Quote from: LostSoulI think this is only true if the stated goal is covered by the rules.

For example (D&D 3.5): "I want to seduce the barmaid."  The resolution mechanics are: DM decides.  It's easy to house rule ("A Helpful result from a Diplomacy check is needed to seduce someone"), but if you're playing with the Rules As Written it's up to the DM to resolve.

Could you elaborate on your post? Its not making a lot of sense to me. Such as how and what is true/not true?

Stated Goal -> Resolution Mechanics -> Resolution of Goal

This only works in Task Resolution when the resolution mechanics are set up to handle the specific stated goal.

In D&D, when I roll to hit and I succeed, the DM can't say that I don't hit without cheating/breaking the social contract.  The rules cover this task.

In D&D, when I roll to seduce the barmaid, the DM can say whatever he wants, no matter how I roll.  The rules do not cover this task.

Quote from: LostSoulStated Goal -> Resolution Mechanics -> Resolution of Goal

This only works in Task Resolution when the resolution mechanics are set up to handle the specific stated goal.

In D&D, when I roll to hit and I succeed, the DM can't say that I don't hit without cheating/breaking the social contract.  The rules cover this task.

In D&D, when I roll to seduce the barmaid, the DM can say whatever he wants, no matter how I roll.  The rules do not cover this task.

I'm down with that.
Also looking at it that way helps clarify Feanor's position as well (Feanor: Should it?). I would even go as far to say that most (all?) of task resolution have the intent implied in the task.

Try this:
The intent of resolution in TR systems is implied by what the resolution mechanic produces. The task is chosen by a participant. The task of attacking implies damaging (Goal) to kill (Intent).
Implementations of TR tends towards connecting tasks to reasonable methods.

The intent of CR is chosen by a participant (in practice it is often negotiated between all players involved.).
Implementations of CR tend towards little to no connection of conflict to method.

Note: By method I mean saving throws used to save yourself, carpentry skill to make furniture, or a trait of "I'm badass" to do anything.

Being used to rephrase:

Quote from: tj333In CR you win the fight and incidentally kill your opponent. There usualy exist a disconnnect between actions and outcome.
In TR you kill the guy and incidentally win the fight. in TR there exists a disconnect between success and outcome.
Both require some level of that dissconnnect to function.

Feanor/Anyone: Could I get a few example of TR doing CR kind of stuff?

Quote from: LostSoulStated Goal -> Resolution Mechanics -> Resolution of Goal

This only works in Task Resolution when the resolution mechanics are set up to handle the specific stated goal.

In D&D, when I roll to hit and I succeed, the DM can't say that I don't hit without cheating/breaking the social contract.  The rules cover this task.

In D&D, when I roll to seduce the barmaid, the DM can say whatever he wants, no matter how I roll.  The rules do not cover this task.

I'm not exactly sure where you get the idea that the DM decides. At least, I never played in a game where the GM said yes or no willy-nilly. We would have called Bull on that in a heartbeat (assuming the issue was of interest). The issue is at what level the seduction of the barmaid would take place.

Now get your dirty minds out of the gutter and allow me to explain...

Let's define, for sake of argument, some levels:

• Level 1 – Granular, what people often refer to as "Task Resolution". In this case, the most “basic” of issues is resolved. Stakes are explicit: “If you succeed, the barmaid will be seduced. If not, she will not be seduced.” This might be resolved through a contest of Charisma versus Will, or something similar. Any effects of seduction are not included in the resolution, but can be the subject of further resolution.
• Level 2 – General, what some might refer to as “simple-” or “proto-” "Conflict Resolution."  In this case, there is more discussion about why X want to seduce Y.  Perhaps X wants to seduce Y to gain access to the bar’s till. If intents are discussed and agreed upon, stakes are usually explicit. “You’ll get access to the back room where the money is kept if you succeed, you’ll get thrown out by the bouncers if you fail.” This might be resolved through a contest of Bluff versus Sense Motive.
  
• Level 3 – Broad, what some might refer to as “Conflict Resolution”. Like Level 2, only more so. X wants to seduce Y to get back at her brother for ruining X’s reputation. Stakes are explicitly known, usually through a discussion between GM and Player. “You’ll take a -3 on your Karma if you lose, but gain +3 to your Reputation if you succeed. Perhaps resolved through a contest of X's Social Skill versus Y's brothers Honor.

As you can see, in no case is the GM allowed to “say whatever he wants.”  Can that occur?  I’d be willing to bet it does. Generally, it’s considered…sub-par…GM practice. I’d even be willing to argue that “Task Resolution” is the antithesis of that practice.

Most traditional RPG systems (generally referred to as "Task Resolution"), while defining what it takes to do Level 1, outline few, if any, boundaries to also doing Levels 2 and 3. Though I pulled the actual resolution mechnics (ex: Social versus Honor) out of thin air, it's easy to see how a "Task Resolution" system with those traits/skills/etc. could be applied to any of the Levels.  The key is agreement between GM and players about the cost/benefit of the mechanics and the results.

And to clarify a parenthetical comment from above: all of these levels assume that the issue at hand is one of interest to the players. If X, while sitting in a tavern said, “I seduce the barmaid,” and that seduction had no intrinsic value to the game, it is possible that no resolution system is required and/or applied.

EDIT: It's possible with any rules system that allows for rolls to be ignored by the GM.  Again - this is bad practice.  Rolls, and their effects, once agreed upon, should always be respected.

Quote from: tj333Feanor/Anyone: Could I get a few example of TR doing CR kind of stuff?

Please see my previous post. And before you say that Level 2 and 3 are "Conflict Resolution," please understand that we have been doing those things for 20 years as part of systems that are now considered "Task Resolution" systems.

So how is it we were doing "Conflict Resolution" before there was "Conflict Resolution?" If we were doing that as part of "Task Resolution, does it mean the "Conflict Resolution" is really just a named subset of "Task Resolution?" If "Conflict Resolution" is a subset of "Task Resolution", what's the big deal? I mean, I know for some it is apparently some holy grail of gaming. for most of us who have played "Task Resolution", it's called another style.

Now, if you're telling me that the differentiation is that it's instantiated in the rules, fine. But is it instantiated to such a point as to not provide the capability to do Level 1?  If so, doesn't mean "Conflict Resolution" includes a limitation not found in "Task Resolution?" If not, then...you have two resolution systems that do the exact same kinds of things; can be adjusted in the same ways to address the level of cost/benefit agreed to within the play group. Then I ask, yet again, what the hell is the difference?

If this is not the case, if "Conflict Resolution" is not a named set of practices encompassing play styles used in "Task Resolution" for years, then what is that special thing that sets "Conflict Resolution" apart from "Task Resolution?"

Oh, wait.  I know.  Mine goes to 11.

Quote from: FeanorI'm not exactly sure where you get the idea that the DM decides. At least, I never played in a game where the GM said yes or no willy-nilly. We would have called Bull on that in a heartbeat (assuming the issue was of interest). The issue is at what level the seduction of the barmaid would take place.

I remember a thread on EN World not so long ago (maybe last December) regarding Diplomacy.  In it, you had people arguing that a successful Diplomacy check (changes attitude to Helpful) just means that the BBEG kills you last.

Now, looking at your list, how is every item not Required Shared Narrational Control?  You're moving into "That's not RAW... but it would make a fine house rule" territory, but that's not important.  What's important is that:

1. The DM and players agree on a resolution mechanic ("You roll CHA vs. WIS; success means you seduce her").  

2. The result of the roll, not the DM's fiat, determines what can be narrated into the game.  

3. The DM must abide by the results of the roll.

That's Required Shared Narrational Control, or "Conflict Resolution".

However, let's look at Diplomacy as per the Rules as Written.  You make a roll, and based on her present attitude, the roll changes her attitude.  All fine and good.

But there's nothing there that says the barmaid is actually seduced or not.  Her attitude may be Helpful, but whether or not the barmaid is seduced is up to the DM.

Let's say that I'm playing a female Half-Orc Barbarian with a Charisma of 6 and a Diplomacy skill modifier of -2.  I want to seduce the happily married, straight human female barmaid with the Charisma of 16.  Her attitude is currently Friendly.  I roll to seduce her, and I get a result of 20 (rolled a 20 + help from another PC).  Her attitude changes to Helpful.

Suddenly the DM has to have the straight female barmaid be seduced by my ugly-as-sin female half-orc.  Or does he?  Her attitude may now be Helpful, but he can decide that she's happily married and straight and would never sleep with another woman, especially one as hideous as my PC.

If he does have to narrate that my PC seduces the barmaid, you have your RSNC.

If he doesn't, which is 100% by the RAW, you don't have your RSNC.

Quote from: LostSoulIf he does have to narrate that my PC seduces the barmaid, you have your RSNC.

If he doesn't, which is 100% by the RAW, you don't have your RSNC.

Just so I can be clear on your description.

If the GM must abide by the results of the roll, it's RSNC?

Then every game ever invented that I've ever heard of is RSNC. The question isn't whether or not the GM has to abide by fortune results; it's about what is defined before the mechanic is applied.

What if the half-orc seduces the bar maid? In Level 1, that's the end of the story. What happens next is open to a thousand possibilities - including some great role-playing by those stunned to see the bar maid being flirtatious with the ugly half-orc. In Level 2, it's exactly as agreed to by the participants; same with Level 3.

RSNC says that the GM can't really say "No" as part of the risk/benefit negotiations. So if the half-orc wants to seduce the bar maid, and impregnate the her, the GM's is required to allow that into the narrative. VSNC simply allows the GM to say "No."

But let's go all the way back to the core issue – ugly half-orc seducing bar maid. Let's assume the GM did not want this to happen (for what reason I can't conceive, but it's just an example). A good GM would probably do a couple of things. First, don't say "No" outright.  Instead, because he doesn't want to railroad, he sets the difficulty high, or assigns appropriate modifiers to account for the likelihood, or lack thereof, that an ugly half-orc seduces a stunning bar maid.  He also prepares, in his head, how this will affect the narrative and prepares to adjust accordingly. He is voluntarily sharing the narrative control, in this case. He could say "No," but instead he's seeing how this might impact the game and trying to be supportive of the players fun.  He's not forced to submit to the players request that the ugly half-orc character is going to try to seduce the bar maid; but he's allowing it.  However, once those risks/benefits are established and the dice hit the table, all bets are off, so to speak.

Now, many might look at that and say, "There – you've described Conflict Resolution." Except that this is how we played twenty years ago and we didn't need any coaching or terms or whatever.  We had situations where the GM used these practices, or just said no, in the same session! And we were OK with that because we trusted the GM to make a good decision.  Did we challenge on occasion? I'm sure we did. But in the end we worked it out as a group. The lack of specific rules for this aspect allowed us, players and GM alike, to find the right balance.

Many, however, toss around the term "Conflict Resolution" like it's some sort of revolutionary idea and completely different than "Task Resolution." My goal, having incorporated these practice years ago, has always been to define why. And the only thing I've really been able to decipher from all of this discussion is that some use it to refer to RSNC, which is a fundamentally different game, but not for the reasons they think. It's not about addressing "intents" or "setting stakes." It's only about who has final authority over the narrative. If you don't mean to use "Conflict Resolution" as shorthand or code for RSNC, then, I assert, "Conflict Resolution" is not that different than "Task Resolution." Instantiating these practices as a rule is new, as far as I know. And for those who prefer to limit play in that way have plenty of opportunities. Yea! I say the more the merrier. But let's all recognize these facts and come to a common understanding about these terms.

Quote from: FeanorJust so I can be clear on your description.

If the GM must abide by the results of the roll, it's RSNC?

Then every game ever invented that I've ever heard of is RSNC. The question isn't whether or not the GM has to abide by fortune results; it's about what is defined before the mechanic is applied.

Look at the Diplomacy example again.  The DM can abide by the roll and say that the barmaid is not seduced.

The roll makes the barmaid "Helpful".  This the DM can't ignore - it's part of the rules.  It doesn't say anything about her being seduced.  He can ignore that bit.

Quote from: LostSoulLook at the Diplomacy example again.  The DM can abide by the roll and say that the barmaid is not seduced.

The roll makes the barmaid "Helpful".  This the DM can't ignore - it's part of the rules.  It doesn't say anything about her being seduced.  He can ignore that bit.

Or he could say she was. Or he and the player could agree on a roll to determine it - as I said in the Level examples, say Charisma versus Will (good luck to the ugly half-orc). Some groups may care, others may not.

Are you saying that the definition of RSNC v. VSNC is whether or not a specific rule exists for every situation? Are you basing your entire differentiation between "Conflict Resolution" and "Task Resolution" on the Diplomacy skill in D&D?

Quote from: FeanorOr he could say she was. Or he and the player could agree on a roll to determine it - as I said in the Level examples, say Charisma versus Will (good luck to the ugly half-orc). Some groups may care, others may not.

Are you saying that the definition of RSNC v. VSNC is whether or not a specific rule exists for every situation? Are you basing your entire differentiation between "Conflict Resolution" and "Task Resolution" on the Diplomacy skill in D&D?

What I'm saying is that

Stated Goal -> Resolution Mechanics -> Resolution of Goal

only works in Task Resolution when the mechanics are set up to specifically deal with that goal.

Climb a wall?  Fine, roll the DC.

Make someone fall in love with you?  How you handle this will tell us if you're using CR or TR.  In TR, there's no resolution mechanic to deal with this goal, so the DM can narrate whatever he wants.  In CR, the roll tells us what we can narrate.

[I'd say that, if the whole group knows that the DM has to abide by the results of the roll - that is, the goal is resolved by the resolution mechanics - then you're looking at CR no matter what game system you're playing.  That's the "Or he and the player could agree on a roll to determine it" situation.]

So in TR you'd have:

Stated goal covered by rules -> Resolution mechanic -> Resolution of goal

Stated goal not covered by rules -> DM Fiat -> DM resolves, or does not resolve, the goal

So let's go back to Vincent's example:

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
It's task resolution. Roll: Success!
"You crack the safe, but there's no dirt in there, just a bunch of in-order papers."

Stated goal (to get the dirt) -> Resolution mechanic (rolls open locks) -> Goal is unresolved/left up to DM fiat

But if the goal was different:

Stated goal (to open the safe) -> Resolution mechanic (roll open locks) -> Goal is resolved, no matter what the DM says (he is Required to Share Control over that Narration)

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, though... I thought I got the whole R/VSNC thing, but maybe I don't.  I'm not sure we're connecting here, but I'm not sure where the disconnect is.

Quote from: LostSoulSo in TR you'd have:

Stated goal covered by rules -> Resolution mechanic -> Resolution of goal

Stated goal not covered by rules -> DM Fiat -> DM resolves, or does not resolve, the goal

Though I can't get into too much detail now, I think this is where we're missing each other: the assumption that if the stated goal is not "covered by the rules," that the resolution is by "GM Fiat." In my experience, one of several possiblities were available:

• The GM can choose to voluntarily share narrative control by allowing the player's intent to become part of the narrative - without application of mechanics.
• The GM can choose not to share narrative - GM Fiat, as you name it. This is, I think, another set of possibilities that could range from just saying no to forcing the player to role-play (as a pseduo mechanic).
• The GM and players can discuss how to use what mechanics are available to provide an answer.  This is also voluntary shared narrative control.

The only time I would consider is Required Shared Narrative Control is if the GM could not respond to the player's request in any other way but to allow it, or allow the mechanics alone to determine if it's going to be included. If the GM has no other choices but to allow it, or to have fortune determine if it's allowed, then it's RSNC.

Does that help clarify?

Let me go back to this quote here:

Quote from: FeanorAs I've said before - Bull. This is where people get upset. The oversimplification of TR is perhaps where the problem lies. I say this because I've played in "Task" systems that do "Stated Goal -> Resolution Mechanics -> Resolution of Goal. So to imply (by comparison) that this is only possible through "Conflict Resolution" is missing years of play. And to consider "Task Resolution" as inconsistent is just a plain old insult. Like the "incoherent" tag I've seen thrown around.

I think what you get when the stated goal falls outside of the rules is something like this:

Stated goal -> DM decides 1. to say yes; 2. to rule however he feels like; 3. to use resolution mechanics -> 1. Goal is resolved; 2. Goal may or may not be resolved; 3. Goal is resolved.

The way I see it, in that second step, if the DM can pick option 2, then what you have is inconsistent results because you never know how the DM is going to rule.  I would roll up all options in that second step as "DM fiat", because as long as option 2 is there... you never know what's going to happen.

edit: It strikes me that some people might see "you never know what's going to happen" as a feature, not a flaw.

Quote from: LostSoulIt strikes me that some people might see "you never know what's going to happen" as a feature, not a flaw.

Absolutely. At least, that's how I read the rules and charts that these guys play under:

http://storyentertainment.blogspot.com/2006_04_29_storyentertainment_archive.html

They're a group a of German enthusiasts who seem to have developed their style of play from a combination of Amber, Theatrix, and Everway. From what I know of Theatrix & Everway, at least, it's considered a feature of play that the GM can grant or foil a player's intention, in the service of managing the overall plot-tension. Thus the expert sniper and the inexperienced bumbler will both fail to hit their mark, if the GM deems necessary, but the description of how the failure occurs can be customized to the character. (For the sniper, it will be something external and unexpected--the target is a decoy, or someone sneaks up from behind before the shot goes off, or whatever; the bumbler will miss as a matter of course.)

There's no point arguing against their preference--it works for them, and it demonstrates pretty neatly how a GM can manage conflicts outside of the task rules.

Can y'all clarify for me?

Are you saying the the advantage of "GM Fiat" is that as a player you never know what happens?

That strikes me as...well...a bit arbitrary.  I mean, the whole point of a resolution system is to provide a framework for something other than "GM Fiat."  Otherwise, we;re kids running around pointing are fingers at each other shouting "Bang! Bang! Got you!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!"

Are you suggesting that this is what Task Resolution is?  That we all pause and look at the GM who then replies "Yes she did.  You fall to the ground writhing in pain"

EDIT

Quote from: LostSoulI would roll up all options in that second step as "DM fiat", because as long as option 2 is there... you never know what's going to happen.

In some ways I understand it, but it's interesting to me nonetheless.  That is, that in 2/3rds of the options, you get "goal is resolved," and yet you roll them all into the 1/3rd where this is not the case (and often seen as the "wrong" way to GM, assuming it's railroading).

Quote from: FeanorCan y'all clarify for me?

Are you saying the the advantage of "GM Fiat" is that as a player you never know what happens?

The way I see it, you have a lot of trust in the GM, in both his fairness and his creativity.  He won't screw you over just because.  He'll just make things cooler with his rulings.  His rulings are better than the ones that come up as a result of the mechanics, and consistently so, so you're better off going with whatever he says.

I don't like to play like that, though, so I might be off.  I have played like that, on both sides of the screen.  I just find it too difficult and unrewarding on the GM's side, and I feel "deprotagonized" if I'm a player.

Quote from: FeanorIn some ways I understand it, but it's interesting to me nonetheless.  That is, that in 2/3rds of the options, you get "goal is resolved," and yet you roll them all into the 1/3rd where this is not the case (and often seen as the "wrong" way to GM, assuming it's railroading).

I think what I'm trying to say is that, if the GM has that fiat authority, the other two options first have to go through GM fiat.  In play it would look something like this:

"I seduce the barmaid!"

GM thinks: Will it be okay if the player succeeds?

If the GM's answer to himself is Yes, then he says, "Okay, roll your ."  Or maybe he just says, "Okay, she is seduced."

If the GM's answer to himself is No, then he can do one of a whole bunch of other things:

1. No roll at all, just a flat "No".
2. Roll, but add in too many modifiers/set the difficulty too high for the roll to matter.
3. Roll, but ignore any results.
4. Roll, but only give the appearance of success.  e.g. "She is falling for you, but then her husband comes in and takes her home."  "She invites you back to her room, but when you're there she pulls a dagger and stabs you!  Roll Init!" etc.
5+ etc.  GM fiat, basically.

Anyways.  The point is that the resolution has to go through that first step: the GM has to decide if he is going to use fiat or not.  It's like... the GM picks the type of resolution - roll, say yes, or whatever the GM wants.  That choice is fiat just the same.

Ugh... I'm not explaining this well.  

It's like all resolution exists within the bubble of GM fiat.  (Well... all resolution when the stated goal is not explicitly covered by the rules.)

Does that make any sense?