So, in Dogs, you just keep on going until someone taps out. We're talking conflicts here. But Poison'd says at three rounds, we stop. Apocalypse World, too, if you use the combat moves, they give you the clock countdown and say, after a certain limit, we stop. In a Wicked Age says this as well: after three rounds, stop.
A few questions about that, Vincent!
1) Is there a reason for that? Talking about design here, what is it about conflict in these games that made you say, "these shouldn't keep going. I want to come to a decisive winner after three rounds," or whatever.
2) Why doesn't Dogs worry about that, but later games do? Dogs can keep going as long as they have dice as ammo. I'm betting this isn't a general game design statement and it's more situated with each individual game, but I don't know these things until I ask. Dogs can escalate forever and ever (as long as dice are there), but you can't do that in Poison'd or IAWA.
3) If the answer to the first question is anything along the lines of, "I don't dig when conflict just goes on and on and on back and forth and wanted to avoid that," then can you elaborate more on that? Do you feel it's bad design, or that it gets old and boring? In your opinion, and broadly, of course, not accounting for every game ever.
4) What do you think the three-round structure solves about conflict and about back-and-forths, if anything?
I'm tinkering with a game that goes back and forth repeatedly and these games came to mind!