Quote from: Elliot WilenFeanor, 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).

First - Thanks, I try...

Second - I wasn't the one who went straight to "Premise," that would be the person to whom droog linked, Eero.

Quoteconflicts are caused by the artist (players) perceiving premise-weight in a task. That premise-weight is our problem, and the reason for the need to differentiate between task and conflict resolution

Eero is saying that "Premise" is the entire reason for differentiating the two.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLet'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.

See, this is where it all comes apart for me. You might like the term "Conflict," but the ability to address this situation is not completely exclusive to "Conflict Resolution." It all depends upon on you, as a group, determine where and when to apply the mechanics, and what will be the risk/reward of the result.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, 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.

Which is exactly my point. If you really want a guarantee, then you require the GM is not sole arbiter of the story.  Otherwise, you must trust in the GM to share/retain control in the proper balance (and apply mechanics accordingly).  And there's your real difference between the two.

Quote from: FeanorSee, this is where it all comes apart for me. You might like the term "Conflict," but the ability to address this situation is not completely exclusive to "Conflict Resolution." It all depends upon on you, as a group, determine where and when to apply the mechanics, and what will be the risk/reward of the result.
..................................
Which is exactly my point. If you really want a guarantee, then you require the GM is not sole arbiter of the story.  Otherwise, you must trust in the GM to share/retain control in the proper balance (and apply mechanics accordingly).  And there's your real difference between the two.

That, as Eero points out, is why Sorcerer causes problems. The conflict resolution system is disguised as GM advice for what tasks to put forward.

Nice work, Feanor and Elliot. I'm sorry if just posting the link wasn't the right thing to do, but I didn't think I could really make his ideas more succinct. How about we post some detailed analyses of how various games break down in how they handle tasks and conflicts (and whether conflicts are in fact important in that game)? Some edge cases might be interesting.

Quote from: droogThat, as Eero points out, is why Sorcerer causes problems. The conflict resolution system is disguised as GM advice for what tasks to put forward.

I don't get what you're saying here.  Can you expand on it?  (I've got Sorcerer, so I can look stuff up.)

Sorcerer, mechanically, uses task res (as Eero points out). But for narrativist play, you must introduce and resolve conflicts. Players don't have abilities to do so in Sorcerer as compared with, say, Primetime Adventures.

Feanor said:

QuoteWhich is exactly my point. If you really want a guarantee, then you require the GM is not sole arbiter of the story. Otherwise, you must trust in the GM to share/retain control in the proper balance (and apply mechanics accordingly). And there's your real difference between the two.

So in Sorcerer, the traditional strong GM role is retained. But as Feanor points out, that doesn't guarantee that conflicts you have a stake in will be introduced and resolved. That's where the GM advice comes in.

The GM is supposed to base his preparation for play on the player's Kicker (and the diagram on the back of the sheet), and to drive play, by throwing appropriate tasks (ie Bangs) at the player to resolve. Thus, while it is often the GM who introduces tasks, these tasks, by the rules, are aimed at the player-written Kicker (the big, overarching conflict).

This can break down. The player might write a Kicker he's not really interested in, the GM's prep might not properly use the material the player writes, etc. Basically, the text of Sorcerer is a kind of transitional document, and some people find it difficult to interpret.

I was going to put it a little differently: to see Sorcerer as having CR, you basically have to include the GM advice, "Don't railroad", as part of the rules. Which, for a lot of people, isn't really revolutionary.

What is different, and which is causing some quibbling between me and Feanor, is the inclusion of "Premise" as part of CR. You can take this from a bunch of different angles. First there's the approach you bring up, the idea that the GM should use the PC's Kicker to generate situations that can be resolved through the task system. This turns all the task resolution into CR, unambiguously by Eero's conception, since the tasks genuinely resolve stuff, and that stuff is connected to the big, overarching conflict that the player's interested in.

Then there's a more freeform approach, which simply says that whatever a player frames as an intent must ipso facto be an important conflict, and therefore a Premise. I don't think it's too important to get hung up over this bit of logical gamesmanship, except to note that the expanding/contracting definition of Premise is often key to the various Nar/Sim arguments people have. (And apologies for bringing in that jargon.)

The third viewpoint, which is the one I've basically been endorsing in this thread, is to just forget about Premise and concentrate on the "don't railroad" part of CR. In this respect, beyond the use of the Kicker, Sorcerer is completely traditional--meaning that it swerves between "don't railroad" and allowing for a great deal of GM manipulation in the interest of plot (even, if I'm not mistaken, planning ending scenes beforehand). Whereas full-blown CR works mechanically to prevent manipulation, or at least make it hard to hide, and the mechanical innovation of incorporating "intent" and allowing negotiation over scope is something that can be used whether or not you think in terms of "Premise". This isn't to say that CR comes without cost, though, as we've observed that there are different tastes in terms of how much narrative control a player wants to exert directly.

Quote from: droogSorcerer, mechanically, uses task res (as Eero points out). But for narrativist play, you must introduce and resolve conflicts. Players don't have abilities to do so in Sorcerer as compared with, say, Primetime Adventures.

Wait... I thought Sorcerer used Conflict Resolution (Eero's changed his mind on this point).  I don't see how it's not CR.

I guess my question is what mechanics in Sorcerer make it TR rather than CR?

(I'd also like to talk about resolution in D&D, and how you can tinker with it to get different results.)

Hmmm, I think Sorcerer uses an early form of mechnical CR. It's "action-scale", but (IIRC) you state intentions and only roll when there is a conflict of interest, which puts it squarely in the CR camp to me.

Personally, I think that Eero's "meaning" is not required for CR, and is a bit of a red herring.

To move D&D into a CR way of looking at things, I think you simply need to state goals for everybody up-front, only roll if there is a conflict of interest with another character, and make as many rolls as you can opposed. And hold to the results. Job done.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat is different, and which is causing some quibbling between me and Feanor, is the inclusion of "Premise" as part of CR.

Me?  Quibble? I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find you believe me a Quibbler!

Quote from: Elliot WilenI don't think it's too important to get hung up over this bit of logical gamesmanship, except to note that the expanding/contracting definition of Premise is often key to the various Nar/Sim arguments people have. (And apologies for bringing in that jargon.)

The third viewpoint, which is the one I've basically been endorsing in this thread, is to just forget about Premise and concentrate on the "don't railroad" part of CR. In this respect, beyond the use of the Kicker, Sorcerer is completely traditional--meaning that it swerves between "don't railroad" and allowing for a great deal of GM manipulation in the interest of plot (even, if I'm not mistaken, planning ending scenes beforehand). Whereas full-blown CR works mechanically to prevent manipulation, or at least make it hard to hide, and the mechanical innovation of incorporating "intent" and allowing negotiation over scope is something that can be used whether or not you think in terms of "Premise". This isn't to say that CR comes without cost, though, as we've observed that there are different tastes in terms of how much narrative control a player wants to exert directly.

Elliot, I love you, man.  But the point I'm trying to get you to see is that there is no difference between the "don't railroad part of CR" and "Task Resolution."  People, myself among them, were playing the "don't railroad" CR for years before CR was ever spawned as a unique concept.  We had different methods, sometimes expanding scope, sometimes messing with Intent, sometimes even having the GM voluntarily relinquish narrative control (in an admittedly limited way).  Assuming I'm correctly understanding you as saying TR+Intent = CR, I think we actually agree on this point.

But I'm calling Bullocks on the rest.  You draw a line between this not-full-blown-CR and "full-blown CR." I'm saying you can't do that. That CR, by definition, is really about narrative control.  If you take that away, if GM keeps final authority in any way, it's not really CR anymore, it's modified TR. In fact, I claim that not-full-blown-CR has more in common with TR than it does with full-blown-CR!

I'm not an expert on Sorcerer - never played it, haven't seen the rules, and probably won't.  I'm too busy to even think about a new game now (my wife would kill me - it's hard enough getting time to peruse the rule books I have now). So I can't comment on that game and its system. But I wasn't trying to call out any specific game or system.  What I really wanted to know when I spawned this mess was the real difference between TR and CR and why there is such a hard line of distinction drawn between them to understand how choosing one or the other might affect my game design aspirations (that will probably, due to the aforementioned lack of time, never be fulfilled).

The conclusion I would draw from this nearly-two-hundred-post thread is that:

• You can use the "don't railroad" portion of CR without ever delving into forcing the GM to relinquish narrative control. You can do the same with TR (TR plus GM ability).
• You can use CR to help incorporate the players' intent into the resolution system without ever delving into forcing the GM to relinquish narrative control. You can do the same with TR (TR plus Intent plus GM-agreement-on-possible-narrative-impacts).
• You can use CR at various levels of resolution specificity to suit the group's style of play without ever delving into forcing the GM to relinquish narrative control. You can do the same with TR.
• You can use CR (the "full-blown CR" to which you refer), to force the GM to relinquish narrative control.  You can't do that in TR.

If in the first three examples, TR and CR can accomplish the same things, is there a need to draw a hard (often times, an implied mutually exclusive) distinction?

It might surprise some to see me write it, but I have absolutely no animosity, ill will, or sense of superiority over those games that require the GM to relinquish this control; to each his own. I just like words and concepts to have some sort of concrete foundation, and it always seemed to me that the way CR is tossed around in discussions, people are focusing on what really is TR plus GM ability, TR plus Intent, or modified TR specificity - the not-full-blown-CR. It's only in the last item where they truly differ – so let's call it what it is so we can all be clear.

Quote from: FeanorAssuming I'm correctly understanding you as saying TR+Intent = CR, I think we actually agree on this point.

I think so, too. At least that's a kind of CR advanced by the folks who talk about it. And you know, whatever we call it, it's kind a cool and/or different approach compared to narrowly interpreting tasks and leaving large amounts of in-game action to the GM's discretion. To go back to a common example:

QuotePlayer: I want to get into the treasury using my Sneak skill
GM: Okay, that's Difficult so you have to get a score of 4 on the dice.
Player: (Rolls) Hotcha, I did it!
GM: Okay, you're in. [Regardless of what the GM wants to have happen.]

is different from

QuotePlayer: I want to get into the treasury using my Sneak skill.
GM: Okay, roll.
Player: (Rolls) Crap, I didn't make it.
GM: [Doesn't want the player to fail.] As you climb along the roof, a loose tile falls and clatters on the group. A guard is sitting nearby and begins to look up from his post.
Player: I hit the deck and make a sound like a cat meowing. Then I throw a stone to make it sound like the cat is bounding off.
GM: Roll Hide augmented by Mimicry.
Player: (Rolls) Success!
GM: Okay, you're in.

Compare having a detailed map of the palace, guard locations marked, specific tasks noted to get past each obstacle, with consequences preplanned, etc. But, crucially, because having everything mapped out would leave nothing to improv, the GM would be forced to respect intent as expressed through task rolls and player decisions. I'm saying that compared to the first example, the mapping approach is just a higher level of detail in resolution. While in the second example, where the GM isn't really respecting dicerolls (or if you alter the scenario a bit, the GM could use similar tricks to avoid respecting intents), you have something qualitatively different.

QuoteBut I'm calling Bullocks on the rest.  You draw a line between this not-full-blown-CR and "full-blown CR."

Guilty. In fact I described "full-blown" or "full-on" CR in two ways:

1) Application of resolution purely in terms of character conflicts.
2) Explicit understanding that the player can achieve his intent, if he wins the conflict in terms of the mechanics. ("Can", because there might be situations where the player would change his mind partway through and not follow through on intent even after winning.)

In my defense, I'm not trying to turn those particular distinctions into hard definitions so much as identify the things that CR-advocates tend to put into their games. And also regardless of semantics ("full-on", "full-blown", "proto" or whatever) I do think those approaches are different from what I'm used to, which would be more like the "respect intents/don't railroad" and "map out ahead of time" methods.

I'll add a third point to "full blown", which is rarely seen, namely

3) Having explicit scope for all conflicts in the entire campaign, and/or allowing the player to define scope just as much as intent.

Candidates based on my reading of the rules or from comments on the net include My Life with Master, Trollbabe, Burning Empires. Maybe Primetime Adventures. (Of those, i've only actually read MLwM.)

QuoteI'm saying you can't do that. That CR, by definition, is really about narrative control.  If you take that away, if GM keeps final authority in any way, it's not really CR anymore, it's modified TR. In fact, I claim that not-full-blown-CR has more in common with TR than it does with full-blown-CR!

Again, I think once we leave the land of black & white definitions, we can see that there's a sliding scale. E.g., Dogs in the Vineyard doesn't say the GM has final authority (at least I don't think it does) but it does say the GM can discuss the stakes/scope of a conflict, encourage breaking a big conflict into smaller bits, etc. In short you can have shared authority which works through social interaction. And in fact many games are played this way regardless of what the rulebooks say--not only that, but one could argue games are always played this way (by virtue of the fact that the GM doesn't kidnap players off the street and strap them into their chairs).

Quote

• You can use the "don't railroad" portion of CR without ever delving into forcing the GM to relinquish narrative control. You can do the same with TR (TR plus GM ability). Yes--EW
  
• You can use CR to help incorporate the players' intent into the resolution system without ever delving into forcing the GM to relinquish narrative control. You can do the same with TR (TR plus Intent plus GM-agreement-on-possible-narrative-impacts).Yes but this implies a somewhat greater emphasis on working things out socially instead of relying on the GM in all cases.
  
• You can use CR at various levels of resolution specificity to suit the group's style of play without ever delving into forcing the GM to relinquish narrative control. You can do the same with TR.Yes, if by this you mean that the PCs may have significant but limited scope to affect things mechanically.
  
• You can use CR (the "full-blown CR" to which you refer), to force the GM to relinquish narrative control.  You can't do that in TR.I agree
  

[...]it always seemed to me that the way CR is tossed around in discussions, people are focusing on what really is TR plus GM ability, TR plus Intent, or modified TR specificity - the not-full-blown-CR. It's only in the last item where they truly differ – so let's call it what it is so we can all be clear.

Yes, I agree that there are a least four different things clustered under the CR label. And to complete the spectrum, you can add TR plus GM manipulation (all the time, everywhere), which is what people usually fall back on when they're trying to distinguish CR and TR.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThen there's a more freeform approach, which simply says that whatever a player frames as an intent must ipso facto be an important conflict, and therefore a Premise. I don't think it's too important to get hung up over this bit of logical gamesmanship, except to note that the expanding/contracting definition of Premise is often key to the various Nar/Sim arguments people have. (And apologies for bringing in that jargon.)

Yes, I think you're on to something. My hypothesis is that this attitude will come mainly from people playing games that thrust Premise ('meaning', what-have-you) to the forefront. It's difficult to make a move in a game of Dogs without making moral choices, because that's how it's built.

QuoteThe third viewpoint, which is the one I've basically been endorsing in this thread, is to just forget about Premise and concentrate on the "don't railroad" part of CR.... Whereas full-blown CR works mechanically to prevent manipulation, or at least make it hard to hide, and the mechanical innovation of incorporating "intent" and allowing negotiation over scope is something that can be used whether or not you think in terms of "Premise". This isn't to say that CR comes without cost, though, as we've observed that there are different tastes in terms of how much narrative control a player wants to exert directly.

I think that if you define it this way you run into all the problems of this thread. So what you're saying, to check, is that CR is not equivalent to narrativist play? That you could use it in any sort of game?

Quote from: LostSoulWait... I thought Sorcerer used Conflict Resolution (Eero's changed his mind on this point).  I don't see how it's not CR.

I guess my question is what mechanics in Sorcerer make it TR rather than CR?

Going by Eero's definition in the thread I linked, the resolution system in Sorcerer primarily addresses events in the story: Does my character beat the other in this fight? Does he Summon the demon he requires? Does Janey grab the vase? This is task res. None of these actions automatically resolve conflict unless they have been invested with significance.

Quote from: droogI think that if you define it this way you run into all the problems of this thread. So what you're saying, to check, is that CR is not equivalent to narrativist play? That you could use it in any sort of game?

The CR that I'm describing in my third viewpoint, yes. If the Nar/Sim distinction means something to you other than "Sim is pure GM Force", I'm saying that this type of CR can be used in a Sim game. If you're agnostic, atheistic, skeptical, or apostate on the whole GNS thing, then this type of CR is just irrelevent to GNS. Someone might look at you playing and say you're playing Nar, someone else might disagree, but it wouldn't matter.

I don't see a problem. Note that later on Feanor and I've basically agreed that what people refer to as conflict resolution encompasses a bunch of things that don't necessarily have to go together. "Premise"/significance is one of them.

Hmmm. I guess that's a useful unpacking, especially for Feanor's purposes, but it leaves the term itself a bit useless. Maybe that's not a problem.

Quote from: droogI think that if you define it this way you run into all the problems of this thread. So what you're saying, to check, is that CR is not equivalent to narrativist play? That you could use it in any sort of game?

Yeah, I think that CR doesn't require, or imply, narrativist (or Sim, or Gamist, or whatever-ist) play. It's just an approach to resolution that:

1) Makes the goal of the character clear (not Eero's meaning, for me. Just stuff like "I want to get away from the Orcs", "I want to kill the Troll" kind of thing).
1a) This makes the concequences of failure clear and upfront.
2) Skips over stuff people don't care about (don't roll unless there is a conflict of interest).
3) Ensures that "what happens" respects the goals given upfront.
3a) Generally, you can't repeat a roll unless the situation and/or goals change; once a conflict has been resolved, you can't just try it again; (combat being a common exception, but even then you can say that the situation is very changeable, so re-attempts make some kind of sense).

You can do this mechanically, you can do this by following GM advice in the book, you can do this by GM skills and a TR core, or whatever.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think so, too. At least that's a kind of CR advanced by the folks who talk about it.

The reason I've such a difficult time with this is precisely because it's almost the only kind I've seen discussed – certainly outside that other site and many times even there. This has been what I was trying to confirm when I asked the first question. If this kind of CR is really what people mean, then I say "Bullocks!" It's no more than a modified TR based on people's play style preference. Perhaps in the most extreme of border cases, where players are barely using a resolution system and it focuses solely on intent with virtually no reference to skills and/or traits, "CR" might be different enough to justify some differentiation.  Otherwise, the concepts being discussed just aren't that different! As I said, this assumes we're talking about the kind of CR being discussed.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd you know, whatever we call it, it's kind a cool and/or different approach compared to narrowly interpreting tasks and leaving large amounts of in-game action to the GM's discretion.

As I've said before, to each his own.  Me, I lean towards the crunchier emulation/simulation/contest-of-skills aspects. I'm of the opinion that if you can't trust the GM, you need to change GM. But I could see where some gamers would prefer a system that focuses the resolution system differently, even if it's not to avoid GM power issues. But that's all preference.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut, crucially, because having everything mapped out would leave nothing to improv, the GM would be forced to respect intent as expressed through task rolls and player decisions.

Umm, I completely reject your premise (there's that damn word again). Having everything mapped out does not rule out improvisation. Only if the GM forces the issue, commonly referred to as railroading, is that the case. A good GM, IMHO, uses that map as a starting point.  The improvisation comes once the players make contact with that. The GM reacts, trying to emulate what would happen once the characters start saying "I want to do X." The GM doesn't map out what the characters are going to do/say. If he does, he might as well just write a script and hire actors. He sure as hell won't have a group much longer.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm saying that compared to the first example, the mapping approach is just a higher level of detail in resolution. While in the second example, where the GM isn't really respecting dicerolls (or if you alter the scenario a bit, the GM could use similar tricks to avoid respecting intents), you have something qualitatively different.

I find it interesting that in your examples (and I know they are just examples, but...) the second one, where the GM is meant to be seen as railroading, reads more exciting by far!  I'd much rather be the player in the second example – there's excitement, tension.  In fact, the more I read them, the more I see the examples as a perfect illustration of how the latter provides the GM more flexibility to create an exciting scene/story. But, again, that's preference, and honestly beside the point.

It's only qualitatively different if you don't allow the GM to determine whether or not the player can include his intent. If the GM is forced to "say yes or roll," as the pithy phrase goes, then what's qualitatively different is required shared narrative control – which is the only thing I've asserted is the difference between "TR" and "CR."

Quote from: Elliot WilenI described "full-blown" or "full-on" CR in two ways:

1) Application of resolution purely in terms of character conflicts.

Character conflicts...defined as...?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen2) Explicit understanding that the player can achieve his intent, if he wins the conflict in terms of the mechanics. ("Can", because there might be situations where the player would change his mind partway through and not follow through on intent even after winning.)

Read that again.  You have to admit that it's no different than "TR," don't you? It simply depends on your group/game determines when/what level to apply resolution mechanics, and the risks/rewards once applied.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn my defense, I'm not trying to turn those particular distinctions into hard definitions so much as identify the things that CR-advocates tend to put into their games.

I've said before, and I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge again: It is true that CR-advocates tend to focus resolution mechanics at a broader level, as well as incorporate intent as part of those mechanics. Also, this approach facilitates the real meaning of Conflict Resolution, player-controlled-narrative, far better than mechanics more granularly focused. I assert this does not provide differentiation between "TR" and "CR."

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd also regardless of semantics ("full-on", "full-blown", "proto" or whatever) I do think those approaches are different from what I'm used to, which would be more like the "respect intents/don't railroad" and "map out ahead of time" methods.

They are not common in non-full-blown-CR games, but they are possible. I assert this does not provide differentiation between "TR" and "CR."

Quote from: Elliot Wilen3) Having explicit scope for all conflicts in the entire campaign, and/or allowing the player to define scope just as much as intent.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first part of the statement (explicit scope for all conflicts), but I would change the second part of your statement only slightly. It's not about allowing the player to define scope.  Again, progressive GM's could do that in a "TR" system, and did way back in..well..my youth  I would change the word allowing to requiring. Then we are in some agreement - that it is a characteristic of "CR" and is the aspect that is rarely seen. Which is ironic to me as that's the only thing that actually differentiates the two!

Quote from: Elliot WilenAgain, I think once we leave the land of black & white definitions, we can see that there's a sliding scale.

Why leave?  The weather is great! In seriousness, this whole exercise, for me, has been an attempt to get a solid definition of these concepts that have, IMHO, become muddled. And the conclusion I've come to is that the sliding scale is the very reason "TR" and "CR," at least the kind of CR advanced by many, are really just one big spectrum of resolution mechanics that have advantages and challenges depending on play-style.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, I agree that there are a least four different things clustered under the CR label.

I don't know how many there are, though four seems as good a number as any.  But only one makes a difference. I'm sure, by now, you know what I'm going to say next.

PS: I'll get to warren later...breakfast..Mmmmm...