Feanor, I'd like to see your opinion on this breakdown:

Task Resolution

Quote from: warren

• 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. (EDIT: the GM might say that doing Y is automatically successful, and not require the mechanics to be applied; in which case the next step is skipped).


• 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'.

Conflict Resolution

Quote from: warren

• 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 (PC or NPC) 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 any other restrictions that steps 3 & 4 might apply).

Make sense?

Quote from: warrenIf you see that saying "I want X", "well, I want Y", as "shared plot control" then that's up to you. I don't, personally.

That's a pretty strange way to frame everything.  

First, it fails to capture what happens when the character is trying to achieve something without active opposition.  "I want to climb the cliff and the cliff doesn't want me to climb it"?  The cliff doesn't want anything.

Second, it fails to capture all sorts of situations where the opposition is passive or incidental.  "I want to avoid being seen by Fred so that I don't have to talk to him," does not automatically mean that Fred actively wants to see me so he can talk to me.

Third, wants are not always consistent throughout an entire conflict.  A warrior might enter a battle wanting to kill his opponent.  When he realizes the opponent is better than he is, his wants may shift to simple survival and escape.  If he find himself wounded and trapped, his wants may shift to surrender.  Similarly, the opponent may shift from wanting to kill their opponent to taking them prisoner if surrender is offered.  I have trouble seeing has those nuances can all be captured up front, nor can I see how they can be effectively resolved with a single roll.

Fourth, do the common task resolution systems allow ties or neither person to win?  That happens, too.  Double-kills.  Mutual withdrawals.  Etc.

Quote from: warren* I find it increases tension, as the consequences of a roll are known upfront.

It also reduces surprise.

Quote from: warren* I fing it increases clarity in what the PCs really want to achieve & risk, for the same reason. (No retconning)

Does your group have a problem with retconning?  Is this a reaction to a problem that not all groups have?

Quote from: warren* Some CR systems give you more freedom to describe what happened ingame than TR systems.

Which is shared control over the game.

But that's another point that leaves me cold about conflict resolution systems.  If everything is abstracted into a conflict and the details don't really matter once everything is set, what's the point of that freedom of description?  Is it simply the freedom to do something because it doesn't make any difference?

Quote from: warren* It's a lot easier for me to run as a GM.

Why?

Quote from: warren* Yes, I find it does provide a buffer against bad GMing.

Again, is this a reaction to a problem certain groups have but others don't?

Quote from: warren* Yes, it also prevents things like "GM-surprises". Mystery and surprise in the long run, may well be affected.

So it sounds like a lot of this is about trying to reign in bad GMing.  GM surprises can be very legitimate when there is information in the setting or situation that they player doesn't know.  People enter plenty of situations where they don't know the stakes up front and get surprised.  

My biggest problem with the systems that I've seen is that hey abstract all conflicts to the point where they are all resolved the same way and look the same way.  No matter what the situation is, you play a round of Yahtzee to win.  Yes, you can describe what happens but what difference does it make what I say if the dice are ultimately driving everything once the stakes are set?

Quote from: warrenYep, 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.

What meaning does the action have once it is de-coupled from the goals?

Quote from: John MorrowFirst, it fails to capture what happens when the character is trying to achieve something without active opposition.  "I want to climb the cliff and the cliff doesn't want me to climb it"?  The cliff doesn't want anything.

Not really.  "The sea doesn't want you to get back with that beautiful swordfish."  "The sea" really is a character, with wants and goals of its own.

Or... suriviving a night on Hoth is a conflict.  Hoth is a hard, cruel character that wants to kill Luke and Han.  Surviving the blazing, sweltering heat of the day on Tatooine isn't a conflict.  Tatooine isn't a character in the same way.

The other way to deal with it is to ask, "Why do you want to climb the cliff?"  If you just want to climb the cliff, there's probably not a conflict there.  If you want to climb a cliff to "Catch up with the orcs," then you'd roll against the orc's skill.

If you want to climb the cliff because it's The Cliff of DOOM, and only the pure of heart can climb that cliff, then you might want to roll against the cliff.  (Because here the cliff is a character.)

Quote from: John MorrowSecond, it fails to capture all sorts of situations where the opposition is passive or incidental.  "I want to avoid being seen by Fred so that I don't have to talk to him," does not automatically mean that Fred actively wants to see me so he can talk to me.

Yeah, you just don't roll.  There's no Conflict of Interest, so no roll needs to be made.  You don't want to see Fred?  Fred doesn't care.  No roll.  Fred doesn't see you.

Quote from: John MorrowThird, wants are not always consistent throughout an entire conflict.

Some games allow you to change your intent during the conflict.  I'm thinking of Sorcerer and The Shadow of Yesterday, when Bringing Down the Pain.  Your example sounds a lot like the example for that from TSoY, actually.

Quote from: LostSoulNot really.  "The sea doesn't want you to get back with that beautiful swordfish."  "The sea" really is a character, with wants and goals of its own.

But the sea really isn't a character.  It's indifferent to whether I get back with the swordfish or not.  It's not going to be disappointed if I do.

What you are doing is stretching a concept beyond all recognition for the purpose of making it fit a theory.  That's the tail wagging the dog.

Quote from: LostSoulThe other way to deal with it is to ask, "Why do you want to climb the cliff?"  If you just want to climb the cliff, there's probably not a conflict there.  If you want to climb a cliff to "Catch up with the orcs," then you'd roll against the orc's skill.

So the skill of the orcs determines how difficult it is to climb a cliff?  So no matter what my character tries to do all boils down to a skill roll against the Orcs and everything else is just flavor text?

Quote from: LostSoulIf you want to climb the cliff because it's The Cliff of DOOM, and only the pure of heart can climb that cliff, then you might want to roll against the cliff.  (Because here the cliff is a character.)

What's the conflict?

Quote from: LostSoulYeah, you just don't roll.  There's no Conflict of Interest, so no roll needs to be made.  You don't want to see Fred?  Fred doesn't care.  No roll.  Fred doesn't see you.

But the game can go in a very different direction if Fred does or doesn't notice my character.   To take the flapping of a butterfly's wings out of the picture because they are deemed too insignificant is to take hurricanes out of the picture.  Life doesn't only deal people with surprises and setbacks then they are goal related.

Quote from: LostSoulSome games allow you to change your intent during the conflict.  I'm thinking of Sorcerer and The Shadow of Yesterday, when Bringing Down the Pain.  Your example sounds a lot like the example for that from TSoY, actually.

And from the example I've just read of Bringing Down the Pain, once a game switches into that mode, how are the results that are being challenged and the extra work needed to finalize things any better than the traditional means of working through that sort of situation at a task-based level?

What I'd like to know is how the following would look in conflict resolution terms.

Four characters face off against four opponents.  Early in the fight, characters 1 and 2 are doing well, character 3 is holding their own, and character 4 is in trouble.  Character 2 comes to character 4's aid so that characters 2 is now fighting opponent 2 and 4 to save character 4.  Around the middle of the fight, characters 2 and 3 also get into trouble and character 1 dispatches their opponent.  Character 1 decides to go to the aid of character 2, knowing that if character 2 goes down, character 4 will also be killed.  This leaves character 3 to finish off their battle alone.  Near the end of the battle, opponent 2 is dispatched by character 1 while opponent 4 shifts over to attack character 3, helping opponent 3 kill character 3.  Character 1 decides not to press the attack after opponents 3 and 4 flee.

Could that play out in a conflict resolution system and, if so, how?

Quote from: John MorrowFour characters face off against four opponents.  Early in the fight, characters 1 and 2 are doing well, character 3 is holding their own, and character 4 is in trouble.  Character 2 comes to character 4's aid so that characters 2 is now fighting opponent 2 and 4 to save character 4.  Around the middle of the fight, characters 2 and 3 also get into trouble and character 1 dispatches their opponent.  Character 1 decides to go to the aid of character 2, knowing that if character 2 goes down, character 4 will also be killed.  This leaves character 3 to finish off their battle alone.  Near the end of the battle, opponent 2 is dispatched by character 1 while opponent 4 shifts over to attack character 3, helping opponent 3 kill character 3.  Character 1 decides not to press the attack after opponents 3 and 4 flee.

Pretty hard to follow, that.

Quote from: John MorrowCould that play out in a conflict resolution system and, if so, how?

Yes. I don't get the "How?" part. By following the rules? I'm sure I'm missing something here...

Quote from: warrenPretty hard to follow, that.

Diagram it out.  That sort of combat represents what I normally see in a lot of games.  Most of the conflict resolution examples I can find deal with one-on-one conflicts so I'm curious how they work out with many-on-many conflicts.

Quote from: warrenYes. I don't get the "How?" part. By following the rules? I'm sure I'm missing something here...

Where are the conflicts?  How can a concept like "Bringing Down the Pain" be used in a combat like that?  How does it break down into discreet GM and player choices?

Quote from: John MorrowBut the sea really isn't a character.  It's indifferent to whether I get back with the swordfish or not.  It's not going to be disappointed if I do.

Well, that would depend on the setting, actually: in a mythic or animistic gameworld, the sea might very well be a character in its own right.

Quote from: GrimGentWell, that would depend on the setting, actually: in a mythic or animistic gameworld, the sea might very well be a character in its own right.

Are we talking about systems suitable for use only with animistic gameworlds?  Tail wagging dog.

Quote from: John MorrowAre we talking about systems suitable for use only with animistic gameworlds?  Tail wagging dog.

It's more that you can build a system around the concept easily enough, and assume that even inanimate objects will have a stake of some sort in any conflict that involves them directly.There already are settings which work like that, after all, such as Creation in Nobilis: for example, even though it's in the nature of a locked safe to keep its owner's secrets secure, persuading it to give them up is still possible, either figuratively with a burglar's tools or literally through a convincing argument.

Quote from: John Morrow

Quote from: LostSoulThe other way to deal with it is to ask, "Why do you want to climb the cliff?" If you just want to climb the cliff, there's probably not a conflict there. If you want to climb a cliff to "Catch up with the orcs," then you'd roll against the orc's skill.

So the skill of the orcs determines how difficult it is to climb a cliff? So no matter what my character tries to do all boils down to a skill roll against the Orcs and everything else is just flavor text?

Pretty much, yes. Isn't that just what a Climb roll is, however? A roll against a DC and some "flavour text"?

Quote from: John Morrow

Quote from: LostSoulIf you want to climb the cliff because it's The Cliff of DOOM, and only the pure of heart can climb that cliff, then you might want to roll against the cliff. (Because here the cliff is a character.)

What's the conflict?

In this case, the cliff could have the goal "Throw all those who climb me down onto the jagged rocks below" and the player might have the goal "Get to the top of that cliff" or something. Lame example, I admit

Quote from: John Morrow

Quote from: LostSoulYeah, you just don't roll. There's no Conflict of Interest, so no roll needs to be made. You don't want to see Fred? Fred doesn't care. No roll. Fred doesn't see you.

But the game can go in a very different direction if Fred does or doesn't notice my character. To take the flapping of a butterfly's wings out of the picture because they are deemed too insignificant is to take hurricanes out of the picture. Life doesn't only deal people with surprises and setbacks then they are goal related.

This is how I see it:
"PC avoiding Fred", "Fred doesn't care" - No conflict; Fred doesn't care to look, so the PC successfully avoids him.
"PC looking for Fred", "Fred doesn't care" - No conflict; The PC spots Fred.
"PC looking for Fred", "Fred looking for PC" - No conflict; The both spot each other without rolling.
"PC avoiding Fred", "Fred avoiding PC" - No conflict; The both avoid each other without rolling.
"PC avoiding Fred", "Fred looking for PC" - Conflict!; Go to dice to determine if Fred spots the PC or not.
"PC doesn't care", "Fred doesn't care" - No conflict; Nobody really cares about looking or avoiding the other, so you may as well skip it and get to something that that does engage the players.

Quote from: John MorrowThird, wants are not always consistent throughout an entire conflict. A warrior might enter a battle wanting to kill his opponent. When he realizes the opponent is better than he is, his wants may shift to simple survival and escape. If he find himself wounded and trapped, his wants may shift to surrender. Similarly, the opponent may shift from wanting to kill their opponent to taking them prisoner if surrender is offered. I have trouble seeing has those nuances can all be captured up front, nor can I see how they can be effectively resolved with a single roll.

Who said anything about a single roll? The Mountain Witch, for example, says this about Conflicts:

Quote from: The Mountain WitchHow much imaginary “stuff” does a single Conflict roll cover? Usually, a Conflict encompasses the actions a single character takes to achieve a simple, specific goal. Any goal that requires multiple, progressive steps should be broken into separate Conflicts for each step.

So "I want to kill my opponent" could be your initial goal. But you might fail that and change my goal to "I want to get away from my opponent". If that failed, you might want to go "I want my opponent to accept my surrender" and so on.

Not all systems are like this -- the whole fight would be resolved in a single roll if you were playing Primetime Adventures (and if you wanted that kind of tactical nuance, then PTA isn't the game for you) but that's a difference between systems, rather than something inherent in Conflict Resolution.

Quote from: John MorrowFourth, do the common task resolution systems allow ties or neither person to win? That happens, too. Double-kills. Mutual withdrawals. Etc.

Some do, some don't. PTA doesn't. The Mountain Witch does. Sorcerer (I think) does. Dogs in the Vineyard always ends up with a definite "yes" or "no" to a conflict, but it can produce a lot of side-effects in doing so, so pyhrric (sp?) victories and the like are very possible.

Quote from: John MorrowBut that's another point that leaves me cold about conflict resolution systems.  If everything is abstracted into a conflict and the details don't really matter once everything is set, what's the point of that freedom of description?  Is it simply the freedom to do something because it doesn't make any difference?

I don't see where you are getting "details don't really matter" in CR. If anything the details matter more, as they are guaranteed to make an impact. But I'm not 100% on what you mean here.

In any case, the freedom of description is a way to present things in as cool a way as possible. If I'm a master swordsman, and I keep on rolling bad dice in a "I want to kill the Ogre" conflict, I don't have to go, "damn, missed again" (which sucks). It could be described as, "Toying with the huge creature, but deft weaves and feigns distract him before I prepare my next flurry of attacks". Same mechanical effect, but I don't feel like my character is an incompetent doofus.

Quote from: John MorrowSo it sounds like a lot of this is about trying to reign in bad GMing.  GM surprises can be very legitimate when there is information in the setting or situation that they player doesn't know.  People enter plenty of situations where they don't know the stakes up front and get surprised.

In my experience 99% of GM surprises are a big let down and not worth the build up. The best GM surprise I had was when I found out that my character's ex-wife (who he was still obsessing over) was getting married to my mortal enemy. That was very cool, and there is nothing in CR that would have prevented that from happening.

Quote from: John MorrowMy biggest problem with the systems that I've seen is that hey abstract all conflicts to the point where they are all resolved the same way and look the same way.  No matter what the situation is, you play a round of Yahtzee to win.  Yes, you can describe what happens but what difference does it make what I say if the dice are ultimately driving everything once the stakes are set?

I don't get how this is different from TR, really. Does True20 feel bland because you always "just roll d20, add a modifier and try to beat a target number"? (I don't know, does it? I've never played it.)

On the whole "the cliff is a character" point. I personally, tend not to use this very much. As I said in the Rolls: All Opposed All the Time thread:

Quote from: WarrenThe fact that you have to "look around" for sombody to provide the opposition roll is a feature, not a bug, for me. Can't find good opposition? It's unlikely to be an interesting situation, so why make them roll? Skip over the dull stuff and get to a place where you get the good opposition you need.

Example: "I want to climb the tree". Pretty dull, IMO. "I want to climb the tree to evade the Evil Baron's men"; you are rolling Climb vs. the Spot (or Track, or whatever) of the "Evil Baron's men", and the situation is much more interesting.

Quote from: John MorrowDiagram it out. That sort of combat represents what I normally see in a lot of games. Most of the conflict resolution examples I can find deal with one-on-one conflicts so I'm curious how they work out with many-on-many conflicts.

OK, Cool; that's a fair point. Can I use a more concrete example?

I'll use The Mountain Witch rules, which are smallish-scale CR. The 4 PCs are all Ronin in feudal Japan who are travelling through a haunted forest on the way to Mount Fuji. The GM decribes a scene where a small pack of four feral wolves block their path, growling angrily at them.

Players 1, 2 & 3 state that they are going to charge the Wolves; trying to kill them. Player 4 says that his goal is to sneak around the fight and get past. The wolves split up and want to tear the throats out of all four Ronin.

Dice are rolled, results are determined. Let's say that Player 1 manages to kill a wolf because he rolled so well, Player 2 failed but his wolf only got a partial success against him. Players 3 and his wolf tie. Player 4 gets just a partial success against his wolf.

So, as PC #1 cuts one wolf into ribbons, PC #2 is injured and on the ground, trying to get another off of him. PC #3 and another wolf are circling each other, neither one prepared to commit to a full on attack. PC #4 skirts the outside of the clearing, but a wolf chases him down before he can get away.

Now, Player 1 decides that he wants to aid Player 2 in fighting his wolf, and all the other Players are still wanting to kill the wolves. In return, the wolves want to chew down on one ronin each.

Dice are rolled, results are determined. Let's say that Player 2 manages to tie with his wolf thanks to the help of Player 1. Players 3 gets a partial success against his wolf, but Player 4 is beaten soundly by his attacker.

So, PC #1 manages to scare the wolf off of PC #2, but the wolf is getting ready to pounce again. PC #3 and the wolf launch at each other, with the Ronin getting the upper hand with a nasty cut down the flank of one wolf. The final wolf is mauling the leg of PC #4, who is swiping uselessly at it with his Katana.

Now Player 1 wants to scare 'his' wolf off, whilst player 2 is going to defend himself against any attacks. Player 3 is still fighting with his wolf, and Player 4 is going to try and clamber up a tree to get away from being bitten any further.  The wolves are going to attack Players 1, 3 and 4, ignoring 2, who doesn't have to roll.

Dice are rolled, results are determined. Let's say for brevities sake that all the Players beat the wolves.

PC #1 scares his wolf off, with PC #2 watching carefully with his sword at the ready. PC #3 finally manages to slice the head off of his wolf, and poor cowardly PC #4 is left up a tree with his wolf watching angrily from the ground.

And so on.