Your browser does unfortunately not support Web standards, and this Web site looks MUCH better in a Web standards compliant browser, although the content is still accessible to any browser or Internet capable device.

TROS Conflict Resolution System

The TROS Companion

The article on Skills and Attribute Checks (p. 29) in the TROS Companion made me think that while the rules are clearer than in the main rulebook, they're still not what I'm after. I want a conflict resolution system, and I want it to be as close to the other dice pool mechanics in the game as possible. So here are some ideas from the top of my head, I'll try to edit them as time allows, based on actual play results.

Note: This is nothing specifically against TROS. FATE, and many other games, follow just about the same model, and I don't like it in any of those games either.

Simple Checks

Now why would my story ever call for Simple Checks as detailed in the TROS Companion? In it, they are defined as; "A simple check is any check that is not being contested by another person." Now if there's nobody contesting the skill check, no dice will hit the table in my game, I mean what's the point? If the outcome matters so little to the characters in our story, then I'll just say "Yes" and move on, read on to see what I mean.

Contested Checks

Now this is where it's at! Please see my Skills article for how to use your opponent's Attributes as Target Numbers, should you want to reduce your Seneschal's dice rolling. However the Evening the Odds sidebar (p. 32) in the TROS Companion points out why opposing rolls is a good idea.

Extended Checks

More dice rolling for the sake of dice rolling. This boggles my mind. I just don't like it. However, if the Trollbabe model of specifically stating the Pace of the conflict is used, then this becomes quite enjoyable.

Conflict Resolution Defined

Let me preface that this is my definition of conflict resolution. You might be of another opinion, in that case, more power to you.

Conflict only happens when you have opposing forces clashing!

For the interested, my opinion of the basic difference between Conflict and Task Resolution is:

Stipulating stakes as opposed to stipulating methodology.

Conflict Resolution is the means by which players assent to stakes. It's an agreement among players; "We all agree. If X happens, then Y results. Got it everyone?"

With Conflict Resolution you're resolving the conflict and then filling in the details of the individual tasks. In Task Resolution you're resolving individual tasks and then building them up into resolving the conflict. As you can see, Conflict vs Task Resolution is all about how you frame what is actually being determined by a given resolution. It's just that simple.

Enough theory, now to my attempt at best achieving Conflict Resolution in TROS.

Take One - Intent, Stakes and Task

When Do We Have Conflicts?

When a player wants his character to do something he succeeds as long as nobody, including the Seneschal, says "No." That is, as the Seneschal you can just say "Yes" and move on, but as soon as someone at the table says no, be it another player or the Seneschal, you have a conflict.

The Procedure

First declare Intent, what is your character's goal? Use this to come up with the Stakes, what are you risking? Then declare the Task undertaken to accomplish the intent, what skill or attribute are you rolling against? Finally, the result of the dice for the established Task, in relation to the Intent and Stakes, tell you the outcome of the conflict.

If you win, you succeed with your Intent.
If you lose, you pay the Stakes.

Note: This apparently closely follows the model in Burning Wheel Revised. As I don't yet own the game, I cannot comment any more on this.

An Example

Your character is being chased and finds himself at a locked door, which is his only means of escape. You state, "My intent is to get through the door before the guards show up. The task will be to pick the lock, using my lockpicking skill."

As the Seneschal, I say, "What's at stake is that the guards catch up to you before you manage to get through the door."

We roll. If you're successful, you win the conflict by managing to pick the lock and get through the door before the guards arrive. If you fail, you lose the conflict, perhaps you're still able to pick the lock, but just as the guards arrive.

What is a Conflict?

A conflict is a situation where a player wants his character to perform something important, but someone or something is opposing you. It does not mean that two players are at odds, but rather that some opposing force in the game would not want you to succeed with your intent (this could be another player character though).

Another Example

You're tracking a dragon. Your intent is to find the dragon, but both the Seneschal and the players of course want the dragon to be found, how can that be a conflict? Well, making good use of Intent and Stakes, like:

Intent: We want to find and ambush the dragon.
Stakes: The dragons spots and ambushes you instead.
Task: Tracking skill versus the dragon's Hiding skill.

The Importance of Interesting Stakes

The stakes should never be dull! Each conflict must make an impact on the game; in the example above a tactical advantage to the winner. Conflicts should not keep us from attaining our common goal.

A Classical Example

Frodo will reach Mordor, that is never at stake. The question is whether he can reach it without being observed. He can? Great. Later Frodo heads for Mount Doom. The question is whether he can resist the One Ring during his trip. He couldn't? That's okay, it doesn't ruin the story.

Common Story Goals

When we strive towards a common story goal that all of us want to reach, we must be creative with our conflicts. If you succeed with your intent, or lose the stakes, it must never ruin our story.

Narration

I enjoy letting the buck stop with the winner of the conflict. That is, everyone is welcome to contribute to describing the outcome of the conflict, but the winner has final say as to what actually happens.

Take Two - Goals

The Mechanics

A Contested Check between two players (yes, the Seneschal is a player too). The Margin of Success determining the outcome of the conflict. A conflict is concerned with the intent of the characters, as opposed to physical actions or tasks.

This is adopted from the IGC version of The Mountain Witch RPG by Timfire Publishing, as you will see the system works beautifully for TROS.

Intent, Stakes and Task

Follow the model of Take One.

What is a Conflict?

A conflict is any situation where the character must overcome opposition to achieve their intent. It can take the form of active opposition from living creatures, or resistance from some non-living or static challenge. When confronting living creatures, a contested check is required whenever their intent conflicts with those of the characters. With non-living or static challenges, a roll is required whenever the challenge presents some sort of active resistance, or there is a cost associated with failing.

Initiating Conflict

When the players approach a potential conflict, the Seneschal should declare the intent of the opposing force along with difficulty of the conflict. The players then declare how their characters are going to react to the conflict, stating their own intent and the task performed. They together agree to the stakes of the conflict, that is, what will be gained or lost in the conflict.

Conflict Scope

A single contested check determines the outcome of a single intent of a single character. The result of a single conflict may encompass any number of individual actions.

Narration

The winner narrates the consequences of the conflict, all the game's participants are allowed to contribute ideas, but the buck stops with the conflict winner.

Margin of Success

0: Tie
A stalemate with neither party making headway towards accomplishing their respective intent.
+/- 1: Partial Success/Failure
Neither party succeeds, but you gain either a partial success or failure.
Win-Lose: Alternatively, players (and only players, not the Seneschal) may declare a Win-Lose outcome, where both parties succeed. This may be declared after the contested check is made, but must be declared before narration.
Win-Lose with Advantages/Complications: If the player prefers an advantage/complication, then a Win-Lose indicates that the player either succeeded but with a significant complication (positive roll), or failed with a significant advantage (negative roll).
+/- 2: Mixed Success/Failure
You succeed as intended, but your opponent scores a partial success (positive roll), or inversely your opponent succeeds while you only partially succeed (negative roll).
+/- 3: Regular Success/Failure
The player succeeds as intended, or fails thereby losing the stakes.
+/- 4: Major Success/Failure
The player succeeds/fails as normal, but with an additional partial success/failure, what the additional partial success/failure entails is decided after the roll.
+/- 5 and beyond: Double Success/Failure
The player receives two regular successes or failures, what the additional success/failure entails is decided after the roll.

Advantages/Complications

Instead of a partial success/failure, players may opt for a (+/- 2) modifier on their next action, while in place of a regular success/failure, players may opt for a (+/- 2) modifier that lasts for one full scene. Advantages and complications are cumulative, all modifiers are added together.

Conditional Complications

Alternatively for complications, the complication may be declared conditional meaning the complication remains in effect until an appropriate action is taken to fix the complication.

Take Three - Extended Conflicts

Intent, Stakes and Task

Follow the model of Take One.

Conflict Target Number

The Seneschal sets a Conflict TN (CTN), i.e. a final number of successes required to win the conflict. Then make an opposed roll, with the winning side adding their MOS to their Conflict Victory Total. If the Victory Total now equals or exceeds the CTN the conflict ends. If not, add your MOS as a Roll-Over Bonus to the next roll (ala Sorcerer), and state a new Task fitting the narrative (I'm after the escalation mechanic in Dogs in the Vineyard, but I find it hard to apply to TROS) and roll again.

Each side in the conflict either keeps track of their own independent Conflict Victory Totals, or a sliding scale could be used where one side wins at negative Conflict TN, and the other side at positive CTN.

Narration

The narration is handled step by step throughout the overall conflict, with the winner of each roll describing his steps toward his goal (including thwarting his opponent's goal). Once the CTN has been met by either party, the winning player has final authority on narrating the outcome, but everyone is of course welcome to contribute ideas.

Small Stakes

Perhaps this should be Take Four, but I think enough's enough. The escalation of conflict can also be reached by setting small stakes, where the outcome will easily carry you into a follow-up conflict. That is, as an alternative to "keep rolling checks to reach the CTN" is to end the conflict after the first exchange of rolls, and instead look for follow-up conflicts ala Dogs in the Vineyard.

Narration

The narrative would be strictly based upon the winner's MOS, in line with Legends of Alyria and HeroQuest, where comparing Success vs Botch, Success vs Fail, Higher Success vs Lesser Success, Fail vs Fail, and Botch vs Botch results become important.



Other TROS Pages