Tales from the Rocket House
I’ve been impressed by several of the games I’ve seen that use Conflict Resolution, particularly Ron Edward’s Trollbabe, but as several posters have pointed out here at RPGnet, there are some problems with Conflict Resolution. In this column, I’ll take a look at some of the issues with Conflict Resolution, and my own little attempts to resolve them.
A Few Definitions
Conflict Resolution means resolving the conflict at hand in one or a few die rolls, as opposed to Task Resolution, which resolves each individual action within the conflict separately. Typically, one “round” of combat, or possibly the whole combat, would be handled in one opposed roll between the characters involved. Some games use a “levels of success” method for determining outcome, while others use “number of rounds won” or “number of rerolls required” to determine just how bad things have gotten. This can take a lot of getting used to if you’re used to Task Resolution.
Systems that use Conflict Resolution often use a relatively small list of Traits. Because the resolution is focused on conflict between characters, anything that deals with “doing a task” can be largely handwaved. Trollbabe, for example, has one number that represents the character’s ability to fight (roll under), do magic (roll over), and interact socially (basically equal to the lesser of fighting and magic, meaning well-rounded characters are more socially adept than specialists, which kind of makes sense).
Amber Diceless Role-Playing, which was my first introduction to Conflict Resolution (back before anyone called it that), had Warfare, Strength, Endurance, and Psyche, along with a few powers, and gave the GM the advice that any time a player character tried to do something that wasn’t opposed by another character, the PC should automatically succeed. Of course, the Amberites were on the level with your average vanilla fantasy setting’s gods, so that works. It’s a little harder to pull of when playing average Joe-Janes.
Conflict Resolution systems typically use the same mechanics for all of the conflicts that come about, so a seduction attempt, a rapier duel, a chess match, and a dogfight with the Red Baron are all resolved with the same set of rules. There’s some debate as to whether this is a positive or a negative. On the one hand, it’s easy to learn and gets the rules out of the way. On the other, it doesn’t provide any mechanical differentiation between different types of conflicts. It’s important, then, that the Conflict Resolution deliver rich results, with multiple possibilities, rather than just “Joe won” or “Jane won.”
One of the biggest criticisms of Conflict Resolution is that it limits the types of outcomes, particularly in the case of “ties.” While this is slightly hollow, given that the conflicts these systems resolve rarely actually end in stalemates when resolved action-by-action (though individual actions may be stalemates), it is a bit frustrating to have a stalemate or mutual kill be impossible.
As one RPGnetter commented, many Conflict Resolution systems allow for the possibility of a stalemate/“double miss,” wherein neither character gets anything accomplished, but few, if any, allow for a “double kill,” in which each demolishes the other (socially or physically). While some contests, like a chess match or footrace, just don’t allow for this, many, such as combat or social maneuvering, do.
To some degree, Trollbabe allows for both. A basic, no-rerolls “loss” for the PC can sometimes be a “double miss,” in that the PC doesn’t succeed, but isn’t actually hurt. On the other hand, it does mean the opponent gets what she wants, so it’s not a true “tie.” A maximum-rerolls win for the PC can be a mutual-kill, in that the PC wins, but suffers greatly (possibly even dying) in the process.
Enter the Dipstick
However, I was determined to come up with a conflict resolution system that fully, outright allowed for both. For what it’s worth, I succeeded. The full text of this game is available at The 24 Hour RPG Project, but I’ll go over the basics here (I have another, slightly different system that can accomplish many of the same things here).
The game got its name, DIP-Styx, because it was meant to encourage (or at least facilitate) Develop In Play (DIP) character creation, and because the “setting” (such as it can be in a 24 hour RPG) involved Charon vanishing and all kinds of strange things crossing the River Styx into the land of the living.
As is typical for my games, I used a variation on the Tarafore System for Trait Ratings (the compressed Tarafore System, in this case, with some modification). Traits (also called Skills) are rated from 0 to 8 or more, with the default for anything not listed being Mediocre (2), and human maximum being Legendary (7).
The Traits Horrible (0) Bad (1) Mediocre (2) – the default for anything not listed Average (3) Good (4) Very Good (5) Outstanding (6) Legendary (7) Superhuman (8+)
Rolling the Dice: When using a Trait/Skill, roll a number of dice equal to your character's rating in that Trait. Dice are 50-50 (Even = Success, Odd = Fail), so you can flip coins (Heads = Success, Tails = Fail) or use any size dice (so long as they have an even number of sides). The default for Traits (also known as Skills) that aren't listed is 2 dice, which represents just being “Mediocre.”
Conflict Resolution: Conflicts between two characters are a bit more involved. First, they are broken up into “Rounds.” In each Round, players declare what their characters are attempting, and what Trait they're using. Then each character rolls the appropriate Trait's dice and totals the successes.
1 success = opponent suffers a Basic Setback (-1 die penalty) 2 successes = enemy suffers a Major Setback (-2 dice penalty) 3 successes = enemy suffers an Extreme Setback (-3 dice penalty) and loses the conflict.
Any successes rolled by either character involved in the conflict apply to their opponent at the end of the Round. If nobody rolls any successes, the “Round” is a tie, and nobody accomplishes anything.
The “Setback” applies to anything related to the Conflict, including future rounds of the Conflict. For example, if you lose a social Conflict, your Setback can represent being made to look foolish, being made to look guilty of something you didn't (or did) do, having your reputation tarnished, losing confidence, having your feelings hurt, etc. It will apply to any Social Test or Conflict until it “heals.” Setbacks typically “Heal” at the rate of 1 die per in-game day. This includes non-lethal wounds, like the kind you'd get from a fistfight or stun gun.
Playing Defense: Since it's very easy for both characters to get badly hurt in a conflict (which makes sense: fights often end with both combatants wounded, and arguments often damage the credibility of both participants), players and their characters will usually (okay, virtually always) want to dedicate some of their dice to defense. These dice are rolled separately, and their total reduces your opponents Success Total, reducing the degree of Setback she achieves against you.
It's possible for neither character to suffer a setback, for one character to suffer a setback, or for both characters to suffer setbacks in the same “Round.” Playing Defense makes it much more likely that both characters will “whiff,” because it not only reduces the “offensive” dice, but puts some dice in the way as “protection.”
Fencing Two Villians The simple dice pool setup makes it easy to run one powerful character against multiple weaker characters. Defensive dice apply against all incoming attacks, and the outnumbered character splits her offensive dice among whoever she wants to attack (or just focus on attacking one at a time, while defending against the lot of them).
Final Thoughts Well, not too final, I hope. For what it’s worth, Conflict Resolution can give a great deal of information to the players, and it can give a wide range of results. One thing to remember is that Conflict Resolution systems are typically designed to further Narrativist goals, and to provide hooks for players to describe the events taking place, rather than to actually describe those events.
In other words, Conflict Resolution systems are not, and cannot be, substitutes for Task Resolution systems. They have (intentionally) a different feel and a different purpose. This is one reason why I do not use them in my Tarafore System: it’s mean to facilitate Simulationist, and, especially, Immersive/Deep-IC play. For those purposes, as well as most Gamist ones, I find Task Resolution works much better.
