TheRPGSite

Other Games, Development, & Campaigns => Design, Development, and Gameplay => Topic started by: Dr_Avalanche on June 07, 2006, 09:42:00 AM

Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 07, 2006, 09:42:00 AM
So this thought occurred to me a while ago, and I couldn't get it out of my head. Mechanically I haven't ironed it out, but here's the basic idea:
 
Advance the scene along standard "say yes or roll the dice" until you've defined the conflict. Next, define the key action that will resolve the conflict.
 
Once you've done that, there are four possible outcomes:
 
- The player succeeds with his action, and achieves his goal.
- The player succeeds with his action, but through circumstances, fail to achieve his goal.
- The player fails with his action but still achieve his goal through circumstances.
- The player fail with his action and fail to achieve his goal.
 
Needless to say, this isn't even close to being functional system. I'm just wondering if someone can point out any glaring faults with the idea. Is there some good reason not to combine task- and conflict resolution? Granted, most of the time it will mostly be about flavor - after all, if you get what you wanted, what does it matter how you got it? Except of course, if you roleplay just to get those bits of flavor. But it could also give hints how to progress the story.
 
Or maybe I shouldn't talk about conflict resolution at all, just say it's task resolution with two additional outcomes beyond the pass/fail?
 
Gah.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Sobek on June 07, 2006, 09:44:35 AM
I don't understand.
 
Success at goals is determined by whether you choose the correct tasks to undertake.  Success at those tasks is determined by the dice.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Nicephorus on June 07, 2006, 09:49:16 AM
I get the basic idea I think.

Maybe an example would make it more concrete, including  '"say yes or roll the dice" until you've defined the conflict.'

What determines the possibility of task success but goal failure (vice versa)?  Is it just level of success/failure?  or something else?

One possibility that would work for some groups is a die mechanic that determines task success.  At the same time, roll dice that add random noise to the task outcome that determines the goal outcome - something like D4 - D4.   The noise represents the whims of fate or factors outside of the of the player's control, you could even adjust the size of the noise dice depending on the volatility of the situation.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 07, 2006, 09:57:21 AM
Quote from: Sobek
I don't understand.
 
Success at goals is determined by whether you choose the correct tasks to undertake. Success at those tasks is determined by the dice.

Well, I'm figuring that the randomness is beyond the scope of the task in this system. You're rolling to do everything within your capacity, but even if you do that, you can still fail at what you set out to do due to unfortunate circumstances.
 
Let's say we decide that the scene is about the rogue Adam trying to sneak past the guards into the castle unnoticed.
 
He can succeed at his sneakyness and get past the guards, but random chance can make him run into the kitchen maid who yells out, revealing that an intruder is in the castle. He didn't do anything wrong, but still (partially) failed with his goal.
 
Or the other way around, he fails his roll to sneak, but gets a Goal: Success result. Maybe the guard just at this moment had a visitor from his sister, or had to go around the corner to take a leak, or whatever.
 
This system would have to be simple, or it would slow down the game more than the benefit it would bring, which is a support in telling the story.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 07, 2006, 10:01:29 AM
Quote from: Nicephorus
I get the basic idea I think.
 
Maybe an example would make it more concrete, including '"say yes or roll the dice" until you've defined the conflict.'

Conflict resolution circles around the idea that there's no reason to roll the dice until you have a situation where both success AND failure results in an interesting situation. So the player can describe what he does, and the GM nods and says "go on", until the description gets to a point where the GM says "hold on, this looks interesting", and they iron out what the scene is about - in my example above, about whether the rogue gets into the castle unnoticed or not.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Sobek on June 07, 2006, 10:15:58 AM
Okay.  I see what you're getting at.  I'm not sure I want to go down that path.  But, it's something where, if the right mechanic were put in front of me, I'd certainly give it a fair shake.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 07, 2006, 10:33:24 AM
I think the thing that bothers me most is the nagging feeling that this really isn't both task- and conflict resolution, just conflict resolution with some trappings that look like traditional task resolution - you get to know if you passed the task or not, but it doesn't really matter, because a different level decides the outcome of the scene.

If I can't find a meaningful purpose with the two-fold system, it's just a gimmick. Plenty of systems already do conflict resolution well. It was the idea of having both at the same time that appealed.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: kryyst on June 07, 2006, 02:39:57 PM
One way of making a more mechanical version of this rules is by the concept challenges/complications.

You figure out what the goal is and what task(s) it would take to accomplish it and set a difficulty.  The player then can decide to accept a challenge/complication or not.  Accepting the challenge increase the difficulty of the task, but at greater reward for doing so.  Perhaps not only does he succeed at sneaking past the guards but some other excitement draws them away from their posts so his further tasks are easier.

Accepting a complication lowers the difficulty of the task, but introduces a risk into it.  So if their difficulty was say 20 they accept a complication and lower it to 15.  If they roll a 15 - 19 they pass the task but the complication happens - running into someone unexpected (which in turn calls for more role playing /tasts).   If they roll 20 they've passed the task and the complication doesn't take place.  If they'd rolled less then 15 they fail at their task and their goal.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Gunhilda on June 07, 2006, 03:05:16 PM
I'm afraid I still can't quite see how this works exactly.  I think I'm stuck on the definitions of "task" and "conflict" that you're using.  I just don't get it.

So could you maybe clarify that whilst I go get my dunce hat?  :)
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: kryyst on June 07, 2006, 04:03:10 PM
Quote from: Gunhilda
I'm afraid I still can't quite see how this works exactly.  I think I'm stuck on the definitions of "task" and "conflict" that you're using.  I just don't get it.

So could you maybe clarify that whilst I go get my dunce hat?  :)


The conflict is getting past the guards - that's your goal.  In this case the task you are using is sneaking past them.   But the task could potentially be diverting them by tossing a stone in the corner and running in (bluff check) or swinging above their heads on a rope grappled to the rafters (dex/acrobatic check).  

So you could succeed at the task check of sneaking ie. you made your skill check.  But as you made it past the guards a maid stumbles around the corner and bumps into you so you fail the goal.  That type of incident would normally be just a GM task.

So in a standard D20 setting you make your sneak check you are past the guards, you fail your sneak check you are heard by the guards the task is synonymous with the goal.  However in this case we are adding another element of randomness to the equation so that the goal itself can be altered based on more then the strict results of the task check.  So now the goal itslef is seperate from that single task.

You could pass the task (the sneak check) but still fail your goal of getting past the guards.  What's the big deal you may ask?

Picture this.  You approach the guards and the GM says they are very alert and it's going to be an extremely difficult check to sneak past them.  But you try anyway and roll exceptionally well.  For plot reason the GM doesn't want you to sneak past them so as soon as you roll he chymes in with "A maid walks around the corner and shrieks alerting the guards."   Many players would feel cheated by this sort of scenario.

The point of this is to remove that cheated feeling by allowing players some abiltiy to narrate their own fortunes (or lack thereof).
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Gunhilda on June 07, 2006, 04:28:08 PM
Quote from: kryyst
Picture this.  You approach the guards and the GM says they are very alert and it's going to be an extremely difficult check to sneak past them.  But you try anyway and roll exceptionally well.  For plot reason the GM doesn't want you to sneak past them so as soon as you roll he chymes in with "A maid walks around the corner and shrieks alerting the guards."   Many players would feel cheated by this sort of scenario.

The point of this is to remove that cheated feeling by allowing players some abiltiy to narrate their own fortunes (or lack thereof).


The light dawns!  I know the misery of that scenario all too well.  As a matter of fact, I don't know if I have EVER had a character sneak in and out of a place without a fight of some sort -- no matter how badass a ninja he was.  And it sucks more and more every fucking time it happens.  :muttering:

I am now on board with this idea, though I have no idea how one would implement it mechancially.  :)
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Xavier Lang on June 07, 2006, 05:11:20 PM
Quote from: Gunhilda
The light dawns!  I know the misery of that scenario all too well.  As a matter of fact, I don't know if I have EVER had a character sneak in and out of a place without a fight of some sort -- no matter how badass a ninja he was.  And it sucks more and more every fucking time it happens.  :muttering:


I understand your frustration.  This is nothing like a perfect plan ruined by a GM that won't let there not be a big fight.  I can't remember the last time we didn't end up having a blood bath in a fantasy game no matter how sound the plan was.  (For me its been specific to fantasy.  Plans have gone off flawlessly in Sci-Fi.  I think the difference is just GM's but I'm not 100% sure.)
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Gunhilda on June 07, 2006, 05:44:14 PM
The more I think about this, the more I like it.  I don't mind plans going gang aft angly, per se, but the arbitrary "I am the DM and you are GOING to fight these guards" thing got old a long, long time ago.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 08, 2006, 03:26:49 AM
Another thing that I can't get out of my mind is that the task resolution should be based on skill, but the conflict resolution should be based on something else - something like Story Weight, for lack of a better word. I'm stumped how to do it elegantly though.
 
I kinda like kryysts idea, even if it's quite far from what I originally had in mind. I think the possibility for complication should always be there. Before the challenge (good word there) is resolved, the player and GM should always agree on what the consequences should be, for success (DC 20), complication (DC 15) and failure (Anything < 15). So success means getting in unnoticed, complications means running into the kitchen maid (who will likely raise the alarm), while failure means the guards see him sneaking in.
 
I'm sure this could be codified further - for example, for a less dangerous complication the player can take a bigger "complication range" and raise the level for outright success, or the reverse, increase the danger of the complication for lowering the level of outright failure, probably by 5 in each case.
 
But this mechanic removes one of the possibilities in my original idea. It's the "success despite task failure" that isn't represented. Not a big deal, perhaps, but I want to keep at this. There should be a way to represent all the possible outcomes somehow.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: kryyst on June 08, 2006, 08:34:25 AM
The issue with setting guide lines depends on the regidity of the game itself.  In rules light games translating believebility into numbers is usually simpler because the modifier scale is not as granular.  In a game where a +/- 1 is important and +/-3 is extremely rare then assigning a challenge/complication is easier.  You really only have to look at how much of an impact it has on the story and go from there.

In D20 or any other game that works with a more granular difficulty scale it becomes a little harder.  Personally I'd try and keep it in incriments of +/-5 that is appropriate for a D20 based scale.  With that in mind it should be just as easy to decide on how much of an impact a particular challenge/complication will have.  As for actually trying to give some examples I'd have to pour through some other games that use this sort of mentality to try and come up with a scale.  But it should be relatively easy to create a universale type of scale that could be used in any game, you just need to modify the numbers to the mechanics.  

Quote from: Dr_Avalanche

But this mechanic removes one of the possibilities in my original idea. It's the "success despite task failure" that isn't represented. Not a big deal, perhaps, but I want to keep at this. There should be a way to represent all the possible outcomes somehow.

I was thinking about your succeeding despite failing at the task and how to turn that into a mechanic.  You could work that a few ways.  The easiest way would be through the use of a luck/fate/action point system.  You spend a point and can then narrate your success of the goal despite your failure.  This would limit the number of times you can do this and a mechanic like this would feel pretty comfortable in a more chunky game system (D20, Warhammer, Paladium etc...).  It's also a pretty simple/quick way to do it.

An example, is you fail your task, spend your 'point' and you have now simply succeeded.  This style of mechanic is kinda boaring, but it'll work.

The other way is to apply complications after fact.  This style would be total narrative control and need to collaborate between player(s) and GM.  The player would have to accept complication(s) to offset his failure enough to equate success at the goal.  Think I'll need an example here.

Our friend the theif is sneaking past the guards and fails his sneak roll.  However he doesn't feel like batteling the guards.   So he (the player) takes control he must now introduce a compilcation to be able to achieve his goal of getting past the guards.  So he says that as he's sneaking by he bumps a table knocking a vase to the ground.  He quickly tries to throw his hat under the vase to cuishon the fall, but fails.  The guards come running in as but he manages to duck around the corner.  

So he's gotten past the guards - however his life has become more complicated now because the guards see the vase on a hat and now know somone is there.

Another exmaple would be the maid one.  He fails his sneak so he takes control.  He narrates that he did infact sneak past the guards but then bumped into the kitchen maid so now he has a new goal get past maid.  So his taks is probably a (bribe/bluff/intimidate) check which could accpet more challenges/complications to get out of this new situation.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Maddman on June 08, 2006, 08:53:43 AM
Quote from: Dr_Avalanche
Another thing that I can't get out of my mind is that the task resolution should be based on skill, but the conflict resolution should be based on something else - something like Story Weight, for lack of a better word. I'm stumped how to do it elegantly though.
 


You can do this with metagame mechanics.  In Buffy for instance (you knew I was going there sooner or later :p), you have the Drama Points that can be spent and rewarded for conflicts like this.  So in your example, there's the four possibilities.

1) The player makes his Stealth roll to sneak past the guard.  He gets by no problem.
2) The player fails his Stealth roll.  The guard spots him.
3) The player decides he wants something to distract the guard.  He spends a Drama Point and slips past while the guard is looking for the source of the noise - a cat or whatever.
4) The GM decides that he doesn't want the PC slipping past this guard.  He says that a maid walks around the corner and cries out in suprise alerting the guard.  The player is awarded a Drama point for being screwed over by the GM.

It works really well, and players don't seem to mind a bit of constructive railroading so long as they're getting payback.  They can use that DP against you later, it's one of the most important resources in the game.  Just don't overdo it, and remember to do it because it will make things more interesting, not to get them to do things "right".
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 08, 2006, 08:54:47 AM
Good stuff here. I need to run (work, work, work), but I just wanted to say that. This is stuff worth thinking about.
 
The cool thing is, it looks like it could be very easily implemented in a lot of already existing games without too much effort.
 
Edit: I was replying to kryyst, but it applies to Maddman's post as well...
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Gunhilda on June 08, 2006, 10:48:43 AM
Eh, I think that the action point idea would work, but is inelegent.  And, while Maddman the DM gives out something for arbitrarily screwing over the players, he's *still* arbitrarily screwing over the players.

No, I think that this idea deserves more exploration as a single, unified mechanic.  I don't really see it working in d20 -- any type of levels of success don't really work in d20 -- but I think it should be possible to do it with some sort of mechanic.

I just love the idea of DMs being forced to let SOMEBODY SOMETIME succeed at a stealth roll too much to give up on this idea.  :D
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Maddman on June 08, 2006, 11:00:38 AM
Quote from: Gunhilda
Eh, I think that the action point idea would work, but is inelegent.  And, while Maddman the DM gives out something for arbitrarily screwing over the players, he's *still* arbitrarily screwing over the players.

Well the elegance comes in what else the mechanic is used for.  It's great for nudging play toward the genre conventions you want to go for.  They work really well, though to be honest I've only done this a couple of times.  I'm more likely to have the villian use their DPs to cause something to happen, such as the cops showing up to question PCs just as the demon runs away.

Quote
I just love the idea of DMs being forced to let SOMEBODY SOMETIME succeed at a stealth roll too much to give up on this idea.  :D


That is very much the feel, that someone spends a point they get to be GM for a second and say what happens.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Gunhilda on June 08, 2006, 11:06:50 AM
Quote from: Maddman
Well the elegance comes in what else the mechanic is used for.  It's great for nudging play toward the genre conventions you want to go for.  They work really well, though to be honest I've only done this a couple of times.  I'm more likely to have the villian use their DPs to cause something to happen, such as the cops showing up to question PCs just as the demon runs away.


I am in no way opposed to action points.  I think they're a fine idea -- though I think Exalted's stunts might be a little cooler way of doing the same thing.

They don't, however, have the same feeling or inventiveness as Dr. Avalanche's initial idea.  That would be, as far as I know, something new under the sun for RPGs.  I'd rather explore the idea of a shiny new mechanic than cobble together a somewhat similar effect with old and moldy parts.  :)
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Nicephorus on June 08, 2006, 11:35:59 AM
Quote from: Gunhilda
They don't, however, have the same feeling or inventiveness as Dr. Avalanche's initial idea.  That would be, as far as I know, something new under the sun for RPGs.  I'd rather explore the idea of a shiny new mechanic than cobble together a somewhat similar effect with old and moldy parts.  :)

Wait, are you saying that Unisystem doesn't do everything?

Actually, I like Dr. A's idea of it being part of the roll.  That way, it's not always under the player's control.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 08, 2006, 12:11:53 PM
Hrm. I had an idea that I think is neat. Dice pools!

What, someone has done dice pools before?

Darn.

Ok, so that wasn't exactly the point.

:ponder:

I came up with an idea , which I'll present below, but the numbers are not worked on - I just inserted numbers that felt good. Ideally, I think characters should pass these tests most of the time, but far from every time - after all, an important part of these challenges are that the possible complications that come from failing are as interesting as succeeding, if not more so...

Anyway, here's what I came up with:

Every challenge you roll dice for, you use two kinds of dice - black and white (you can pick other colors, but I'll stick to the traditional, thank you very much).
Black represents your skill. It's a value that's written down on your character sheet in the old-fashioned way. In this case, I'm imagining a value around 1-5 or so, but that's something that could be fiddled with to get just right.
The white dice represents story power. You get one die for free, because regardless if this task is related to your story or not, you and the GM together has deemed it interesting enough to stop and roll for. In addition to that, you can get bonus dice for relevant traits on your character sheet. This could be various things - you might have a character motivation that is Greed, and you're doing this all to get to the crown jewels. You get a free white die for that. Another might be that you want to foil the king who imprisoned your brother. Since you bought that as another character motivation, you get another die in the white dice pool.
Finally, and this I think is the neat part, you really want to get past this challenge for whatever reason - the prospect of dealing with the guards seem particularly unappealing to you, for example - so you put yourself in debt to the GM, for a fourth white die.

Finally then, you roll your two dice pools. Every die that come up "positive" is a success. Each pool that reaches two successes passed the challenge - which leads to the four possible results in my original post.

- Skill success (black dice pool passed the test), Goal success (white pool passed)
- Skill success, Goal failure
- Skill failure, Goal success
- Skill failure, Goal failure

Personally, I think it looks darn neat... Obviously, unlike the above ideas, this would pretty much require a completely new game. I can't see anyone being able to insert this in any existing rules system...

Edit: Mixed up black and white dice in their final mention... Bah. Fixed now.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 08, 2006, 12:16:33 PM
Heh. I was so excited about my new system, that I forgot to expand on one neat little finesse that I even bolded because I thought it was so cool.

By loaning dice from the GM, the player implicitly tells the GM "I really want to pass this, you can screw me over later in return, ok?" because the dice the player borrows, the GM can use to raise the difficulty for the PC next time he runs into a challenge.

Which of course is like the Uni-system GM giving the player Drama points in return for screwing him, but the other way around... "Here, have some dice, screw me over".
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Gunhilda on June 08, 2006, 12:20:20 PM
Edit: I started this before Dr. Avalanche posted again.  So this is just my own ramblings.  Now I need to go read his stuff.  :)


The question then becomes -- what sort of die mechanic *do* you use for this?  You need to have at least four possible outcomes.

With a d20, you could have a target number, with different results depending on how close to the target number you are.  But that requires a lot of on-the-fly math, which slows things down.

With a White Wolf dice pool, it might be a little easier.  In Exalted, a 7+ on a d20 is a success, with a 10 being 2 successes.  If you fail, and you have one or more 1's, you get a botch (a bad failure).

Maybe 1's could instead be complications.  For every 1 you roll, even if you succeed, your life gets more complicated.  Say you made your stealth roll, but you rolled three 1's.  The DM could decide then that the maid comes out and, with three 1's, is ready to scream her head off immediately.  You might need twice as many successes (6) on a bluff/intimidate/seduction/whatever roll to keep her from immediately screaming out an alarm.

Looking back at our initial goals:
Quote
- The player succeeds with his action, and achieves his goal.
- The player succeeds with his action, but through circumstances, fail to achieve his goal.
- The player fails with his action but still achieve his goal through circumstances.
- The player fail with his action and fail to achieve his goal.


One and four are covered by all systems.  My idea opens up the possibility for number two -- you have an added complication, and you may or may not fail.

The problems: it doesn't cover number three.  More importantly, though, is that complications become likelier the more skilled you are.  It's the same problem that White Wolf botches have always had -- the uberbadasses are the ones the *most* likely to fuck up dramatically.  For many games, that would be just fine for everyone concerned.  But it just seems wrong that more skill = more complications and fuckups.


So that's my first stab at this.  Somebody else take a poke at it!  :)
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Gunhilda on June 08, 2006, 12:33:55 PM
Okay, now I've read Dr. Avalanche's posts.  It's rough, but I like it.  And I think it might be necessary for the idea.  If you've got two independant factors going on, two sets of dice seems logical.

And with two sets of dice, you could even have degrees of success or failure for both, leading to an even more robust mechanic.

And, while I think you'd have to have a new game system, I think it could be based on an existing one.  I could see a White Wolf-stylez game having this kind of die mechanic.  You'd just need to expand on motivations and/or virtues.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 08, 2006, 12:58:06 PM
Quote from: Gunhilda
And with two sets of dice, you could even have degrees of success or failure for both, leading to an even more robust mechanic.

Very true. As long as it's intuitive - I think it's fairly important that the player and the GM together are able to define what success and failure means before the dice are rolled. If you create too much granularity, it becomes difficult to decide what the result actually means.

Of course, granularity might only be needed sometimes - in combat, for example. It could decide both who wins a fight, who achieved their objectives, and how injured they are.
I'm also wondering if this would benefit from open-ended dice, so if we're assuming d6's, each 6 would give both a success and a re-roll. That way, small dice pools wouldn't feel quite so discouraging. Not that the dice pools have to be small, but it seems more elegant somehow than rolling 20 dice for no particularly good reason.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Maddman on June 08, 2006, 01:18:15 PM
I like it.  Simple and intuitive, and it leads directly to a more detailed narrative than a simple pass/fail system or even a success levels system.  One issue I see right away is that the goal pool is far, far more important than the skill pool.  After all, if the goal pool fails then you fail even if the skill roll succeeds.  And if the goal pool succeeds then then you succeed, even if the skill roll fails.  You may consider this a feature and not a bug but it leads to the obvious question - why have skills other than flavor?  If you can make sure you have a good goal pool then it doesn't matter what skills your character has.

Maybe not every roll could call for a Goal pool?  Or maybe have the skill pool dictate narrative power?  If the goal succeeds then the goal is achieved, but if the skill is also achieved then the player gets to determine exactly how that happens.  If the goal succeeds but the skill doesn't, then the GM decides what happens.  Conversely if you get a success with the skill pool but fail the goal pool the action fails, but you get to dictate how it fails.  If the skill fails then the GM ownZ j00.  :p  This may have all been intended in Dr A's post, but it wasn't obvious to me at first.  It almost seems a little backwards, but still very cool.

Edit - thinking about how this would work in a fight.  The Goal is to harm or gain advantage over your opponent, the skill is your ability to use weapons.  And I'm inventing some nomenclature so we can discuss this.  The results of a roll will be denoted s and g together.  Capital for a success, lower case for a failure - SG, sG, Sg, and sg.  Not perfect but it will save me typing.

For SG it's pretty obvious - you hit your opponent.  For sG you don't hit them, but you do gain some advantage over them.  Perhaps they lose ground, get disarmed, or lose initiative next round automatically.  If you buy my BS above, the GM gets to determine this.  For Sg the weapon strikes true but doesn't wound or hinder your foe for whatever reason the GM dreams up.  A parry, doesn't penetrate armor, or a dodge.  And for sg you miss and likely place yourself at a disadvantage, GM's call.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Gunhilda on June 08, 2006, 01:18:48 PM
Quote from: Dr_Avalanche
Very true. As long as it's intuitive - I think it's fairly important that the player and the GM together are able to define what success and failure means before the dice are rolled. If you create too much granularity, it becomes difficult to decide what the result actually means.


True.  If you're left scratching your head after the dice are rolled, you have a problem.  :)

Quote from: Dr_Avalanche
Of course, granularity might only be needed sometimes - in combat, for example. It could decide both who wins a fight, who achieved their objectives, and how injured they are.


Yeah -- combat is the biggest reason I was thinking of granularity.

Quote from: Dr_Avalanche
I'm also wondering if this would benefit from open-ended dice, so if we're assuming d6's, each 6 would give both a success and a re-roll. That way, small dice pools wouldn't feel quite so discouraging. Not that the dice pools have to be small, but it seems more elegant somehow than rolling 20 dice for no particularly good reason.


Hmm.  Yeah, I think you have a point there.  I'm used to rolling buckets of dice, but if you've got two dice pools, things could get even more obnoxious really quickly.

Okay, so you have a basic dice mechanic and a general idea of how you want the rules to look.  Where do we go from here?
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 08, 2006, 01:44:29 PM
Quote from: Maddman
One issue I see right away is that the goal pool is far, far more important than the skill pool.  After all, if the goal pool fails then you fail even if the skill roll succeeds.  And if the goal pool succeeds then then you succeed, even if the skill roll fails.  You may consider this a feature and not a bug but it leads to the obvious question - why have skills other than flavor?  If you can make sure you have a good goal pool then it doesn't matter what skills your character has.

I'll get back to the rest of the post later if I can add something constructive. The above is important. I don't think it's a feature that the skill is "just" flavor. It might do something else, which I'm not really sure of right now... Maybe success in the skill roll:

- Adds one success to the Goal roll, ensuring it's not "botched" (a concept I'm not sure if it should be in the game, but still...)
- Gives XP
- Limits just how bad Goal failure can be
- Something completely different
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 08, 2006, 02:18:57 PM
Quote from: Gunhilda
Okay, so you have a basic dice mechanic and a general idea of how you want the rules to look. Where do we go from here?

If I knew.

Is this interesting enough to actually create the system around it that it would require? I must admit that while I didn't have that in mind at all when I wrote the original post, it's a little tempting now.

Design-wise, I'm not sure where to go next. Maybe take a step back and try to put the system in a context. Does it need a "setting", even if that setting is as generic as saying "this is a fantasy roleplaying game. It's not built for science-fiction"? Maybe look into how people interact, when dice pool meets dice pool.

There's so much that would need to be done if I decided to develop this into an actual game that I literally don't know where to start.

Well, I can start by thanking you guys for bouncing ideas with me. It's really helpful, even when it's "well, that's cool, but not what I had in mind".
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Gunhilda on June 08, 2006, 02:40:11 PM
Maddman does have a point there.  We'll need to spell out exactly what success gets you.  I think that goal/skill success should be "better" than just goal success.  In combat, that will be easy -- you'd get hurt if you failed your skill roll.  You might still win with a dirty trick -- sand in the eyes, for example -- but you'd be injured, so your success wouldn't be "just as good".

We just need to extend that to other skills.

I think this idea is interesting enough to run with.  :)  The question of where we go from here depends largely on what you want to do.  What kind of game do you want to do?  It could be turned into a generic system, but it would be a lot easier to have a focus.

So -- what would you want to run/play in?  Once you have an idea on that, we can more easily figure out what other features are needed to make the idea work.  :)
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: kryyst on June 08, 2006, 03:09:12 PM
I don't think there is any need at all to put the mechanics into a setting.  The setting really only comes out in what skills/powers/equipment you get.  First concentrate on the core mechanic then spread out from there.  Decide on how it works in combat and non-combat situations.  Then add on magic/powers if those are important.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Gunhilda on June 08, 2006, 03:22:45 PM
Quote from: kryyst
I don't think there is any need at all to put the mechanics into a setting.  The setting really only comes out in what skills/powers/equipment you get.  First concentrate on the core mechanic then spread out from there.  Decide on how it works in combat and non-combat situations.  Then add on magic/powers if those are important.
I used to think that way myself, but I've found that my designs work much better when I tailor the rules to what I want the system to do.

For example, the Virtues and Vices of the new WoD, the virtues of Exalted, or the alignment system of D&D would all just look silly in Traveller -- but they are essential mechanics of each system.

You can force a rules set to do just about anything.  But I think it's more profitable and fun to know where you're going when you start out.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Maddman on June 08, 2006, 03:22:54 PM
As far as a settings I'd take the Savage Worlds approach and intend for it to be adapted to different settings.  I'd suspect that it would work well for action filled and pulpy games - metagame mechanics don't tend to make for dark gritty games very much.

And some good nomenclature to easily talk about the results of rolls.  I mean the sG, Sg stuff is okay but you can't talk abotu it verbally.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 08, 2006, 03:56:41 PM
Quote from: Maddman
Maybe not every roll could call for a Goal pool?  Or maybe have the skill pool dictate narrative power?  If the goal succeeds then the goal is achieved, but if the skill is also achieved then the player gets to determine exactly how that happens.  If the goal succeeds but the skill doesn't, then the GM decides what happens.  Conversely if you get a success with the skill pool but fail the goal pool the action fails, but you get to dictate how it fails.  If the skill fails then the GM ownZ j00.  :p  This may have all been intended in Dr A's post, but it wasn't obvious to me at first.  It almost seems a little backwards, but still very cool.

Er... I would like to say it was intended, but I think in my head I placed all narrating power in the hands of the player, regardless of result. This makes a lot of sense though. Player and GM has already agreed on the stakes (If you succeed, you get across the chasm, if you fail, you fall), but depending on who gets to describe it the outcome could be very different.

Quote
Edit - thinking about how this would work in a fight.  The Goal is to harm or gain advantage over your opponent, the skill is your ability to use weapons.  And I'm inventing some nomenclature so we can discuss this.  The results of a roll will be denoted s and g together.  Capital for a success, lower case for a failure - SG, sG, Sg, and sg.  Not perfect but it will save me typing.

For SG it's pretty obvious - you hit your opponent.  For sG you don't hit them, but you do gain some advantage over them.  Perhaps they lose ground, get disarmed, or lose initiative next round automatically.  If you buy my BS above, the GM gets to determine this.  For Sg the weapon strikes true but doesn't wound or hinder your foe for whatever reason the GM dreams up.  A parry, doesn't penetrate armor, or a dodge.  And for sg you miss and likely place yourself at a disadvantage, GM's call.

Looks pretty good to me. Here's one concern though: What if another character is the opponent? Do they just take turns rolling dice and reading/describing the effects? For that kind of situations, it would be good if the system was neutral as far as who is protagonist and antagonist. One set of rules for all, not one for players and another for npcs.

I'm also thinking that most fights should be resolved with one roll. See who achieved their goals, how the fight affected the characters mechanically, and who gets to describe it.

Quote from: Gunhilda
Maddman does have a point there. We'll need to spell out exactly what success gets you. I think that goal/skill success should be "better" than just goal success. In combat, that will be easy -- you'd get hurt if you failed your skill roll. You might still win with a dirty trick -- sand in the eyes, for example -- but you'd be injured, so your success wouldn't be "just as good".

Yes. If you're fighting a real opponent, it might simply be resolved with an opposed roll, where the difference in skill roll decides "injuries" (however that is represented in the game) while the difference in Goal successes decides who achieves what they set out to do (which might not be "kill the other dude").

Quote
We just need to extend that to other skills.

Indeed. Here's a challenge: Hard knocks make you weaker, but at the same time more interesting from a story perspective. After all, if Han Solo and Luke Skywalker never had any set backs, their successes wouldn't be very memorable.
So how can the game model something like that? I'm thinking that skill failures drain your resources, while goal failures actually provide the character with fuel for future scenes. Not sure how that should work though. I'm sort of imagining a pool from which you can draw extra dice to your pools when you want to ensure success, or to advance the character through new skills or traits. But it seems too..I don't know. It doesn't feel satisfying. It might be possible to improve on.

Is it possible that losing/losing a Fast Talk check hurts your character in exactly the same way as a lost fight does? That would be funky in a way.

Quote from: Kryyst
I don't think there is any need at all to put the mechanics into a setting. The setting really only comes out in what skills/powers/equipment you get. First concentrate on the core mechanic then spread out from there. Decide on how it works in combat and non-combat situations. Then add on magic/powers if those are important.

I think this is probably the way to go (plus, in my mind, I have this nagging feeling that in the end, I will decide that things like magic works just the same way as any other skill check, so it's already built in).
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Dr_Avalanche on June 08, 2006, 04:08:46 PM
Quote from: Gunhilda
I used to think that way myself, but I've found that my designs work much better when I tailor the rules to what I want the system to do.

For example, the Virtues and Vices of the new WoD, the virtues of Exalted, or the alignment system of D&D would all just look silly in Traveller -- but they are essential mechanics of each system.

You can force a rules set to do just about anything.  But I think it's more profitable and fun to know where you're going when you start out.

This is absolutely true. I wonder if it's maybe it's not so much a setting though as a unified sense of how the game is supposed to be played. To me, this feels like a poster child for player empowered, character driven roleplay. I don't think you'd use this game for mystery solving, and you wouldn't use it for anything where realism is desireable - it's not going to model gun wounds or slash wounds, that's for sure.

But I think if we want to make an assumption for a setting, let's make sure first that it can do a straight swords and sorcery game. It should be able to model Conan, or Fafhrd and Gray Mouser. I don't foresee any trouble making it work with for example a modern setting as well, but let's use this as a start.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: joewolz on August 27, 2006, 07:26:29 PM
After re-reading this thread after a bit, I think I know what Dr_Avalanche is going for, and it's really, really similar to The Shadow of Yesterday (http://www.crngames.com/the_shadow_of_yesterday/index)'s subsystem called "Bringing Down the Pain."  This subsystem switches the game from conflict resolution to task resolution.  

The system itself is 100% Creative Commons, similar to Open Source, so the game itself is free, and available at the link above.  The printed book is nice, though.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: RPGPundit on August 28, 2006, 12:13:38 AM
Quote from: Xavier Lang
I understand your frustration.  This is nothing like a perfect plan ruined by a GM that won't let there not be a big fight.  I can't remember the last time we didn't end up having a blood bath in a fantasy game no matter how sound the plan was.  (For me its been specific to fantasy.  Plans have gone off flawlessly in Sci-Fi.  I think the difference is just GM's but I'm not 100% sure.)


This doesn't seem to me to be a problem that has anything to do with changing the mechanics, but rather with getting a less crappy GM. Its a "GM skills" problem, and not an inherent system problem.

RPGPundit
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: Settembrini on August 29, 2006, 02:30:15 AM
Quote
For example, the Virtues and Vices of the new WoD, the virtues of Exalted, or the alignment system of D&D would all just look silly in Traveller -- but they are essential mechanics of each system.

Which is why Traveller is the best of all sysems.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: algauble on September 14, 2006, 11:53:44 PM
As for your dice mechanic (@Dr_Avalanche), I've recently been trying to adapt Hollow Earth Expedition's binary dice pools to a swords and sorcery-style glorantha adaptation...  I like the mechanic... and I like the idea combining Task and Conflict Resolution ... I was going for Conan/Leiber/Pulpy-Runequest hybrid feel, and this could fit in quite nicely.

However, I'd like to point out that it's easy to use different die mechanisms...  why not two different color d20s?  It doesn't have to be die pools, and it doesn't have to be the same dice either... how about a d20 for task resolution rolled simultaneously with 2d6 for the conflict resolution (just for the sake of example, I'm not advocating this)... or perhaps ever better, something like ORE, where you height determines goal success and width determines skill success (or vice versa)?
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: joewolz on September 15, 2006, 12:06:10 PM
I mentioned earlier that CRN games had Shadow of Yesterday available as an SRD on their website.  They apparently took it down.  I have it, and if anyone wants it, PM me.
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: The Yann Waters on September 15, 2006, 12:21:07 PM
Quote from: joewolz
I mentioned earlier that CRN games had Shadow of Yesterday available as an SRD on their website.  They apparently took it down.
While it's undoubtedly of limited interest to most of the folks at this site, the Finnish translation of the game (http://www.arkkikivi.net/menneisyydenvarjot/xhtml/) is still freely available online...
Title: Task- and conflict resolution...at once?
Post by: arminius on September 15, 2006, 04:52:29 PM
These links might help

http://www.blinklist.com/Linnaeus/The%20Shadow%20of%20Yesterday/http://files.crngames.com/cc/tsoy/
http://files.crngames.com/cc/tsoy2/

and of course http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22solar+system%22+%22shadow+of+yesterday%22&btnG=Search

There used to be something at http://www.smokingmirror.net/SoY/ but it's been hacked.

If Clinton didn't mean for these things to be disseminated, well, that should at least help him stop it from happening by tracking down the sources and altering his own site. Though I'll delete this post if he requests.