In discussing Dogs in the Vineyard, we came across a slight conceptual bump when it came to conflicts that included more than two parties all with mutally exclusive agendas.  Dogs' conflict resolution system more or less assumes binary results -- either the player gets the results he wanted, or he doesn't.  How he doesn't get his stakes, or what he gets instead, is left arbitrary and up to events in play.  In fact, how he gets his stakes is also played out via the dice-spending mechanic (which I'm not saying is bad, mind).  But the final result is still succeed/fail, whatever route you take to get there.

I don't think that Dogs is broken or deficient or anything, and in fact I don't intend for this thread to be about Dogs in specific.  What I am interested in is the possibility of conflict resolution which is not binary -- that doesn't result in a 'you win'/'you lose' determination, but presents multiple options and picks between them.  Something like "all players around the table propose a resolution, invest some of their currency in their proposal, and then (somehow) one of the proposals is selected".  Or "all players suggest a piece of the final resolution, invest currency, and then the player and/or GM shops among the suggestions for what goes into the final resolution."

Before I start throwing more concrete ideas around, writing anything down, or (god forbid) rewriting another section of FLFS, I'd be curious to see if (a) this has been done in a completed project before, and (b) if anyone has played a game using such a system.  Either way, I'd like to hear about any hang ups, boons, difficulties, and the like.  I don't want to retread old ground if it's already been churned up sufficiently.

This was discussed not too long ago: [Conflict Resolution - varable efect]

I just realized that you participated in that discussion, Joshua, so maybe I'm confused about what you're asking. Maybe you could elaborate? Are you specifically looking for systems where multiple people have a say in what happens?

Primetime Adventures uses multiple binary resolutions to build a complex, non-binary resolution.  Is that the sort of thing you're looking for?

James

I've written about how to adapt Dogs' resolution to everybody-has-a-goal here on my blog.

-Vincent

Tim --

I did?  I did!  That must have been percolating in the background of my brain for a bit.  That thread was asking if non-binary results would make it not conflict resolution, and if conflict resolution would be diluted if it allowed non-binary results.  I think that was satisfactorily answered in that thread -- no and no.

What I'd like to see here are examples on non-binary stakes and any known or experienced characteristics of the same.

Blankshield --

Indeed; using two binary conflicts, you get four eventual results.  Three binary conflicts, eight potential results.  That's certainly one way to attack it.  But what if you have three interested parties all acting at once, all with a different prefered result?  No doubt there are many different ways to model this, so I'm not asking for the 'right' way, only any methods that people have written and/or played.  Like Vincent just did.

Vincent --

Interesting.  When does a conflict end?  Because with multiple stakes on the table, some characters will be winning their stakes before others.  Do the others keep going, or is that conflict over?  If they keep going, does the 'winner' stay in the conflict?  Is there any way to help out someone else, rather than just blocking/reversing/taking the blow?  And lastly, have you played this?

Josh,

This thread (don't miss its reference) handles a non-binary conflict resolution concept at some length, and I'm developing it into a full game in my Mere Sapnon ki Rani thread -- MSKR handles conflicts like a game of chicken, where each character may continue pursuing his goal until the risks are too great.

It hasn't seen any play yet, though.

Shreyas, it seems that the default assumption is that something bad is going to happen, which is not necessarily a bad assumption to make -- if nothing bad ever happened, there'd be no story.  It also appears that more than one sword can fall in a given conflict/scene -- sure, the wave broke over the side of the ship and knocked over the PC, but the fight rages on!  When is a given conflict/scene over?  When and how does the system ever resolve in favor of the PCs?

The generic conceit I developed out of that situation is that you want bad things to happen to other people, and the danger of actually trying to bring this about is that it exposes you to counterattack along similar lines. So, the technique is that you define the dangers such that they block characters from acheiving their goals, or a goal is identical to "danger X befalls character Y"; in effect you are juggling multiple conflicts whose states of resolution affect each other, and you can fluidly add and remove sob-conflicts without interrupting the large-scale flow of the situation.

Joshua wrote:
What I am interested in is the possibility of conflict resolution which is not binary -- that doesn't result in a 'you win'/'you lose' determination, but presents multiple options and picks between them.  Something like "all players around the table propose a resolution, invest some of their currency in their proposal, and then (somehow) one of the proposals is selected".  Or "all players suggest a piece of the final resolution, invest currency, and then the player and/or GM shops among the suggestions for what goes into the final resolution."

Capes lets you have any number of sides on a given conflict, although the default is binary resolution.  N-cornered adversity comes up less often, I think, because people often have a hard time coming to grips with what it means.  You don't have a clear "If I'm working toward my enemy's defeat I must also be working toward my victory" structure.  Folks jump to that structure even when it's not accurate ... in games and in life (unfortunately).

I think the resolution for Pretender (from the No Press RPG Anthology) and its parent game Otherkind might qualify as a non binary system.  You decide several factors about the conflict depending on where you put the dice that are rolled.

best

Trevis

John wrote:
To modify these systems into Negotiated Contest systems, all you have to do is introduce the requisite negotiation.  You could, for example, go around the table and have each player state his goals.  Then, the players could negotiate amongst themselves as to the effects for each player if he should win or lose the contest.  Then, roll (or bid, or whatever) to determine the winner.  A "degree of success" value could be determined as the amount the biggest winner has over the biggest loser.

Shreyas --

So do players propose possible outcomes, and then work towards their preferred outcome(s) while preventing the undesired outcome(s)?

John --

Thank you for pointing out initiative.  With task and (most) conflict resolution as binary and generic damage rolls as scalars, I'm not sure what initiative would be termed as -- a weighted order, perhaps?  Adding negotiation to that ordered result could be interesting.  I think it would have to be pretty structured to enforce the winner's (leader's?) dominance.   I can see a resolution mechanic where players contribute in order, able to add details and elaborations but unable to contradict statements made before them, or some such.

Tony --

So if there are three sides to a conflict, and then one side 'wins out' what happens to the two other sides?  Are they completely negated, or can the winner of the conflict allow them some weight in the ensuing resolution narration?  Or would you only enter into a non-binary conflict if you specifically did not want the other two results to play out?  If blocking the other results was not a priority to you, it would be simpler to start a new conflict (especially since the other players' resources are already tied up in the original conflict).

I'm sure human nature plays a part in all this -- a simple me-or-them scheme is lots easier to grok than a multiple-agenda brouhaha.  It's kind of the same as focusing fire on one enemy at a time in dungeoncrawling.  So half the challenge in designing something non-binary would be presenting it in terms that the players can easily wrap their brains around.  I think Shreyas' system might have that advantage.

Trevis --

Otherkind is sort of what I'm thinking of, but it still has that Motion die which is pretty success/fail towards your "Goal".  The other dice certainly add some elaboration, much like Dogs dice elaborate the means by which the conflict's stakes are pursued, but there's still a single stated goal and the character will gain it or lose it.  What happens if we take out the Motion die, or replace it with a couple dice representing parts of player objectives?

Tell me about FVLMINATA, Michael!  How it works and how it plays, if possible.

Joshua, it seems to me that you're asking more about conflict res. w/ multiple-player input, rather than just "non-binary"

I haven't seen non-binary conflict resolution systems (Negotiated Contests) in any of the games I've studied.  However, non-binary Generalized Contests exist all over the place.

Mike,

When I think of "non-binary" resolution, I think of that conversation you and I had at Origins.  The idea that it isn't "I win/you lose" but "I win/you win too" (or maybe you sort-of win, whatever).  I don't think HeroQuest qualifies because it really is pretty binary: A victory is always matched to a defeat, both sides can not achieve victory.

Joshua, is that what you're thinking?

Thomas

The resolution mechanic in my game, The Mountain Witch, isn't binary at all. You have a number of different outcomes.

You win (they lose)---x4 different degree of success
They win (you lose)---x4 different degress of success
You tie (nothing happens)
You both win (Mutual success)---x3 different degrees of success

12 different possibilities. On top of that, the very broad narration rights of the game can add lots of  nuanced meaning to all of these.

That said, I think you may not be giving the technique of Fortune-in-the-Middle enough credit here (which is utilized by almost all conflict resolution systems). While a given resolution system may seem "binary", in play, all the nuanced meaning that can be added to the narration of a conflict means that the conflict can change the course of play in many, MANY ways beyond what the resolution mechanic in isolation may seem to imply.

Let's use my game as an example. Two samurai are fighting a tengu. They win. One narration is that the two samurai fight together to defeat the monster. Outcome #1: Now the two samurai are better friends. But another narration may be that one of the samurai selfishly blocks the other from making any attacks, so that the first may take all the glory from the battle. Outcome #2: Now the second samurai is holding a grudge against the first. Two different outcomes with the same roll.

Are you following me here?

Joshua BishopRoby wrote: ..."all players suggest a piece of the final resolution, invest currency, and then the player and/or GM shops among the suggestions for what goes into the final resolution."

Okay, quickie overview of the FVLMINATA influence system. In an effort to encourage social manuevering appropriate to our ancient Roman setting, I wrote the influence system to give the players some solid, game mechanical means of changing people's actions. When a PC is trying to influence an NPC, he rolls his appropriate skill (Rhetoric, Poetry, Seduction, whatever). If the roll succeeds, then the player names three potential outcomes: Agreement (what the NPC target will do & say if he completely agrees with you), Concession (what the NPC target will offer instead if he doesn't agree with you), and Neutrality (what the NPC target will do if he does neither). After these three are determined, the player rolls for his level of success. The higher the level of success, the more limited the options of the GM. At the highest level, the NPC must act according to the Agreement result, or the GM must award the player a Humour Point (like a hero point, drama point, etc.).

Also of note is Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits. Both players start by stating their intent, and each has a Body of Argument score. As they make Points, Rebuttals, etc. against one another, they reduce their opponent's Body of Argument. Whoever's Body hits zero first definitely does NOT get his intent. However, if they knocked any points off their opponent's Body, then the opponent must offer them a concession. If both sides hit zero in the same volley, then neither gets what they want, but both must make a concession.

Also, I think you dismissed Otherkind a bit too quickly. While there certainly is the Motion die that deals directly with the declared Stakes, one of the brilliances that Vincent hit on in Otherkind is that, by and large, players don't want just one thing in a conflict. They want a lot of things all at the same time. They want to "get the widget AND not get hurt AND look good doing it AND not have to kill anybody." By forcing the players to decide what they want more, you produce sixteen possible results from four binary categories. Plus, I find that the moment of decision, in play, far more interesting and dramatic than the working out of what it means afterward.

LordSmerf, yes, that's certainly one element of what I'm looking for.  Apparently TMW offers a version of this, which is exciting.

Tim, yes, what I'm asking for is certainly done informally all the time.  When we played Dogs, everybody was putting out suggestions for what should happen in the initiatory conflicts, and the GM put them together into what actually happened.  It was really cool, but I get worried when anything informal like that happens, because there's no structure outside what the idiosyncratic play group's style allows for.  What I'd like is something that takes that collaborative feel from our Dogs game and systemizes it so that it's reliable and sound, that players have guaranteed input not based on their social standing in the playgroup, and suchlike factors.  So basically, yes -- now can we embed it into the game so that you can't take it back out?

In your example in TMW, how is it determined if Outcome #1 or Outcome #2 happens?  Is it the decision of whoever happens to have the buck at the time?  Is there anything that the downtrodden samurai's player might do to prevent his character from being shoved aside?

Michael -- FVLMINATA's system sounds very interesting.  Do other aspects of the system, like combat, work like that?  I can see parting shots and phyrric victories being very similar to concessions.

Otherkind and other fortune-in-the-middle systems certainly do offer a lot of options and permutations to play with in the ensuing narration, and the results are very much more complex than a simple binary result.  I'm by no means dismissing that.  They're still hitched to that success/fail of the 'main goal', however, and I'm curious to see if we can detach all those good, juicy details away from the 'main goal'.  Another option may be to reduce the prominence of the goal by creating incentives for the other juicy details (I think Otherkind probably does this, but I have not been able to play it yet).

At this point, I should probably allow that what I'm looking for is no longer really conflict resolution, but other forms of resolution.  By definition, conflict resolution will always resolve a conflict.  I'm curious whether we can broaden the range of details and information that can be generated by the resolution system.  (In some games with an emphasis on character conflicts, these details will be mere distractions and should be avoided; in games with different emphases, these details may be desired.)

Joshua wrote:
At this point, I should probably allow that what I'm looking for is no longer really conflict resolution, but other forms of resolution.  By definition, conflict resolution will always resolve a conflict.  I'm curious whether we can broaden the range of details and information that can be generated by the resolution system.  (In some games with an emphasis on character conflicts, these details will be mere distractions and should be avoided; in games with different emphases, these details may be desired.)

Mike's description of Hero Quest's outcomes is similar to Multiverser's, in which "relative success" and "relative failure" both use how close the roll is to the target number to determine the degree of success or failure.

Joshua wrote: So if there are three sides to a conflict, and then one side 'wins out' what happens to the two other sides?  Are they completely negated, or can the winner of the conflict allow them some weight in the ensuing resolution narration?  Or would you only enter into a non-binary conflict if you specifically did not want the other two results to play out?  If blocking the other results was not a priority to you, it would be simpler to start a new conflict (especially since the other players' resources are already tied up in the original conflict).

MJ, that would "do what I want" in that I am mostly canvassing possibilities in this thread.

Secondly, what your describe is not conflict resolution in my book, because there is no conflict.  There is a task (persuade the NPC) that is being attempted.  Conflict requires key character desires and obstacles to those desires.  It's possible that the same situation may be present a conflict, but unless the mechanic somehow addressed the key desires or the obstacle (whereas as it stands it addresses the character's abilities and the NPC's will), it's still task resolution applied to a conflict.  But then I doubt my definition of conflict resolution is exactly canonical.