportant conflicts quickly, and require much more detail in resolving bigger, important conflicts. Capes does this, as do Dogs in the Vineyard and Universalis: All the players decide how far to continue to use the game system, based on how important they think the conflict is.

Now I'm totally open to the prospect that different systems can provide strong value, but I'd be looking for something it addresses more uniquely. Like, maybe a game where heroes use one resolution system, and sidekicks use another one (with powerfully different structure and reward mechanisms). Even then, I'd wonder whether it can be folded into one system by making that system responsive to player choices at game-time... you could have players decide who is the hero and who the sidekick, and even contest the matter.

I like the idea of multiple systems if only so I can go looking for breakpoints in the currency exchange between the two. That expands the potential for surprising setups and so forth.

Heya Andrew,

I personally am intrigued by your idea. I'd certainly want to see it and don't automatically think it wouldn't work for a game. However, at the moment I don't think any of us can give you more useful feedback than "I like/don't like the sound of it" since we don't have any real concrete specifics of how it works in your game.

So, IMHO there is no reason why it can't work, but I don't know if it will work for you since I don't know how it exactly works. :)

Peace,

-Troy

Thanks for the response guys.

Troy - The specific system for my game can be seen on my website, which is in my signature (I hope). TSoY's system can be found on Clinton's site which I don't know the URL right off hand.

I think TSoY does a better job of this than my game as Clinton's simple resolution system is really the standard but when the player wants he can Bring Down the Pain, which focuses the game mechanics on that Conflict. One of the reasons I think Clinton's system is better at this (after some reflection and reading of posts) is that his BDTP system is simply and expansion of the normal system. It's not really at totally new thing, it is just expanded over several rolls.

My rules actually have 2 separate systems and I'm beginning to feel a sort of disjoint to them in my head.