[freeroleplay] [Fringe] Conflict System

[Ricardo Gladwell]

Hi Pitt,

Once again, apologies for the delay in responding. Thanks for your
comments.

On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 00:27 +0100, Pitt Murmann wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 11:51:20 [+0000], Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> 
> > If you could give me your valuable thoughts and opinions I would be most
> > grateful. I have several concerns with the system as it stands:
> 
> I have a question regarding the term "round" that is used to measure
> the length of a sequence of actions for both types of conflict in the
> document: is the period of time covered by a Round fixed to a certain
> amount of time, or does it vary depending on what kind of conflict
> you find yourself in?

It depends no the type of conflict. For the time being, I'm leaving it
as a unspecified but suitably brief period of time. I'm not sure an
exact length of time is needed.

> > 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?
> 
> There are a number of systems that try to depict physical combat and
> social conflict as special cases of generic conflict by employing
> generic conflict resolution mechanisms. Burning Wheel, which in turn
> makes notable references to Dogs in the Vinyard, cross my mind and have
> already been mentioned.

I have Burning Wheel (which is a great game) but not Dogs in the
Vineyard. I'll try and see if I can pick up a copy.

> The latter has rules for propagating conflict
> from one form to the other,

How do you mean?

> In physical combat,
> there is practically no doubt about these ends, while the possible
> outcome and consequence of a social conflict that is resolved by rolling
> dice is often not clearly defined.

I'm not sure the outcomes of physical combat are always so clear cut
either, but I see your point. But does that matter when we have a human
(the GM) arbitrating the rules and deciding on what makes a successful
social conflict without the need for formal rules?

> > 3. I'm not sure the arbitrary division between attack/hit rolls and
> > damage rolls makes a lot of sense.
> 
> My personal consideration is this: (physical or mental) attacks
> determine "how good" the character's attempt to hit has been, that is,
> the outcome of such a partial action yields the _quality_ of an attack.

Can't the "quality" of an attack can actually be divided into two
properties: the "precision" (how closely the attack hit home) and the
"strength" (how hard the blow was and thus, how much actual harm was
inflicted).

> If the quality is high, the defender, who attempts not to be hit, must
> provide a high quality defense to prevent the attacker from landing a
> blow. This is often resolved by subtracting the defense from the offense
> to determine a total quality, be it a number of successes, a difference
> of two intermediate values, or whatnot. Once the quality is determined,
> the damage has been dealt and there is no need to make another die roll
> to involve an additional random factor.

That would be a simpler, faster and perfectly viable system, but at a
corresponding loss of strategy IMHO: the above system doesn't easily
model a strong but slow or a weak but agile fighter. Depending on which
ability is used for attack rolls (Strength or Agility) only one kind of
tactic will prevail.

> Given its most effective aspect (slash?) the damage property of a
> longsword is determined by its mass, quality, sharpness and the
> wielder's muscle power, and these values do not change unless a fighter
> intentionally deals less damage.

Surely the fighter's agility or physical coordination also plays a role
in whether the hit actually strikes true?

> The defender may wear armor to reduce
> the effect of the attack, but the quality of the attack should be
> determined by the homonymous action and not an additional damage roll
> that renders the defense a make-or-break deal.

Why not? Armour doesn't prevent you from being hit, it only mitigates
the damage. Similarly, a dodge action doesn't reduce damage but allows
you to avoid being hit altogether. By separating the roll for attack and
damage you separate the concerns so that you can add an extra layer of
strategy and perhaps even realism to the game.

> The same applies to social conflict. Given the environment and
> circumstances, the ferociousness and bitterness of an insult is
> determined by an attack that can be countered and reduced in a similar
> way by the respective rhetorical or logical means.

Couldn't a ferocious and bitter insult also be countered by another
ferocious and bitter insult?

> Its damage, this time
> measured on an abstract social scale, is determined by the quality of
> the attack and no additional damage determination is required.

Why should we not sub-divide the "quality" into different kinds of
qualities? Such as finesse or strength?

>  What
> instead matters is the context, the environment and the circumstances.

How is that different to physical combat?

BTW In case people think their comments are being ignored, I've been
adding everyone's ideas to the Fringe document as comments. Once again,
thanks for your time.

Kind regards...

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