Active/Reactive Conflict Description

by Oliver Granger (oliver @ watergoesred .net)

ARC is an opposed action resolution system based around the Fudge system of simultaneous combat rounds. It is designed for the simulation of any conflict situation, for those who don't mind their Fudge a little crunchy. Indeed, the spirit of ARC may be harnessed by those who have a taste for less rules in their descriptions, but I'm not going to explore that possibility here.

The way most combat systems deal with initiative is as a randomising factor at the beginning of each round. Sometimes initiative is set at the beginning of a combat and the same value carried on through consecutive rounds. Nonetheless, most initiative results have dramatically little effect on a conflict situation and the few that do their effects appear random and unrelated to the events of the conflict. This is, to my mind at least, unlike real conflict where getting the initiative through planning or skill is as much a part of winning a conflict as sheer luck.

I like the Fudge system for simultaneous combat because of its simplicity. It has a neat solution to the initiative dilemma: solve the action of opponents simultaneously. A successful action for one combatant means a successful offense and defense for them and a simultaneous failure in defense and offense for their opponent. At first I thought that had to be the best solution, no place and no need for a clunky initiative randomizer. Yet I was not satisfied.

I wanted to integrate the notion of initiative into the heart of conflict, to use initiative not as a randomizer but as another way of describing conflict. So I made ARC for those who want a little more strategy in their conflict resolution and who don't mind a bit of crunchiness getting it.

Offensive/Defensive Stances

Fudge presents offensive/defensive tactics in which each opponent chooses a stance before the start of a round: a normal stance, an offensive stance, or a defensive stance. An offensive or defensive stance increases a conflict skill in one aspect (offense or defense) and decreases the same skill by an equal amount in the other aspect. The five basic options for stances are:

• +2 to offense, -2 to defense
• +1 to offense, -1 to defense
• Normal offense and defense
• -1 to offense, +1 to defense
• -2 to offense, +2 to defense

The choice of stance is decided on and then each combatant makes a single Opposed action roll. The rolled result is then modified for both offense and defense accordingly. The offensive result of each combatant is then compared to the defensive result of their opponent.

Active/Reactive Opposition

My idea for opposition came from the thought that, typically, at any one moment in a conflict, someone has the advantage, the upper hand, the initiative. Having the upper hand means that a combatant is not hindered or limited much by their opponent. This generally means they are capable of successfully initiating action as well as of resisting the actions of their opponent. That is, they can be on the offensive and the defensive simultaneously. Obviously, this is the way they should be: working at their best.

Unfortunately, combatants do get caught on the back foot. And this equates to being hindered or limited in some way by one's opponent. And this means that a combatant can only do one thing properly at a time, usually defend themselves, unless they are particularly tough or foolhardy and forgo any defense for an all-out attack.

ARC introduces a new tactic: active/reactive opposition. Unlike offensive/defensive stances, a combatant cannot directly choose whether they are actively or reactively opposing (active or reactive for short). Instead their opposition is decided by the success of their opposed action. If a combatant is successful in an opposed action (+1 or higher) then they will become or remain in active opposition (getting or keeping the upper hand). Likewise if they fail an opposed action (-1 or lower) they will become or remain reactive (getting or staying caught on the back foot). If an opposed action is a stand-off (a 0 result) then the status quo continues and so the combatant remains in their current opposition.

Opposition affects which offensive/defensive stances a combatant has available to choose. That is, combatants cannot always choose the offensive/defensive stance they want.

When in active opposition a combatant can choose any of the five Fudge options (though some claim the extreme ±2 stances produce results too wild to be credible). However, when in reactive opposition a combatant cannot choose any of the five Fudge options. Rather the reactive combatant can only choose to be in one of the two following reactive stances:

• normal offense, -2 defense
• normal defense, -2 offense

Note that active opposition is determined by successful opposed action. Potentially, any opposed action in a conflict could determine opposition, including actions that are not directly offensive or defensive. What other actions are possible I leave open but as an example an active combatant might be able to perform an action (like a strategic maneuver) by dropping their offense yet still maintaining their defense. Such capacity, however, would not be available to a reactive combatant who might have to give up both offense and defense to perform a non-conflict action (like running away).

The Circumstances of Conflict

When one combatant is active the other need not necessarily be reactive or when one is reactive the other need not necessarily be active. That is, both combatants can be simultaneously active or simultaneously reactive. For Fudge offensive/defensive stances allow for both combatants to be offensively or defensively successful simultaneously. And it is through the success or failure of their actions that combatants become active or reactive.

If both combatants are simultaneously successful in offense or simultaneously in defense should both attain active opposition? Or rather, because both also failed simultaneously, should they both attain reactive opposition?

To answer this we should look at the circumstances of the conflict. At the start of a conflict the opposition of each combatant must be decided. Whereas once the conflict is in motion the combatants opposition is decided by their actions, before it starts their opposition must be decided by other means.

Take two equal combatants on equal ground, both with the intention to fight the other. An example of this could be two equally matched boxers in a boxing ring at the start of a prizefight. Both boxers might be considered to have active opposition because of the circumstances of the conflict.

Here are some questions that could be asked about the circumstances of a conflict.

• Position
  • Where is the conflict?
  • Is one combatant in a better position for offense or defense?
  • Is one in their natural environment or in their hometown?
  • Does the environment hinder or help either combatant?
• Intention
  • Why is there a conflict?
  • Are both aware they will fight right now?
  • Is one currently occupied with something important?
  • Is one better prepared?
• Perception
  • How does a combatant perceive their opponent?
  • What knowledge do they have of them and what misconceptions?
  • What emotions do their opponent stir?
  • How do they perceive the conflict should end?

These questions of the circumstances of a conflict are just a few possible examples. What is important to note is that what they are all aimed at is a question of control: Is one combatant in more control of the conflict and its circumstances? This is essentially what active/reactive opposition attempts to describe. If one combatant has something over the other, has the upper hand, then the advantaged combatant might start the conflict in active opposition and their opponent in reactive.

So back to our original question: because simultaneously successful combatants have both gained some success neither has gained more control of the conflict and its circumstances. So if both combatants simultaneously succeed in offense or simultaneously in defense then their opposition will not have changed and the status quo, their current opposition status, will continue.

Another use for the conflict circumstances is for allowing combatants to indirectly change their opposition status. Changes in the positions of combatant, their intentions to fight, or their perception of their opponent could change the circumstance of the conflict and thus change the combatant's opposition. This lets strategic maneuvering, careful dropping of gossip, or the discovery of an opponent's weakness have the potential to directly affect the conflict. The possibility of gaining a tangible advantage in a conflict by means other than offensive action should allow a conflict to be less of a slugfest and more of a dynamic and sprawling grasp for control.

Opposition Modifiers

As often is the case, a simple dualism like active/reactive, is not fine-grained enough. So a way to fine-tune differences in opposition is to modify when opposition changes.

Opposition modifiers could be used in place of modifiers for skill or used in place of deciding different initial opposition for combatants. The giving of an opposition modifier might be decided by contesting a trait of each combatant that is relevant to the conflict. Or an opposition modifier could be given by looking at what the circumstances of the conflict offer each combatant.

An opposition modifier can give a combatant an advantage (or disadvantage) that is not as overwhelming as giving them active opposition over their opponent or as powerful as other combat bonuses like a permanent +1 to offense. Here are two methods for opposition modification.

Utility Modifiers

The first method is to modify where opposition changes and where it remains the same. I called it the Utility Modifier because it changes how effectively combatants utilise the results of their actions.

Normally +1 action result is needed to become active, -1 to become reactive, and 0 for the current status quo to remain. This could be changed, for example, by removing the point of status quo so 0 result would be either an active or a reactive. Here are some examples:

Modifier	active	status quo	reactive	effect
Standard Utility	<-- +1	0	-1 -->
Half Utility	<-- +2	+1 <--> -1	-2 -->	opposition change harder
Active Utility	<--0		-1 -->	easier to become active, no status quo
Active Half Utility	<-- +1	0 <--> -1	-2 -->	harder to become reactive
Reactive Utility	<-- +1		0 -->	easier to become reactive, no status quo
Reactive Half Utility	<-- +2	+1 <--> 0	-1 -->	harder to become active

Utility modifiers are useful for longer-term and larger scale advantages, better for describing differences in combatant's skills and traits. For example, a utility modifier is well suited for major differences in combatant speed, where the faster combatant might be given active utility and their slower opponent reactive utility.

Advantage Modifiers

The second method involves moving the transition point of opposition.

Normally the transition point for opposition is 0; above or below that point opposition changes. An advantage modifier essentially moves that point up or down, thus making it easier to become either reactive or active.

An advantage modifier works by adding the modifier to an action result but only for the purpose of deciding whether that action will change the combatant's opposition; it does not actually affect the success or failure of the action result. For example, if a combatant has an advantage of +2, and an action result of -1, the +2 advantage is added to -1 action result to give +1. The combatant's action result remains -1 but their advantage modifier virtually increases that to +1. So instead of their action result making them reactive, with their advantage modifier they become or remain active. If the same combatant then had an action result of -2 that would, with their +2 advantage, result in their remaining active because their advantage modifier would virtually increase their action result to 0.

An advantage modifier is slightly different from a utility modifier, for whereas a utility modifier effectively expands or contracts the field of opposition transition, an advantage modifier simply slides it up or down. In some ways this makes advantage modifiers easier to implement quickly, well suited for describing sudden changes in the conflict's circumstances. For example, an advantage modifier is well suited for describing a combatant being on higher ground than their opponent, providing +1 advantage.

Tactical Rewards

A more radical use for opposition modifiers is as a tactical reward for successful opposed action.

A successful offensive action is typically rewarded by a certain level and type of damage inflicted upon one's opponent and a successful defensive action by the thwarting of an opponent's offense and the deflection of damage. ARC also rewards a successful action with active opposition and a failing action with reactive opposition.

Still, no matter how successful a defender is the best they can attain from successful defensive action is to not get damaged, to remain active, and to keep their opponent reactive. And a successful offender can, at best, hope to inflict damage (possibly of lethal quantity), to remain active, and to keep their opponent reactive. Therefore, in the spirit of expanding the strategic options of conflict, perhaps a highly successful action could be rewarded with an opposition modifier.

First, to be tactically rewarded a combatant must be successful in their opposed action. Tactical rewarding may require a success of at least +2 or +3 (I'm not entirely sure how high a level of success will work).

Second, the tactical stance of the combatant determines the tactical reward:

• A highly successful defense while in a defensive stance rewards the combatant with a +1 advantage modifier.

• A highly successful offense while in an offensive or normal stance rewards the combatant's opponent with a -1 advantage if the successful offender foregoes inflicting damage. (Whether all damage should be foregone or just a level or two of damage is a question requiring experimentation. Some may not agree with any forgoing of damage but I think damage should not have to always be the result of an offense. The offender should be given a choice of strategies. And heaping more punishment on a failed defense by inflicting damage and -1 advantage also seems unfair and unnecessary.)

In this way, tactical rewards combine action result, opposition modification, and tactical stance. One consequence is it provides a reason for broader tactical use of defensive and offensive stances. Importantly, it also prevents combatant's actions from being rewarded dual success, that is simultaneous offensive and defensive success, and thus from them accumulating dual advantage.

Another interesting effect is if two opponents achieve successful actions simultaneously, one of the combatants could still indirectly gain more control over the conflict by gaining a tactical reward for their greater success in action and their fortuitous choice in stance.

Ultimately though, what tactical rewards mean is that success in a conflict has as much to do with strategies for gaining control of the conflict and its circumstances as it does with inflicting or deflecting damage. Of course, the inflicting or deflecting of damage involves some measure of control over a conflict but this control is at best simplistic and brutish. Focusing on controlling conflict only through damage can result in a lack of finesse, where tough skin and a bloody attitude are the only things that can amount to anything.

And the Winner is...

ARC is designed to use initiative as another way of describing conflict. That is, using initiative not merely as a randomizer but as another means of describing and resolving conflict. Indeed, hopefully this additional description will encourage more detailed conflict and provide a broader range of ways of resolving conflicts. Hopefully, ARC will provide more incentive for creative involvement in conflict resolution by providing an extra level of strategy. Players will no longer be able to simply fall back on the abilities of their characters to resolve conflicts, when tangible advantages can be gained through the strategic manipulation of the circumstances of conflict.