Hey Feanor;

Quote from: FeanorHaving said that, I have only one question to ask - what is the need for Conflict Resolution as opposed to Task resolution?

This question has been answered, right?  You can see why some people might like "Conflict Resolution", or whatever anyone wants to call it, eh?

I was going to answer warren's post in detail but it all really boils down to a few basic things that are primarily issues of personal taste.

I tend to like the parts of the game that lots of other people consider boring.  It all goes back to my point about playing for in character experience rather than a story.  Like Chekov in the classic Star Trek episode Specre of the Gun, who was more interested in flirting with the girl than the OK Corral scenario the Melkotians had created for the crew, I often feel that the GM's scenario gets in the way of what I'm really interested in.  What you consider "awesome" probably isn't what I consider "awesome", and vice versa.  

I don't want quicker play.  As anyone who has role-played with me can tell you, I always say that things should take as long as they need to take in a game when people try to speed things up.  If I could have my way and had the free time, I'd play games in real time.  As such, I consider time compression a necessary evil, not something desirable that should be maximized.  Even when that means, in the 2-4 hour session weeknight game I play in (my normal game has 10-12 hour session) that nothing exciting happens or gets resolved.  

Ultimately, I'm looking for pacing closer to "real life" than a movie.  Why?  Because I play looking through my character's eyes and thinking in character and I want to experience my character's life as a "real life".  The pacing of a movie, TV show, or novel feels artificial from the inside.  See the movie The Truman Show for a good illustration of what it feels like to play an immersive character in a game being run like a TV show.

You mention, "Some CR systems give you more freedom to describe what happened ingame than TR systems."  The way many systems give you freedom to describe what happened is that the description is irrelevant to the outcome.  At that point, to me, the description is just a lot of fluff and a chore.  I'm more interested in the mental image of what's happening than cool narration and can find cool narration distracting.  That preference extends into the fiction I like.  I prefer authors with plain prose that disappears off the page and don't like authors who generate clever prose that makes the reader aware of they words they are reading.  I want description to be background, not foreground.

Giving the PCs and NPCs wants and needs to encourage interesting things to happen in a game is a technique that can be used with any role-playing game.  There are plenty of ways other to get that out of your game without it being hard-coded into the rules.  There is no reason why the advice used to craft adventures in conflict resolution games couldn't be applied to any conventional system.

Finally, some food for thought:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/0a219b7a29c3ad8a?dmode=source&hl=en

In particular, note Mary's analogy of "a garden" and "a bit of wild ground".  The sort of intense game you are talking about feels like a garden to me.  It's planned to be cool.  I'm looking for "a bit of wild ground" where any cool that I find isn't planned.  While you can plan something that looks like the wilderness, it's not the same thing as a real wilderness.

Quote from: LostSoulThe fact that it is a cliff influenced the conflict in this case.

Thanks for the example.  Not sure how that's radically different from a normal task resolution system, though.

Quote from: John MorrowThe way many systems give you freedom to describe what happened is that the description is irrelevant to the outcome.  At that point, to me, the description is just a lot of fluff and a chore.  I'm more interested in the mental image of what's happening than cool narration and can find cool narration distracting.

The description is the outcome for me.  The cool narration is what's happening.

Just differing tastes, I guess.

Feanor, I'd really like to see your opinion on this breakdown. It's the same as post #121; it describes the procedural differences between Task & Conflict resolution.

Task Resolution

Quote1.) 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.

2.) 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.

3.) In order to perform Y, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to do Y. 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.

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

5.) 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.

6.) 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'.

EDIT: Sometimes, negotiation takes place here between the player & GM to make things 'line up' again. This process usually requires the player telling the GM what he wanted now, even if he kept it to himself during step 1.

Conflict Resolution

Quote1.) A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He has to tell the GM this.

2.) 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.

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

4.) 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.

5.) 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).

See the difference?

Quote from: John MorrowI was going to answer warren's post in detail but it all really boils down to a few basic things that are primarily issues of personal taste.

Yeah, cool. It seems like we want very different things from our games. TR supports what you want, CR supports what I want.

Quote from: John MorrowGiving the PCs and NPCs wants and needs to encourage interesting things to happen in a game is a technique that can be used with any role-playing game.  There are plenty of ways other to get that out of your game without it being hard-coded into the rules.  There is no reason why the advice used to craft adventures in conflict resolution games couldn't be applied to any conventional system.

Yep, totally. I find it easier to do with a CR system, as that is what the rules focus on more, but as you say, it's totally possible to do with a TR system.

Cool - thanks for the discussion!

Quote from: LostSoul

Quote from: John MorrowThe way many systems give you freedom to describe what happened is that the description is irrelevant to the outcome. At that point, to me, the description is just a lot of fluff and a chore. I'm more interested in the mental image of what's happening than cool narration and can find cool narration distracting.

The description is the outcome for me. The cool narration is what's happening.

Same for me as well. But I'll totally accept it's a taste thing.

Again, short for time, but I wanted to at least make this clear...

Quote from: LostSoulHey Feanor;
This question has been answered, right?  You can see why some people might like "Conflict Resolution", or whatever anyone wants to call it, eh?

Nope...if you go back to that text again, you'll see the words "...as opposed to Task Resolution." In other words, why is there a need to draw such a hard distinction between the two?  Why not just agree that resolution mechanics occur at different levels of specificity and should be applied at the level agreed to by the group?

I'll tell you why, IMHO.  There's nothing sexy about that.  There's no "Look at our New and Improved Ultra Mechanic - Now with more FibltyBlurp!"  There's no way to set yourself apart and make a name.  Instead, you're just saying, "well, we had a problem with the groups interaction if we focused on each sword stroke, so we messed around and came up with this way to resolve things that has a little different approach..."

But that's not how most discussions of CR vs. TR came across.  Mind you, this disucssion has been fantastic.  I've only see a few hints of instances where someone from either side got into the mine-is-better-than-yours.  However, since the time I started lurking on sites about a year ago, trying to find some helpful theory, what I found were people defending an ideological position about one or the other.  Why the need?  Why opposition?

I'm going to go back to something I said before and you're probably tired of hearing (step away from the ignore list!).  Buried in the discussion of CR is a little referenced aspect - Narrative Control. Are people saying this is not part of CR? Perhaps. But then there are little hints about the real difference, like these:

Quote from: LostSoulThe description is the outcome for me.  The cool narration is what's happening.

Just differing tastes, I guess.

Quote from: warrenThe 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).

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but both bolded portions seem to imply that something else is going on here as well.  Perhaps I'm reading too much into it - that in warren's, the application of steps 3 & 4 are enough to keep narrative control in the GM's hands, or that LostSoul's description is restricted by other circumstances, such as the GM fiat.

Now, let's say I'm wrong about my suspicions. Narrative Control has nothing to do with CR; CR facilitates Narrative Control "better" than TR; this leads to CR and NC to be paired far more often which, in turn, leads to the perception that CR and NC are linked when, really, they aren't. So no, Feanor, you paranoid dork, CR and NC are not linked - there is no conspiracy to avoid all  talk of Narrative Control when describing CR because we figure we can fool you all into using CR and THEN we'll spring the Narrative Control aspect - it will be too late for you all to turn back....

So, there's no specific link between NC and CR.  But if you determine that TR is the "traditional" method used for years, and then someone who played way-back-when says, "Well the stuff you describe as CR we were doing in 1980," then doesn't that call into question the TR/CR demarcation?  Didn't people using what has been termed as TR cover simimlar ground as the things now being called CR?  (Oh no, we're told - you had evolved past TR and moved into proto-CR and towards the enlightment that is proper role-playing, CR!  But I'll let that unintended insult pass, promise and go back to my original point) CR and TR, while different, are not distinct enough to warrant the hard line of differentiation that's been drawn (yes, warren, it makes sense, I do see where they are different, but in another post, I'll show you how they aren't).  Instead, CR and TR are just points on a spectrum of resolution mechanic tastes - and should be seen merely as shorthand for this.

This screen is giving me a headache and lunch calls to me from afar, or my stomachis growling - whichever...so have at me, I can take it

Quote from: FeanorMaybe I'm just paranoid, but both bolded portions seem to imply that something else is going on here as well.  Perhaps I'm reading too much into it - that in warren's, the application of steps 3 & 4 are enough to keep narrative control in the GM's hands, or that LostSoul's description is restricted by other circumstances, such as the GM fiat.

Yeah, it's totally a system-specific thing. So this:

Quote from: FeanorNow, let's say I'm wrong about my suspicions. Narrative Control has nothing to do with CR; CR facilitates Narrative Control "better" than TR; this leads to CR and NC to be paired far more often which, in turn, leads to the perception that CR and NC are linked when, really, they aren't. So no, Feanor, you paranoid dork, CR and NC are not linked - there is no conspiracy to avoid all  talk of Narrative Control when describing CR because we figure we can fool you all into using CR and THEN we'll spring the Narrative Control aspect - it will be too late for you all to turn back....

Is bang on.

Quote from: FeanorSo, there's no specific link between NC and CR.  But if you determine that TR is the "traditional" method used for years, and then someone who played way-back-when says, "Well the stuff you describe as CR we were doing in 1980," then doesn't that call into question the TR/CR demarcation?

As I said in an early post, every game has had conflicts in it (or that game is really, really dull) and those conflicts need to get resolved somehow (or else the game goes nowhere). You can either use "TR + GM skills" to do that (the "traditional" way), or the rules can resolve those conflicts directly (the CR way).

Quote from: FeanorCR and TR, while different, are not distinct enough to warrant the hard line of differentiation that's been drawn (yes, warren, it makes sense, I do see where they are different, but in another post, I'll show you how they aren't).

I'll look forward to it

Actually, I'd be very interested to see a (mechanical)-CR system which doesn't incorporate what Feanor calls giving "narrative control" to a player. Except perhaps for the trivial case where the conflict is "I want to succeed at this task."

Until I see such an example, I'm inclined to disagree with you about that, Warren. I do believe that mechanical CR is about narrative control, even if it's in the rudimentary form of being able enforce having your goals respected.

However, Feanor, I really wish you would not take my use of the term "proto-CR" as an insult. All I meant by it was that it contained a hint of the key feature in CR which CR-fans point to: a rule or guideline that enforces a mechanical linkage between the player's goal and the resolution system. I gave an example in my "illusionist captured by barbarians" story, and Warren's outline of TR is basically a diagram of how it worked. I didn't enunciate a specific goal, I just did stuff that I thought might work toward that goal, and the GM interpreted that stuff as causing other stuff to happen. It's possible the GM picked up on my intention, but the chain of causality was handled socially, not mechanically, and at most partly by me (to the degree I made the GM understand what I wanted to achieve and/or how I thought my actions might work out). Again, this is the type of gaming I'm most used to and which I tend to enjoy. It depends very strongly on social consensus--good communication, trust, and/or being on the same wavelength. (Whether that makes it superior or inferior to mechanical CR isn't something I want to go into in this thread.)

However, Warren, in your outline of CR, Z is not required. All you need to invoke CR is that someone wants X, and somebody else wants not-X.

Quote from: warren1. 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.
1. A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He has to tell the GM this.

The only difference here seems to be whether or not the player must tell the GM. This is a bit of a straw man as a differentiation point as I don't know of a game I've personally played in where X wasn't known to all involved. Also, just as a niggling detail - the player doesn't want X, the player's character wants X.

Quote from: warren2. 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.
2. 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.

This is where I claim the major point of contention lies - and I believe it's because there's a ton of stuff skipped in the latter.  What I mean is that when you state, for TR, that the player translates and you mention no translation for CR, you're missing something.

I know that you claim this is the difference. But I'd argue that in order for you to determine if another PC/NPC wants not-X (thanks Elliot) you must translate.  This translation might be simple, it might be complex, but it must take place in order to determine if there's a "conflict of interest" to be resolved.

So, let's assume that you've done the "implied translation" of CR and determined that nobody wants not-X, that you would just allow the player to attain X.  And I'm assuming you claim this is different than TR.  It's not.  Let's assume that in a TR situation, the player does the "explicit translation" and the GM determines that it's not important for there to be any opposition, guess what will happen - no dice will roll and the King will give it up.  In fact, in my limited, old, crabby, grey-haired, when-I-was-young-you-whipper-snappers experience, the "explicit tranlsation" was skipped if the GM saw no reason for opposition.

So, really, what you have, is the difference between implicit and explicit translation?  I'd go a step further and claim that the implied translation is actually talked out in CR as people are defining the conflict further.  As I've said in the past, I'm not even a novice when it comes to playing these games, but from what I've read (that's what Actual Play discussion is for, no?), there's all kinds of discussion in defining "I want X" - and that's the translation happening.

Quote from: warren3. 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).
3. In order to obtain X against Z, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to obtain X against Z.

Let's assume Elliot's not-X notation.  If this is the case, and you assume that Y is an opposed roll (that is, the translated-to-task is against someone else) these are the same.  Now these might seem like alot of caveats, but they are not. You might be tempted to say "But look at all the combat rolls - they're unopposed!" And you'd be wrong for a huge portion of "TR" games.  GURPS - all combat rolls are opposed.  D&D, it's optional.  The default is to assume a take 10 for the defender, but the DMG specifically provides for several options of opposed combat rolls.

Quote from: warren4. The mechanic is applied and determines if the character does Y or not.
4. 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.

If we use not-X, There's nothing to see here folks - move along.

Quote from: warren5. 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)
5. 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).

Again, other than tortured verbiage to make them seem different, these are really the same. Particulary, I would argue with the "GM comes up with the consequences" portion.  This is usually understood up front, or at least the risks of various consequences are known (1 of these 3 things could happen).  In both cases, the description is bounded by what was defined in previous steps.

Quote from: warren6. 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'.

Though you placed this under TR, I would argue that this is the same for CR depending on how much the GM and player(s) agree to in front of the resolution mechanic coupled with the specificity of that resolution

And, ignoring Narrative Control, this is it.  Again, my point is that they are not all that different from each other - at least not enough for the line of distinction that has been drawn; certainly not enough for the word 'versus'.

That is, of course, ignoring Narrative Control.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, Feanor, I really wish you would not take my use of the term "proto-CR" as an insult. All I meant by it was that it contained a hint of the key feature in CR which CR-fans point to: a rule or guideline that enforces a mechanical linkage between the player's goal and the resolution system.

As I said, Elliot, I'm going to let this pass - I'm not really insulted.  I only brought it up because I think sometimes people forget what can be taken as an insult. I see people shocked, after they say something, to find others defensive about it, and they never realize that what they said could easily be taken as an insult.

Now I don't think you meant to be insulting - not in the least.  It's just a bit of an idiosyncrasy with me, at least tangentially; related to the reason I would spend so much time discussing the meaning of Conflict and Task when used to describe resolution mechanics. My apologies if you were upset by my idiosyncrasy.

I think you're right; narrative control is what "Conflict Resolution" is about.

You could hand out the actual narration in different ways, depending on the system.  The GM could do it; the person who rolled highest could do it; the guy who got the single highest value on a card or die could do it; or something else.  But in any case, the narration has to incorporate the player's intent.

In the orcs + cliff example, the player is saying "I catch up to the orcs" and when he rolls successfully, yes, he does catch up to the orcs.  The GM can't say, "Okay, you climb the cliff, and from this vantage point you see the orcs getting on horseback.  You'll never catch them now."  Nope, sorry GM; the player has, through the roll, established that he will catch up to them.

I think that Task Resolution does offer a degree of narrative control as well... but it's more limited.  Limited to how well a character does something.

Quote from: LostSoulIn the orcs + cliff example, the player is saying "I catch up to the orcs" and when he rolls successfully, yes, he does catch up to the orcs.  The GM can't say, "Okay, you climb the cliff, and from this vantage point you see the orcs getting on horseback.  You'll never catch them now."  Nope, sorry GM; the player has, through the roll, established that he will catch up to them.

I think part of my problem with these examples is that I consider that scenario entirely legitimate and even fun.  If my character sets off to catch the orcs, it's entirely possible that he doesn't know if he could catch them or not.  So climbing the cliff after them and watching them get onto their horses to flee is the point at which my character would realize that he won't catch the orcs and that the orcs had executed a well-planned attack that allowed them to escape.  I see nothing wrong with that.  Why go through that whole process if there is no way I can capture the orcs?  To experience the situation as my character does -- the hope of catching up to the orcs followed by the realization, after climbing a cliff, that he never will and that the orcs had planned their attack well.

I'll deal with this first:

Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, Warren, in your outline of CR, Z is not required. All you need to invoke CR is that someone wants X, and somebody else wants not-X.

Yes, it's not required. But it's a good idea to have an "active" opposing goal, as it means whatever the outcome of the roll, something interesting happens. Contrast:

PC: "I want to catch up to the Orcs". NPC Orc Chief: "I DON'T want anybody to catching up with me". If the PC loses, what happens? Nothing. The PC fails to catch up. The game goes nowhere.

PC: "I want to catch up to the Orcs". NPC Orc Chief: "I want my men to ambush anybody following us". If the PC loses, what happens? The PC fails to catch up and is jumped by some angry Orcs. That moves the game on and keeps the tempo up.

But yeah, you can read Z as not-X and nothing will really break. I'll keep with "not-X" opposition for the rest of my examples, for clarity.

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warren1. 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.
1. A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He has to tell the GM this.

The only difference here seems to be whether or not the player must tell the GM. This is a bit of a straw man as a differentiation point as I don't know of a game I've personally played in where X wasn't known to all involved. Also, just as a niggling detail - the player doesn't want X, the player's character wants X.

On the character thing; yeah, my mistake. But you say "I don't know of a game I've personally played in where X wasn't known to all involved." I only pointed this out because as Brian Gleichman said earlier in the thread:

Quote from: GleichmanIf I don't want the players to know the stakes, I don't want them to know the stakes. If as a player I don't want to know the stakes, I don't want to know the stakes.

That reminded me that not all people who use TR want to announce their intent to the table.

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warren2. 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.
2. 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.

This is where I claim the major point of contention lies - and I believe it's because there's a ton of stuff skipped in the latter. What I mean is that when you state, for TR, that the player translates and you mention no translation for CR, you're missing something.

I know that you claim this is the difference. But I'd argue that in order for you to determine if another PC/NPC wants not-X (thanks Elliot) you must translate. This translation might be simple, it might be complex, but it must take place in order to determine if there's a "conflict of interest" to be resolved.

Now, this is where we disagree. I have an PC who tells me the goal "I to evade the Baron's men". The GM can look at his NPC and say, "I want my men to find the PC". There is no translation there, IMHO, just little more than negation.

(Admittedly, If you go further and set Z to be more than not-X, which is usually a good idea as I said above, you have to look at what the NPC wants, but you don't have to consider what he is going to do about it at all, so I still think that there isn't any translation here)

On the other hand, a player might state his action is "I am going to climb that tree". They might say "because I want to evade the Baron's men" (but I guess that Gleichman wouldn't want to) to make things clearer. I think that requires an (albeit minor) translation from "evade men"->"climb tree".

Quote from: FeanorSo, really, what you have, is the difference between implicit and explicit translation? I'd go a step further and claim that the implied translation is actually talked out in CR as people are defining the conflict further. As I've said in the past, I'm not even a novice when it comes to playing these games, but from what I've read (that's what Actual Play discussion is for, no?), there's all kinds of discussion in defining "I want X" - and that's the translation happening.

I wouldn't say it's "translation" (in the way I am using it to go from goal->action), but clarifying of goals does happen in some cases.

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warren3. 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).
3. In order to obtain X against Z, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to obtain X against Z.

Let's assume Elliot's not-X notation. If this is the case, and you assume that Y is an opposed roll (that is, the translated-to-task is against someone else) these are the same. Now these might seem like alot of caveats, but they are not. You might be tempted to say "But look at all the combat rolls - they're unopposed!" And you'd be wrong for a huge portion of "TR" games. GURPS - all combat rolls are opposed. D&D, it's optional. The default is to assume a take 10 for the defender, but the DMG specifically provides for several options of opposed combat rolls.

Yeah, pretty much. The details may differ, but I agree in general.

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warren4. The mechanic is applied and determines if the character does Y or not.
4. 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.

If we use not-X, There's nothing to see here folks - move along.

Fair enough, but as I have said above, Z doesn't just have to be not-X.

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warren5. 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)
5. 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).

Again, other than tortured verbiage to make them seem different, these are really the same. Particulary, I would argue with the "GM comes up with the consequences" portion. This is usually understood up front, or at least the risks of various consequences are known (1 of these 3 things could happen). In both cases, the description is bounded by what was defined in previous steps.

OK, but my experiences with TR differed. When I played (and when I GMed) I didn't often make sure the consequences were explictly understood before the roll. But yeah, I'll buy that these are otherwise similar. For example, with the goals given above, the consequences for a CR failure would be "get discovered by the Baron's men". What are the concequences for failing to climb a tree? 10' falling damage? The Baron's men spotting you? Something else? All of the above?

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warren6. 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'.

Though you placed this under TR, I would argue that this is the same for CR depending on how much the GM and player(s) agree to in front of the resolution mechanic coupled with the specificity of that resolution

I'm not sure what you are saying here. If the players stated goal was "I want to evade the Baron's men", and he gets a success under a CR system, he has done it, and evaded them somehow. There is no way around that fact. Also, depending on the system, the PC might have climbed a tree, or hidden in long grass, or changed outfits with a passing peasant, or whatever, (that all depends on the specifc narration) but in any case, he has got away from the Baron's men.

On the other hand, if the players stated action is "I want to climb that tree" and he gets a success, the GM could say "You climb the tree, but the Baron's men see you doing it and ride towards you." Now, of course, the player can say "But I wanted to get away from them!" and things can be fudged around here, but I personally dislike doing that as both a GM and as a player.

Quote from: FeanorAnd, ignoring Narrative Control, this is it. Again, my point is that they are not all that different from each other - at least not enough for the line of distinction that has been drawn; certainly not enough for the word 'versus'.

Yeah, I think I would agree It is a different (not neccesarily new) way of looking at things, I think, but probably not enough for 'versus'. I'm a bit surprised by the reaction people have when you say "Conflict Resolution", to be honest.