Here are some prominent RPG systems I know of that have no rules for resolving chases/pursuits in a way that would make for a satisfying chariot race:
* AD&D (the dungeon pursuit rules just compare movement rates,; the outdoor evasion rules are not relevant to chariot races);
* B/X D&D (ditto);
* Classic Traveller (the referee would have to make up some rules based around the vehicle skill);
* Rolemaster (there are rules for resolving vehicular manoeuvres, but not in the context of a race - the GM would have to make up a system for opposed checks);
* I think RQ also has the RM problem, but I'm a bit less confident about that as it's been a while.
In all of these cases it'd almost certainly come down to a series of dice rolls, maybe modified by various factors e.g. track position, skill, willingness to cheat in the race, etc.
I have no idea what you mean by "resolved in finality". I mean something fairly concrete - an outcome to the present fictional situation is established, by application of the resolution mechanics, and is binding on all participants, most saliently in this context the GM.
Gygax's morale rules in his DMG assume this sort of finality, inherited from wargaming: if a unit breaks than the player controlling it can't just arbitrarily (eg in the absence of some sort of "rally" mechanic) decide that it returns to the fight.
Yeah, this is part of why I'm not a huge fan of those rules and rarely use them.
I also don't use the RAW for how a hench reacts to the treatment given by the employer, instead reacting as that particular character would as a free-willed individual.
Classic Traveller in its rules for NPC reaction rolls expressly provides for finality. From p 23 of the 1977 version:
Reactions are used by the referee and by players as a guide to the probable actions of individuals. . . . Reactions govern the reliability and quality of hirelings and employees. Generally, they would re-roll reactions in the fact of extremely bad treatment or unusually dangerous tasks
The GM can't just decide that a NPC changes his/her mind after the reaction is rolled for. Something significant in the fiction, initiated by the players (eg bad treatment, dangerous task) is required.
If nothing is binding on the GM, then nothing is
character driven via the actual mechanical processes of play as described in the OP. There is only the GM deciding what happens.
If a PC can change its mind (and I'm pretty hard line that, absent controlling mechanics, it can) then an NPC can also change its mind; which is why binding rolls are IMO a very bad idea.
In a different RM campaign a PC met a sorcerer on another plane and helped rescue her. He then set out to woo and marry her. In the end he succeeded in this endeavour, the player having built up the PC's social skills sufficiently to make it possible.
Had the sorcerer been another PC would this have been handled any differently? If yes, there's a problem.
In our Prince Valiant game one of the PCs started play as a squire - the son of a moderately prosperous bourgeois family - and wanted to be knighted. He achieved this by challenging a knight to a joust who was blocking the path and would relent only if defeated in a joust by a fellow knight:
That's a mark made on the gameworld, in virtue of finality of resolution.
It is, but why did it need any rolling? Sir Lionheart was an NPC, right? If he - in your judgment as SL's player - is impressed enough with this squire (via how the squire's been roleplayed) to knight him on the spot then just do it. If not, don't do it; or have SL say something encouraging to the squire as he passes: "You're brave, squire, I'll give you that. When next we meet I fully expect we will joust."
Different systems approach this in different ways:
* In Burning Wheel, this can and normally should be resolved via a Duel of Wits;
* In MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic it can be resolved via the use of the standard resolution mechanics (this happened in our game on Sunday when the dwarf tried to dress down Gandalf but failed, and Gandalf instead mad him feel ashamed of questioning a wizard's judgement);
* In 4e D&D there is no system for player vs player social conflict, which takes this mostly out of the ambit of character-driven arcs;
* In Apocalypse World a player can't force another player to have his/her PC do something, but can make doing something difficult and/or create mechanical incentives (ie XP awards) to do something else.
And all of these violate the freedom of players to roleplay their characters, which makes them all - simply put - bad.
In those last two games, the rules are different vs NPCs: 4e D&D has pretty robust mechanics for the players to have their PCs force their will upon NPCs; and Apocalypse World does also. Here's the AW move:
Seduce or Manipulate
When you try to seduce or manipulate someone, tell them what you want and roll+hot. For NPCs: on a hit, they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise. On a 10+, whether you keep your promise is up to you, later. On a 7–9, they need some concrete assurance right now. For PCs: on a 10+, both. On a 7–9, choose 1:
• if they do it, they mark experience
• if they refuse, it’s acting under fire
What they do then is up to them.
All these differences affect the play experience.
And not for the better. Just as a GM can't* take the right to play a character away from a player, the game shouldn't be allowed to either. If I try to manipulate or persuade another PC to do something (e.g. chip in toward a castle) it's on the player of that PC to respond in character.
* - again, absent control mechanics etc.
Once (and as best I recall only once) in our 4e game, when debate about what to do next had dragged on to a point beyond decency, I called for opposed d20 checks, I think with adds on each side reflecting CHA bonuses.
Twice in our Classic Traveller game I've called for opposed checks to settle a debate between the PCs (being played out at the table) with modifiers reflecting noble status (ie Social Standing B+) and Leadership skill.
And here's exactly what I'm talking about:
the GM has to allow however long it takes for these debates to play out. They're still arguing three sessions later? Fine. Put yer feet up and let 'em have at it.
Sooner or later the debate will resolve itself in character, and yes this might mean the party splits in two if they truly can't agree what to do next or in what sequence. Been there, done that, it's part of the game.
