Resolution Analysis

I’ve been wanting to make a few notes on this topic for some little while. Basically, in reading more and more of these indie games that try to make the destinction clear – especially in conflict resolution mechanics and stake setting, there’s an interesting flow built into every resolution system, that seems to legitimately say something about the game and it’sworld.

First of all, when does a roll¹ happen? It seems to me that a roll occurs as a the grown-up equivalent of “nuh-uh!, noyadidn’t!” that happens in the children’s game Let’s Pretend. Ultimately, you don’t roll unless some player is calling your declared action into question. Well, sometimes you roll pre-emptively, to prove your authority to control the game. A GM might call for a roll because he finds the proposed course of action implausible, or wants to emphasize the danger and risk involved, or to resist the inexorable advance of the players². Another player might call for a roll because he sees his character as in conflict with the first.

Secondly, how does the roll interact with the game world? For instance, when and to what degree is the character committed to his player’s declaration? One important impact on this whole thought is Fortune in the Middle, since a player doesn’t need to commit much before the roll, except the barest outline of his intention.

An important aspect of the relationship between a risk³ in the gameworld and the roll that resolves it is the point at which the player can back out clean. In some games (both as designed and as played), a player can say at any time up to the actual roll, “Maybe that’s not such a good idea. Never mind.” The other end of the spectrum is that once you’ve declared your action, you’re going through with it, even if during the course of resolution, you discover that there’s a difference between how chancy you thought it was and how chancy it is. In between is the idea that a declaration is half an action; that your character will have revealed his intentions, even if you decide to back down.

Resolution mechanics are one of the bridges between player and character,and between the real world and the game world. They tell us a lot about what the relationship between a player and a character should be. If resolution is frequent, task based, only called for by the GM, and declaration is a commitment, then the implied relationship is very close. Players are meant to feel as if they’re seeing out of the eyes of their characters. When resolution is less frequent, is conflict based, commitment to action comes later in resolution, and right to call for a roll is shared by all participants, the implied relationship is more distant, almost over-the-shoulder of the characters – possibly not even identifying with any of them. Adjusting along that line seems quite straightforward, and it’s worthwhile for a designer to look at what they want in their game and plan resolution accordingly.

I guess what I’m trying to get at is the idea that any resolution mechanic follows a flow of attention from the game world, to the real world and back again. It’s how the mechanic manipulates that flow that determines in a large part how successful⁴ a mechanic it is.

¹ I’ll use “roll” as a shorthand for the whole “task and/or conflict resolution, with or without dice or other randomizers” echillada.

² In fact, the variety and general fuzziness of why a roll can becalled for is one of the things that sets RPGs aside from board games. In a board game, all the players are have a set of conditions for rolls (call the Rules), which they’ve agreed to abide by. In an RPG, the conditions of the call are less clear.

³ Again, this is a shorthand. I’m quite aware that not every resolution is related to something that’s risky – but ultimately if there aren’t two paths, or success and failure, or even better and worse, why roll? Well, that’s a whole different matter.

⁴ Success being judged in this case in a fairly deconstructive wayhere, based on the supposed intentions of the designer.