Good show, I already had a pretty good grasp on the differences between task and conflict resolution, but I enjoyed the details you talked about from The Shadows Of Yesterday, and I look forward to getting my copy of Solar System all that much more (TSOY Rules without Setting). I like the idea of spotlighting the PC's while keeping the action of the NPC Pirates relevant but not overwhelming in the DnD example, one idea I have on that in particular is to write up each crew as a proto-character, with Hitpoints representing how many are left standing (1hp=1 crew member, if they fall rather easily, or a higher ratio if they are tougher/well trained/armored etc),and the other stats representing the Average abilities of the force. In effect this would just give relevant numbers to roll against that represent the strength of the crew, to be used for conflict resolution.

Oh and, I'm surprised you don't have an introductions thread, I'd make mine here, but I'm one for tradition.

I've been thinking about this for a while and I think that the FATE/Dresden Files game has come the closest to what I want. Here's the idea:

We stage a conflict... any kind of conflict of any size... a sword fight, a bank heist, a seduction, an intergalactic race, absolutely anything where there is tension between what one side wants and what might happen to them as they try to get it.

Each "round" each player can take some kind of relevant action. A swing of the sword, gathering intel on the building, putting on perfume, charging the warp drive, whatever. They are going to roll their appropriate skill and have that skill tested against as challenging difficulty (something that may require the expense of precious resources like FATE chips, etc).

Here’s where I’m still working on things. Success is made in degrees. Either they need a certain number of X level successes (for example, Great rolls in Fate, exceptional successes in WoD, etc) or the successes are all tallied up cumulatively. In contract the opposition is making rolls which are similarly tallying successes. In each exchange several things might happen. 1) if the protagonist rolls less than the opposition, they might suffer some consequence, hit points, stress, etc. 2) Regardless of who rolls higher each side will make some progress towards achieving their goal. 3) Momentum is possible (i.e. by winning roll #1, you might have a benefit on roll #2 (for example because someone is wounded, arrested, allured, or eating your jet engine smoke) but precious player resources could mitigate that momentum. For example, if a player rolls to sneak into the building, they may get caught and get arrested removing them from the heist, but the expense of a FATE chip might mitigate that.

In the end, the first side that achieves their goal wins, but makes concessions based on the successes of the opposing side(s). Along the way they are expending resources to aid in their rolls and mitigate their failures and with each roll consequences (on both sides) are being generated. By the end of the conflict, the individuals should be changed ins some meaningful (though not necessarily permanent) way as well as both “sides” having to make some compromises about their goal.

I’m not sure if this was a response to your post, but it’s been in my head for a while and seeing this thread helped it work its way out.

My Goal: A system where car chases, social conflicts, and bank robberies are just as dynamic, fun, dangerous and full of options as a sword fight, because in the “action/spy” genre that I enjoy they usually are.

Questions, comments, rebuttals?

Posted By: tomg We played SOTC recently and they seemed to enjoy it. We are starting Savage Worlds next and I hope to bring in some stake setting ideas.

You should check out SharkBytes (the Savage Worlds fanzine) Volume 3 issue 2 - The Deadlands Reoloaded issue.
http://sharkbytes.info/download.php?view.63

Around page 10 or so they have an article about using SotC Aspects with Bennies to enhance SW character creation and story gaminess.

I've also used a group Bennie pool like PTA fanmail in games with success.

There you go, I was not the only one that noticed this :)

But hey, we love you all the same! :-P

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Sorry if I was a bit ranty.

I think you have some good ideas for improvement. I am certainly not against "amateurs" or whatever (which is bullshit because of course we're all just gamers, right? But you know what I mean) talking about this stuff. I mean, that's why I listen to these kinds of shows- both to hear "authorities" talk about their stuff, and to hear "regular folk" talk about how that stuff works for them. So that's all good.

An idea I just thought of is that I'd like to see more 'casters credit their sources. I mean, you wouldn't submit an essay on a subject without citing sources, right? So maybe a discussion about Topic X could be prefaced with "Hey, we heard about Topic X from/on/at/during Soandso, and thought it was interesting. We read a couple blog/forum/essay/rant/whatever posts about it on GamesBloggityBlog and here's what we think/wonder/experienced/etc."

It's totally ok to be "green". Lots of us, hell, most of us are. That's why I listen to shows, so I can become more... er... brown... yeah... anyway.

I will freely admit that this is an idiosyncrasy of mine. A short story: When Mighty Morphin Power Rangers first came out, I (A longtime fan of Ultraman) watched the first episode and was literally sick to my stomach, not just because it was bad, but because I knew everyone was going to think that this was the sterling example of that crazy Japanese thing I liked to watch. Likewise, I was deathly afraid of running indie/hippie/story games for people for a long time, because I was terrified that I would screw it up, and they'd think that the games sucked because of my crappy GMing.

So, yeah... I may have a bit of a complex about this sort of thing.

As for who is an "authority" on gaming... well, there are some who are more experienced, sure. There are some who write about theory, sure. Really they're no different than any of us- and most of them make a point of saying so. Mostly I guess I'd say that there aren't so much authorities on gaming in general (although certainly there are people whose opinions and statements I personally trust more than others, and those people may be different for you), but that there are authorities on particular bits of jargon/techniques; often because they are the ones who invented or discovered them; or at the very least have clearly given them a ridiculous amount of insightful thought. My personal hero in this regard is, as I mentioned above, Vincent Baker. He can take a highfalutin' ten page essay by, say, Ron Edwards, and render it down into a paragraph or two of layman's terms that clearly convey the same ideas in a useful way. Now, YMMV for any given subject/authority combination. But it can't hurt to at least have one to refer to when discussing a subject.

So. Thanks for listening to me rant (twice!) and giving my points some consideration.

I've listened to a ton of 'casts, and sometimes I find new ones to add and sometimes I pare out the ones that no longer do it for me. I'm glad I ran across your guys' show; it's cool to me to listen to some people who are in that same process of wrapping their heads around all this newfangled hippie stuff that can be so mindbending, yet so rewarding once filtered through the layers of grognard habits.

So, keep up the generally great work!

Thanks,

Dave.

Oh, gawds, yeah... don't remind me about that movie >_< I had to go to a monastery for years to purge it from my psyche.

Wow... that was amazingly misplaced spam. I was going to delete it but decided it was just too funny to dump. So instead I yanked all the links and left it for our "huh?" enjoyment.