I outlined more or less how I want conflicts to work in Afterworld.  Previous thread is here.  You may want to read that one first.

When a conflict arises, follow these steps to resolve.

1)  The situation has already been set by the play that has happened before the conflict is called for.
2)  The acting player sets stakes for his side of the conflict.  Stakes must be agreed upon by the other players.  ("If I win, X happens.")
3)  The reacting player (usually the GM) announces counterstakes.  The counterstakes are what will happen if the acting player loses the conflict.  The counterstakes are in addition to the stakes the acting player set.  Counterstakes must be agreed upon by the other players as well.  ("If I win, not only does X not happen, but Y will happen")
4)  Both players may revise their stakes until everyone is happy with the structure of the conflict.  Additionally, either player may cancel the conflict without rolling.  If they do so, neither set of stakes comes to pass, and play continues as normal.
5)  The reacting player always rolls first.  He selects from his available resources, and rolls.  His die roll sets the bar for the acting player to overcome.
6)  The acting player then selects a resource and rolls the associated die.
7)  The players alternated rolling dice until one side yields.
8)  Whichever side yielded has lost the conflict.  Their opponents stakes come to pass.

Rolling Dice
For the moment, I’m going to treat all resources as equal.  This is something I hope to change once I define them a little bit better.

1)  The player examines the resources available to him and selects one that he feels is appropriate.  The resource used must:  a)  not have been used already in this conflict, and b)  be appropriate to the situation as it stands in the SIS.
2)  The player announces what resource he is using, and what method associated with that resource he is calling upon to activate it.  The GM keeps track of the methods used in this fashion (whether he's directly involved in the conflict or not).
3)  The player rolls the die currently associated with that resource.  All dice stay on the table until the end of the conflict unless are cancelled.
4)  If the number rolled is the highest currently involved in the conflict, the player narrates it’s use through Intent and Initiation.  All narration must be appropriate to the method used to activate the resource.  Then the other player rolls.
5)  If the number rolled is not the highest, the player may choose to bump the value of any other die up or down by one.  If a die is used to bump, that die is cancelled, and removed from the conflict.  The player narrates how the resource had a non-decisive impact on the conflict.  All narration must be appropriate to the method used to activate the resource.
6)  After bumping, if the player still does not have the highest roll:  a)  If this is the players second consecutive roll, he loses the conflict.  b)  Otherwise, the player may choose to roll again.

What I still want to do with this:

1)  Differentiate between different types of resources mechanically.
2)  Eventually put together good guidelines as to when to call for conflict.
3)  Eventually put together good guidelines as to how to create good stakes.

This is in no way intended as finished instructional text, just a working outline.  Am I missing anything essential?  Are there any pitfalls you can see in this setup?  Is the "two consecutive failed rolls = you lose" rule too harsh?

Hi. I like the concept. (I've been trying to write a post-Roman game, but it never gets done.) A few pitfalls so far...

You say everyone must agree on the stakes. What if they don't? Does it get called of? Or maybe the two involve players have final say over their own stakes, and they're just encouraged to take advice...?

I don't understand how it makes sense to cancel the conflict without rolling. What's the effect of that? The conflict would have decided what happens next...so if there's no conflict roll, how do we know? Surely, one or both characters who were involved have to then give something up, or otherwise avoid the situation, right?

Re: Your future goals

1: Why do you want different resources to be mechanically different? They'll each be employed in different circumstances, and be used as a bump or not depending on what they are. That seems sufficient to me.

2 and 3: Easier said than done, but yeah, sure.

Rolling twice and losing doesn't immediately seem too harsh at all. What I'd do is run through some mock conflicts and see how it works.

Hi, Jasper, thanks for the reply.

I think that as long as everybody is thinking along the same lines as to what the conflict is really about, coming to an agreement on stakes shouldn't be too difficult.  Let me whip up an example. . .

I'm the GM, and you're playing Alice.  Your community, Aaron's Falls, has recently been attacked by a group of bandits in gasoline powered vehicles.  The attack devastated the town's defenses, and the nearly-complete mill was razed.  Many of the townspeople are demoralized, and I think this is a perfect time to spring another problem on you.  I announce that Karal, a local no-goodnick and dissident, is stirring up trouble.  A large group of people have decided that they are going to leave Aaron's Falls and travel upriver into the mountains to find another place to live, someplace the bandits won't find them.

You:  "No way!  Alice stands in their way.  She says "Where are you all going, Karal?"
Me:  "Conflict?"
You:  "Yeah, totally.  I want to stop the townsfolk from leaving."
Me:  "Easier said than done.  You can see the smoke plume from the mill rising over their heads.  They look pretty dispirited."
You:  "That's why it's a conflict, right?  What are your counterstakes?"
Me:  "Right.  Okay, if you lose, not only do they leave, but the argument attracts the attention of the rest of the town.  When you're defeated, they all go with Karal.  Mass exodus.
You:  "What?!?  Dude, no way, all-or-nothing on this one conflict?"
Me:  "Yeah, I guess that's a little bit extreme.  How about this, if you lose, not only do they leave, but Dr. Calnan goes with them."
You:  "The engineer?  But without him we couldn't rebuild the mill!"
Me:  (smiling)  "Yep."
You:  "Alright, let's rock."

Not the best example.  So sue me.  The point is, the conflict isn't about the fate of the entire town.  It's about Karal the dissident causing trouble.  If you and I had really truly different ideas on the focus of the conflict we would have had to work them out before we could properly set stakes.  This conflict could just as easily become about Karal's abilities as a rabble-rouser:

You:  "No way!  Alice stands in their way.  She says "Where are you all going, Karal?"
Me:  "Conflict?"
You:  "Yeah, totally.  I want to put an end to this Karal problem."
Me:  "So you're not trying to keep them from going?"
You:  "Nope.  If I win, nobody in Aaron's Falls will listen to Karal anymore."
Me:  "Cool!  If you win, not only will he still be a problem, but he'll become a figurehead for a whole dissident faction!"

If a group can't come to an agreement on what a conflict is all about. . .  Well, I think that might be a bigger problem than I can solve in the rules.  Although maybe some good stakes setting advice would help.

As for cancelling a conflict, it gives the player a chance to back down.  If the counterstakes are too much, he can simply accept what would have happened otherwise.  To continue with the above example (the second one, 'cause it's more fun):

Me:  "Cool!  If you win, not only will he still be a problem, but he'll become a figurehead for a whole dissident faction!"
You:  (looking down at your character sheet)  "Woah."
Me:  "I think those are reasonable counterstakes."
You:  "Yeah, me too.  But. . . Damn, I really don't want to risk that."  (setting down the dice you had picked up)
Me:  (considering for a moment)  "Alright.  Karal says 'We're going upriver.'  This place isn't safe anymore."
You:  "Alice stares after them as they leave, trying to hold back tears of frustration."

I like the idea of different types of resources being mechanically different.  It may be a holdover from old role-playing habits, though, so I might not put it into the game.  It might be alright the way it is, but we'll see.

I've seen some pretty good stake setting and conflict calling text out there.  I may not be able to really add a whole lot to it, but it will definitely be necessary to have some text to that effect in the finished game, so it goes on the list.

Marhault wrote: I like the idea of different types of resources being mechanically different.  It may be a holdover from old role-playing habits, though, so I might not put it into the game.  It might be alright the way it is, but we'll see.