I'm on your side, Feanor.

I think it goes back to: What the heck do you mean by 'task' and 'conflict', anyway?

Quote from: warrenYeah, I think that CR doesn't require, or imply, narrativist (or Sim, or Gamist, or whatever-ist) play.

Well, I'd say that's a bit of a straw man, since I didn't mention any of those (that I can recall off the top of my head). To not be taken as a straw man, my assumption is that your saying my requirement of forced-divestiture-of-GM-narrative-control is "Narrativist" play. Unpacking those nifty definitions is a Pandora's box, but if that is what "Narrativist" play requires, I'll play along.

Quote from: warren1) 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 consequences of failure clear and upfront.

This is not inherent in CR, any more than it is in TR.  That is, making the goal of the character clear, whether it be as specific as "I swing my sword to hit my enemy!" or a general as "I want to kill my enemy!" is required no matter what resolution approach.  CR advocates want to say "but look, I'm dealing with goals, not tasks."  Bullocks! If you do not mean "narrative control through the player introduction of plot during goal setting, unhindered by GM control" when you say "goal", than you're doing the same damn thing at a different degree of focus. If you do mean "narrative control through the player introduction of plot during goal setting, unhindered by GM control" when you say "goal", then you're requiring player-narrative-control as part of "CR".  And as a follow-up to this, if you must define goals, specific or general, regardless of TR or CR distinctions, then you also must know the consequences of failure for that resolution.

Quote from: warren2) Skips over stuff people don't care about (don't roll unless there is a conflict of interest).

Bullocks! Are you saying that TR requires people to address stuff they don't care about? I assumed this had been debunked for some time, thus rendering this useless as a differentiator.

Quote from: warren3) Ensures that "what happens" respects the goals given upfront.

Bullocks! As I said in a response to LostSoul - once the goal is established, regardless of the level of specificity, it must be respected. To think that "TR" somehow allows a GM to look at a successful roll and say "You failed!" is, candidly, ludicrous. See #1, above.

Quote from: warren3a) 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;

Bullocks!  I'll quote myself from the response to 3 - Once the goal is established, regardless of the specificity, it must be respected. "TR" does not magically allow people to disregard the rules, the established goals, and the results of the mechanics.  Are you saying that if a character swings at a foe and misses, that in TR the character gets a do-over?  Are you saying the GM gets to do this? Not in my experience. Again, once the goal is established, whether specific or general, the resolution mechanic must be respected.

So again, we have a situation where you provide 5 points (3 main and two corollaries) and I can't see anything you've written that is different in "TR" and "CR" - other than scale.

Do scale differences have impact?  Absolutely! There are certainly style issues that result from scale. Broad goals tend to facilitate player-controlled-narrative and limit the ability of the GM to manipulate a situation, whether good or bad. Narrow goals tend to facilitate a more emulative feel, and provide more flexibility for the GM to manipulate a situation, whether for good or bad. But are these differences enough to draw such a hard line between the two approaches? Are the two approaches mutually exclusive? Is there a huge spectrum of play styles between these two concepts?  If so, do they have names too?

What I'm trying to get at here is that I think there are two possibilities:

"CR" and "TR" are different.  The distinction between them is that the former requires player-controlled-narrative. Without this shift in narrative control, a system can not be considered "CR"

Or

The definition of "CR" does not require player-controlled-narrative, and thus only differs from "TR" in scale. Therefore, "CR" is shorthand for "TR modified by scale to address player/GM trust issues."

I think you can have one or the other, but not both.

Quote from: FeanorWhat I'm trying to get at here is that I think there are two possibilities:

"CR" and "TR" are different.  The distinction between them is that the former requires player-controlled-narrative. Without this shift in narrative control, a system can not be considered "CR"

Or

The definition of "CR" does not require player-controlled-narrative, and thus only differs from "TR" in scale. Therefore, "CR" is shorthand for "TR modified by scale to address player/GM trust issues."

I think you can have one or the other, but not both.

I agree fully with your last sentence. If 'CR' is to mean anything, it must mean something in the direction of the first definition. I've got some quibbles with the way it's expressed, but the logic is clear.

Quote from: FeanorI 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 a matter of preference, but that example pretty much defines why you'd use CR - for the shared narrative control.

I don't want to play in the 2nd example because I see it as 100% railroading.  What you decide to do doesn't matter, it all comes down to GM fiat.  (Well, I guess what you do does matter, but only in a social, "can-I-impress-the-GM" way.  If you impress the GM enough, then you'll get what you want.)

This means that you need CR for narrativist play.

Quote from: FeanorBullocks! As I said in a response to LostSoul - once the goal is established, regardless of the level of specificity, it must be respected. To think that "TR" somehow allows a GM to look at a successful roll and say "You failed!" is, candidly, ludicrous. See #1, above.

Only in so far as the rules cover the established goal.

If you want to say, in D&D...

"I stab him with my rapier because I want to give him a scar for life!"
You roll vs. AC 17.  You get a 21.  You do 8 points of damage.

The DM can say: "Okay, you hit him.  You didn't scar him."
He can also say: "Okay, you hit him.  You did scar him."

What the DM can't do is say, "No, you missed."  He also can't say, "You only did 6 points of damage."  

Does he have a scar or not?  That is 100% up to the DM.

Contrast that with CR, where the DM has to accept the scar.

Quote from: FeanorBullocks!  I'll quote myself from the response to 3 - Once the goal is established, regardless of the specificity, it must be respected. "TR" does not magically allow people to disregard the rules, the established goals, and the results of the mechanics.  Are you saying that if a character swings at a foe and misses, that in TR the character gets a do-over?  Are you saying the GM gets to do this? Not in my experience. Again, once the goal is established, whether specific or general, the resolution mechanic must be respected.

Let's say I make a Hide check.  I want to Hide from the goblins patrolling camp.  I flub it - I roll a 2.  With my modifiers, I have a 9.

The DM says that the goblins stop, take a leak/have a smoke/eat a rat, then head back.  Because the DM wanted me to succeed.  So I keep rolling until I get a result that the DM likes.

I've also seen many, many people claim that rolling a "Helpful" result on a Diplomacy check just means that the evil villain will kill you last, when it's obvious the goal/intent is to make the evil villain play nice.

Hmm, at this point I'm just bitched about bad DMing.  That's why I like CR, though.  The DM can't pull those kinds of tricks.  You can punch him in the cock and call him a cheater for doing it.

Feanor, we're in agreement that the TR/CR dichotomy is false in the sense that the two aren't mutually exclusive. I do realize that there are people out there who talk as if they are (including Vincent/lumpley in his example). You often address my comments as if I'm trying to lay down precise definitions that justify how other people use the terms. I'm not, so I'm not sure what the point is in arguing over semantics; instead I'd hope that at some point we can examine real gradations and differences.

For example, we've been saying that you can resolve conflicts by explicit task + player intent, or by simply having the GM respect player intent. However, it seems you are taking the latter as a sort of baseline, for example when you say above to warren that players are required to state their intents. That in turn makes it easy to minimize the difference between "task + explicit intent" and "GM respect". Well, I don't see that. I could attack an NPC, intending to make him beg for mercy, and with the right GM I could accomplish that without having to state my intent at all. Or possibly the rules are such that I can't mechanically enforce such an intent, even though I can announce it. That makes it a lot easier for the GM to bring about my intent should I succeed in my attack--but it still leaves the fulfillment of my intent up the GM. This is potentially a burden on a GM who wants to provide opposition to the players' initiatives but who has trouble maintaining a sense of balance, and of course it's a PITA for players who have to deal with a GM who has a tendency to steer play along a given plot.

Now on to some of your questions and arguments. I wrote about how a GM could force himself to respect intent and dicerolls by mapping everything out in advance and leaving nothing to improv. You disagreed that this would make it possible not to improv. To which I say: bollocks. I agree in principle that a GM can react improvisationally to whatever players do, but the GM doesn't have to, and that doesn't mean railroading. The purest example is the old solo adventures from The Fantasy Trip (and probably Flying Buffalo and others), which in a way were a pen & paper bridge between the Choose Your Own Story books and the video game Doom. When you entered a location, your options were limited (including the fact that combat was handled by detailed but strict rules). But "what happened" depended entirely on your choices and the dicerolls. You often had the ability to circumvent or retreat from combat, and there was no requirement to visit every location. In short the outcome of "entering the dungeon" depended on your wits and luck; it wasn't in the GM's power to manipulate events for the sake of dramatic tension or scaling the challenge to the PCs' resources. Therefore, the players could be certain that everything they did mattered.

[Full disclosure: some of the solo adventures did have some manipulative elements, like giving a "choice" of Door A or Door B with the monster sitting behind whichever door they pick. But in general, what I wrote above applies.]

Similarly, if I made a palace with guard locations and such, I could set specific triggers for guards to notice intruders and raise an alarm. E.g. "If a PC enters this square without having made a successful Sneak roll, a guard notices." "If a PC enters this square, make a Perception roll. On success, the PC notices the guard in the tower in square X." While the players may not be aware of the precise triggers, they can do anything they want and be certain that it won't be judged "on the fly" so as to surreptitiously guide the adventure.

I can see someone objecting that the scenario would seem shallow or like a board game. Sure. I don't expect most adventures to be prepared or run in such a mechanistic fashion. Instead, I look at it as a model or ideal for what a certain philosophy of GMing can try to achieve through improv. In short it's what you write when you say,

Quote from: FeanorA 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.”

But it's completely different from what you praise later,

Quote from: FeanorI’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.

In the second example, the GM decided beforehand that the PC was going to make it into the palace undetected. Probably even make off with the jewels or whatever. What you call "giving the GM flexibility to create an exciting story" lies on a slippery slope toward having the GM make up the story beforehand. The PC misses the stealth roll and a tile clatters on the ground, attracting a guard's attention. So the GM lets the player try something else--mimicking a cat. If that fails, the guard doesn't raise the alarm immediately but climbs up a ladder. So now the PC can get a surprise attack with a thrown dagger. And so forth. As long as the player takes the tension and threats seriously (or pretends to?), the GM will find ways to save his ass. Maybe a great GM can manage this over the long term without the players becoming jaded and desensitized to the made-up tension. It seems many GMs can't manage it in spite of their best efforts, while others end up boring themselves.

(Or maybe I'm just expressing my own biases here. After all, Theatrix managed to gain a number of fans even though it was pretty much founded on heavy GM-control over events, via various techniques such as the old "you sneak past the guard but run into a maid" trick, or the "big bad henchman slips on oil and misses you" trick. I was lucky enough to score a copy the other day so I'm looking forward to seeing exactly how it works. But whatever's better, I'm sure there's a difference.)

So moving on, you wanted me to clarify one of the variants of how the term CR is used, where it's meant to refer to character conflicts. This is where CR-advocates say that no conflict is worth resolving unless you can identify a conflict-of-interest between the PC and another character. A classic case is the "climb a tree" example. Why climb the tree? To avoid being seen. By whom? By the mercenaries. Then don't roll your Climb vs. the tree's "difficulty", roll your Avoid, augmented by Climb, vs. the mercenaries' Pursue. Or if the conflict is really with the duke who hired the mercenaries, then frame the conflict that way and use his attributes in the resolution.

Again, I'm not trying to define CR here, just illustrate a category or concept that people often tie into what they call CR. And I think it's a useful/interesting idea, for some applications or tastes, regardless of what you call it.

Then you question whether "Explicit understanding that the player can achieve his intent, if he wins the conflict in terms of the mechanics" is the same as TR. It isn't. You can have TR with explicit understanding, which also happens to be CR. But as I showed above, "explicit understanding of intent" is something extra on top of TR. You can have TR without explicit understanding, but in order to have (mechanical) CR, you must have explicit understanding. Because without explicit understanding, there's no guarantee that the intent can be achieved through the application of the mechanics.

Basically, player-controlled narrative is different from non-player-controlled narrative. But phrasing it that way obscures the fact that the control can vary depending on scope. A player can completely control whether he catches the orcs (perhaps subject to a "Pursue" diceroll) without controlling whether he stops the war. So I'm saying: look at a given issue/conflict. Is it resolved via some mechanics? Then the application of those mechanics, in that instance, is Conflict Resolution of some sort. Quite a few players are happy to exert "narrative control" in ways that lie well beyond what their characters could hope to accomplish by direct application of their abilities; others are offended by the idea. Even if they're okay with abilities that operate on a high level of scale or abstraction (using "Diplomacy" to stop a war), they may not be okay with using existing abilities as ad-hoc proxies for nonexistent mechanics. They see using "Pursue" with explicit intent "stop the war" as presuming a chain of causation on which their character's abilities simply wouldn't have much of a bearing. So issues of scope and representation are worthy of attention. (Just as are, incidentally, issues of concrete vs. psychological vs. thematic attributes.)

You also asked me what I meant by this

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

In other words, either somehow defining the domain of possible goals that a player can declare and enforce through CR, or not limiting the player at all. In My Life with Master, the scope of a player's goals for a PC (a Minion in game terms) are pretty much limited to trying to disobey the Master, trying to carry out some specific nefarious act, or trying to achieve some sort of intimacy with a normal person. All of these actions have specific mechanical resolutions and have formal mechanical consequences that carry through to future resolutions, leading all the way to the end of the game, where they determine the minion's fate. In Trollbabe I believe there's some sort of mechanism both for defining the overall stakes of a scenario and for defining the stakes of a given roll. (Something like, if you fail your first attempt to do something, you just fail. If you fail the second, you're hurt. If you fail the third, you're dead. I don't know exactly, since I don't own the game.)

I really haven't seen any games allow players to just declare any goal they want, but I included it as a possibility.

Again, this is an effort to generalize and classify, not to assert ontological absolutes. Basically I'm saying that MLwM and some other games leave fairly little up to judgment or negotiation when it comes to determining whether a given intent/goal is okay to feed into the resolution system. Others have a lot more room for discretion, which has both benefits and costs.

Quote from: LostSoulIf you want to say, in D&D...

"I stab him with my rapier because I want to give him a scar for life!"
You roll vs. AC 17.  You get a 21.  You do 8 points of damage.

The DM can say: "Okay, you hit him.  You didn't scar him."
He can also say: "Okay, you hit him.  You did scar him."

What the DM can't do is say, "No, you missed."  He also can't say, "You only did 6 points of damage."  

Does he have a scar or not?  That is 100% up to the DM.

Contrast that with CR, where the DM has to accept the scar.

Not necessarily. I did something very like this once. I might be able to find the exact date if I went and dug out my character's journal, but I'm going to guess it was about 1989. It was an AD&D game. I had a great GM named Mike. The group was mostly hack & slash with some good role playing thrown in for good measure - all in all a fairly crunchy, traditional game.

They used to have this tactic of "called shot," (I'd have to check 3.5 to see if it's still there) and it gave you something like -4 to hit. IIRC, Mike told me, "If you want to give him a scar, it's a called shot." I rolled, I don't know, I think a 15. "You hit," Mike said, "but he turns his head and raises his shoulder just in time.  Your mace smashes into his shoulder, but you do not scar him."

Now this wasn't a result of GM fiat. That is unless you figure Mike determining a difficulty based on the called shot and letting things roll. He addressed both of my goals - to hit him and scar him. He found a way to facilitate my goal through existing mechanics. Was this CR? Wow, you mean we were doing CR in 1989? Cool

Quote from: LostSoulLet's say I make a Hide check.  I want to Hide from the goblins patrolling camp.  I flub it - I roll a 2.  With my modifiers, I have a 9.

The DM says that the goblins stop, take a leak/have a smoke/eat a rat, then head back.  Because the DM wanted me to succeed.  So I keep rolling until I get a result that the DM likes.

I've also seen many, many people claim that rolling a "Helpful" result on a Diplomacy check just means that the evil villain will kill you last, when it's obvious the goal/intent is to make the evil villain play nice.

Hmm, at this point I'm just bitched about bad DMing.  That's why I like CR, though.  The DM can't pull those kinds of tricks.  You can punch him in the cock and call him a cheater for doing it.

In his... :eek: Remind me not to GM for you! But I would argue that what you were doing was exactly what you said (bitching about bad DMing), and that it does not take CR to remove those tricks. It takes a good GM and trust between Player and GM.

Let's look at the example I just provided.  What if Mike didn't want me to scar the NPC? Why? I have no idea. But if Mike wanted to keep the NPC unscarred, what are his options? He could argue that the attempt is even harder than a "called shot," and increase the penalty.  Besides risking an all out rules-lawyer episode (not from me, but we had a couple in the group who would have jumped to my "defense"), this would not guarantee his desired outcome. He could throw something else at me, I suppose.  He could have said "Nope, he's wearing a helmet that covers his face," even if that was not the case. But I trusted Mike enough to believe he would handle the encounter fairly. If I didn't, why am i playing in his game? Oh...if I had rolled a 19, and he had said "You hit him in the face, but his visor fell just in time to avoid the scar," I would have called him a cheater and punched him in the...arm.

However, as far as I know, Mike applied a "TR" mechanic to address a "conflict." He allowed me the possibility of introducing this (what I thought was an in-character, interesting) plot twist without the rules twisting his arm to force him. We both respected the outcome. "TR"? "CR"?  If you answer the latter, realize you're saying we were doing "CR" in a 1989 game of AD&D...
 
And as I was writing this, I thought of another way to view it.  I'm going to anticipate a response, so I could be wrong. But I could totally see a CR advocate saying, "This is all well and good, and Mike sounds like a great GM you were lucky to have. But the advantage of CR is that it makes all of this part of the mechanics.  Mike wouldn't have a choice. He'd have to respect your intent and abide by the outcome. You wouldn't have to worry about his motives."  I have two answers:

• Mike was a good guy and a great GM. Why would I insult him by using rules that essentially said "You're a liar, cheat, and/or bad GM, so I'm going to use rules that protect me."  Talk about introducing conflict!
• The "you have to respect my intent" portion of this, IMHO, is the aforementioned required-player-narrative control. If Mike must allow me to scar the NPC, he no longer has control of the narrative (this might be a decidedly limited example, but the concept holds). This brings us full circle, back to this being the defining characteristic of CR.
  

BTW, my character's thirst for revenge grew all the more due to the fact that he was unable to scar the bastard. It became his obsession. But when the low-life scum was caught in a later adventure, my character's conscience wouldn't let him finish the deed. Good? Bad?  I know I enjoyed it.

Elliot - I started to respond, but I could see it taking me, literally, hours.  And I want to give a full, thought out reponse. But it's late, for me.  I'll try tomorrow when I should have more time.

should probably be a pm, but eh..what the 'ell...

Quote from: Elliot WilenFeanor, we're in agreement that the TR/CR dichotomy is false in the sense that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Well, it's a start

Quote from: Elliot WilenI do realize that there are people out there who talk as if they are (including Vincent/lumpley in his example). You often address my comments as if I'm trying to lay down precise definitions that justify how other people use the terms. I'm not, so I'm not sure what the point is in arguing over semantics; instead I'd hope that at some point we can examine real gradations and differences.

Please don't take it personally.  I'm adressing comments as if I'm trying to lay down accurate definitions. It's often pointless to argue over semantics. Obviously, I don't feel we are, or I'd stop discussing it. One man's semantics are another man's meaning. To be honest, talking about gradations, with respect to my intenet of the original post, is arguing over semantics. It would assume we're beyond agreement about the basic definitions and whether or not CR is shorthand for "modified TR" or "Narrative Control." And finally on this point, I think I've been pretty clear that I agree there are differences in TR that addresses tasks only and TR that addresses broader goal including intent; how they play, what impact it might have, which might facilitate different styles better or worse. Are you saying I'm incorrect in those areas?

Quote from: Elliot WilenFor example, we've been saying that you can resolve conflicts by explicit task + player intent, or by simply having the GM respect player intent. However, it seems you are taking the latter as a sort of baseline, for example when you say above to warren that players are required to state their intents. That in turn makes it easy to minimize the difference between "task + explicit intent" and "GM respect". Well, I don't see that. I could attack an NPC, intending to make him beg for mercy, and with the right GM I could accomplish that without having to state my intent at all. Or possibly the rules are such that I can't mechanically enforce such an intent, even though I can announce it. That makes it a lot easier for the GM to bring about my intent should I succeed in my attack--but it still leaves the fulfillment of my intent up the GM. This is potentially a burden on a GM who wants to provide opposition to the players' initiatives but who has trouble maintaining a sense of balance, and of course it's a PITA for players who have to deal with a GM who has a tendency to steer play along a given plot.

Wow...ummm...if you want your intent to be known, not announcing is about the worst way to go about it. I mean, if you and you GM are in such sympatico that she can read your mind..fantastic! Otherwise, stating your intent is the only way to see if the GM will allow it in the game (assuming you are playing a game where the GM has final authority). Are there systems that I can't mechanically request such an intent? I bet there's at least one of everything in the field. The question we have before us is if there's a category that requires your ability to mechanically enforce that intent, regardless of GM objection and if that, in turn, is "Conflict Resolution." The rest is GM/Player issues.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNow on to some of your questions and arguments. I wrote about how a GM could force himself to respect intent and dicerolls by mapping everything out in advance and leaving nothing to improv. You disagreed that this would make it possible not to improv. To which I say: bollocks. I agree in principle that a GM can react improvisationally to whatever players do, but the GM doesn't have to, and that doesn't mean railroading. The purest example is the old solo adventures from The Fantasy Trip (and probably Flying Buffalo and others), which in a way were a pen & paper bridge between the Choose Your Own Story books and the video game Doom. When you entered a location, your options were limited (including the fact that combat was handled by detailed but strict rules). But "what happened" depended entirely on your choices and the dicerolls. You often had the ability to circumvent or retreat from combat, and there was no requirement to visit every location. In short the outcome of "entering the dungeon" depended on your wits and luck; it wasn't in the GM's power to manipulate events for the sake of dramatic tension or scaling the challenge to the PCs' resources. Therefore, the players could be certain that everything they did mattered.

Similarly, if I made a palace with guard locations and such, I could set specific triggers for guards to notice intruders and raise an alarm. E.g. "If a PC enters this square without having made a successful Sneak roll, a guard notices." "If a PC enters this square, make a Perception roll. On success, the PC notices the guard in the tower in square X." While the players may not be aware of the precise triggers, they can do anything they want and be certain that it won't be judged "on the fly" so as to surreptitiously guide the adventure.

I can see someone objecting that the scenario would seem shallow or like a board game. Sure. I don't expect most adventures to be prepared or run in such a mechanistic fashion. Instead, I look at it as a model or ideal for what a certain philosophy of GMing can try to achieve through improv. In short it's what you write when you say,But it's completely different from what you praise later,In the second example, the GM decided beforehand that the PC was going to make it into the palace undetected. Probably even make off with the jewels or whatever. What you call "giving the GM flexibility to create an exciting story" lies on a slippery slope toward having the GM make up the story beforehand. The PC misses the stealth roll and a tile clatters on the ground, attracting a guard's attention. So the GM lets the player try something else--mimicking a cat. If that fails, the guard doesn't raise the alarm immediately but climbs up a ladder. So now the PC can get a surprise attack with a thrown dagger. And so forth. As long as the player takes the tension and threats seriously (or pretends to?), the GM will find ways to save his ass. Maybe a great GM can manage this over the long term without the players becoming jaded and desensitized to the made-up tension. It seems many GMs can't manage it in spite of their best efforts, while others end up boring themselves.

OK, I'm really confused. I mean, there are so many negatives in "You disagreed that this would make it possible not to improv." No offense meant, but I am really confused. But I think I understand based on the rest of the text. A GM can, but does not have to, improvise in reaction to whatever players do. If the GM is not improvising that doesn't mean he is railroading. I agree, as far as it goes.

I was reading back through this thread last night and I was considering those that disagree with my preference for the example you reference, where the GM was meant to be railroading. And one thing became clear to me.  Often, we look at these examples, and theory, with this sort of omniscient view. Did the GM railroad? In the case of the tile-clattering example, by definition, yes. But what about the player's perspective? The real question with all of the railroading is whether or not it's so blatant the player is aware. I bring this up now because your argument, I think, is that if a GM went so far as to plan every possibility, it's not necessarily railroading.  I'm saying I agree, so far as it's true from the player's perspective. Does the player even know it's made up tension? I think this is more about broader playing issues, quite honestly, than anything mechanically. Could a modified TR avoid this better than standard TR?  It's highly likely. I would also think a basic understanding, between player and GM, of the level of PC survivability and interaction in the campaign would address any jading. Take a look at Brian Gleichman's RPG Theory documents.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSo moving on, you wanted me to clarify one of the variants of how the term CR is used, where it's meant to refer to character conflicts. This is where CR-advocates say that no conflict is worth resolving unless you can identify a conflict-of-interest between the PC and another character. A classic case is the "climb a tree" example. Why climb the tree? To avoid being seen. By whom? By the mercenaries. Then don't roll your Climb vs. the tree's "difficulty", roll your Avoid, augmented by Climb, vs. the mercenaries' Pursue. Or if the conflict is really with the duke who hired the mercenaries, then frame the conflict that way and use his attributes in the resolution.

Again, I'm not trying to define CR here, just illustrate a category or concept that people often tie into what they call CR. And I think it's a useful/interesting idea, for some applications or tastes, regardless of what you call it.

Again, I agree to a point. I agree in that I have no problem with people who are not happy with the standard "roll versus climb" approach modifying play to address broader goals. I'm sure it is useful/interesting to many – to each his own. I do have a problem with what they call that. It's been my problem all along. Other than addressing a broader goal, how are the two different?  It's a different technique, not a different concept.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThen you question

You seem to take my questioning personally, like I shouldn't "question" you. I'm questioning concepts and definitions. If you've invested in them emotionally, please be prepared to be insulted.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen"Explicit understanding that the player can achieve his intent, if he wins the conflict in terms of the mechanics" is the same as TR. It isn't. You can have TR with explicit understanding, which also happens to be CR.

So TR plus intent allowed by GM = CR. If TR plus intent allowed by GM has always been an technique/aspect of TR, then TR=CR.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut as I showed above, "explicit understanding of intent" is something extra on top of TR.

Now I'm of the belief that you meant the insult I inferred from "proto-CR."  I've told you, even provided examples showing, we played this way 20 years ago.  You can either say TR includes the technique of explicit intent allowed by the GM, or you can say we used CR way back when. If you choose the latter, than what's the big deal?  Why the new name for something we've done for years? I'll tell you why...

Quote from: Elliot WilenYou can have TR without explicit understanding, but in order to have (mechanical) CR, you must have explicit understanding. Because without explicit understanding, there's no guarantee that the intent can be achieved through the application of the mechanics.

And here we get to the heart of it. Change the word understanding, as that's part of TR, to what you really mean.  And what you get is "In order to have mechanical CR you must have explicit ability to introduce narrative, through intent, without GM override ."  There's a huge difference between requring understanding the intent and requiring it's inclusion as part of the narrative by player introduction.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBasically, player-controlled narrative is different from non-player-controlled narrative. But phrasing it that way obscures the fact that the control can vary depending on scope. A player can completely control whether he catches the orcs (perhaps subject to a "Pursue" diceroll) without controlling whether he stops the war. So I'm saying: look at a given issue/conflict. Is it resolved via some mechanics? Then the application of those mechanics, in that instance, is Conflict Resolution of some sort.

I'm not even sure where to go, because I think you're missing a key element in this explanation.  It's not about whether or not the player can have control of the narrative.  I'm actually saying that can take place in what you term TR, and has for years.  With "TR," it's a technique.

But you cross a line when the GM is required to allow the player to have control of the narrative through the introduction of intent. Once that happens, you have a different animal altogether.  Which is fine, but as I keep saying, let's call it what it is.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAgain, this is an effort to generalize and classify, not to assert ontological absolutes. Basically I'm saying that MLwM and some other games leave fairly little up to judgment or negotiation when it comes to determining whether a given intent/goal is okay to feed into the resolution system. Others have a lot more room for discretion, which has both benefits and costs.

My effort is to assert absolutes.  Show me where the line is between one and the other so we can have a clear definition.  What MLwM does, in particular, is irrelevant to me.  Tell what the definitions are and then I'll classify. The bolded part seems to me to require the GM allow the player control of narrative through the introduction of intent that is subject to little judgment or negotiations. We can't classify whether that's CR or not if we don't have a good definition yet.

phew...I'm tired...

Feanor, I may have a longer response later. However, any emotional content you're reading is a product of communication difficulties, not attachment to any particular language. As I've been saying, a lot of it comes from the fact that I'm working to interpret the concepts of others.

However, there's one bit of miscommunication which I'd really like to clear up ASAP. When I write "TR+explicit intent" I'm referring to the case where the player can express an explicit intent, a task that will be used to accomplish that intent, and once everyone agrees subject to the rules (it could be that the player doesn't need to seek agreement), success on the task means that the intent is accomplished.

The point of a lot of what I wrote above is that this is fundamentally different from the situation where the player may or may not express intent, there's no explicit agreement that the intent will be accomplished if the task is successful, and everything ultimately relies on the GM's say-so.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhen I write "TR+explicit intent" I'm referring to the case where the player can express an explicit intent, a task that will be used to accomplish that intent, and once everyone agrees subject to the rules (it could be that the player doesn't need to seek agreement), success on the task means that the intent is accomplished.

The point of a lot of what I wrote above is that this is fundamentally different from the situation where the player may or may not express intent, there's no explicit agreement that the intent will be accomplished if the task is successful, and everything ultimately relies on the GM's say-so.

I understand about miscommunication - no matter what my wife says...

I agree that they are different play styles. They are different techniques. I understand that they may have different impacts on the feel, flow, and fun of the game for those involved.  However, in the first case, there's one question I still have. So let's see if by drilling down a bit, we can achieve clarity (not agreement, but clarity).

Let's assume:

• The player knows his character's intent.
• The intent of the character alters the narrative in some way.
• The player expresses his character's intent (to the group including GM).
• Everyone understands the explicit intent of the character.
• Everyone understands that the character's intent will alter the narrative.

Is the GM required to allow the narrative to be changed according to the intent of the character as expressed by the player? This is a yes or no question, so I'm going to presume both answers, if I may...

Yes
This is required-shared-narrative-control (RSNC).  It has it's own set of strengths and weaknesses. There are a myriad of styles and techniques used within this genre, but the main thing that binds them is the fact that the GM is not in ultimate control of the narrative.

No
This is voluntary-shared-narrative-control (VSCN).  It has it's own set of strengths and weaknesses. There are a myriad of styles and techniques used within this genre, but the main thing that binds them is the fact that the GM is in ultimate control of the narrative.

My question, from the beginning has been, in a way, twofold.

• Is CR, as defined and used in common discussion RSNC or VSNC?
• If CR is VSNC, how does it differ from TR to the extent that it requires a sub-classification within that spectrum of techniques and styles?

Let's assume CR is VSCN. Whether tightening or loosening GM control, speeding or slowing play, differences in resolution scope can have significant impact on the feel, flow and fun of a game. The techniques and styles utilizing differences in resolution scope have been used by people for years to tailor games to their own preferences. So how fundamentally different is Conflict Resolution? Is it just shorthand for one portion of the spectrum? If people are so inclined to separate themselves and their preferences, so be it.

But I suspect that Conflict Resolution was originally defined as RSNC. Some believe there are creative, interesting RPG's based on this approach. Who am I to argue with someone's preference? But one thing is objectively true - this is a fundamentally different kind of game.

Take a VSNC game where the GM always allows the players to broaden the scale of resolution to address intent, if they so desire. In doing so, he allows them to alter the narrative of the game. Compare this to a RSNC where the GM always allows the players to broaden the scale of resolution to address intent.  In doing so, he allows them to alter the narrative of the game. While these two games resemble each other - while one implementation of VSNC is virtually indistinguishable from RSNC, they are completely different.

Which one is Conflict Resolution?

Now we're back on track.

As you describe, "required shared narrative control" is what's generally advertised as what CR accomplishes. But the discussion usually elides the question of scope--i.e., how much control does the GM exert over framing the "stuff" (conflicts/tasks) to be resolved? As long as the GM has final say over the sorts of Intents you can announce, and when, there's no guarantee against railroading, and no guarantee that PCs will be able to engage the elements of the game which are significant to the players. Accomplishing those things still boils down to GMing advice like "Don't railroad", "engage the PCs' Kickers/Beliefs/Backstory", "say or roll the dice", and so forth. Or to intragroup social factors, like the fact that some groups are "in tune" and easily communicate stuff like what to resolve and how.

In many ways this boils down to a critique of the notion that the formal rules of an RPG can be used to port the experience of play from one group to another. (The old "How great would it be if you could take all those things that your GM does to make the game awesome, and put them into the rulebook?")

Quote from: Elliot WilenNow we're back on track.

We were off track?

Quote from: Elliot WilenAs you describe, "required shared narrative control" is what's generally advertised as what CR accomplishes.

Can we agree on the following?

• You can attain RSNC-like games with certain techniques that are also available as techniques in VSNC games.
• These games as fundamentally different games.
  

If CR is "advertised" as accomplishing RSNC, then is RSNC part of the definition of CR?

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut the discussion usually elides the question of scope--i.e., how much control does the GM exert over framing the "stuff" (conflicts/tasks) to be resolved?

IMHO, this is because once you get past the fundamental objective question of RSNC versus VSNC, scope is a matter of preference. As I've said, it can have significant impact on the feel, flow, and fun of the game. But it's still a subjective matter of preference.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAs long as the GM has final say over the sorts of Intents you can announce, and when, there's no guarantee against railroading, and no guarantee that PCs will be able to engage the elements of the game which are significant to the players.

My first reaction to this always, "yeah, there are few guarantees in life." But I'm sure there are people who want that kind of game. All I can say is that if you are in a game that doesn't fulfill your needs (you feel railroaded, you don't feel there are meaningful elements addressed) it would seem you have two choices. You can find a game/GM that fulfills those needs, even if that game/GM doesn't change scope at all. Or you can find a system that forces the GM to fulfill those needs.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAccomplishing those things still boils down to GMing advice like "Don't railroad", "engage the PCs' Kickers/Beliefs/Backstory", "say or roll the dice", and so forth. Or to intragroup social factors, like the fact that some groups are "in tune" and easily communicate stuff like what to resolve and how.

I agree, except for one example: "Say Yes or Roll the Dice." There's an entire thread in this very forum wherein the esteemed Clinton Nixon states, unequivocally, that the GM can't say no. This is no longer advice, this is RSNC.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn many ways this boils down to a critique of the notion that the formal rules of an RPG can be used to port the experience of play from one group to another. (The old "How great would it be if you could take all those things that your GM does to make the game awesome, and put them into the rulebook?")

All those great things the GM does in your game might very well be anathema to another. And in instantiating those things as rules, you take away the GM's flexibility.

But that's an entirely different set of issues that run far afield of our subject here...

Quote from: FeanorCan we agree on the following?

• You can attain RSNC-like games with certain techniques that are also available as techniques in VSNC games.
• These games as fundamentally different games.
  

Oh, yeah. Definitely. I think I've been trying to say that all along even if my message has been muddled at times.

QuoteIf CR is "advertised" as accomplishing RSNC, then is RSNC part of the definition of CR?

Now here, I can't speak for "conflict resolution". It's part of Forge discourse, which I don't really subscribe to. IMO the best I can say is that if RSNC isn't part of the definition of CR, then the definition is self-contradictory.

On the other hand, once you look at the totality of rules + social elements, there's a range of interesting and useful stuff surrounding the whole "conflict resolution" concept, even if it has some logical faults in isolation. E.g., maybe Sorcerer's "CR" is really no more than a flexible TR system plus a set of guidelines telling the GM not to railroad and to push conflicts relating to the PC's Kicker. Maybe also guidelines telling the player to actively engage conflicts. Once we get past a workable interpretation of those guidelines, we can then observe whether Sorcerer's resolution mechanics mesh well with them to produce an effective "voluntary shared narrative control"--one that's easy and fun. E.g., the simplicity of the mechanics make it easy to improvise; railroading is at least partly encouraged in games by difficulty with improv and prep.

(I have to stop here but I'll post more later.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenOh, yeah. Definitely. I think I've been trying to say that all along even if my message has been muddled at times.

I love clarity...and agreement.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNow here, I can't speak for "conflict resolution". It's part of Forge discourse, which I don't really subscribe to. IMO the best I can say is that if RSNC isn't part of the definition of CR, then the definition is self-contradictory.

So we can agree that people, when using the term in respect to a system that is not RSNC are using it incorrectly?

Quote from: Elliot WilenOn the other hand, once you look at the totality of rules + social elements, there's a range of interesting and useful stuff surrounding the whole "conflict resolution" concept, even if it has some logical faults in isolation.

I agree, up to the point of RSNC. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean it's not interesting. I mean only that I think, IMHO, that you have to speak about them in different ways depending on which side of the binary switch you reside.

Quote from: Elliot WilenE.g., maybe Sorcerer's "CR" is really no more than a flexible TR system plus a set of guidelines telling the GM not to railroad and to push conflicts relating to the PC's Kicker. Maybe also guidelines telling the player to actively engage conflicts. Once we get past a workable interpretation of those guidelines, we can then observe whether Sorcerer's resolution mechanics mesh well with them to produce an effective "voluntary shared narrative control"--one that's easy and fun. E.g., the simplicity of the mechanics make it easy to improvise; railroading is at least partly encouraged in games by difficulty with improv and prep.

Can't say a word about Sorcerer, as I've said before.  Never played, and in these days of things-competing-for-my-time, probable never will.

But I can say this (in terms of where I disagree). The first question to answer with repsect to the rule system: "Is it RNSC or VSNC?" Once this is answered, then you can ask/answer things like "What things, other than basic TR, do the mechanics address, and to what effect?" or "What mechanic is available, if any, if the group narrative lacks tension?" However, all of those follow only after the first is addressed.