Hi, I've posted once or twice about this here game I'm writing called Seven Worlds (I know the name is similar to other games, long story...) and essentially the gameplay focusses on a strategic/tactical game of character progression through conflict with other players and the GM (where the GMs ability to construct obstacles is constrained by a finite stat per session, simply called Adversity). I'm in the happy stage of writing out the rules now, and it is relatively crunch-heavy (the way I like it, not always the vogue it seems these days) because I want to state a lot of specific rules options for common situations, focussing specifically on Martial and Social conflicts. I suppose the game is very gamist, focussing on Challenge-orientated play (sorry, not the best at Forgespeak).

I'm indebted to John Kirk's recent draft book, RPG Design Patterns, and I'll briefly jump on the bandwagon and say its a great resource. But the simple fact is that no amount of stated rules will cover every eventuality that comes up in play, especially stuff that falls outside of the martial and social conflicts rules I'm writing. Its an impossibility, not to mention a waste of time, to write rules for everything I can think of, and it restricts options in game anyway.

The pattern of conflict resolution in the game is based around the manipulation of SIS stuff, trait rolls and the like. I don't like GM fiat (hence the use of Adversity to define how much shit the GM can throw at the players) on interpretation of events, so I need a quick-and-dirty mechanic for negotiation between GMs and players so conflicts that fall outside of the narration that is defined in the rules can be accepted by all parties.

I know I'm walking into a big big field of player-player conflict resolution, the game is focussed around character conflict to add immersion to Gamist Challenge, but without the typical GM Fiat rule that can become irritating, how can players and GMs resolve narrative interpretation contests? Paper-scissors-rock sort of quick and dirty, but I still want the general narrative possibilities to be similar to those presented in the explicit rules.

Hence why I'm fielding the question, any ideas on how to have player negotiation mechanics when parties are intractable, a way of keeping the rules system credible so it doesn't come down to "I won with rock over your scissors so I get to make up the rules as I go along" which defeats the point of the rest of the rules? Essentially, some sort of social technique to mediate negotiation so people can resolve these problems and jump back into the game and keep on playing.

Thanks for any advice that may come around,
Justin

Sounds like you have a good grasp of what you are doing.  You might look to game theory for some meta level conflict resolution mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Chicken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_Dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_Game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impunity_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centipede_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods_game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_pennies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-win_situation

There are many more.  You can follow links off the individual articles for more ideas.

Any of the above can be readily combined with karma and fortune systems or used on their own. 

Possible Applications:
meta-game tokens
make results influence target number or # of dice thrown
make the base unit be narrated "succeses," "failures" and "complications"

A quick (one round) Matrix Game http://www.io.com/~hamster/ using one of the above techniques to arrive at argument strength (instead of GM fiat) could produce some interesting results.

Justin,

Please post a link to your game so that we can give you better feed back.

Unfortunately, I've never been one to back down from a challenge, so I'll see if I can give you some useful ideas blind.  However, I do not promise that these recommendations will be useful.  Take what you can use and ignore the rest.

You said that your game was naturally narrow, with a lot of very specific rules for a relatively small number of player options (specifically social and martial conflicts) which represent the bulk of the game.  You don't want to limit what your players do with your game, but you don't want to sacrifice the rules depth you've already built into your game  by generalising.

If your character statistics are relatively generic (Like DnD, Sorcerer, My Life With Master, etc) then all you need to do is create a few rules for general stat-to-world interaction.  Basic stat checks should be able to cover the situations which fall out side of your core rules.

If your character statistics are so specific that they only apply in a limited number of situations then create a new "everything else" stat which covers everything not in the rules.  It could be something as simple as a number between 1-6 which is determined at random at character creation and to succeed a player rolls a d12 and succeeds if the number rolled is lower.  Since you don't want to take focus away from the detailed rules you created for what you want to be the baulk of game play.

A more difficult (but more elegant) way to solve your problem would be to create a layered rules system.  The first layer is very generic and can cover all situations.  The second layer would cover somewhat more specific situations (such as conflicts and non-conflict situations).  A third layer covers specifics within those situations (social conflicts, violent conflicts) a fourth layer covering specifics within those situations (gun combat, melee combat, ship to ship combat) a fifth layer covering it in even deeper specifics (Swan Style, Dirty Brawling, Ye Old Axe Combat) etc.  The important thing to note here is that, if no deeper layer exists the each layer can handle the conflicts all by itself.

These are three ways you could solve your problem.  I hope that one of them helps.

Best,
      Bill

Thanks Bill and Mark for your replies, they touch on something a little deeper in the mechanic that I am trying to work out. First of all I have to apologise because I don't have anywhere to post the mechanics I am discussing, and I am reworking the draft at the moment anyway. If there are any specific questions I'd be happy to answer them, I'm just keeping this in general terms in order to avoid bogging down the discussion.

Bill, as you said, the Layered approach is definately the most elegant way to resolve the problem, essentially the Martial and Social conflict rules are layered on top of a general conflict resolution system. Resolving conflicts outside of these areas is pretty easy, find a trait that looks like the one you need, based on the trait descriptions (which start off broad, like attributes, and narrow into skills for example), but the problem is not so much that. I'll run through the conflict mechanic in its most basic form so you get the problem:

Two parties roll individual traits against themselves (i.e. the TN is set by the trait rank itself). Both compare their margin of success or failure. Subtract the smaller from the bigger, for the total Margin of Success. This can work with double negatives, two people fail but one fails less than the other - he doesn't succeed but he does get something.

It's that something that is important, as Mark said, "success" "failure" and "complication". Its the complication that needs the work. For instance, in an exchange of blows, the attacker succeeds in hitting his opponent, but the defender succeeds in defending, just not as much as the attacker. He still gets hit, but he can take a "benefit" or give a "complication" to the agressor. In combat this is no problem, as situations can be stipulated. You can make one up, but the mechanical effects (usually an advantage bonus for the following exchange) are related to the numeric value of the "benefit/complication". The only rule is that it cannot change the outcome of the conflict just done, so the defender cannot block the blow using his success, he was still beaten. But he can take the hit and jump out of range so he has an advantage next round.

What this does is allow a player to introduce elements to the SIS, with some authorial control, outside of the control (and rightly so) of the GM. The player could say, "I use that tree as cover", inventing the tree etc. This is perfectly reasonable, the mechanical effects are pretty simple, the same as jumping back really. But what about more complicated situations, specifically non-martial? (I admit, also the trouble is that I have trouble imagining non-violent or non-social conflicts - competitive actions, sure, but not neccessarily conflictual ones).

Introducing new elements to the SIS is pretty important. Can a player introduce a new character? (He fails to defend, but he gives the aggressor a complication in that the aggressor accidentally gets in the way of another melee combat two steps behind him?) Even if he can, say make the aggressor fumble, he shouldn't be able to do it automatically. So he can make someone else make a task roll as well. The trouble is not that a complication can be almost anything (the reason for them being there is to make conflicts dynamic - most conflicts are structured within the situation of it, but I want that to change with time so the players and GM always have to think on their feet), the trouble is, where does the narration get limited? Traits that called into play don't just involve character traits, what if the objects around the characters need to be tested? Who says if the door breaks, the chandalier crashes, if not the GM?

Without GM fiat, obviously he cannot put his iron fist down and say "that wouldn't work". This is moving from the manipulation of the established 'physics' of the SIS to changing the rules or adding stuff to it outside of the system. I want this in game, for the reason I said above. And I suppose, on one level, I am trying to safeguard against the impossible - trying to prevent player or GM abuse (where was I reading that preventing people from abusing a system is near impossible if they are that way inclined - namely, if the social contract is weak and someone is running roughshod over another). I suppose that desire is in my head because so many gamist games appeal to players who DO abuse the system. I'm not saying prevention is completely possible, but having a method of GM-player negotiation helps restrict that somewhat - by simply acknowledging that the Social Contract exists and the SIS is the product of everyone, not just the GM.

OK, I apologise for rambling or justifying a point that perhaps didn't need explication. Let me ask another, related question - how many gamist challenge games, that focus on task resolution resolve this (as most, in my experience, don't). Obviously, immersion in the SIS is important, and to a certain extent I see a lot of value in keeping the illusion amongst players that the SIS can be challenged like this, while still allowing it some room to alter. But, when I thumb through the Engle Matrix game, I see that there is a third party who decides what makes 'sense' and what doesn't. This is all well and good when the referee has no interest in the story, but the GM in Seven Worlds is there to provide obstacles to the character's goals, he is an interested party.

How do we define a 'reasonable' event, occurance or possibility? By playing paper-scissors-rock with the GM?

Sorry, I went from a specific question to a more general theoretical problem, at least that's the way I see it. Mark, for some reason the government of China has blocked wikipedia, the repressive pricks, so can't look at the wikis for now. But I will as soon as the spooks decide that information on playing games is OK for people to read.

Justin

Justin,

So, this is a rules balance problem, not a rules creation problem.  Gotchya.  I see three possible solutions.

1.  The complication rule doe not apply outside of social or physical conflicts.  So, if two characters were racing across the savanna on the backs of rabid lions there would be no benefit/complication issues.  The winner would win and the looser would loose.

2.  Put complication rules in your first layer.  Perhaps all complications can create objects that are not of plot importance, move the defending player from one part of the scene to another and add cool background music.  What ever the specific restrictions on complications are, they apply to everything, including social/physical conflicts.

3.  Add complication rules to the first layer, but allow deeper layers to override these restrictions.  So perhaps most conflicts are limited at in #2, but in social conflicts the player can also drag in NPCs at awkward moments and in physical conflicts you can destroy the scenery.

Which ever option you choose, it is important to clearly define who controls what and the circumstances they control it under.  You can make these circumstances are specific or as general as you want, but make sure you set the limits.

As for your second question:  Are there any games where the PCs are not capable of just running roughshod over each other?  Yes.  One example would Sin (the link to which is in my signature.)  Sin is a bit unique though as it has no GM and play is competitive between players.  Another example would be Great Orc Gods.  Both games give the players power typically reserved for the GM and thus are forced to be balanced so that it is not possible for one player to run roughshod over all the others.

Best,
        Bill

Justin wrote: I'm indebted to John Kirk's recent draft book, RPG Design Patterns, and I'll briefly jump on the bandwagon and say its a great resource. But the simple fact is that no amount of stated rules will cover every eventuality that comes up in play, especially stuff that falls outside of the martial and social conflicts rules I'm writing. Its an impossibility, not to mention a waste of time, to write rules for everything I can think of, and it restricts options in game anyway.

Hence why I'm fielding the question, any ideas on how to have player negotiation mechanics when parties are intractable, a way of keeping the rules system credible so it doesn't come down to "I won with rock over your scissors so I get to make up the rules as I go along" which defeats the point of the rest of the rules? Essentially, some sort of social technique to mediate negotiation so people can resolve these problems and jump back into the game and keep on playing.