Someone posted asking about conflict resolution systems. A poster with some system they developed in the '90s or something responds with some tripe about how their damage system is superior to every one else's. I say the OP asked about conflict resolution and not combat resolution and the poster launches into some nonsense about how their system was meant to be used with Blade Runner and they'd never fuck over their players and if the rolls succeeds or fails they keep playing because failure is just as interesting as success and....FUCK! Why do people do shit like that? Are they honestly dense enough to not realize they're nowhere near the topic being discussed? It's like walking into a discussion about mecha and insisting on discussing buffalo and then wondering why people say you're misunderstanding the topic.

Buffalo you say?  It's high time we had a discussion of buffalo!

But yeah, not getting it seems to be the norm rather than the excption in this hobby.

Last month at a resturaunt I had some bison tenderloin with this great saskatoon berry reduction. Highly recommend it.

Funny this should come up... I was going to annoy the hell out of Pundy by claiming that his FtA combat system, as posted in his forum, sounds suspiciously conflict-resolution-y to me, which as we all know is swinish etc.

My argument probably has no merit, but then, as rpg.net shows, that's hardly a reason not to pursue it to the full extent of the moderation law.

Excuse me Pierce but I think you are straying from the thread topic of resolving the conflict of what to have for lunch.

Quote from: WilWhy do people do shit like that? Are they honestly dense enough to not realize they're nowhere near the topic being discussed? It's like walking into a discussion about mecha and insisting on discussing buffalo and then wondering why people say you're misunderstanding the topic.

I think there are really three things at work. This can be any of the three or a combination.

1-The person is just stubborn, or stupid or otherwise defective

2-The person has really not been exposed to RPG jargon, or to many roleplaying games. They confuse all sorts of issues.

3-The person is not comfortable speaking English

I leave it up to everyone what is acceptable or not but I know that #3 can lead to some pretty awkward situations when stuff gets lost in translation. So I am very understanding of that one. And I think #2 is harmless if the person is open to discussion. Heck, a lot of veteran gamers still confuse a lot of roleplaying issues and mix them together.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityFunny this should come up... I was going to annoy the hell out of Pundy by claiming that his FtA combat system, as posted in his forum, sounds suspiciously conflict-resolution-y to me, which as we all know is swinish etc.

My argument probably has no merit, but then, as rpg.net shows, that's hardly a reason not to pursue it to the full extent of the moderation law.

Well I'm not intending for this to be an RPG.net bashing thing (for one thing, were they up I already would've given their response a good thrashing over there), as I've definitely seen it in many other places as well. It just boggles my mind that people go to the lengths they do to pimp their pet whatever. My favorites are:

"Our system does x even though it has no properties that would allow it to do x in any way." (usually this is something like someone asking for a high fantasy game and someone pimping their modern rules set that has, oh, no magic rules. For example, you'll never see me pimping SilCore for most fantasy games - it can do it, but not right out of the box).

"Our system uses no math! You compare colors to resolve actions." (The system contains no arithmetic, but still contains math. And yes, to me this is an important distinction because it's true.)

I'll probably think of a few more...

Quote from: WilWhy do people do shit like that? Are they honestly dense enough to not realize they're nowhere near the topic being discussed?

No, and to be fair, it happens the other way with people offering up abstract conflict resolution systems when someone really wants a tactical combat system.  Basically, it's been my experience that most "suggest something that meets X criteria" threats turn into exercises of people simply suggesting their favorite thing whether it's close or not.  That's why I've always found such threads have a pretty high noise to signal ratio.

(For an example here, look at the thread titled "Fast-playing traditional games" and think about how many of the suggestions even try to fit into that category?)

Quote from: Consonant DudeI think there are really three things at work. This can be any of the three or a combination.

1-The person is just stubborn, or stupid or otherwise defective

2-The person has really not been exposed to RPG jargon, or to many roleplaying games. They confuse all sorts of issues.

3-The person is not comfortable speaking English

I leave it up to everyone what is acceptable or not but I know that #3 can lead to some pretty awkward situations when stuff gets lost in translation. So I am very understanding of that one. And I think #2 is harmless if the person is open to discussion. Heck, a lot of veteran gamers still confuse a lot of roleplaying issues and mix them together.

I was avoiding posting the whole thing, but here's the response:

Quote from: WilI think you misunderstood...the OP wasn't looking for combat resolution but conflict resolution. See jopub's post to get an idea of what the OP was talkign about. Can you explain how your system uses conflict resolution in that light?

Quote from: PersonI'm afraid I don't understand the difference, since I would never fuck over my players. That is simply uncouth, and, IMO, the mark of a bad GM. No system will prevent that, the GM has to correct his or herself.

The rules that we developed say failure is as important and often more interesting than success, because it ups the stakes and therefore increases the tension. We continue play no matter what, building on whatever happens. (Incidentally, this makes for grand character development, because PCs deal with a host of experiences and evolve in exciting ways.)

We highly advise the GM mentality that it is always possible for the PCs to win - it's just not guaranteed. We think that conflict should berole-played, however if it is settled with violence, there are extremely fast and efficient succeed/fail rules that will resolve combat with a high degree of lethality.

We definitely do not recommend rolling for every little thing, we recommend rolling when it's dramatically appropriate or a skill test is required.

As I said, this system was designed from playing multiple Blade Runner characters that often died in exceedingly meaningless or accidental ways. That was a big lesson in trying to create a balanced but dangerous combat system.

Also, a lot of systems we tested didn't allow for the drama in Blade Runner, and dragged rather than supporting an effective and speedy means of knowing whether the 6 threw you into the car window with one shot. We tried to create that reality with our system - usually whoever gets to act will succeed in one action if they get their dice roll.

However, if you must get crunchy, I would recommend using Cyberpunk 2020 hands-down

I believe the problem is #2 - but after another poster had described conflict resolution in pretty clear terms, there is some #1 in there as well.

Quote from: John MorrowNo, and to be fair, it happens the other way with people offering up abstract conflict resolution systems when someone really wants a tactical combat system.  Basically, it's been my experience that most "suggest something that meets X criteria" threats turn into exercises of people simply suggesting their favorite thing whether it's close or not.  That's why I've always found such threads have a pretty high noise to signal ratio.

(For an example here, look at the thread titled "Fast-playing traditional games" and think about how many of the suggestions even try to fit into that category?)

Oh, I'm definitely not saying it doesn't happen in all directions. And in some cases, I'm sure I'm part of it occasionally - however, what I'm pointing out is a gross misunderstanding. Like I said, mecha vs. buffalo.

Quote from: WilIt just boggles my mind that people go to the lengths they do to pimp their pet whatever. My favorites are:

[SNIP]

The one that really pushes my button is when someone asks about game suggestions for a specific genre and someone suggests a butt-ugly combination of 4-5 items in order to do that genre, when there are 20 or so games that would do it right off the bat.

"Oh, but you CAN do Star Wars using AFMBE+Angel+Magic Box+Terra Primate+old OOP WEG supplements!"

I just want to punch them hard when they do that.

Well, in some cases it's the truth.

To do WWII with d20 modern, you need d20 Modern, and the historical sourcebook.

To do GURPS WWII you really need WWII and probably High Tech.

To do WWII with Rolemaster you need Rolemaster or Spacemaster, Weapon Law Firearms, and Rolemaster Pulp Adventures.

There's probably something out there that'd let you do WWII with JANES guides, that would totally rock, but it sure isn't a one book solution.

Quote from: WilOh, I'm definitely not saying it doesn't happen in all directions. And in some cases, I'm sure I'm part of it occasionally - however, what I'm pointing out is a gross misunderstanding. Like I said, mecha vs. buffalo.

I'm not sure it's always a misunderstanding in that sense.  I think there is a certain amount of, "I don't want to talk about exactly what this person is asking for but there is something I like that's close that I do want to talk about so I'm going to talk about it here, even if it doesn't really fit," going on and always has been.

Quote from: Consonant DudeThe one that really pushes my button is when someone asks about game suggestions for a specific genre and someone suggests a butt-ugly combination of 4-5 items in order to do that genre, when there are 20 or so games that would do it right off the bat.

"Oh, but you CAN do Star Wars using AFMBE+Angel+Magic Box+Terra Primate+old OOP WEG supplements!"

I just want to punch them hard when they do that.

Or when they state a single game can do almost anything.  I remember when every genre idea had people saying "Use Cartoon Action Hour" or somesuch and would state a cartoon that was very loosely like the genre the person was looking for.

Use game x for anything, but ignore those that were made for it.  I don't buy into it.

Quote from: blakkieLast month at a resturaunt I had some bison tenderloin with this great saskatoon berry reduction. Highly recommend it.

Look, this fruit-based-sauce-elitism isn't doing any of us any favours. Can we just stick to basic seasoning and be done with it? It is about what matters, after all. The right combination of salt and pepper and a little butter is all it takes, really.

- Q