[freeroleplay] [Fringe] Conflict System

[Ricardo Gladwell]

Apologies for the delay in responding. Things have been busy and I
wanted to properly respond to everybody's remarks. Once again, I'd like
to thank everyone for taking the time to give their thoughts which are
very much appreciated.

On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 18:57 +0000, Samuel Penn wrote: 
> On Tuesday 28 November 2006 11:51, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> > 1. Is there any point to a generic conflict system for combat, social
> > conflict, etc, given that it each sub-system be customised which negates
> > the benefits of have a generic system in the first place?
> 
> The generic system should be in the task resolution. You then customise
> the task resolution for combat, mountain climbing or arguments. The
> extra abstraction layer causes problems in understanding (see my comments
> later).

I see what you mean: the rules for conflict are fundamental and more
properly belong in the Basic Rules chapter.

That said, I designed the Conflict rules as a modular system that could
be replaced which is why I put them in the Systems chapter of Fringe
rather than in the Basic Rules chapter. Unlike task resolution, I
envisage the rules for conflict as replaceable with some other system.

Also, Conflict is different to general task resolution: task resolution
handles simple tasks, both opposed and unopposed, such as climbing a
mountain (unopposed challenge), running a race (opposed challenge),
spotting clues (unopposed reaction) or picking a lock (unopposed
action). Conflict handles long, drawn out, "hit and defend" contests,
such as combat, and sits on top of regular task resolution.

> > 2. I'm not at all certain about the names I've used for the
> > damage/precision types ('glancing', 'direct,' etc). Suggestions for
> > alternatives are welcome.
> 
> They seem fine, at least as a starting point. At least, I can't
> immediately think of any reason not to use them.

Thanks :)

> > 3. I'm not sure the arbitrary division between attack/hit rolls and
> > damage rolls makes a lot of sense.
> 
> I like this split. You may want to simplify things by having a single
> roll for attack and damage (and it's something that might fit Fringe
> quite well). However, in doing so you loose the difference between
> a fast light warrior and a slow heavy warrior. You can't have a huge
> giant who's club is easy to dodge, but when he does hit he squashes
> you. You can't have a small sprite who darts in with a needle sword
> with fantastic accuracy, but who does only minor damage.

Indeed, these are the extremes I was hoping to model with the system.

> Of course, this only really applies to physical combat (not social
> arguments).

Using the examples above translated to social combat: how about the
bullish arguer who bulldozers his opponents with clumsy but devastating
criticisms, or the intelligent sophist whose contorted points hit home
but without much effect?

> Now for some other points.
> 
> Initiative: How do you cope with tied results?

Probably allow characters to act at the same time.

> Is there a point
> at which no further actions can be taken?

How do you mean?

> What if two people with
> an action on hold keep on wanting to wait?

Not sure, how do other systems handle this?

> For extra actions, I would suggest that they have to be declared
> at the start, and that the maximum penalty applies to all actions.

I added the extra actions rules so that characters can react to
unexpected actions in combat (for example, making a defence against
and unexpected attack) so declaring at the start might negate this.

Perhaps another option might be holing the extra action penalty over to
the next round and so on until the character spends a round with no
extra actions?

> Otherwise, there is nothing lost by always taking as many actions
> as you possibly can.

Good point.

> Hit roll: No problems here. At least not since I've read the
> right version of your rules. Would armour reduce the quality of
> the hit? Change a critical into a glancing blow for example?

The Cumbersome armour trait (see Equipment chapter in current rules) is
a negative modifier that affects all agility-based actions, including
hit rolls. I've not thought about how armour could downgrade the hit
type from critical to glancing damage, but it's a great idea! Ta! :)

> Damage: Okay. My only issue is that it's very abstract at this
> point and difficult to apply to any given situation. It almost
> seems to sit there, tempting but not providing any answers. I
> know why - it's the base for both combat and social conflict.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure why: how would you
change the damage roll so that it is clearer? What do you find unclear
about it?

> However, it may be better to keep the consistency at the task
> resolution layer, and treat combat and social as two different
> things rather than trying to add in another abstraction layer.

Do you mean keep the hit roll part as-is but tailor the damage roll?

> Nothing has been said about armour. For social conflicts, something
> like reputation may act like physical armour does in a sword fight,
> armour is something that

Armour offers a bonus against the damage roll.

> Basic Combat
> 
> How does type of weapon affect things?

At the moment, weapon type might cap the type of damage inflicted (for
example, a Club might cap damage at Glancing).

> How does armour affect things?

Improves ability to resist damage (opposes damage roll) but not avoid
being hit.

> Under damage, I'd like to see a table, listing hit quality against
> the damage roll. As it stands, the list of terms is difficult to
> visualise. 

Good point.

> Social Conflict
> 
> I've seen this idea before: I've got a copy of 'Duel of Wits', which
> is a quite detailed social conflict system. Can't remember where I
> downloaded it from however. I can send it to you if you wish.

I think the 'Duel of Wits' rules are from Burning Wheel (which comes
recommended). I did refer to them, but I wanted a more generic, simpler
system for Fringe.

Other interesting social rules include the social combat rules for
Second Edition Exalted.

> This area needs more fleshing out. It's a nice idea, but given the
> rarity of such systems it needs a lot of examples. For example, does
> winning a 'concede' mean that you win or lose?

As I wrote it, I imagined it to be a sort of tactical retreat, a defence
against a social attack that doesn't completely dispel the damage but
mitigates it.

> Overall, it's quite elegant, though needs some more detail (obviously
> it's just a work in progress at this point).

Thanks :) Kind regards...

-- 
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free RPG Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president at freeroleplay.org