Quote from: LostSoulI think you're right; narrative control is what "Conflict Resolution" is about.

I think we are using "narrative control" to mean different things.

Quote from: LostSoulYou 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.

This "who gets to narrate" is what I consider to be "narrative control". CR is a good match for it, but certainly doesn't require it.

Quote from: LostSoulBut 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.

This isn't what I consider narrative control. It is certainly what CR is all about, however.

Quote from: LostSoulI 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.

Going on what you mean by narrative control, I agree with this. Look at John Kim's example from Persuasion in the James Bond 007 RPG, or the explict and mechanical effects of Bluff or Intimidate in D&D3.5. The effects of a certain roll have definaite impact on the game, which the GM can't overrule.

(Crossed posted with Warren)

John, I don't see a problem with that example because it perfectly illustrates why you won't have fun with CR: because it does give at least a small amount of narrative control over "the world" to the player, which the character doesn't have. (Again, if there's a counter example, I'd like to see it.)

To go back to my illusionist example again, I might not even have been trying to escape at all. Maybe my illusionist was just trying to discomfit his captors out of spite or mischief. In that case, the outcome "you escape" came entirely from the GM, and that's fine. Now from my perspective this doesn't mean the GM was "in control of the plot". It just means I was doing something to affect the game-world, and my action was rewarded by having something else interesting occur. At the end of the day we could turn it into a story about how I saved the party but the idea of a goal didn't even have to enter into it.

A more extreme example would be something like a character sneaking around the enemy camp, tasting the enemy captain's dinner, mistakenly pouring alum instead of salt onto the potatoes before running away to avoid a guard, and unintentionally causing an argument that results in the cook killing the captain.

To achieve something like this, either the GM has to exercise "narrative control" or the player does--there's basically no way to go from the character's intentions, whatever they were, as expressed via the tasks attempted/performed, to the outcome. But furthermore, if the player's intention was to kill the captain, and the player "won the conflict", then even if the GM narrates the result, the fact that the GM has to conform to the player's intentions means that the player does, in fact, exert narrative control.

Quote from: warrenI think we are using "narrative control" to mean different things.

Probably.  I am taking it to mean, "Who gets input on what happens in the game."  That is different from who actually says (that is, narrates) what happens.  When you state your intent, and hit the mechanics to determine if you achieve your intent, you have input on what is actually said (or narrated).

So: you have control over the narrative by using Conflict Resolution.

I do think that there is "narrative control" in Task Resolution: "Do I climb the cliff?"  "Do I open the safe?"  It's just that it's a lot more limited.  "Yes, you climb the cliff, but the orcs are already gone."  Here, you have input over whether or not your PC can climb the cliff, but not over whether or not you catch up to the orcs.

To put it another way, the GM can't say that you didn't climb the cliff.  He doesn't have that authority; you made the roll, you climbed the cliff.  He can say that you don't catch up to the orcs.

Quote from: John MorrowI think part of my problem with these examples is that I consider that scenario entirely legitimate and even fun.

That's not what I find fun, but tastes differ, so it's cool.

I'm glad we agree on Narrative Control as being the real reason to differentiate.  However, I would disagree that the following is strictly a function of the one or the other (CR/TR that is):

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.

Player: "I strike the knave with my rapier."
GM:"The knave does not wish to be hit, so he dodges left. Roll."
Player Rolls, GM rolls for knave.  Player wins.
Player: "I strike him in the shoulder"
GM:"Well, you swing and your rapier seems to connect. But really the point passes through his sleeve."

And I quote: "Nope, sorry GM; the player has, through the roll, established that he will [strike the knave]."

In any game, the GM going back on what the roll represents would be seen as a major malfunction.  The fact that one group would play at a level of "I want to catch the orcs!" and another would play at a level of "I want to swing my rapier and strike the knave!" doesn't change that fact.  It is interesting to note that many believe only CR prevents this.  The only difference in the two is whether the rapier swing or the catching-up-to-the-orcs is "proteted" from GM railroading. This doesn't require mutually exclusive resolution mechanics.  People like to play at different levels of detail, and that no matter which they prefer, the resolution system must be respected by all players, including the GM.

That's an interesting point.  I'll have to think about that one.

Quote from: LostSoulThat's an interesting point.  I'll have to think about that one.

Quote from: LostSoulTo put it another way, the GM can't say that you didn't climb the cliff.  He doesn't have that authority; you made the roll, you climbed the cliff.  He can say that you don't catch up to the orcs.

Actually, it looks to me like you already have been thinking it

Here's the difference I see, Feanor. In the rapier example, in most RPGs (D&D, BRP, GURPS, for example), the rules spell out exactly what it means to succeed on a to-hit roll. You find the location, roll damage, subtract armor, determine injury effects mathematically, etc. In that sense, combat is both task resolution and a very constrained form of mechanical CR.

The point of distinguishing CR from TR though isn't to say that some games use one or the other exclusively, but to identify their use in various instances. (Yes, you can later try to write games that exclusively use CR, but you have to go through the step of identifying CR first.) In the orc example, we can say with certainty that the mechanic of rolling to climb the cliff wasn't CR, certainly not with respect to the issue of catching up to the orcs. Instead the conflict was resolved by the GM's determining that the orcs were already on the move.

From that observation you can then look at ways that "catching up to the orcs" can be mechanically resolved. It's not likely that you will have a "catch up to orcs" skill but if the game has one, you can say that CR & TR are the same in that instance, just as with the rapier example, in the sense that the conflict is directly resolved through mechanical application of the task system. More likely you might have a Pursuit or Tracking skill that is defined to allow "catching up" with your quarry on a successful roll.  And again, the conflict would be resolved through the mechanics.

But if not then you might want a general system to accomplish things that aren't precisely defined by tasks and without relying on GM-judgments and calculations that aren't defined by the rules. In that case the general system at least has to transition to the concept of "accomplishing goals via task + intent".

If you also build in the idea of focusing resolution around character conflicts, then you're in the realm of full-on CR.

That, for the love of Christ, is what Eero said in the thread I linked to about fifty pages back.

Possibly. The nice thing about this place is that people explain things in the context of the discussion instead of pointing to old threads and quotes and expecting the reader to hunt down the meaning and extrapolate all the ramifications that the linker believes are present.

Additionally; RPGs are fun. Things related to RPGs should be fun. Reading that post and parsing it for English meaning is, for myself, not fun.

I read the whole damn thing and nodded along, then realized that I simply had no idea what he was trying to say. It's like an algebra lesson that ends with "and THAT'S why horses can't go to college".

Let's put it on the table.

The players are resting at the bottom of a cliff after tracking a band of mercenaries for days – ever since they kidnapped the child of an important personage.  The players are pretty sure they can actually see the mercenaries peering over the precipice.  The GM would like the characters to chase the mercenaries back across the border, as that's where the remainder of the overarching plot is to be resolved.  He's actually going to have the mercenaries tease and taunt the characters to keep them on the chase.  The GM has prepared for the players doing the unexpected, as the best he can. However, the only thing that the GM would prefer not happen is that the characters catch the mercenaries until at least the border is in site.  He's prepared contingencies for that possibility, but they seem too much like railroading to him and he'd prefer not to go that route.

This is a very traditional setup for what would be deemed a "Task Resolution" game.  There may be several conflicts that exist (at least in the way "Conflict Resolution" is often used in discussion); the characters don't like the person from whom the child was kidnapped, but are duty-bound to pursue the kidnappers; the characters want to avoid a war, so they are not sure if they will cross the border to save the child.

Let us assume a player states, "I want to catch up to the mercenaries."

In the "Task Resolution" game, it depends on what level of specificity the resolution mechanics are applied.  In a granular game (most D&D or GURPS games, I'd wager) the GM and player might break down this goal into the component goals that better fit the resolution system.  Knowing this, the GM has already decided that in goal three of the six needed to "catch the mercenaries," the mercenaries would move out. This is the case in our example as the GM has already determined that the mercenaries are toying with the characters, attempting to lure them on. In a rules-light game, the GM may just rely on luck and preparation. The task is catching the mercenaries, and if the character succeeds, then the GM has a few other methods up his sleeve of steering the plot in the direction he desires – methods that do not violate the sanctity of the resolution.  Please note that in this case, if "Conflict Resolution" were really about resolution, "Task Resolution" would equal "Conflict Resolution."

In a "Conflict Resolution" Game, none of what I've just written matters. In truth, this entire scenario is probably not even allowed.  Why? Too much of the narrative/plot/story has already been decided by the GM. Too many conflicts have already been defined without the players input.

The original statement of goal itself has no meaning, at least according to the Eero explanation, it requires more. Why do you want to catch up to the mercenaries? Do you want to avoid a war? Do you want to prove your honor by saving the kidnapped child even though you dislike the parent?  And most importantly, it doesn't matter whether or not the GM wants the players to catch the mercenaries or not.  If the player states "I want to catch up with the mercenaries," the GM must allow for this.  The GM could require mechanics applied to determine if it takes place; this is still allowing for the possibility that the player character catches up to the mercenaries – something the GM, in our example, did not want to happen.

Let us assume that the player states "I want to catch up to the mercenaries to avoid the war."

Now we have "Meaning," so according to Eero, we have conflict. The argument goes that "Task Resolution" as a mechanic only deals with the first part of the statement, the part that, according to Eero, doesn't have meaning.  In "Task Resolution," according to everything I've read to date, there is no mechanical resolution for avoiding the war, only for catching up to the mercenaries. In "Task Resolution," the GM would decide if the war is avoided.

However, since we've agreed that "Task Resolution" can be used to resolve "tasks" as specific as a sword stroke or as broad as a battle, the "Task Resolution" GM could allow for the roll to include "avoid the war" as part of the consequences.  If the player succeeds, the war is avoided.  If the player fails, the war begins.  Suddenly, "Task Resolution" has addressed the "Premise-weight" that changed the original statement to a "conflict." So, I assert, it's not even about whether or not the desired goal of the player-character includes "Premise" or "Meaning" or any of another dozen capitalized words that mean "it's not just a task."

The issue is whether or not the GM can say "You caught up to them before the border, but soldiers of the army of your sworn enemy mistake your approach as an attack and counter with a massive swarm of arrows – the War has begun."  So the difference is that in "Conflict Resolution" the GM is required to allow the player to introduce, through statement of desired actions/goals, a part of the fiction and that the GM abide by that narrative direction once successfully introduced. Once the player adds "to avoid a war," the GM has only two options – allow it, or apply mechanics to determine if it occurs or not (the "Say Yes or Roll" approach).

It's interesting that even in Eero's explanation, he seems to avoid the basic element of narrative control, hiding it behind terms like "introduce and resolve conflicts," and mixes things up with terms like "Premise-weight."  In one breath, he says, "the distinction between conflict and task is not about f***ing scale or stakes or anything at all," but then says in the very next breath, "it's about story meaning only."  No, it's about who gets to create the story.  Eero starts with a blatant Truth – "A story is good if it has good conflicts, it's that simple."  But the next statement, "Conflict resolution rules, as they are called, allow us to introduce and resolve conflicts, and thus create a good story," is only true in circumstances if you assume the "us" refers to players. If the "us" includes the GM, you're back to traditional resolution.  You are back to a situation in which the GM and players, to the extent your play style provides, introduce conflicts and together resolve them.

So, with all due respect, if your system, no matter what you want to call it, allows the GM final authority over narrative control, it's not "Conflict Resolution," it's a variation on "Task Resolution." If your GM can say no, it's not "Conflict Resolution."

PS: It wouldn't be fair to ride Elliot for the "proto-CR" reference without pointing out what could be taken as an amazingly snobbish insult in the last quote I cited from Eero.  If you're not using "Conflict Resolution" you're not capable of "creat[ing] a good story"?  Are you kidding me?

Quote from: droogThat, for the love of Christ, is what Eero said in the thread I linked to about fifty pages back.

Looks like it.  But now I get it!

This thread was, for me, an instance of "saying it for yourself."  The issues that Feanor brought up challenged my old beliefs, which is cool.

Quote from: FeanorSo, with all due respect, if your system, no matter what you want to call it, allows the GM final authority over narrative control, it's not "Conflict Resolution," it's a variation on "Task Resolution." If your GM can say no, it's not "Conflict Resolution."

Sweet.  That changes how I saw Conflict Resolution, but I think I have a better grasp on it now.  Thanks.

Quote from: FeanorPS: It wouldn't be fair to ride Elliot for the "proto-CR" reference without pointing out what could be taken as an amazingly snobbish insult in the last quote I cited from Eero.  If you're not using "Conflict Resolution" you're not capable of "creat[ing] a good story"?  Are you kidding me?

I think what he means by "you" is "the group".  If the GM is the final authority over narrative control, then the group cannot create a good story.  Only the GM can.  (I have a feeling that this could be a whole other issue.)

Feanor, that's a great analysis. But do you also see what I'm talking about, in terms of linking intent to outcomes? Particularly since "conflicts" are a matter of subjective perception, I think it's easy to stumble if you go straight to talking about "Premise" (or most any other Forge-speak, which I'd just as soon avoid).

Let's just say there is an identified conflict--the PC wants something, and the GM doesn't want to just give it to him. Then if the outcome of the conflict is arrived at through mechanical resolution, we have an instance of conflict resolution. It really doesn't matter what the scale is, as long as we consider the issue in doubt to be a "conflict" and it gets resolved mechanically.

Sure, the "conflict" could actually be part of a larger macro-conflict, and that conflict in turn might not be resolved mechanically. That's important for a reason I'll get to in a second. But if we restrict our scope to the "conflict" at hand, we can see how it's possible to resolve it in a way that mechanically forces everyone to respect the player's intent. That's very different from a situation where there's no mechanical linkage between the intent behind a action and the outcome that results.

However, you're absolutely right to point to the scale issue when you look at the game as a whole. If instances of "conflict resolution" are separated by stretches where events occur purely according to the GM's judgment or whim, or if the scope of "conflict resolution" is restricted to whatever scale the GM allows ("You can roll to catch the mercenaries, but not to stop the war"), or even if the GM has the power to set the borders of resolution ("You can roll the catch the mercenaries, but if you're successful you have to make a separate roll to stop the war."), then on the whole the GM is still exercising a lot of narrative control. At most the GM is sharing control of "the story". But there's no guarantee that control will be shared except if you put more power in the players' hands to define the conflicts which allow them to mechanically enforce their intent. That in turn means handing over narrative control to the players.

Edit: the more I look at Feanor's post and mine, the more mine looks like a gloss of what he's saying. Still, I hope it helps clarify--and if there's something Feanor or anyone else disagrees with, I'd like to hear it.