Quote from: warren(Nevermind)

But what if I want to mind?

Just kidding...you've been very helpful in this thread and I think that semantics more than playstyle separate our views (not that there aren't differences in playstyle).

Thanks again for the exchange.

warren, I think you are my hero.

Quote from: jhkimThe thing is, this has always been a basic part of traditional resolution.

I think that Conflict Resolution is a pretty traditional method of game play.  It's not a "Forgie" thing; people have been doing it for years.

Quote from: FeanorBut this is what drew me to the question at the start. If they are NOT mutually exclusive, what exactly is different about them?

They are mutually exclusive.

One resolves the character's conflict of interest.

One doesn't.

Thanks for the response I'm going to go back to the OP and try to answer that clearly:

You have got 'pure' TR systems on one hand (I wouldn't put D&D 3.5 in this category, actually; see why later. I've not played it, but stuff like Savage Worlds sounds like it could lie here) that rules-wise deals with if a character can perform an action. The actions a character performs are pretty nailed down. When to roll, converting the effect of these actions in the gameworld (and therefore if the character actually gets what he wanted) is left up to the GM (and any GM advice in the book).

On the other hand, you have 'pure' CR systems (Primetime Adventures and The Mountain Witch spring to mind). Rules-wise all the system deals with is if a character gets what he wants. How that happens, and what actions the character performs, and how well, is left completely open, and the GM (and often players) can describe whatever they like (subject to veto by the GM or the group, usually) as long as it ends up with the goal being fulfilled (or not, obviously).

Note that in the "King & cleric" example, what actually happened in the game is left very open. In an opposed D&D Diplomacy check (or a James Bond Persuade check for that matter) where what happened to get the result is fixed. You couldn't (as I understand the rules) describe a victory in those systems as "The cleric jumps up onto the throne before the guards have time to react, and puts his hidden knife to the King's throat. The King slowly nods and agrees to the cleric's demands." or "The cleric turns his back on the King, who outraged by this breach of protocol gets the guards to beat the cleric black and blue in front of him. Later that evening, however, the King's guilty conscience makes him give the church the money." In a pure CR system, both of those would be perfectly fine.

And between these two extremes you have got systems which nail down some parts of both actions and goals. Some are on the CR side: Dogs in the Vineyard, for example where you work out if you are going to get your goals mechanically by performing actions against your opposition (Raising & Seeing) using a dice pool. But at the end of it, if you run out of dice in your pool, you have to give up on your goal, and you don't get what you want. So actions and goals are covered, but the actions are just there to help you win your goal. It still follows CR, but the 'roll' is actually made up of lots of little 'raises', and the result gives us more stuff than just who managed to win what goal.

There is a similar blend that's more to the TR side as well (James Bond, and I would suggest some parts of D&D 3.5). You perform an action using the system, but the overall effects of that action on the gameworld are explicit and mechanical (like Bluff checks, in D&D, for example, or John Kim's example above). But this approach seems to be less explicit about rolling only "when there is a conflict of interest" (instead when there is "something to be gained or lost" or something; slightly different) and this way still looks at the action first (I will persuade him (roll) success! So he won't kill me!) rather than the goal first (I don't want him to kill me (roll) success! I persuaded him not to.)

It's a matter of focus, I think: Do the rules focus on resolving the conflicts of interest themselves, or the component tasks within it?

I don't know if this helps, but that's pretty much my take on it.

Quote from: LostSoulI think that Conflict Resolution is a pretty traditional method of game play.  It's not a "Forgie" thing; people have been doing it for years.

Well, in a way, this is my point - although I come at it from a different angle.  I would ask, if that if so, were they doing it in the early days of gaming?  How long have they been doing it?  Were people playing this way when there were only (what woud now be called, almost derisively in some circles) Task Resolution Systems?

Yes. Close to 20 years according to my own experience (see below). Yes.

That conclusion leads to my assertion.  That from a resolution  mechanic perspective, they are not mutually exclusive. It's why I don't agree with the next statement.

Quote from: LostSoulThey are mutually exclusive.

One resolves the character's conflict of interest.

One doesn't.

Both resolution "systems" can handle both, it largely depends on the style of play chosen by those involved.  Are there cases where system choose, or lend themselves better, to one focus or another? Do systems focus on levels of specificity, requiring people to change them to fit the style of play of the group?  Yes and Yes - welcome to House Rules.

warren, while not my hero  I really appreciate you participation.  You sure do know quite a few games.

Quote from: warrenNote that in the "King & cleric" example, what actually happened in the game is left very open. In an opposed D&D Diplomacy check (or a James Bond Persuade check for that matter) where what happened to get the result is fixed. You couldn't (as I understand the rules) describe a victory in those systems as "The cleric jumps up onto the throne before the guards have time to react, and puts his hidden knife to the King's throat. The King slowly nods and agrees to the cleric's demands." or "The cleric turns his back on the King, who outraged by this breach of protocol gets the guards to beat the cleric black and blue in front of him. Later that evening, however, the King's guilty conscience makes him give the church the money." In a pure CR system, both of those would be perfectly fine.

Having watched, and in a couple of rare instances played in, a few games like this, I'd again assert that what are now called TR systems find this perfectly fine - assuming that's the way those involved choose to play.  These games were in 1987 or so I don't think CR had been developed yet - as a mutually exclusive concept anyway. About the only difference I can see between this and actual play from beck then is if the player of the cleric did not like the idea of being beaten black and blue. That player might request it to be changed to "forcefully thrown from the palace" or the two might have another conflict on their hands.

Quote from: warrenBut this approach seems to be less explicit about rolling only "when there is a conflict of interest" (instead when there is "something to be gained or lost" or something; slightly different) and this way still looks at the action first (I will persuade him (roll) success! So he won't kill me!) rather than the goal first (I don't want him to kill me (roll) success! I persuaded him not to.)

Fantastic!  With all of the examples we've tossed back and forth, from Vincent Baker's thief/safe to our own ship-sailing-away, this one gets to the crux of the issue. This is going to take a moment, so please bear with me.

• A player wants X (I'm using the positive form, instead of "I don't want X)


• In order to obtain X, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to obtain X. This must be the case, or we are in a completely separate world of issues.
  
  
• The mechanic is applied and determines if the player gets X or not.

How do these two examples fit?

• Both examples start with the player wanting the same thing,  that is, another entity will not kill the players character.
  
  
• Both examples then determine the character's chance of success.  The difference in this case is that process is implied in the second example, but it must be the case or the roll and success that follow are meaningless.
  
  
• Both examples then apply the mechanic to determine success or failure.

What's different?  Well, in the first example, the determination of how is explicit.  Since the player chose for the character to attempt to persuade, that's the how.  In the second example, the how is determined after.  It's quite possible that it's implied in step two of our list, the determination of the chance of success, but that makes our two examples even more alike. So where does the "how" take place? In the player's narration of the event. It has to be that way, or there is nothing different about the two.

In your examples, it's too simplified to see how this makes a difference. Since the player in the second example chose the same "how" as the player in the first example, it seems to be the same.  But what if the player had said, instead, "Before he gets to me, I pull a knife, hold it to his throat, and persuade him not to kill me."?  This might (read: will) set off all kinds of red flags in traditional role-playing, but might be (read: is) fine in shared-narrative story games.  And that's where the difference lies.

Conflict Resolution is really shorthand for a resolution system that focuses on facilitation of shared story building games that require the GM to relinquish story control, not adventure games (as Settembrini aptly names them).  This is fine, but confusing.  Perhaps Narration Resolution would be a better term? This would imply a distinction far better then most descriptions/examples.

Narration Resolution
A Technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on conflicts in narration, rather than on the capabilities of characters to perform tasks. This technique is designed to facilitate collaborative plot control, allowing players to share in creating the fiction of the adventure setting. This technique requires the GM share control of the fiction with players.

Task Resolution
A Technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on within-game cause/effect in terms of whether the character is able to perform a task or acheive a goal. The specificity of the task is a function of the specific resolution system and thus can very greatly. This technique assumes GM control of the fiction, but allows for sharing of narration control if desired.

I would assume that RPGPundit would say that Narration Resolution is not the preferred subject of theory debate here.

Quote from: FeanorPerhaps Narration Resolution would be a better term?

I can certainly see the case for it. Arguably all RPG rules are more or less about "conflict resolution".

Quote from: FeanorHaving watched, and in a couple of rare instances played in, a few games like this, I'd again assert that what are now called TR systems find this perfectly fine - assuming that's the way those involved choose to play. These games were in 1987 or so I don't think CR had been developed yet - as a mutually exclusive concept anyway.

I would say that they have drifted the rules away from those as written and more to a CR way of doing things (before the terms were invented, of course). At the fundamental level "roll d20, add a number, highest wins" is the same across TR & CR. It's when to make the roll, what is agreed upfront before the roll, and what effects the outcome of that roll has on the game, and how much of that is up to GM judgement and how much is strictly mechanical that move things into one camp or the other. What the roll means to the game, in other words.

Quote from: FeanorAbout the only difference I can see between this and actual play from beck then is if the player of the cleric did not like the idea of being beaten black and blue. That player might request it to be changed to "forcefully thrown from the palace" or the two might have another conflict on their hands.

Yeah a lot of CR systems would handle that kind of player request in various ways as well. I just went for the simplest example

Quote from: Feanor

• A player wants X (I’m using the positive form, instead of “I don’t want X)


• In order to obtain X, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to obtain X. This must be the case, or we are in a completely separate world of issues.
  
  
• The mechanic is applied and determines if the player gets X or not.

I'd buy that; but this is what I see as the difference. 'Expanding' your list for a pure TR system, this is what I see happening:

• A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He can keep it secret if he wants.


• A player 'translates' his desire into an appropriate (series) of tasks for his character - let's call that task Y ("I'll persuade him"). He has to tell the GM this.
  
  
• In order to perform Y, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to do Y.


• The mechanic is applied and determines if the character does Y or not.


• The GM* describes what happened, taking into account the results of Y and the current situation. Or, if Y is failed, the GM* comes up with the consequences of failure (which could be "nothing happens", or it could be "take 10d6 falling damage", or whatever) and applies them. (You can see this as translating the effects of action Y back into "did X happen", if you like)

* Subnote: This can just be GM skills, or it can be GM + specific rules, like Bluff checks in D&D 3.5 or Persuasion in the James Bond RPG or whatever.

• Depending on how good the translation from X->Y->X went, the player may or may not have got his original X, even if he succeeded. In the case of failure, the consequences are not always known to the player when he started his action by telling the GM 'Y'.

In CR, there is less translation:

• A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He has to tell the GM this.
  
  
• Another character must want to prevent or interfere with X by wanting Z ("I want to stay as rich as possible"). If not, we are done, the player gets X and somebody describes what happened.


• In order to obtain X against Z, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to obtain X against Z.


• The mechanic is applied and determines if the player gets X or not, as well as if the other guy gets his Z or not.


• The GM (or sometimes players, depending on system) describes what happened, taking into account the results of X & Z (and maybe other restrictions that steps 3 & 4 might apply).

Quote from: FeanorIn your examples, it’s too simplified to see how this makes a difference. Since the player in the second example chose the same “how” as the player in the first example, it seems to be the same.  But what if the player had said, instead, “Before he gets to me, I pull a knife, hold it to his throat, and persuade him not to kill me.”?

Um... what examples are you talking about here. I'm getting confused

Quote from: FeanorConflict Resolution is really shorthand for a resolution system that focuses on facilitation of shared story building games that require the GM to relinquish story control, not adventure games (as Settembrini aptly names them).  This is fine, but confusing.

Now I don't get this. Look at what John said about the 007 game:

Quote from: jhkimNote what's happening here: the GM states the difficulty, but if the player succeeds, then Goldfinger is convinced. Yes, you can posit that the GM could say "You succeeded, but Goldfinger kills you anyway". However, that's not what the rules say. The rules say that if you succeed in your Persuasion roll, the NPC agrees to what you're asking.

Surely that rule requires the GM to relinquish as much story control as he would with a CR system? The NPCs can be 'pushed around' in a mechanically supported way by PC actions in either case.

Quote from: FeanorTask Resolution
A Technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on within-game cause/effect in terms of whether the character is able to perform a task or achieve a goal. The specificity of the task is a function of the specific resolution system and thus can very greatly. This technique assumes GM control of the fiction, but allows for sharing of narration control if desired.

Sounds good to me.

Quote from: FeanorNarration Resolution
A Technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on conflicts in narration, rather than on the capabilities of characters to perform tasks. This technique is designed to facilitate collaborative plot control, allowing players to share in creating the fiction of the adventure setting. This technique requires the GM share control of the fiction with players.

Close. First off, I don't get this "conflicts in narration". If you had said "conflicts of interest", yep.

"This technique is designed to facilitate collaborative plot control, allowing players to share in creating the fiction of the adventure setting." I don't think it was designed for that purpose; as you have pointed out, people had been using forms of CR long before the name came along. I like CR as it is more explicit, for one thing & everything at stake is known and "on the table" before the dice are thrown. Works for Vegas, works for me

"This technique requires the GM share control of the fiction with players." I'll accept to a certain extent, but I don't think that this is really very different to TR + a good GM. If a GM totally ignores what the players are doing, and the gameworld does not change in any way in response to their actions, I would say that he is a bad GM. Hell, it's against the rules to ignore the effects of tasks in some TR systems (the Persuade check in 007, for example). Perhaps the TR definition should add "This technique works best when the GM allows the players to alter the fiction through their characters actions."

And I still prefer the term Conflict Resolution

Quote from: FeanorI would assume that RPGPundit would say that Narration Resolution is not the preferred subject of theory debate here.

I'd best shut up now then

I still think Eero put it most cogently:

QuoteConflict: a decision-point in a narrative where the different ways the story could go carry thematic meaning. In nar terms, the conflict is a vector for a Premise, and resolving it answers the premise.
Task: events of a story, in general.
.....................
The key property of those definitions is that while tasks happen because of SIS congruity ("realism", in other words), conflicts are caused by the artist (players) perceiving premise-weight in a task.  That premise-weight is our problem, and the reason for the need to differentiate between task and conflict resolution: to create a good story (that is, to play satisfying narrativism), you need to be able to create and resolve those conflicts. A story is good if it has good conflicts, it's that simple. Conflict resolution rules, as they are called, allow us to introduce and resolve conflicts, and thus create a good story. Without conflict resolution rules there is no guarantee that conflicts even happen, much less that they get resolved.

Short sidetrack: I'm saying above that conflicts are just tasks with Premise-weight attached. This means that "winning the fight" or "impressing the lady" or whatever are always only tasks, and become conflicts only when they have that meaning. Like, "winning the fight to end the war" or "impressing the lady to love her and leave her" are conflicts. This is probably clear to you all, but I emphasize it anyway: the distinction between conflict and task is not about f***ing scale or stakes or anything at all, it's about story meaning only. Every task can potentially carry conflicts, and no task is always a conflict task. (Hmm... protagonist suicide is a conflict in almost all cases...)

To repeat the earlier bit of Eero's post that I quoted, all RPGs have tasks and conflicts. Somehow tasks get resolved and conflicts get resolved, no matter what game you're playing (unless your game does not have conflicts in Eero's sense; ie points of thematic meaning).

So, the distinction between tasks and conflicts is really only important to thematic play (aiming at Story, narrativist, what-have-you). In other words, I think Feanor is on the right track.

Quote from: warrenI would say that they have drifted the rules away from those as written and more to a CR way of doing things (before the terms were invented, of course).

Could you please rephrase this without using the term "drift"? I find it an obstacle to understanding precisely what you mean here.

Sorry. I expect the rules as written would have said something like "a player announces that his character performs an action. When the outcome of that action is in doubt, roll dice and describe what happens accordingly."

If you played it that way, and the cleric wants the King to give him money, and he rolled his Diplomacy skill (let's say), I think you would be going against the spirit of the rules as written if a success was described as "You turn you back on the King, who outraged at this breach of protocol has his guards rough you up and throw you out. Later on, however, his guilty conscious makes him donate some money".

Feanor said he has seen groups play this way with those kinds of rules. Therefore they must have come to some (maybe unspoken, maybe written down, doesn't matter) agreement on 'house rules' that which must have said something along the lines "the description for what happens can be anything, regardless of your character's stated action, as long as it is cool". That kind of change in process is what I would call a drift in the rules, but yeah, sorry about the jargon.

Ah, okay, I must have missed that in Feanor's posts.

See, aside from occasional GMing advice/guidelines which at the time of writing were considered distinct from rules per se, I don't believe that most traditional RPGs had rules in them that discouraged looking at the intent of task resolution mechanics--which in terms of this discussion would turn them into proto-CR. Instead I think the rules were largely silent on this, proceeding from the cultural assumption that tasks would be linked into meaningful outcomes, and that GMs wouldn't railroad--a set of assumptions which came naturally to people whose entry to roleplaying was via the "parent hobbies" of board wargaming and miniatures. Only a subset of the hobby interpreted TR rules to allow or encourage manipulative tactics, e.g., "no matter what or how many tasks you succeed at, the GM will creatively interpret the outcome to advance the preplanned plot".

In short if the rules are "a player announces that his character performs an action. When the outcome of that action is in doubt, roll dice and describe what happens accordingly" then I'd find it very much against the spirit of the rules as written for a success to be described as "You sneak past the guard, but [because the GM's plan for the scenario requires an alarm to be sounded] on your way to the treasury room you stumble across a maintenance crew." What I would find most in the spirit of the rules would be for the GM to either take the successful task as ending the "conflict" (in a "let it ride" sense) or to have a map or random event table prepared in advance to give explicit shape and limits to the difficulty of the character's actions.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSee, aside from occasional GMing advice/guidelines which at the time of writing were considered distinct from rules per se, I don't believe that most traditional RPGs had rules in them that discouraged looking at the intent of task resolution mechanics--which in terms of this discussion would turn them into proto-CR. Instead I think the rules were largely silent on this, proceeding from the cultural assumption that tasks would be linked into meaningful outcomes, and that GMs wouldn't railroad--a set of assumptions which came naturally to people whose entry to roleplaying was via the "parent hobbies" of board wargaming and miniatures. Only a subset of the hobby interpreted TR rules to allow or encourage manipulative tactics, e.g., "no matter what or how many tasks you succeed at, the GM will creatively interpret the outcome to advance the preplanned plot".

Yep, I'd buy that. CR makes things more explict (as I pointed out above, there is less 'translation' involved) and de-couples action and goal, both of which I find to be good things.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn short if the rules are "a player announces that his character performs an action. When the outcome of that action is in doubt, roll dice and describe what happens accordingly" then I'd find it very much against the spirit of the rules as written for a success to be described as "You sneak past the guard, but [because the GM's plan for the scenario requires an alarm to be sounded] on your way to the treasury room you stumble across a maintenance crew." What I would find most in the spirit of the rules would be for the GM to either take the successful task as ending the "conflict" (in a "let it ride" sense) or to have a map or random event table prepared in advance to give explicit shape and limits to the difficulty of the character's actions.

See, the "TR" systems I played in, or more accurately, the Groups in whcih I played "TR" systems, had rules that amounted to:

"A player announces that his character reacts to an event in the following way(s).  When the outcome of that announcement is in conflict with another character or the world-as-emulted-by-the-GM (including, but not limited to NPC's, physics, magic, etc.) consult the resolution system to determine success or failure of the character's stated actions. Describe what happens within the scope of the actions agreed upon. If the GM determines that the description exceeds the bounds of the scope, the GM may alter accordingly."

Because I've played in games where everyone understood that the maintenance crew might be there, depending on the "wandering monster" tables and so forth.  Other games, the GM was fine with eschewing such things, knowing that the players would prefer to assume the resolution mechanic took that into account. We would literally interrupt the GM's description and say something like "No, no...wait...X has Y happen..."  While most times, the GM would say "Yeah, cool..and then Z happens," there were situations where we would be overruled.

The point is, the differentiation between Conflict and Task is meaningless with respect to the event.  It's all about who gets something called narrative authority.  And that's a fine distinction to draw. If your game tends towards that kind of play (required shared narrative authority), then it should be explicit in differentiating that from traditional "TR" play. I just think it muddy's the waters to call it Conflict Resolution and somehow try to draw the distinction in the specificity of the event or in the determination of stakes up front, or any of a myriad of practices that have been a part of "TR" gaming for as long as I've known the game (25+ years).

I think it's called "Conflict" resolution because it deals with conflicts of interest between characters.