[freeroleplay] [Fringe] Conflict System

[Jerry Stratton]

> This is done by abstracting conflict into two rolls: an attack/hit roll
> determines the accuracy/precision of the attack will a damage roll
> determines the strength of the attack.
>
> 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?

Possibly. I'd recommend creating a version in which all three systems do
work the same, with the same terminology, and seeing how well that works
in play. Even if you don't use it, you may find that it helps you
determine the final design.

I.e., there's no reason you can't have "surprise" in social conflicts; and
interestingly it looks like you've dropped hit points for physical
conflict but kept them (as reputation) for social conflict.

By making them work more closely together, they can be combined; it
becomes very easy to conceptualize how a thief's witty remark might,
mechanically, deflect a punch.

Completely unified systems can work very well; Shadow of Yesterday and
Dogs in the Vineyard come to mind. You might also look at Burning Wheel;
it has a more complicated unified system with examples of how it works in
different kinds of conflicts.

It depends, though, on how you do it and why you do it.

The more similar you can make the systems, and the more you can push the
customizations out of the realm of actual mechanics, the more than they
work together. That is, a player could use social conflict to try to get
out of a physical conflict--if the systems are the same system.

> 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.

Glancing and critical and fine; they're descriptive. Direct seems weird. I
think because it sounds like it is describing the kind of attack, not the
result of the attack (that is, without having read the rules, it seems
like a direct attack could also be glancing or critical).  Perhaps solid?

> 3. I'm not sure the arbitrary division between attack/hit rolls and
> damage rolls makes a lot of sense.

You'll need to decide if you want "hit success" to be separate from "harm
success". It's a tough question. On the one hand there is a tendency to
see a really good "hit success" as if it ought to cause more harm. On the
other, as Sam pointed out, sometimes you want the chance of laying on a
hit to be separated from the harm caused by that hit.

If it continues to bother you, you might be looking at the problem from
the wrong perspective. I.e., instead of considering dropping the damage
roll, consider dropping the hit roll. It may be just a semantic change,
but if you start thinking of the resolution mechanic as "how much harm
does this action cause" rather than "how much harm does this action cause
when it hits", you might be able to come up with a mechanic that works for
you.

Finally, I'd put short, one-turn examples in right from the start. This
makes it easier for us to see what you actually mean to happen during
play.

"Mark, Jill, and, Jack try to Shout Down Michelle. Michelle counters with
a Witty Remark." etc. into the actual mechanics.

Also, when there's a nagging feeling that something is wrong, I like to:

1) come up with a play example of what seems wrong;
2) ask what I would lose if I removed this mechanic entirely; that helps
me realize what it is about this mechanic that I want to keep.
3) come up with some play examples, sans mechanics, of what I would like
to happen in the situations that will be using this mechanic.
4) come up with a series of stream-of-consciousness far out mechanics to
cover this instance and solve this problem from different perspectives,
usually heavily abstracted.

For example:

There are three abilities used with each attack: one governs its chance to
connect, one governs the amount of damage it causes when it connects, and
one handles defenses to incoming attacks. None of these can be the same
ability. If you're using your charm to attack, you'll need to use
something else to defend against attacks and to damage using that attack.
You sneak in with your charm, and then twist the knife with your
intelligence. But if someone attacks you while you're doing this, you'll
need to use your Persuasion to avoid a connection.

Each attack can have a cool name. Attack of the Hidden Barb: attacks with
charm, damages with intelligence, defends with persuasion.

And so on. Then I'll ask why that sounds interesting. I probably won't use
it, but I'll start to get some ideas about what I want the final result to
be, and why.

Jerry
-- 
http://www.ItIsntMurder.com/
"Give a man a fish, and you've fed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and
you've depleted the lake."--It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees