I was in a project management course last week and one of the catchphrase like sayings that the instructor was using really stuck in my brain.

It was along the lines of... "There are 2 kinds of conflict: Conflict about objectives, and conflict about means."  I'd like to be able to do both in a game.

This made me think of Universalis's Challenge and Complication resolution mechanics.  Those are close to what I'm thinking of, but not quite.  The problem is this:  Imagine everyone agrees objective - essentially, Theme, like in Mortal Coil.

If everyone's narrating, then someone, while narrating, can go off-Theme.  That's a conflict of objectives. 
If someone narrates a conflict that needs to be resolved, I'm thinking of that as a conflict of means. 

The waters get muddy when we think of genre conventions as means to an end, but I think that they're big fat objectives.

THe problem is that it's hard to distinguish between the two kinds of conflict in play.  For example, if I'm on-Theme but I do something that will hurt your favourite character, you'll be tempted to use the Conflict-of-Objectives shutdown rules to shut me up even if it might be more appropriate to use the Conflict-of-Means rules.

What games besides Universalis distinguish between these 2 kinds of conflict well? 

I want to help but I'm having a hard time distinguishing between the two. Can you give some more examples of each?

I'm not sure but by, what I'm reading, you mean some kind of difficult choice creating conflict. Like if we had the same objective 'destroy the orkish camp' and we disagree about the means to do it. Some want to nuke it, others want to methodically kill their leaders.
I don't know Universalis but I know my game is based on that kind of dilemmas. The most complicated (and fun) comeback is when you disagree so much that your allies become your ennemies...

Hi, Ryan.

Again, I know very little about Universalis or Mortal Coil, but let me see if I get this...

So our goal, as players, is to achieve that Theme in the story.

If everyone's shared objective is to create the same Theme, what incentive would there be to disagree over what way to go about creating that Theme?  Perhaps more importantly, if Theme is the objective, what incentive would any player have to go off-Theme? 

My first take on this is that a character who runs counter to the Theme can still reinforce the Theme, especially when there are negative consequences to that character.  For instance, in a Theme of "Justice prevails," a character undermining justice would get their just-deserves, thus reinforcing Theme by opposition.

So maybe this is what you were saying?  Would there be some sort of reward system for this?  One way you might reward both "enforcing theme directly" and "counterenforcing theme" would be to simply have one player-reward system (like screen time or whatever) for addressing theme either positively or negatively, then have a character-reward system (like roundabout karmic effects [not necessarily karma mechanic]) that in itself demonstrates Theme through appropriate feedback.

In this way, conflict over means of achieving theme would be more in-character conflict over the theme itself, but all the players would cooperate to reinforce theme, willingly bringing detriment to their own characters to do so.  The players' conflict with each other would simply be answering other players' complications of Theme.

But what if going off-Theme means going on a tangent to theme?  I suppose something might explore the complications of Theme ("but is it the individual's burden to exact justice?", or even more profoundly, "what is just?") and make pretty interesting in-Theme points by doing so.  Then again, if the off-Theme is something more tangential ("Happiness is achieved through self-actualization") it might become more difficult for the other players to stay on topic.

Please let me know if I've completely missed the point.

-Jason Timmerman

Let me try to rephrase:

Conflict about objectives among people is real conflict.  So conflict about objectives in a multi-narrator game is really conflict about what the game is about.

For example, say Andy, Rob and Travis are at a game, and Andy suggests that it should be a dark, gory horror game.  Travis doesn't like gory, and a gory game is a deal breaker for him.  So we need a resolution for the game to go forward - we need a way for Andy and Travis to argue and eventually come to agreement over what the game's about.  Let's say everybody agrees that there will be suspense but goriness will be "just off-camera" with wide-eyed looks and screams and such.

We're doing fine until Rob jumps in and starts narrating some awfully gory alien attack.  Now Rob's in conflict with the agreement - that's a real conflict, about our real objective.

The other kind of conflict (conflict about means) is the one that I think of as in-fiction conflict.  If Andy's favorite heroine is looking around the room with a flashlight, searching for a clue, we want to know if she notices the alien hidden in the corner before it jumps out at her.  We need this conflict to have a game, and this conflict is totally within the bounds of the game.

So, problem #1:  We need ways to deal with both kinds of conflict, and their natures are different so I think we'll have 2 different resolution methods (even if they're similar).

Problem #2:  The second problem comes in when Rob starts narrating that awfully gory attack - but instead of using their "top-level" conflict resolution mechanics Andy and Travis start using their in-fiction conflict resolution mechanics to try to do the same thing.  Travis creates a huge weighted hanging machine that can be shot down to fall on the alien.  Andy tries to beef up the alien because he's getting into Rob's headspace.  Travis then adds even more - maybe the alien is afraid of light.  And so on.  This can happen in reverse as well, if Andy claims the alien attacking his favorite character violates the theme document.  So problem #2 can be summed up in "We need to know when to use each one and make each one appropriate."

So if I read you right you're talking about/looking for social contract conflict resolution mechanics, and a way to fold those seamlessly into in-fiction conflict res mechanics?

Close.  I am talking about social contract level stuff (as long as things like genre and house rules are part of the social contract) but I'm talking about keeping that separate from the in-fiction conflict resolution mechanic. 

Naturally they have to be part of the same game but I think it's important that they both are made with the knowledge of the other.  Because you don't want players using in-fiction resolution to enforce social contract or vice versa.

Ryan, which part of what you're looking for has you qualify Universalis as "close but not quite".

Your example sounds like the sort of thing Uni handles nearly every game...I might be able to help you refine it if I knew more about the "not quite" part.

Ralph

Here's the "not quite":

a) In Universalis there's 2 disincentives to using the Challenge mechanic: 
On the one hand, it's economic: if you can get your way with the Complication mechanic you also make your $. 
On the other: Its the "don't be a jerk" mechanic.  Since nobody wants the stigma of being Challenged and losing (or even winning) its a problem. 
So I think there's reasons to try to not challenge in Universalis and that you need to have a pretty confrontational group to get it going (and a really confrontational group isn't exactly my favourite thing to manage in the first place).

b) The two use the same currency.  That's the bigger one.  To keep everyone in line you need to be willing to spend the same $ that you would otherwise be spending in-fiction.  You also have to make in-fiction moves (conflicts, end scenes, get coins) in order to maintain that ability to have people respect the objectives.

Hello again, Ryan.

I'm not sure I understand from this which of the following you're suggesting:

1. Social contract is decided before game by consensus.  You propose to have some sort of mechanic to handle players that violate social contract simultaneous to but separate from scene resolution.  (this appears to be the situation above)

2. Social contract is negotiated both before and during play.  You are proposing a mechanic to amend and clarify social contract issues over game content in-game.
2a. You want this mechanic to choose the option that is satisfactory (to the majority?).
2b. You want this mechanic to choose an option arbitrarily or randomly.
2c. Other desires for mechanic?

3. Something else?

-Jason Timmerman

I think of the Social Contract as being negotiated in part before play, with some things left unsaid between players. 

The Social Contract gets refined over the course of play, but also added to: these unsaid things sometimes need to be made explicit.

The problem is that it's hard to distinguish between

1) "Hmm... that violates what I thought was understood as our Social Contract.  I want to oppose what you have put out because it doesn't jive with what I want the game to be.  So I'll use the Challenge mechanic to make this explicit.  I say no romance in this game and we should back out Lady Penelope meeting Prince Garan."
2) "Hmm... that violates what I thought was understood as our Social Contract.  I want to oppose what you have put out there but I'll use the in-fiction Complication mechanic to get what I want.  So a bunch of trolls arrive to kill your romantic scene."
3) "Hmm... my character doesn't like that happening, and I don't like it either.  We agreed romantic scenes were OK, but I'm going to Challenge this on Social Contract grounds that it's too unrealistic."
4) "Hmm... my character doesn't like that happening, and I don't like it either.  We agreed romantic scenes were OK though, so I'll have to jump in and swim.  Prince Garan will try to lose Lady Penelope in the gardens."

1 and 4 are OK, 2 and 3 are a problem.  Distinguishing 1 from 2 and 3 from 4 is hard because human motivations are often only clear in hindsight (even to the person who has them).  So sometimes 1 can become 2 just because someone's uncomfortable, or 4 can become 3 because someone hasn't gotten enough sleep.

What I"m looking for are examples of mechanics that do a good job of eliminating 2 and 3 and pushing them back to 1 or 4 depending on the circumstances.

Ryan wrote:
We're doing fine until Rob jumps in and starts narrating some awfully gory alien attack.  Now Rob's in conflict with the agreement - that's a real conflict, about our real objective.

Okay, that's a toughie.  I completely agree with you that we as people, not just as players of a game, tend to justify our actions in retrospect.  I've avoided the thought of a mechanic to handle your #1 because it seems like it would get messy.  In fact, in my system, players explicitly do not explain their characters' actions until after the scene ends; justification is not bothered with.  It's hard to draw a line between "What I want the game to be" and "What I want to be happening."

But here goes my feeble attempt.

Concern over Theme might be known only within a single player.  So one way or another the mechanic will have to account for the fact that any player might at any time be able to question the in-Theme-ness of narrative input.

From there, do we consult the other players to see if this concern exists?  Even if the others are unconcerned, is there any check to decide whether the original concern was valid, or is it simply assumed to be valid?  What I can tell is that you don't want any player to have an "absolute veto" enforcing their fluid interpretation of theme. 

So the best I could think of here would be that at least one other player has to second the notion (meaning they agree that the complaint was valid that an action was un-Theme-ly).  Player of acting character must re-choose action or lose it.  I don't think there's any way dice could do a good job here.  And trying to use a nonrandom mechanic involving no group evaluation would effectively be the same as deciding beforehand in a very explicit, detailed way what is allowed.

-Jason Timmerman

Noclue wrote:

Ryan wrote:
We're doing fine until Rob jumps in and starts narrating some awfully gory alien attack.  Now Rob's in conflict with the agreement - that's a real conflict, about our real objective.

Actually, Rob's just being a dick.

Ryan wrote:
Here's the "not quite":

a) In Universalis there's 2 disincentives to using the Challenge mechanic: 
On the one hand, it's economic: if you can get your way with the Complication mechanic you also make your $. 
On the other: Its the "don't be a jerk" mechanic.  Since nobody wants the stigma of being Challenged and losing (or even winning) its a problem. 
So I think there's reasons to try to not challenge in Universalis and that you need to have a pretty confrontational group to get it going (and a really confrontational group isn't exactly my favourite thing to manage in the first place).

b) The two use the same currency.  That's the bigger one.  To keep everyone in line you need to be willing to spend the same $ that you would otherwise be spending in-fiction.  You also have to make in-fiction moves (conflicts, end scenes, get coins) in order to maintain that ability to have people respect the objectives.

I guess I'm either looking at this with my wrong eyes, or I don't understand.

Player A says "No gore. Gore is a deal breaker for me. That's my line" and the other players agree. We have a Social Contract.

Player B starts narrating a gore filled scene. We have a violation of the Social Contract.

I just don't see the need for a mechanic here. Player B stops. Immediately. They had a contract. If Player B is a dick and won't stop, they don't need a new mechanic to force him, they need him to leave.

What am I missing?

Missing thing #1:  There are many things that are assumed in a social contract that are not, and can rarely be, made explicit up front.  There are lines that can be crossed that had not previously been established.  Such mechanics are a tool to address those.

Missing thing #2:  There is a wide range between pushing the limit and being a dick that such mechanics can aid in addressing.

Missing thing #3:  Giving someone the boot is often like using a chainsaw to perform surgery...sometimes a scalpel is a better option.

Missing thing #4: There is a fairly embedded tradition in many gamers that discourage such meta level talk at the table -- saving "hey we said no gore" comments to after-session debriefings.  Simply saying "its ok to talk about your concerns in play" is often not enough to get them to do so.  Having it be an explicit rule in the game same as how to make a skill check can often encourage people to take a more active role in asserting their lines in play.

Missing thing #5:  The mere presence of a rule that discusses an issue is often enough to move that issue front and center of the group's awareness.  The group then handles the issue using other social mechanisms and never actually uses the rule.  But the rule was important because even unused, it did its job to raise awareness.

How's that?