Jump to content

Conflict or Sequence?


RosenMcStern

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

Before the next major release of RD100, there is one major renaming point I am considering. Feedback from backers – or simple fans reading this – might indeed be useful in this case, so here I am posing the question:

  •          Is Sequence a better or friendlier term than Conflict?

From a strictly technical game design point of view, the term “Conflict” is the most appropriate, as it leverages more than a decade of game theory debate. You may agree with that debate or not, but at least you can read the considerations that some game authors made about conflicts and tasks and apply it to your games. The word “conflict” also helps you “steal” good gaming advice from HeroQuest 2 that may be easily ported to Revolution ^_^.

However, the term also carries some baggage. First of all, the “theory” that surrounds the term is extremely controversial, and some people might run away from the game simply because of a single word that “reeks” of the Forge. I do not approve such attitude, but it is useless to scare people away.

Secondly, the term “conflict”, albeit appropriate, may be mistaken with the implication that these are “the combat rules applied elsewhere”. I have strongly opposed the direct porting of combat rules to social encounters (“social” weapon damage, social manoeuvres, social armour etc. etc.) in at least two occasions on these boards. I still stand for the opinion I expressed in those cases: it is NOT combat rebranded, it is another form of game mechanics that uses the same “if you roll a success you wear up your opponent’s resources” as classic D&D and RuneQuest combat. As such, it should be clearly labelled as different, and houseruling of “bits and pieces of combat” in non-violent conflicts should be discouraged in favour of more storytelling-oriented mechanics and techniques.

After listing the cons of the term conflict, here come some considerations about the pros of sequence.

Basically, the word suggests the staging of something similar to a cinematic sequence in a movie: a sequence of actions or scenes that build up tension up to a climactic ending. Each action has a clear influence on the public’s perception of “who is winning” (the Resolution Point scores serve this purpose in RD100), but the final outcome can be determined only when all actions have been performed and the sequence is over.

Note that the renaming may also help address the concern of those who “do not want social combat in their game”; and there are many of them. While modelling a social interaction as a battle is something that one can rightfully and understandably dislike, it is definitely less common to find someone who is against “dividing your social encounter into specific steps, each of which involves a specific action or statement a character makes” – which the word “sequence” summarizes better than “conflict”. Even those who are in the “let us prioritize roleplaying” camp will agree that splitting action in parts and determining who won the single points in the general debate produces a more exciting result than a dialogue or monologue followed by a single die roll “just because” (which incidentally has a higher chance of negating good roleplaying than multiple rolls do). In a few words, using the word “sequence” helps people understand that what the rules suggest is not to turn a debate into a roll-fest instead of roleplaying (see the paragraph “Does a conflict stop roleplaying?” in the rules), but to give the non-violent encounter a well-established “pacing” that mimics that of a cinematic sequence. Said “pacing” also helps the group in determining how often to call for rolls, avoiding both the “we played one entire evening without rolling a die” syndrome, which penalizes those players who invest their character’s experience in non-combat abilities, and the aforementioned roll-fest in which the GM calls for a roll for each single action or statement the players make.

Last but not least, those who play HeroQuest and ditched extended conflicts (and there are many…) may be less incline to dropping the mechanics altogether without giving it a try. “Sequence” is a word that resembles the “chained conflicts” in Mythic Russia, a popular alternative to extended conflicts even among those who play HQ2.

So, what do you think? May a term like “sequence”, although less precise than the technical term “conflict”, help people understand the above concepts and principles? Or might another word be more appropriate? I am basing my reasoning on the principle that basic terms should be as intuitive as possible, so that you need not explain their actual meaning to the reader. That is, the rules should be easy to understand even when you initially skipped that important paragraph that described the true meaning of the world “conflict” or “sequence”.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

and some people might run away from the game simply because of a single word that “reeks” of the Forge

Who are these people?! No I get it, some people hated what was going on at the Forge, even some people who were there every day.

In Skaerune' I am using Scene & Conflict (Literally a sub header for one chapter) to cover both combat and social. I think Conflict is an appropriate word, not because a character is constantly at war both socially and physically with the world around them, but because each step along path offers challenges. Grabbing an ale might not be a Conflict, but trying to grab an ale for a lower price certainly represents a Conflict of interest between the PC and NPC. Resolving that conflict might require a roll, some role playing, or a combination of both. 

For me, the Scene rules come into play when the situation threatens to become too chaotic (for any number of IC or OOC reasons). 

I think Sequence is a great term, especially if you feel Conflict just has too much baggage to accurately illustrate what you are going for.

Its 2300hrs, do you know where your super dreadnoughts are?

http://reigndragonpressblog.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with conflict, but it can't hurt for something better. Sequence feels a little flat to me. It's just a bunch of stuff that happens one after the other. (1,2,3,4,5,6) is a sequence. I'm not saying I hate it, or that it would keep me away from the game, but it does nothing to draw me in either. 

I wouldn't worry about the fanatical anti-Forge crowd. You are not getting their business with this game anyway. One look at the more "narrative" elements of this game, and they will declare you one of the swine and burn you in effigy. Fortunately, these people are largely irrelevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Baulderstone said:

I wouldn't worry about the fanatical anti-Forge crowd. You are not getting their business with this game anyway. One look at the more "narrative" elements of this game, and they will declare you one of the swine and burn you in effigy. Fortunately, these people are largely irrelevant. 

There are two kinds of people who might be negatively impressed by the word "conflict". The first one is the anti-forge talebans, and I have already marked them off the list of possible customers during the crowdfunding. I could make you a list of names - and it is strangely overlapping with those who are currently lynching MOB on therpgsite.com (hmmm, interesting question: do you assemble a lynch mob in order to lynch MOB?).

The second one however is the people who are disturbed by the negativity of some pro-forge fanatics and look with suspicion at anything that has any connection with that kind of attitude. They are scared by narrative games, not negative about them, and if you show them a modern game which is not full of "UR FAVORITE GAME SUCKS" comments they will play it. The risk is that the simple mention of the word "narrative" may trigger the "safety reaction". Believe me, I have been in that kind of situation, it really happens. And it is this kind of people - which I think includes a lot of members of our fine BRP central boards - which I would hate to lose.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always been of the impression, which may or may not be the facts, that folks often see granularity, rules, and dice rolling on the opposite end of a spectrum with narrative. As one moves toward more narrative aspects, they lose that the detail and most of all the control over their character and the game in favor of some kind of social game play. Some of that too is (fear of) cult of personality, though how much I cannot say for sure. But the Forge is why I am here, what I learned there had a positive influence on me as a designer, but also made me feel comfortable with doing something a little more old school and simulationist and sprinkling in some narratvist ideas and ideals. 

To be honest, while I know it was relevant a decade ago and many games and designers moved on from that forum, I did not realize there were still hard feelings involved. 

Its 2300hrs, do you know where your super dreadnoughts are?

http://reigndragonpressblog.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ReignDragonSMH said:

But the Forge is why I am here, what I learned there had a positive influence on me as a designer, but also made me feel comfortable with doing something a little more old school and simulationist and sprinkling in some narratvist ideas and ideals. 

To be honest, while I know it was relevant a decade ago and many games and designers moved on from that forum, I did not realize there were still hard feelings involved. 

There are many. Too many people took it as a religion instead of a motivation to improve their game design goals and techniques. Counter-religions arose because of this.

Like many (most) subjects, if you tackle it with the right attitude it will benefit you. Otherwise, it will leave you muddled in senseless discussions.

But let us cut this subject here. This board hosts no religion war, and never did. So let us be back to the main question: technicalities (techno-forge-icalities) apart, does the word "sequence" represent the concept better? Is it more newbie-friendly?

  • Like 1

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually like the word conflict, but I missed most of the Forge Wars.

To me, conflict can be violent, nonviolent, social, verbal, nonverbal, or almost anything where one force opposes another. It can describe a dance-off, a political campaign, a battle of the bands, a poetry recitation (if there's a chance you can fail), a starship battle, or two thugs slugging it out in a bar, or even something impersonal, like a climber v. a mountain. "Sequence" doesn't really describe those things. "Exchange" is better than "Sequence" if you're looking for an alternative. But "resolving a conflict" is something many people can understand--and that's what you're talking about. The GM wants something to happen; the players want something else to happen (or alternatively, the fictional villain/implacable force of nature/entropy "wants" something to happen, but the GM and players and the fictional characters want something else to happen). That's a conflict--the rules resolve that conflict.

If you're worried about turning off people who don't like ideological wars, I would avoid talking too much about theory in the rules. Just tell us how to play the game. Don't compare the game to other games, and don't talk about game design history or theory. Give us maybe a paragraph or three in the introduction about what you think Revolution D100 is about and your ideas behind developing it. Then let the rules speak for themselves.

I think "narrative" and "simulationist" are more highly charged than "conflict," and I would avoid those unless you think it's necessary to situate Revolution D100 along that particular continuum.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drama has conflict

News stories have conflict

Ideas can conflict without drawing blood (but not always).

Even a single person can be conflicted.

Conflict belongs in a dramatic storytelling game. It's an emotive word. 'Sequence', by contrast, is not. It sounds bland, mathematical, logical, mechanical. Even to describe game mechanics it sounds...well mechanistic. And, to me, boring. It certainly implies none of the drama of "the staging of something similar to a cinematic sequence in a movie". Maybe it's because every element in a sequence (using the mathematical sense here) is given equal weight, while scenes in a movie or conflict can be noisy or quiet, emphasised or not, and generally build up to a climax, followed by a denoument.

Go with 'conflict' I reckon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like exchange better than sequence, but it has odd connotations too. A conflict can be an exchange, for example when two combatants exchange blows, but it suggests a level of give and take. In cases of extreme success or failure, there is no exchange. It's simply one side giving to the other. 

I'm not going to freak out whatever you pick. Just giving feedback. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about contest as oppose to conflict? It indicates there can be only one winner, but losers are not implicitly vanquished.

I too prefer the term exchange over sequence, because exchange in my mind implies risk, reward and chance. This is befitting a contest whereas a sequence can refer to something as mundane as causality such as, the sequence of events included striking a match and causing it to ignite.

  • Like 1

And don't forget Realism Rule # 1 "If you can do it in real life you should be able to do it in BRP". - Simon Phipp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, "contest" is what we call the application of the Resistance Table in my group: contest of POW, contest of DEX, etc.

"Exchange" is not usable, as it is the term that describes each single die roll in combat and conflicts.

Sounds like Conflict is ok for the majority. And don't worry, there will be no mention of design theory controversy in the rules. Technicalities will remain on these boards, and be reserved for those who like to read them.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

t is fine for me but if some disagree it, what about complication or extended event?

Challenge is nice too, remembers me the hero with a thousand faces.

Talking about it, more detailed examples will be welcome.

  • Simple conflict, moving alone/in group a big rock
  • Naval travel.
  • Search the path on the jungle.
  • Gollum Vs Bilbo Riddle contest.
  • Trade with a merchant.
  • Visit to the haunted house.
  • Be declared innocent on Inquisition trial.



 

Edited by xalabin
clarify the samples.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/2/2016 at 4:05 PM, Jack Tar said:

Things are done for a reason, an outcome, a resolution. This latter word can also mean the process, not just the end. So;

 

Combat resolution

Social resolution

And then let's call the game Resolution D100! :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4 March 2016 at 4:29 PM, GianniVacca said:

And then let's call the game Resolution D100! :)

Noooooooo

Then some ar$e who objects to you selling the book in order to reduce your expenditure (or maybe even get SOME payback on the time and effort invested) will accuse you of selling 'Re$olution'

Rule Zero: Don't be on fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...