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

The difference is that the nature of the cliff determines the nature of the attempt to climb it in one case, while in the other case, that the challege is a cliff is irrelevant because the players are rolling against the orcs.  

Quote from: warrenIn 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

But it's not lame at all if you simply cast it as an attempt to climb a cliff that's a certain difficulty to clime.  So why jump through hoops to turn every uncertainty into a conflict between parties with active interests?

Quote from: warrenThis 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.

No chance of the PC being surprised by Fred noticing him anyway?  Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: warren"PC looking for Fred", "Fred doesn't care" - No conflict; The PC spots Fred.

No chance of the PC not spotting someone he's looking for?  Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: warren"PC looking for Fred", "Fred looking for PC" - No conflict; The both spot each other without rolling.

No chance of them missing each other?  Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: warren"PC avoiding Fred", "Fred avoiding PC" - No conflict; The both avoid each other without rolling.

No chance of them running into each other anyway?  Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: warren"PC avoiding Fred", "Fred looking for PC" - Conflict!; Go to dice to determine if Fred spots the PC or not.

What if Fred wants to harm the PC (thus the PC has a vested interest in not being found) but it not actively avoiding Fred because the PC is not aware that Fred is looking for him?  Happens all the time in real life.  Does the PC really have any impact on whether Fred finds them or not of they are not actively avoiding Fred?

Quote from: warren"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.

Like the PC and Fred accidentally bumping into each other?  How do you know what might engage the players before it happens?  Some of the most entertaining role-playing experiences I've had were triggered or driven by the characters responding to random rolls.

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

At the point where the conflicts get broken down to discreet actions, how does this become any different than a traditional task resolution system with opposed rolls for certain situations (e.g., Fudge)?  

My main points of concern are the benefits and/or problems of the key differences from traditional resolution systems.

1) Framing all tasks as opposed rolls, forcing the identification of things like cliffs as "characters" with "wants" rather than simply using straight task rolls rather than opposed rolls when there is no sentient opposition.

2) Reducing conflicts down to one roll or a handful of rolls that produce a higher abstraction level than traditional task resolution systems.  If you are rolling for every blow in a fight, you are doing exactly what traditional RPGs do except that you are requiring an opposed roll.

3) Abstracting conflcts in such a way that climbing a cliff becomes a conflict against orcs rather than an attempt to climb a cliff.  Or abstracting so that what the conflict is about is meaningless such that anything said about it is simply flavor.

4) Setting stakes up front rather than treating them simply as the motivation for making certain task rolls.

5) The idea that what a player wants and what their opponent wants can produce predictable success or failure without any room for chance.

Yes, I'm sure you can make a conflict resolution system that's very much like a traditional task resolution system and focus on the similarities to answer my questions.  That misses the point.  What's the benefit of the differences and how do they behave in practice?

Please note that I'm also not saying it doesn't work or can't work.  Of course it can.  But just because I can hammer nails into a board with a screwdriver does not mean that a screwdriver is a good hammer.  And maybe the problem is simply that you are trying to use screws and I'm trying to use nails and we just need different tools for the jobs we are trying to do.

Quote from: warrenSo "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.

What does it mean to "fail my goal"?  Am I not killing my opponent because I can't hit him, because he's beating the snot out of me, or because I've had some bad luck?  A traditional system would tell me that.  Once I fail to kill him the first time, can I keep trying to kill him again or do I need to do something else?

That's part of why this all seems so abstract to me.  You don't know why I'm failling my goal and it doesn't seem to matter at all.  But that's exactly what a traditional role-playing game would tell me and it would matter.

Quote from: warrenNot 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.

People are talking about several different elements of Conflict Resolution here.  See my list above for what I'm concerned with -- the stark differences.

Quote from: warrenSome 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.

But will it produce the same range of possible results that a traditional task resolution system would produce?

Please note that I like opposed rolls when there are really opponents facing each other.  I use single-roll combat in my Fudge games.  I'm interested in taking that to the levels that games for which Conflict Resolution is a key selling point take it (e.g., Primetime Adventures resolving conflicts in one roll).

Quote from: warrenI 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.

It could simply be the way people are giving examples.  Every time I read a Conflict example, it feels like the details of the conflict don't really matter because they get glossed over in the example.  Perhaps an example that illustrates how environmental details and such play a role in the outcome would help.

Quote from: warrenIn any case, the freedom of description is a way to present things in as cool a way as possible.

See, to me that freedom comes from irrelevance.  If I can say anything, then what I say means nothing.  It's just flavor text.  That's what I mean by that.  Cool descriptions are just flavor text that have no impact on what really happens.

Quote from: warrenIf 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).

See, I don't think that sucks.  I think that experiencing the failure that way is integral to understanding why I'm having trouble killing the Ogre (he's hard to hit -- maybe he's better than I am or maybe I'm having bad luck).  If I'm missing the Ogre even when I roll well, I know that the Ogre is probably better than I can hit and I might retreat.  If I'm missing the Ogre because I'm rolling bad, I might stick around hoping for a change in luck.  And I can translate that all into appropriate in character perceptions of what's going on.

But, ultimately, "Damn, missed again," is a part of life.

Now, in single roll opposed roll combat in Fudge, you do get someone hitting every round.  But it's still a round-by-round affair and there are other things, like climbing a cliff, that can be handled with an unopposed roll.

Quote from: warrenIt 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.

In real combat and in movies, misses are common.  Do you automatically assume that a series of misses makes a person an "incompetent doofus"?

Quote from: warrenIn 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.

Then let's just say that I've had different experiences with that than you have.

Quote from: warrenI 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.)

Maybe True20 does work that way.  I don't know, either.  In most Task Resolution systems, what the player is doing and the details of the situation matter, through skill selection, setting difficulty, modifiers, and so on.  When you abstract climbing a cliff to a roll against the fleeing Orcs, the cliff ceases to have any real impact on the situation and becomes little more than flavor text.  It could be a swamp, a bear trap, or whatever.  It's just something between the PC and Orcs that's there for color.  And that also can trivialize the player's ability to use knowledge about the shared imaginary space to make decisions that have any impact on the outcome.

Quote from: warren'll use The Mountain Witch rules, which are smallish-scale CR.

Thanks for the example.  That's exactly what I was looking for.  Very similar to a traditional task resolution system that uses degrees of success and opposed rolls like Fudge. Maybe you'd consider parts of Fudge to be a Conflict Resolution system?  How about games with larger scale CR?   That's where it would seem to cause the most problems.

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?

Because that's how some players learn how good their characters are in character.  Mary Kuhner posted some threads to rec.games.frp.advocacy where she talked about how her husband liked to play through lopsided battles where the outcome was certain (e.g., a high-powered PC killing a bunch of little monsters) because that's how he got a sense of just how good his character was in character.  I've had similar experiences.

Further, the dice represent the unpredictable.  See my points about what happens in the real world all the time.  To a degree, it's a verisimilitude issue for me.  If my character can do everything he wants to do when nobody stands in the way, that just feels wrong.  I've slipped going down the stairs of my own house and almost broke my leg.  A game without anything like that feels as artificial to me as a computer graphics picture where everything is perfect.  Part of creating photorealism in computer images involves making things imperfect because the human eye can pick up perfection and it feels artificial.  I think the same thing applies to what happens in games.  Perfect feels artificial to me.

Quote from: warrenSkip over the dull stuff and get to a place where you get the good opposition you need.

I don't know about you but I never know for sure what's going to be dull and what's going to be interesting until I do it.  What you are doing is assuming things will be dull and are not worth dealing with.  In my experience, those little things are frequently not dull and can be very worth playing out.

Quote from: warrenExample: "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.

What about, "I want to climb a tree and take a look around before we settle down for the night in this clearing"?

I think there's some conflation going on of types of CR with the idea or goal of CR in general. Admittedly some of that comes from the ongoing efforts of Ron Edwards et. al. to define it, but the essence of CR, in my opinion, is that it forces the group, collectively, to establish "facts" in the setting which can't be fudged based on someone's informally-expressed preferences or intentions. It's even possible that the "facts" might be known only to one person. E.g., a GM might have a prison cell with a high, barred window, and forgot to decide beforehand what if anything a character could do to escape via the window. If the situation then comes up in play, the conflict "can X escape through the window" needs to be resolved by some means. The GM could privately decide that no, it isn't possible. At that point the game can proceed, even if it involves some frustration, but at least without the participants having to worry whether the goalposts are going to be changed in a way that invalidates all their possible future input.

Mechanical conflict resolution, which is what people usually mean when they talk about CR, is a way of accomplishing this in a manner that doesn't rely purely on the discretion of one person. By contrast, when people draw a line between TR and CR, they're saying that TR outcomes can be invalidated if they aren't tied into "general conflict resolution" either through mechanics or through social contracts, i.e., "good GMing".

Going back to the prison cell, if the player wants to escape and the GM wants to keep the character there, then the conflict is over escaping, and the issue is whether that is ultimately going to be resolved via player input or GM whim. The GM has to admit a nonzero metaphysical possibility that the PC could escape by some means; otherwise all the TR in the world isn't going to contribute to resolving the conflict. And if the possibility is nonzero, and you don't just roll percentile dice or whatever, opting instead for TR, then the GM has to put his desires in abeyance as he judges the impact of any tasks on the outcome of the overall conflict. If he does this without moving the goalposts, you've achieved CR via TR. If he has trouble doing this, then overt mechanical conflict resolution will help overcome his railroading instincts.

It helps to note that mechanical CR doesn't necessarily imply single-roll-resolution, or use of thematic or nonsimulative attributes (like "Love my wife d10" instead of "Cryptography 90%"). It does require the identification of conflict (even if it's conflict with nature) and goals, a clear understanding of the resources that can be brought to bear, and a clear understanding of how the mechanics are linked to achieving the goal(s).

Quote from: Elliot WilenAt that point the game can proceed, even if it involves some frustration, but at least without the participants having to worry whether the goalposts are going to be changed in a way that invalidates all their possible future input.

I don't have time to finish a lengthier reply right now (probably not until after the weekend) but I will just say, "Wow, this whole post is just really alien to the way I role-play and the relationship I have with the GMs I role-play with."  And it really does suggest that the whole point of these mechanics is simply a backlash against bad experiences with GMs who abuse their power to railroad stories.

If anything, my bad experiences have been in the opposite direction -- GMs who let the players succeed no matter what they do.

Quote from: John MorrowIt could simply be the way people are giving examples.  Every time I read a Conflict example, it feels like the details of the conflict don't really matter because they get glossed over in the example.  Perhaps an example that illustrates how environmental details and such play a role in the outcome would help.

Let's say we're playing Heroquest.

The PC tracks the orcs to the cliff face.  He's got "Man of the Wild 5w" (which is pretty good - it's like 25) and a bunch of other skills "climby" skills that he can augment his roll with.  He ends up with, let's say 15w (35).  He rolls that against the orcs, and if he succeeds, he catches up with them.  If he fails (that is, the orcs win), the orcs get away.

But let's say the PC is an urban rake.  All his skills are social ones.  He only has "Strong 17" and "Nimble 17" that could apply here.  He ends up with 19.  He rolls that against the orcs, and if he succeeds, he catches up with them.  If he fails (that is, the orcs win), the orcs get away.

The fact that it is a cliff influenced the conflict in this case.

(Cross-posted with Lost Soul)

Well, don't take me as an authority on the divide between TR and (mechanical) CR--it's not something I feel a great need to emphasize, either, and I agree with you that it seems like a backlash against railroading, either by GMs or by bad modules. What I wrote above is my effort to charitably interpret the concept as put forward by its chief advocates--i.e., to make it intelligible.

I do think there's something there in the overall concept, though--that is, conflict resolution is clearly a method of avoiding GM manipulation, often by foregrounding goals and establishing a clear scope of conflict. Or if it doesn't avoid GM manipulation, it brings it out into the open so that the GM can't foil a player's intent without everyone seeing clearly how it's happening. E.g., GM restricting scope, refusing to invoke resolution, refusing to respect resolution, imposing negative modifiers, disallowing actions, & so forth. In general a GM may have good reasons for any of those things, but if there's any disagreement, CR puts it on the table.

I'm not sure the problem of pushover GMs is directly related to CR but I suppose it could be argued that CR gives a GM a way to find a middle ground. Or particularly that CR + "say yes" allows a GM to give shape to a scenario without railroading. But it only guarantees that conflicts which are of interest to both the GM and players will be engaged. If so, then I'm with you that it's a deficiency which takes away from a world's "weight".

(One thought: it might be better, if a GM is "saying yes" too much and no conflicts are arising, to go straight to the question of goals and then turn everything into a conflict beginning with the PCs' initial action. Thus while climbing a tree may be uninteresting in itself, the fact that the ultimate goal conflicts with the Baron's men's interest in catching you allows you to factor in your tree-climbing ability and then whether you succeed or fail in your goal, the CR system is alsocapable of spitting out an answer to what happened when you climbed the tree. E.g., via Taking the Blow in DitV, or various "fortune in the middle" systems found in other games such as Heroquest.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenI do think there's something there in the overall concept, though--that is, conflict resolution is clearly a method of avoiding GM manipulation, often by foregrounding goals and establishing a clear scope of conflict. Or if it doesn't avoid GM manipulation, it brings it out into the open so that the GM can't foil a player's intent without everyone seeing clearly how it's happening. E.g., GM restricting scope, refusing to invoke resolution, refusing to respect resolution, imposing negative modifiers, disallowing actions, & so forth. In general a GM may have good reasons for any of those things, but if there's any disagreement, CR puts it on the table.

I'm not sure the problem of pushover GMs is directly related to CR but I suppose it could be argued that CR gives a GM a way to find a middle ground. Or particularly that CR + "say yes" allows a GM to give shape to a scenario without railroading.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut it only guarantees that conflicts which are of interest to both the GM and players will be engaged. If so, then I'm with you that it's a deficiency which takes away from a world's "weight".

Depending on your definition of 'a world's "weight"', I agree. CR skips over stuff that doesn't interest the GM and players quickly. I consider that a feature, not a bug. I don't think it makes the world any less interesting than the world in any TV show (which also skips over lots of uninteresting stuff), but that may or may not be "weighty" enough for your tastes

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(One thought: it might be better, if a GM is "saying yes" too much and no conflicts are arising, to go straight to the question of goals and then turn everything into a conflict beginning with the PCs' initial action. Thus while climbing a tree may be uninteresting in itself, the fact that the ultimate goal conflicts with the Baron's men's interest in catching you allows you to factor in your tree-climbing ability and then whether you succeed or fail in your goal, the CR system is alsocapable of spitting out an answer to what happened when you climbed the tree. E.g., via Taking the Blow in DitV, or various "fortune in the middle" systems found in other games such as Heroquest.)

Yeah, makes sense to me.

Hi John,

Taking into consideration that the only difference between mechanical TR and mechanical CR as "procedures of play", I have already put forward in post #121, but yes, that could well have an effect on the game as a whole.

Conflict resolution is designed to resolve conflicts of interest between fictional characters as clearly as possible. To engage a CR system, you need to have a conflict of interest (i.e. incompatible or interfering goals), as that is what the system focuses on.

You said:

Quote from: John MorrowHow do you know what might engage the players before it happens? Some of the most entertaining role-playing experiences I've had were triggered or driven by the characters responding to random rolls.

I'm willing to bet that every single scene which has a (direct or indirect) conflict between the PCs and interesting NPCs the players like (or like to hate) should always produce engaging, entertaining, damn fine, role-playing experiences. I also find that when you have a conflict, it always drives the game, and makes it go somewhere (anywhere!) and feel dynamic. My game sessions don't last much more than three to four hours nowadays, and I want to come out of every session feeling like a whole bunch of awesome happened, so dynamism is important to me.

So, both as a GM & a player, I want the game to deal with everything that isn't part of a conflict as quicky as possible, in order to get to the "good stuff". Yes, that might mean I miss out on some entertaining stuff triggered by random rolls, but I, personally, think that's an acceptable trade-off for the amount of awesome I get

It seems to me that you, on the other hand, want a more prosaic, 'detaily' game, which works just like the real world and real life:

Quote from: John MorrowNo chance of the PC being surprised by Fred noticing him anyway? Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: John MorrowNo chance of the PC not spotting someone he's looking for? Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: John MorrowNo chance of them missing each other? Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: John MorrowNo chance of them running into each other anyway? Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: John MorrowNo chance of the PC being surprised by Fred noticing him anyway? Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: John MorrowNo chance of the PC being surprised by Fred noticing him anyway? Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: John MorrowBut, ultimately, "Damn, missed again," is a part of life.

Quote from: John MorrowFurther, the dice represent the unpredictable. See my points about what happens in the real world all the time.

So, with the differences in what we want in mind, I'll address your questions:

Quote from: John Morrow1) Framing all tasks as opposed rolls, forcing the identification of things like cliffs as "characters" with "wants" rather than simply using straight task rolls rather than opposed rolls when there is no sentient opposition.

As I said before, the fact that you have to "look around" for somebody 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. I tend not to use the "cliff character" option.

Quote from: John Morrow2) Reducing conflicts down to one roll or a handful of rolls that produce a higher abstraction level than traditional task resolution systems. If you are rolling for every blow in a fight, you are doing exactly what traditional RPGs do except that you are requiring an opposed roll.

But different levels of abstraction happen with TR systems too:

For example, you could have an overall task of
* "Do reach the hidden Isle of St.Norbert?"
which you could resolve with one task (Seamanship or something), or break it down into:
* "Do we hire a ship?" (Bargain)
* "Do we find a map chart?" (Library Use)
* "Do we navigate a good course?" (Navigation)
* "Can we keep this ship on this course?" (Sailing)
etc.

That last one could be decomposed down into:
* "Do we tie off the mainsail correctly?" (Rope Use)
* "Do we avoid the boom during this tack?" (Athletics)
* "Can I hold onto this line in a heavy storm?" (Strength)
* "Do I know what angle to trim the topsail at?" (Sailing)
and so on.

If the game is about an evil lurking in the ancient temple on the island, you may want to use the larger scale. If the game is more a Master & Commander style-game, and the players want to get to the safe haven of St.Norbert, you might use the smallest scale. You work at the level which works for your game and players.

Some games (PTA, yes) work differently; but saying "All CR games work like PTA" is similar to saying "All TR systems work like TOON". PTA is pretty much the only CR system I know of which mandates scene-scale resolution, and is really rules-lite. I doubt you would ever use it to determine just who wins a fight. Most of the "major" CR systems (tMW, DitV, Sorcerer, HQ) are pretty much 'scalable' in the same way as TR systems are. You look at where the conflict is, and who they are, and it falls out "naturally".

Quote from: John Morrow3) Abstracting conflicts in such a way that climbing a cliff becomes a conflict against orcs rather than an attempt to climb a cliff. Or abstracting so that what the conflict is about is meaningless such that anything said about it is simply flavour.

As LostSoul said, the Cliff does has a bearing on the conflict. Also, this also shows the fact that climbing a cliff (unless it's an epic, "character" cliff) isn't very interesting by itself. Look around someone who has an interest in seeing you fail to climb it, and the whole thing becomes a hell of a lot more interesting.

Quote from: John Morrow4) Setting stakes up front rather than treating them simply as the motivation for making certain task rolls.

I don't have a problem with this. Others might, which is fair enough. I like CR as it promotes clear communication at our table, which is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: John Morrow5) The idea that what a player wants and what their opponent wants can produce predictable success or failure without any room for chance.

This is just a mechanism that keeps things moving. If nobody is interested in the outcome of the event it's not that important to the game. Skip over it quickly and get into a conflict scene where people do have a interest in what could happen.

Quote from: John MorrowYes, I'm sure you can make a conflict resolution system that's very much like a traditional task resolution system and focus on the similarities to answer my questions. That misses the point. What's the benefit of the differences and how do they behave in practice?

The Benefits:
* Quicker play, focused on things which interest the players & GM.
* Clearer communication at the table, you know what the PCs really want to achieve & risk.
* I find it increases tension, as the consequences of a roll are known upfront.
* Some CR systems give you more freedom to describe what happened ingame than TR systems.
* It's a lot easier for me to run as a GM.
* Yes, I find it does provide a buffer against bad GMing.

How it plays? With a strong CR system, I'd guess it makes games feel, pacing wise, more like modern movies, TV shows or novels than "real life". Stuff which is uninteresting is skipped over quickly in order to get to stuff which is interesting to the players and the GM. As narration is usually more open than in a TR system, descriptions of what happens ingame are cooler, more varied, vivid and dramatic, than "I hit him & missed". The players and GM are really into it, as stuff which doesn't interest them is glossed over, and then, because the goals are known upfront, the possible consequences of any conflict roll (or rolls) are known upfront, which makes that roll a hell of a lot more tense. And it's easier to run; you have some NPCs which all want something, and the PCs want something else. You run your NPCs as hard as you can, trying to get what they want for them, and the players do the same for their PCs. The system then tells me who got what. This differs from the TR systems I used to run, where you have to use the system to "model the physics of the world", which needs more judgement and interpretation, so I can't focus on what the players are grooving on (and not) as much.

To stretch things a little, I'd say that, in my experience, strong CR generates play more like the new Battlestar Galactica or Deadwood than Star Trek: The Next Generation or The Hobbit, if that makes any sense

Quote from: John MorrowPlease note that I'm also not saying it doesn't work or can't work. Of course it can. But just because I can hammer nails into a board with a screwdriver does not mean that a screwdriver is a good hammer. And maybe the problem is simply that you are trying to use screws and I'm trying to use nails and we just need different tools for the jobs we are trying to do.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that at all.

Quote from: warrenDepending on your definition of 'a world's "weight"', I agree. CR skips over stuff that doesn't interest the GM and players quickly. I consider that a feature, not a bug.

Just to be clear, the problem I was pointing to was that CR + "say yes" means that you'll only roll if both the GM and players are interested. If only one is interested, no roll. This is especially bad if the player's interested and not the GM--the whole world outside the GM's "dungeon" of prepared conflicts is then just a papier mache facade and instead of being "railroaded" into following a particular course, the players are bored into seeking out the GM's lead. I know I've played video games like that--know what I mean? You can go anywhere you like, but nothing happens unless you go here.

(I just had a minor revelation that in DitV I think the advice to actively reveal the town in play is probably important to avoid this issue.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenJust to be clear, the problem I was pointing to was that CR + "say yes" means that you'll only roll if both the GM and players are interested. If only one is interested, no roll.

Yep, that's how it works.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThis is especially bad if the player's interested and not the GM--the whole world outside the GM's "dungeon" of prepared conflicts is then just a papier mache facade and instead of being "railroaded" into following a particular course, the players are bored into seeking out the GM's lead. I know I've played video games like that--know what I mean? You can go anywhere you like, but nothing happens unless you go here.

I guess you could look at it that way; it's not been my experience. When I prep for my CR games, I come up with a bunch of NPCs that want things from the PCs and other NPCs (aid, information, them dead, whatever) and at least a few of them are desperate/insane/driven enough to do something fucked up to get what they want. That always leads straight to conflict. If the players run away from that conflict, obviously those NPCs and their desires isn't getting them jazzed. Since running CR systems is really easy, I, as a GM, can see that early on, and adjust things until I do set up something that they want to engage with.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(I just had a minor revelation that in DitV I think the advice to actively reveal the town in play is probably important to avoid this issue.)

Yeah, totally.

I've remained quiet on responding on this for a few days - and I begin to see from where Pundit's anger grows.  There's too much to call out specifics, so I'm going to Rant instead.

How many ways can you try to show the need for differentiation between two things and end up showing that two things are so similar as to eschew the need for distinction? What I see is one group saying "Look what we can do with our rules!" and another saying "Yeah, we do that to!"  If you can both cover a wide spectrum of play styles and situations, what's the difference?  Aren't they both just resolution approaches with flexible focus?

I have no problem with people who want to call what they do "Conflict Resolution."  I know you might be suprised to hear it, but it's true.  What I deny is:

• it's something revolutionary -it's been part of gaming for years.
• it's significantly different from "Task Resolution."

I assert that Conflict Resolution:

• is, as a term, used incorrectly in the sense that people who are trying to draw a distinction are only seeing the resolution side of things.
  
• if only considering resolution, "Conflict" and "Task" are points on a wide spectrum of play styles.
• is no different, in a broad sense, as "Task Resolution" with respect to resolution mechanics and when to apply them.

Elliot and warren have focused on this aspect of resolution or that situation in which they do or do not apply mechanics, and seem to imply that it's "Conflict Resolution" that allows them to do that.  My point from about half way through this thread has been that "Task Resolution," encompassing a wide variety of play styles, allows for these approaches as well - and has for years...

Quote from: Elliot WilenI 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.

"proto-CR?" Is that meant to describe "Task Resolution" as some sort of unevolved form of resolution system? The fact that people were using these approaches made them proto-CR users?  How about looking at it from the other angle - CR is just another name for something people have been doing for years?  If there were no specific rules, then we were free to do as we pleased.  Lo and behold, some of us did something not so different from what is now termed "Conflict Resolution."  Little did we know that we were just unevolved "Task Resolution" users slouching towards Bethlehem.

Many of us never were "board wargamers" or "minatures" players.  We just picked up the boxed D&D set cause it looked cool (and we just finished reading LOTR for the 20th time).  And holy crap look at those cool dice! We didn't need rules on how to "look at the intent of the task resolution." We played.  We figured out the best way to play for that group.  Then, later, when we switched groups, we switched styles (if necessary). Some times we rolled for every little thing - other times we didn't.  Sometimes we focused on every sword stroke, sometimes on getting to the pirate ship - and sometimes we did this in the very same game session. :eek: I'm amazed to think that between 7th and 12th grade, which as everyone knows is the height of maturity, we were able to find our way through a system without specific rules telling us how to play as a group.

One thing remained constant - and it's the one thing that is different between "Conflict Resolution" and "Task Resolution."  The GM was the final authority about what mecahnic was used, how it was used, and when it was applied. Was there discussion about this between players and GMs?  Sure. Did we rules-lawyer sometimes?  Who doesn't.  Did railroading take place?  Absolutley.  Did we learn from it? If not, we've no one to blame but ourselves.  What never happened was a player taking over the narrative control of the game - ever.  And that's what's really different about "Conflict Resolution" when used in it's correct form.

For those of you using "Conflict Resolution" as shorthand for a different slant on resolution, I'd suggest that you rethink this. If narrative control is not really a part of your system, then don't describe it as "Conflict Resolution."  Call it "Modified Resolution" or "Goal Resolution".  Better yet, let's get agreement that "Conflict Resolution" is really "Narrative Control Resolution" and you can go on using "Conflict Resolution."  But mixing these things, and then trying to draw a false distinction is just confusing, misleading, and wrong.

Feanor, I think you've got me wrong. I won't address your entire rant, though. I'd suggest you reread my posts to this thread as coming from someone who actually prefers "Task Resolution" and is just trying to figure out the attraction of (mechanical, rules-based) "Conflict Resolution" for people who espouse it.

Urgh, let me talk about this, though:

Quote from: Feanor"proto-CR?" Is that meant to describe "Task Resolution" as some sort of unevolved form of resolution system?

No. What it means is you might have task resolution rules and then, in the book, tell the GM something like, "When a player wants to accomplish some goal, have the player test an appropriate ability, applying a difficulty modifier as appropriate. Be sure the player is clear about the goal he wants to accomplish before rolling. If the player rolls successfully, then the goal is accomplished." That would be "proto-CR", or really proto-mechanical-CR. I've seen it in a couple places. E.g., John Harper in a 1994 description of Talislanta (skip down to the part about INTENT). Or when I was playing Dead of Night with the co-author, Merwin S., I noticed that whenever a player said he was going to do something, Merwin would try to zero in on the intent or goal of the action. There was an understanding that goals had to be limited in scope, but if one was successful, the goal would be achieved. This is what I mean by "proto-(mecahnical)-CR".

By contrast the way I'm used to playing is to not focus on goals but instead to execute tasks based on a faith in shared understanding of how the consequences of those tasks would be determined. For example I once played an illusionist in a Rolemaster game who was captured (along with the rest of the party) by a group of barbarians. Through roleplaying I learned the barbarian chieftain was suspicious of sorcerers whom he believed were in consort with "lizards". So I pretended to do a bad job of denying any connection to lizards, I surreptitiously cast illusions of giant lizards sneaking around the barbarian camp, and eventually our captors freaked out and ran away. Did I explicitly declare my goal? I doubt it. Was it understood? Sort of--I don't remember if I had a specific outcome in mind or if I was just trying to mess with their heads, for lack of anything more effective in my arsenal. But everybody understood what the problem was, and the linkage between "successful spells" and "escaping captivity" was made somehow. We were friends, and we knew how each other thought, and what we'd enjoy.