Due to several recent discussions, I realized that one of the things I really like about most conflict resolution mechanics (e.g., Primetime Adventures' system) is that you can have interesting outcomes either way. It’s not success or failure, where failure means that the situation does not change. I usually see task resolution as that second kind, though not always (failed stealth rolls tend to change the situation, for example--so I guess most opposed checks do this already).

Now, I realized that one can achieve the same goal in a task resolution system by replacing “failure” with “complication” even in unopposed tasks.  That seems to be something that can be done in any game as long as the GM sets it up that way.

For example: Let’s say you’re playing a Sci-Fi game. The PCs are trying to get into a military fleet installation. They decide they want to modify car fuel cells to blow up the installation’s protective energy shield (anyone who knows which game the example is from gets an electronic cookie).

In a traditional task resolution approach, one would roll demolitions to see if the modification is successful. The PCs set it up, place it, try to detonate it. If it works, they’re in. If it doesn’t, the bomb doesn't go off, the situation has not changed; they’re still at the same point they were before, minus one option. That's what I'd like to avoid (because this could go on for several attempts and a lot of play time).

Now, if you replace failure with complication, the GM could phrase it like this: The thing will definitely blow up the shield (thereby advancing the game and changing the situation). If the player makes the roll, it will look like a power failure to the guards (the demolition wasn’t too big, it was well-timed, etc.). If the roll fails, the guards will realize something’s up and the PCs are soon going to be in big trouble. Or else: It will blow up, but it might hurt a PC or a bystander, or it might cause a flicker that will allow them to go in but not come back out, or...

In all of those complication cases, both outcomes advance the situation, but the roll is still based on the task, skill level, etc., so it seems like it's still a task resolution roll (especially when it's unopposed).

My questions:
Is this drifting toward conflict resolution after all, and if so, does that disturb some players who aim to simulate “actual events” including people who just fail at stuff?
Does it interfere with Stepping On Up to almost always allow success, even though complications are still possible?
What are other possible drawbacks of using complications instead of failures?
What games are explicitly using this approach already (I think Burning Wheel Revised does in at least two instances)?

The discussion about "yes, but" and the like remind me of this thread, where Thor explains how to end a scene.  Paul's response later in the thread (his contact on the police force example) shows an example of failure introducing consequences. At the end of the thread, Thor gives a good example of the technique.

I suspect that the technique you lay out would work well, even for players who are devoted to causality, for characters who are supposed to be supremely skilled.  To my mind, James Bond's actions would usually resolve this way.  I suspect that Step on Up wouldn't be interfered with, since the players can still brag about their successes (I broke in without setting of the alarm) and can display their skills at defeating the complications that come up from their "failures".  That's supposition from me though.

I'm interested in seeing what drawbacks other people forsee.
Scott

Hey Christian,

This going to be very brief and I apologize for not being more clear.  (Who knows given my record on posting this might end up being a huge plus!)

xenopulse wrote: Now, if you replace failure with complication…

…Is this drifting toward conflict resolution after all, and if so, does that disturb some players who aim to simulate “actual events” including people who just fail at stuff?

Hello,

You might be interested in this older thread: Wiff factor, specifically my comments about Aragorn on the steps of Helm's Deep.

Best,
Ron

Scott,

Good point about the bragging rights, and that example gave me some more food for thought. Thanks!

Jay,

I get your point, and I think you're completely right about complications supporting a Sim agenda. I've been thinking recently that the emphasis on the mechanics modeling specific tasks and their isolated outcomes actually gets in the way of addressing the Dream in many ways... but that's probably a topic for another thread. It seems that it would not be an easy thing to sell to people who want a specific thing figured out, and who are already so entrenched in this success/failure mode of thought.

Ron,

I completely agree with the points you make in that thread. Having Hero Wars (or HQ) mechanics helps out a lot there. Now, I was thinking about how to achieve the same thing without changing the mechanics. It's difficult to do when the mechanics model specific actions (as was mentioned in that thread), but I think explicitly agreeing within your group that you can substitute complications for pure failure in the interest of keeping the game going (and enjoyable) takes at least a little step in that direction.

Hello,

I hope we're communicating successfully ... my point is that it is sometimes useful and "the best thing" to retain the failure, rather than literally replace it with complication.

In other words, instead of:

(a) failure = whiff = pain in our asses OR (b) replace failure entirely, use complication instead,

go for:

(c) missed roll (or whatever) = hero doesn't get what he wants, but whatever happens is neat, and may include failure as appropriate to the moment

Best,
Ron

You may also want to think about degree of success as well. Without "criticals", there are four basic degrees:

You fail outright.
You fail, but there's some benefit.
You win, but with a complication.
You win outright.

Just in case you haven't seen Vincent's Chalk Outlines, concessions are the shit.  They''ll work with task resolution if you so desire, and you can still get complications, outright failures/successes, and partial failures/successes.  I do think this naturally drifts into conflict resolution as people encode their intent into the concessions, but not so much that it actually forces conflict resolution.

Hey Jason,

Jason wrote: I do think this naturally drifts into conflict resolution as people encode their intent into the concessions, but not so much that it actually forces conflict resolution.

Emphasis added by me.

Silmenume wrote: While I fully agree that concessions are a really cool idea in Narrativst play (I'm not sure about Gamist play), player created concessions are at direct odds with the core action of the Sim Creative Agenda.  IOW while the technique is extremely useful, but it is not a one size fits all.

Silmenume wrote: While I fully agree that concessions are a really cool idea in Narrativst play (I'm not sure about Gamist play), player created concessions are at direct odds with the core action of the Sim Creative Agenda.  IOW while the technique is extremely useful, but it is not a one size fits all.

Silmenume wrote:
While I fully agree that concessions are a really cool idea in Narrativst play (I'm not sure about Gamist play), player created concessions are at direct odds with the core action of the Sim Creative Agenda.  IOW while the technique is extremely useful, but it is not a one size fits all.

Jason wrote:
If you mean something other than causality/exploration/fidelity/verisimilitude/etc by Sim, then honestly I'll just have to take your word for it, because I don't believe in Sim. 

You can also attack this issue by way of Stakes -- setting the stakes for both success and failure in interesting terms that include complications gets you one of those interesting results either way.  It also makes failure interesting, rather than a dud experience.  Okay, big confrontation with the Big Bad, I try to hit him with my sword, I... miss.  Blah.  I swing my sword, overcompensate and expose my back to him?  Ah, now we've got some meat to chew on.

This can be applied to Task and Conflict Resolution in exactly the same way, it doesn't make it one or the other.

As has been implied but not explicitly stated, complications can be added to failure just as easily as to successes, so adding complications does not turn everything into successes.

Drawbacks to complications -- you've got to determine who gets to set up the stakes.  Who creates those complications?  The player rolling the dice?  The GM?  Other players at the table?  Are there limits or constraints to (very fuzzy) complications and their significance or magnitude?  This can open up a big can of conflict around the table (and not the good kind) unless it's very precisely laid out.

And lastly, Orkworld is a good example of adding complications by way of setting the stakes -- each side of a conflict takes turns pointing out why they'd win and their opponent will lose, then they roll dice.  The ensuing articulation of the die result incorporates the given reasons.

Hey Mark!

M. wrote: I will agree that it is not a one-size-fits-all technique, but I don't at all see why it is "at direct odds with the core action of the Sim Creative Agenda".

…

Even if I take Jay's to me rather confusing notion of bricolage as the core action of simulationism, I still don't see the conflict. In fact, I see it less. Bricolage, as I understand it, is about putting pieces together to create something. There is no reason in the world why it could not include the negotiation process of "I will allow this piece if you will include that piece." That, in fact, is what the negotiation is most of the time. Concessions only make it explicit.

Emphasis mine.

clehrich wrote: The thing is, any structure like this is a horrible mess if it takes into account every single potential meaning, because every thing we use has a huge raft of potential meanings, i.e. is structured densely.  This isn’t true with engineering, because you design things to have one meaning and little else, but in bricolage you’re stuck with the vast entailments of actual things as they really are.

Bolding added by me.

M. wrote: I can see concessions being an obstacle to immersion, but I do not count immersion a primary element of simulationism.

I just wanted to step in and briefly acknowledge this post.  I'm not actually conflating realism with Sim, but I'm using short hand that probably makes it seem like I am.  There are several different definitions of Sim floating around.  The "exploration squared" family of definitions (the agenda described in The Right to Dream essay) I call the causality/exploration/fidelity/verisimilitude/etc definition both for historical reasons and because I hate seeing exchanges like:  "It's not about causality, it's about versimilitude"  "No, no. It's about exploration, except more so" and so on... when it's all the same damn thing.  You can see two more in M.J.'s discovery/learning definition and Jay's bricolage definition.  So my hands-off attitude towards Sim is because I have no way of knowing what most people say when they mean Sim, and have yet to see a definition that isn't a core action of all roleplaying. 

*I* consider genre emulation to be Nar, because if you are really emulating the genre then the character archetypes and themes are being used.  Without expressing those elements you aren't playing in the genre, you are dressing up whatever genre (or lack thereof) you are playing in with the trappings of another genre. ...but that is not a commonly held view. 

Anyway, we know Sim isn't the topic of this thread, so...

*****

Given that I see we are talking about bricolage...

I don't see a conflict between concessions and bricolage either, but I'm willing to accept that's because I probably don't get what exactly is meant by bricolage.  I don't see anything unique in bricolage from roleplaying in general, and I don't think pure bricolage is possible.  Someone has to be introducing new elements (engineering) or all you'll get is unguided group meditation (or less harshly, Walt's Zilchplay concept).  I don't see why this specific method of introducing new elements impedes such play, when other methods (which must be happening if we are roleplaying) do not?

Heh.  Forgot the quote.  I was replying to Max.

Jay, let me suggest something that works a little better for me: under Sim, no player can completely specify the entailments of his own decision. (This becomes a tautology if we see entailments as unforeseen or unintentional consequences.)

Thus, while I have the ability (within the limits of credibility-distribution) to say that I dodge the hurled flower pot and it shatters against the stone wall--and no one can change that--the implied fact that there are "broken shards lying on the floor" remains available for anyone else to use.

Nevertheless where I have trouble with the concept isn't the ability of others to specify and use (unforeseen) entailments of my decisions, but the limitations on their ability. It's probably a topic for another thread, though.