Quote from: rawma;872902Setting aside the punching and kicking, as GM I would still be annoyed if players walked out as soon as their characters failed because of something they didn't know about. And that's especially likely if the NPCs had reason to know the PCs were coming and what strategies they had previously used, and chose plausible countermeasures.

The GM isn't an asshole just because the players don't think their characters should have failed.

So the NPC's told the maid to walk around the corner? So she can spot the PCs that the NPCs prepared for? So she can alert them to what they're already prepared for?

What you say is not untrue. It's just not a response to that which you were responding.

Quote from: Lunamancer;872904So the NPC's told the maid to walk around the corner? So she can spot the PCs that the NPCs prepared for? So she can alert them to what they're already prepared for?

What you say is not untrue. It's just not a response to that which you were responding.

So everything would have been OK if it had been a ninja leaping out from around the corner? The entire complaint is with the description of how they failed and not the failure itself? What would be acceptable alternatives to the maid thing? Are there any in your view?

Maybe the maid was the consequence of a limited wish cast by the paranoid wizard who set up these defenses ("I wish that something, however unlikely, would alert my guards whenever those meddling PCs try to sneak up on my tower!"); maybe the maid was the disguise of the wizard's demon servant who detected the intruders telepathically and chose not to break character when alerting the guards. Maybe there were no guards and no maid and the whole thing was an illusion created by a trickster god as a practical joke. Maybe a half a million other things.

OK, probably not. But I'm certainly happy to see the last of players with so little trust in me as a GM that they require knowing more than their characters could possibly know and walk out if they don't get it; sometimes they just have to accept my statement that there's a reason their approach was more difficult than they were first told.

(It's rare, and should be, for the difficulty to be much higher than they were told in advance, if I gave them a specific difficulty when they sized it up, but it can happen. And when I do set things like that up, there are always ways they could have found out about the hidden factors; I just don't like whining when the choices they make don't in fact lead to finding out. If this happens all the time with a GM for no real reason and they won't change, then you should walk out on them, but with no punching or kicking. But it wasn't described that way.)

My 2 cents:

In my experience, the term "conflict resolution" in RPG forums is fuzzy and relative (to wherever the user arbitrarily cuts off the domain of "task resolution" in a given case).  The main thing, I think, is an attitude of going beyond a fairly tight focus on what the player-character perceives and does moment to moment, to player/GM discussion of larger goals from which details can be abstracted away.

That discussion, I think, is a clearer definition than any attempt to pin it down to any particular scope of action.

Quote from: Phillip;872927In my experience, the term "conflict resolution" in RPG forums is fuzzy and relative (to wherever the user arbitrarily cuts off the domain of "task resolution" in a given case).

Oh, it's absolutely fuzzy. All these RPG theory terms are. Because 99% of RPG theory is guilty of the unforgivable sin of not first beginning with more general, non-game-related theory, and first extracting the wisdom from that, and only after that adding in the specific assumptions of specific games to deduce further still. If we did theory right, we wouldn't use terms like "task" vs "conflict." We'd be talking about means vs ends, and we'd realize every action, every choice, is made up of both, and that it's babbling nonsense to talk about choices being only about one or the other.

I don't find it especially difficult to distinguish between 'task' and 'conflict' resolution. Recommended reading for the thread really would be a bunch of Forge or post-Forge designs - Cortex+ or perhaps FATE - since traditional RPGs typically rely almost exclusively on task-resolution. As Baker notes in the linked thread, the scope of the roll is different from whether its task/conflict based, although conflict resolution typically is zoomed out somewhat.
To be a real conflict-resolution mechanism, a mechanic should address a 'goal' rather than the method used to achieve the goal. You would'n't have a 'lock-picking' statistic, instead you'd be rolling Teamwork + Protagonism or something.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;873041To be a real conflict-resolution mechanism, a mechanic should address a 'goal' rather than the method used to achieve the goal. You would'n't have a 'lock-picking' statistic, instead you'd be rolling Teamwork + Protagonism or something.

That doesn't really address what I wrote at all. Technically, lock-picking is a goal. The task are the individual movements involved in manipulating each tumbler. You go through all those movements for the sake of picking a lock.

Now sure, the reason you're picking the lock in the first place is for some other goal. But even that so-called goal is just another step to getting to the real goal. When you follow the chain to its logical fruition, the only true goal is happiness.

Again, the fundamental anatomy of any action, any choice, contains both means and ends. Every single one of them, certainly including traditional mechanics, addresses some goal. And every single one of them, including "Teamwork" addresses some method.

The fact that you can assume there is a distinction doesn't mean there is one. Even the very act of "assuming" is a method towards reaching some goal.

I don't think its a distinction you're going to be able to grasp by us playing semantics awhile. If you've seen conflict-resolution in detail the distinction is relatively clear. MHR or FATE for instance take it to the point where the same action (in game-world terms) could translate into multiple mechanics. I'm not the best person to explain this - not being a proponent of conflict-resolution - there's probably any number of threads on the topic on rpg.net though, if you need more clarification.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;873077I don't think its a distinction you're going to be able to grasp by us playing semantics awhile. If you've seen conflict-resolution in detail the distinction is relatively clear. MHR or FATE for instance take it to the point where the same action (in game-world terms) could translate into multiple mechanics. I'm not the best person to explain this - not being a proponent of conflict-resolution - there's probably any number of threads on the topic on rpg.net though, if you need more clarification.

Here's the thing. I've seen what they say on RPG net. I've seen the games. I've heard the arguments. I'm not incapable of understanding what's being said. I'm just saying I understand enough to know it's gibberish. The means-ends anatomy of human action is not semantics. It is a science. The real distinction between so called conflict resolution and task resolution, as per upline in this thread, is NOT the emphasis on goals. It never was. It's about some sort of "narrative control."

Although I don't even like that term. What it's really doing is eliminating the "rain dance." By rain dance, I refer to it as a classic example of a shaman doing a rain dance as a means of bringing rain. We know that's just not how rain works. He doesn't. And so he sometimes engages in action, towards a specific goal, that actually has zero chance of bringing about that goal. Much like picking a lock on a safe to access dirt on the villain when the GM knows all along the dirt isn't in the safe, so the action has zero chance of bringing about the goal. The "CRists" call this uninteresting for some reason.

Look back at all the examples posted in this thread and elsewhere. None of them contradict this.

Now I happen to find the way the limits of knowledge smash tractable probability is pretty damn interesting. I think it's what separates a great game from an ordinary game. It's what separates human action from physical reaction. And it's what separates a great story or twist from cliches. But that is just my opinion and not at all what I'm talking about here.

What I am saying is, hey, if we eliminate rain dances, it has a whole world of tertiary effects. Some we may not care about, but some we might, and they aren't being discussed. I'm also saying perfect elimination of rain dances is not always possible, the DMG 1e random dungeon tables providing a handy analogy for a "narrative mechanic" that has to be overruled when the mechanic results in an overlapping of a mapped area.

Once again, part of me thinks "Show us on the doll where the referee touched your character in a bad way."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;873083Once again, part of me thinks "Show us on the doll where the referee touched your character in a bad way."

When you run D&D and a player searches for secret doors, do you make them roll anyway, even though you know there is no secret door there, so they have no chance of finding one? You're robbing them of the glory they deserve, which they apparently earned with hard work by rolling a die that just happened to come up one certain number instead of another.

Do you do the same with traps as well? Have you ever had a player say, "I made this awesome find traps roll and you're telling me there's no trap? Why are you screwing my character over? I DEMAND there be a trap there. Preferably one so bad-ass it kills the whole party if triggered! Now if you'll excuse me, I need to warm up my dice for my remove trap roll."

Quote from: Lunamancer;873079The real distinction between so called conflict resolution and task resolution, as per upline in this thread, is NOT the emphasis on goals. It never was. It's about some sort of "narrative control."

There's "conflict resolution" and there's "narrative control" and then there's "negotiated resolution".
They're somewhat different things. That overlap in I guess a fairly hard-to-describe way; I don't think its as simple as Conflict Resolution -->requires Negotiated Resolution-->Requires Narrative Control, in any case.

For instance, in some of the newer designs, conflict resolution appears (intent-based resolution) but the mechanics are relatively laid out, such that there's little negotiation; I think its the negotiation phase which is more or less antithetical to having PCs do pointless actions or those with an unknown effect. At least, to the extent the rules demand everything be laid on the table by the GM.  
I suppose extreme narrative control would as well, given that the players would have some ability to ensure that the rain dance does indeed produce some rain.

Quote from: Lunamancer;873114When you run D&D and a player searches for secret doors, do you make them roll anyway, even though you know there is no secret door there, so they have no chance of finding one? You're robbing them of the glory they deserve, which they apparently earned with hard work by rolling a die that just happened to come up one certain number instead of another.

Do you do the same with traps as well? Have you ever had a player say, "I made this awesome find traps roll and you're telling me there's no trap? Why are you screwing my character over? I DEMAND there be a trap there. Preferably one so bad-ass it kills the whole party if triggered! Now if you'll excuse me, I need to warm up my dice for my remove trap roll."

You could actually make a really funny comedy "roleplaying game" where the PCs' job was to screw each other over by "checking for" dangers and problems at inopportune moments thus (by Murphy's Law) causing them to come into existence out of the ether. The higher your find-traps chance, or detect-evil chance, or whatever, the better chance you have of screwing over your party-mates. It would be something like Paranoia but with narrative control played for laughs. I actually think it could work, but it wouldn't be for actual, well, you know, roleplaying...

Quote from: Omnifray;873219You could actually make a really funny comedy "roleplaying game" where the PCs' job was to screw each other over by "checking for" dangers and problems at inopportune moments thus (by Murphy's Law) causing them to come into existence out of the ether. The higher your find-traps chance, or detect-evil chance, or whatever, the better chance you have of screwing over your party-mates. It would be something like Paranoia but with narrative control played for laughs. I actually think it could work, but it wouldn't be for actual, well, you know, roleplaying...

Make it a little broader in scope, and I'd buy it. I'd call it something like "Metagamer: The Unraveling." It'll be written like a "modern" game, but in reality it would be an actual role-playing game. At least in the sense that war games are RPGs--you're playing the role of a general who does not actually appear in-game. In Metagamer, you're actually playing the roles of gamers playing a role playing game.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;873180There's "conflict resolution" and there's "narrative control" and then there's "negotiated resolution".
They're somewhat different things. That overlap in I guess a fairly hard-to-describe way; I don't think its as simple as Conflict Resolution -->requires Negotiated Resolution-->Requires Narrative Control, in any case.

The rain dance problem requires neither explicit narrative control nor negotiation. It's actually no different from searching for a secret door in AD&D. And allow me to pre-emptively point out that searching for a secret door is a goal-action, not a mechanical means. As is searching for anything.

Here's a test you can apply. Suppose I told you to go look for my wallet in the other room, and you walk into the room, look to the left, look to the right, look up, look down, then you come back and said, "I looked everywhere and couldn't find it." Would anyone be surprised you didn't find it if that's all you did? You either have to go in with the specific aim of finding the wallet rather than looking around. Either that, or else I have to instruct you step by step to lift up the cushions, reach under the couch, move the planter, etc.

For further confirmation that searching for a secret door is an example of intent-based resolution, you might also consider some hard-liners might actually "role play it out" by getting up and demonstrating how they're holding their ear to the wall while knocking on it. When they're doing that, they're stating step by step the precise elemental actions they are taking. Because the actions are elemental, they are emphasizing the method over the goal.

But how is that resolved in AD&D? Same way as if you just said, "My character is searching for a secret door." Notice in that sentence the word "for" means "with the intention of finding."

The key distinction is what happens if there just ain't no secret door to find. Because if you call for the die roll, it's successful, but that success produces the same result as a failure, the CRists are saying that die roll was uninteresting. So therefore AD&D's search for secret doors roll is not an example of intent-based resolution.

However, if you were playing the DMG solo adventure rules, then a successful secret door roll (in certain rooms and corridors) actually does dictate that there is indeed a secret door to be found after all. Every secret door check in qualified areas is thus always interesting. And that would fit the in as intent-based resolution. Yes. This has been around since the 70's.



Let's look at what I presume the origins are. Let's say you're running classic AD&D. You have a nice prepared dungeon map and adventure for the caves in the south. Everyone gathers at the table to game, and the players decide, "We're going to head north in search of adventure!"... And behind your GM screen, you cross out "Caves to the South" and write in, "Caves to the North."

As GM, you just re-authored a little bit of the local geography. You certainly exercised narrative control. Did the players do anything narrative? No. Not really. Maybe you could argue the case that they did so indirectly, since their choice to go north did ultimately cause the game world to be rewritten. And, hey look, "adventure" was their intent, stated up front with their action. Yes, this stuff was common in RPGs in the 70's, not just limited to some obscure chapter that no one really used.

Oh, and by the way, if the players intent, rather than "seeking adventure" was to "avoid your shitty ass dungeon" then you'd be an asshole for ret-conning the caves to be in the north because that was counter to their intent. You made their decision "uninteresting", since no matter what direction they went, they'd stumble upon those caves.

So yeah, sad as it sounds, Gronan really did nail it when he said, "Show us on the doll where the referee touched your character in a bad way."

I think you're still conflating the narrative control and conflict-resolution aspects.

Under the interpretation that searching for a secret door creates secret doors, I would break it down this way:

Conflict resolution/intent-based: No (task-based).
Narrative control: I suppose yes, since you're letting players adjust reality in ways beyond what their character would do.
Negotiated resolution: no, since what happens is wholly rules-defined.


You've argued here, as far as I can see, that 'if conflict-resolution-based results are always interesting, then if a secret door roll is always interesting, it must be conflict-resolution" which doesn't hold up logically. Analogous to arguing that "all squares are also rectangles, so all rectangles are squares", say. Though in any case, I don't see what this is supposed to prove either way.