Conflict Resolution

Mechanism · VII – Confrontation & Control immediate · irreversible / conditional · open / concealed · competitive / asymmetric

Conflict Resolution decides confrontations between colliding claims: a resolution procedure (comparison, combat, vote) determines winners and losers.

Design question – When two agents in your game want the same thing – which procedure determines the outcome?

Reference example – Risk: attacker and defender roll, the highest dice are compared in pairs. Street Fighter: two fighters battle until one health bar is empty. Rock, paper, scissors: show at the same time, the ranking decides. The Crew (Trick-Taking) · Kemet (Bid-Based Combat) · Twilight Struggle (Tug of War)

Structural pattern

Input -> transformation -> output: colliding claims (conflict) become winner and loser (decision) via a resolution procedure (comparison, combat, vote).

Regulated in permitting mode (retreat; escalate), constraining mode (who may take part; number of escalation levels) and conditioning mode (a quantity such as strength, card value or die result is compared; gains and losses follow, including the Pyrrhic victory). In a game, the compared values become specifications.

Design parameters

• Determinism – fully deterministic ↔ chance-based/hybrid
• Information – open comparison ↔ hidden stake/bluff
• Consequence – access right ↔ elimination
• Symmetry – symmetric ↔ asymmetric (attacker/defender)
• Escalation – one-off ↔ war of attrition
• Cost – free for the winner ↔ costly for both

Related Mechanisms

• Selection (MEC-07) – Frequently combined: choose the stake.
• Randomization (MEC-20) – Frequently combined: dice in combat.
• Investment (MEC-21) – Frequently combined: commit forces.
• Capture / Elimination (MEC-24) – Frequently combined: consequence of the loss.

Ludic Organisational Structures

Territory · Combat System (core) · Hierarchy · Faction System · Alliance System (dynamic)