Quote from: BalbinusYeah, but the point with conflict resolution is to make both outcomes interesting.

Plus, the conflict really isn't do you get on the ship, you want on the ship for a reason, the conflict is whether you achieve the goal getting on the ship is a step towards.

It can also generate new ideas.  Hey, you failed to catch the pirates, that's done and the pirates were not caught.  Now what will you do in a world where pirate catching is no longer an option?

I realize this, but I think it's wrong to force the players to come up with a reason to do anything other than "because we want to". It also seems to assume that the default is a one on one situation where one player needs to get on the ship - and he just has to illustrate his belief that friends are more important than family or something equally retarded. Maybe player 2 wants to get on the ship out of loyalty to player 1, or player 3 wants to get on the ship for his own reasons.

It's just silly, and it doesn't really honor player input. It only gives the illusion of it, and it does so in a less lively way.

The second part kinda kills me. What will I do in a world where pirate catching is not an option? Well, if I (or my character) want to catch pirates, then I will feel like the the GM just railoraded the entire situation by forcing this conflict BS on me, when it's obvious that I could come up with a plan to get the ship if I were allowed to.

Quote from: BalbinusSure, I have no great attachment to the terms, I just thought Abyssal was a bit off base in that part of his analysis.

This whole discussion though, do we have a single participant who actually advocates conflict resolution?  If not we're just sitting around discussing something none of us do and guessing at what those who do do it get out of it.  We need someone who supports the concept if we are to say anything meaningful.

That's true, I haven't noticed anyone advocating only using conflict resolution here. I have seen it smugly touted as a superior idea in blogs before, though.

And really, I can see resolving large situations as conflicts every once in a while.  But I see it mainly as a timesaver, when the outcome would be less interestingly if it were handled tactically. I can see the outcome of a war or an argument handled as a conflict. But trying to stop a pirate ship? Thats a tactical situation.

Quote from: BalbinusThis whole discussion though, do we have a single participant who actually advocates conflict resolution?  If not we're just sitting around discussing something none of us do and guessing at what those who do do it get out of it.  We need someone who supports the concept if we are to say anything meaningful.

Isn't this a Forge concept (it certainly has the airs of one)?

Maybe we get Levi to defend it.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI realize this, but I think it's wrong to force the players to come up with a reason to do anything other than "because we want to". It also seems to assume that the default is a one on one situation where one player needs to get on the ship - and he just has to illustrate his belief that friends are more important than family or something equally retarded. Maybe player 2 wants to get on the ship out of loyalty to player 1, or player 3 wants to get on the ship for his own reasons.

It's just silly, and it doesn't really honor player input. It only gives the illusion of it, and it does so in a less lively way.

The second part kinda kills me. What will I do in a world where pirate catching is not an option? Well, if I (or my character) want to catch pirates, then I will feel like the the GM just railoraded the entire situation by forcing this conflict BS on me, when it's obvious that I could come up with a plan to get the ship if I were allowed to.

I think the idea often is that the GM and players negotiate the terms of the conflict before entering into it so that everyone is happy with all outcomes, but to be honest we're so far from anything I actually enjoy there's a limit to how much I can put that position forward.  I play pretty much as you do, I was just trying to put the other point of view so we could see it, personally I find the idea of stopping the game to discuss what the stakes should be so that we can set an appropriate conflict incredibly dull but for some it apparently works well.

For me, this stuff is like furries and mecha (or furries in mecha), I get some people really are into it, I just don't entirely get why.  If they're having fun though that's cool and I hope it keeps on working for them.  I'll be over here catching pirates.

Quote from: gleichmanIsn't this a Forge concept (it certainly has the airs of one)?

Maybe we get Levi to defend it.

As far as I know it is indeed a Forge concept.

I've no idea if Levi finds it useful or not, he's not really a Forge theoretician, he does more his own thing.

Quote from: Balbinusbut to be honest we're so far from anything I actually enjoy there's a limit to how much I can put that position forward.  I play pretty much as you do, I was just trying to put the other point of view so we could see it, personally I find the idea of stopping the game to discuss what the stakes should be so that we can set an appropriate conflict incredibly dull but for some it apparently works well.

Generally much of modern design (and Forge Theory) is a rejection of of the old school tradition of 'earning success' (by skilled play).

I haven't dived into Conflict Resolution to any significant degree, but from this thread I think this is just more of the same.

Quote from: BalbinusAs far as I know it is indeed a Forge concept.

I've no idea if Levi finds it useful or not, he's not really a Forge theoretician, he does more his own thing.

He's basically a Forge Apologist to my mind

Quote from: Abyssal MawI realize this, but I think it's wrong to force the players to come up with a reason to do anything other than "because we want to". It also seems to assume that the default is a one on one situation where one player needs to get on the ship - and he just has to illustrate his belief that friends are more important than family or something equally retarded. Maybe player 2 wants to get on the ship out of loyalty to player 1, or player 3 wants to get on the ship for his own reasons.

It's just silly, and it doesn't really honor player input. It only gives the illusion of it, and it does so in a less lively way.

The second part kinda kills me. What will I do in a world where pirate catching is not an option? Well, if I (or my character) want to catch pirates, then I will feel like the the GM just railoraded the entire situation by forcing this conflict BS on me, when it's obvious that I could come up with a plan to get the ship if I were allowed to.

I also thought that the second part was odd - "where pirate catching is no longer an option"...

If my characters failed their rolls to jump on the ship before it leaves, it doesn't mean that pirate catching is no longer an option.  It just means that if they want to continue chasing the pirate, they have to find a different means.

This is what I see - on one hand, we have a group that wants to create the story and roll to see if it happens...on the other hand, we have a group that wants to attempt to overcome challenges and the results of said attempts will define the story...

Part of it may come down to Risk vs. Reward:

Is the Risk of unpleasant results (anything from a story element to loss of fun) outweigh the Risk of the GM having final say over the outcome.

One side might rather work as a group to come up with the results of Success and Failure so that they are not surprised by unpleasant results.  The other side might feel that it is worth the risk, because they don't want to know what's going to happen.

A number of my players remind me that I sometimes tell them too much (either about what's going on or why things happened the way they did), they figure that if their characters wouldn't know, then they don't need to know.

So, really it comes back to - I'm not going to let the GM screw me VS. I trust that the GM will do just fine

I have never played in an extended campaign under a real good GM (one was fair and the other three sucked), nor would I rate myself as a real good GM.  So, I can definately understand where the "Conflict Resolution" side is coming from (there was a time when I may have sided with them).

I did get the opportunity to play under some damn fine GMs at GenCon this year, so I am now definately opposed to using committee-style techniques in my games.  If I were playing under a bad GM, I would work between sessions to either help the GM improve or find a better GM.  It wouldn't add to my fun to suggest that we build the story as a team...

GMing as a collective may be better than bad GMing, but good GMing trumps both, in my book.

So, how's that for more incoherent babbling?

I took this from Vincent Baker's site, I think it is what people commonly point to when explaining conflict resolution:

VINCENT BAKER'S TEXT FOLLOWS

Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution
In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you crack the safe?

In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain?

Which is important to the resolution rules: opening the safe, or getting the dirt? That's how you tell whether it's task resolution or conflict resolution.

Task resolution is succeed/fail. Conflict resolution is win/lose. You can succeed but lose, fail but win.

In conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it. It's possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a win anyway.

Let's assume that we haven't yet established what's in the safe.

"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."

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
It's task resolution. Roll: Failure!
"The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket..."

(Those examples show how, using task resolution, the GM can break success=winning, failure=losing.)

That's, if you ask me, the big problem with task resolution: whether you succeed or fail, the GM's the one who actually resolves the conflict. The dice don't, the rules don't; you're depending on the GM's mood and your relationship and all those unreliable social things the rules are supposed to even out.

Task resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged authorship. Task resolution will undermine your collaboration.

Whether you roll for each flash of the blade or only for the whole fight is a whole nother issue: scale, not task vs. conflict. This is sometimes confusing for people; you say "conflict resolution" and they think you mean "resolve the whole scene with one roll." No, actually you can conflict-resolve a single blow, or task-resolve the whole fight in one roll:

"I slash at his face, like ha!" "Why?" "To force him off-balance!"
Conflict Resolution: do you force him off-balance?
Roll: Loss!
"He ducks side to side, like fwip fwip! He keeps his feet and grins."

"I fight him!" "Why?" "To get past him to the ship before it sails!"
Task Resolution: do you win the fight (that is, do you fight him successfully)?
Roll: Success!
"You beat him! You disarm him and kick his butt!"
(Unresolved, left up to the GM: do you get to the ship before it sails?)

(Those examples show small-scale conflict resolution vs. large-scale task resolution.)

Something I haven't examined: in a conventional rpg, does task resolution + consequence mechanics = conflict resolution? "Roll to hit" is task resolution, but is "Roll to hit, roll damage" conflict resolution?

2-5-04

Right, I've been following this thread with interest, and I've just been able to post. I'm a supporter of CR, both as a player and a GM, but first off I want to make it clear what Conflict resolution is, and how it differs from Task resolution. Cool?

Conflict resolution a method of resolution that concerns itself with the "intents", "goals", "objectives" or "interests" of the characters. This is just like the "Why?" in Vincent's essay. The goals have got to be reasonable for the game. If somebody had a goal of "Kill the Dragon, save the Princess & become King of all Men" or "I want to find an Atomic Bomb" or something that is obviously out of genre or scale for the game, you can call bullshit (just as you would with Task Resolution). So from now on, I'm assuming that all the goals are reasonable for the game and at the correct scale for the system.

A conflict requires two or more characters who have goals that are incompatible or would interfere with each other. That's a "conflict of interest" and that's when you get out the dice (or cards, or whatever). If there is no "conflict of interest", you don't roll. (Which is the origins of "Say Yes or Roll Dice", I think.) It means you only get the system out for when things matter, which is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

Up front, everybody (including the GM, usually) should make clear what the various goals for each of characters are, which should make it pretty clear who is in conflict with who. It also has the effect of knowing what is riding on the outcome of the dice (If my goal is get onto the ship before it sails and your goal is to throw my character in jail we all know the potential consequences of these rolls), and I find that increases tension at my table.

Then the dice come out and that determines who gets their goal and who doesn't. Note that this step can be quick & simple, real crunchy, or anything you like. It can be one dice roll, or many, but it is always a 'formal' process which has a definite end point. (It can also generate any other side effects that might result as well, like Fallout in Dogs in the Vineyard, but that's besides the point here). What really matters though, is that this step mechanically determines which characters achieve their goals and which ones don't.

The results of all the goals then need to be adhered to by all the participants, rather than any kind of GM fiat as Vincent points out. Also note that this particular conflict has now been resolved, so unless circumstances change, there cannot be another conflict over the same thing between the same characters again. (This is pretty much where "Let it Ride" in The Burning Wheel comes from, I think.)

Task resolution systems are much more concerned with the "How" than the "Why". There will still be conflicts in these games (otherwise the game will be tragically dull) and they will have to get resolved somehow (otherwise the game won't go anywhere), but the system doesn't really help the GM in that regard. Instead, the GM has to determine how the success or failure of the tasks the characters perform helps towards resolving the actual conflict by looking at the situation and coming up with something reasonable based on those tasks. Now he can ask the players for their intents and so on, but this is just fitting a social-level Conflict Resolution system around the book's Task Resolution core; and that (to me) is a lot of work when you can just get games which support Conflict Resolution anyway.

I prefer to think of it as a conflict resolution system is something to help the GM (as a GM I find Conflict Resolution a lot less work as I don't need to adjudge the results of tasks to determine the outcome of the conflicts myself), rather than a "bad GM" shield. But the fact that the consequences of every dice roll are out there makes things a hell of a lot better for me as a player too.

So is that clear, first off?

Quote from: warrenSo is that clear, first off?

Yes, that was more clear to me.  Thank you.

I can see how it doesn't have to be a "bad GM" shield.  I still don't like it as a rule mechanic, except in its most basic "fitting a social-level Conflict Resolution system around the book's Task Resolution core" level.  Meaning that the players provide their intent and I judge accordingly.

QuoteThe results of all the goals then need to be adhered to by all the participants, rather than any kind of GM fiat as Vincent points out.

This is the sticking point for me.  I believe that there is a place for GM fiat and do not want a rule that doesn't allow it.

You may ask, "If you have the best interest of the group and the game in mind, then why would it matter if you did this?  Why do you need to use fiat?"

A couple answers:

1. I don't want shared information at the table.  In the "breaking in the safe for the dirt" example, I don't want to let it be known if breaking in the safe will achieve the results that the players want.  If they want to spend the time getting in, the risk of "no dirt" is one that they need to accept.

2. Sometimes what is agreed upon doesn't always work out for the best and I want to retain the ability to "adjust" on the fly.

3. Some of my players are idiots and I need to be able to fiat them into submission...

Quote from: FickleGMYes, that was more clear to me.  Thank you.

You're welcome.

Quote from: FickleGMI can see how it doesn't have to be a "bad GM" shield.  I still don't like it as a rule mechanic, except in its most basic "fitting a social-level Conflict Resolution system around the book's Task Resolution core" level.  Meaning that the players provide their intent and I judge accordingly.

Fair enough. I just find that too much work nowadays

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis debate is silly.

OK, that's a pretty bad misrepresentation of Conflict Resolution. Let's take this setup. The players are trying to catch the pirate. The GM is running the NPC pirate trying to get away from them.

In this case the PCs have the goal "Catch the pirate". "Too large scale" says the GM (for this imaginary rules set). "OK, we want to get on board his ship then" say the players. "Cool." says the GM "The Pirate captain wants to set sail before the PCs arrive. I'm going to use Leadership to motivate my crew!" The players respond with "OK, We're going to use Athletics to get on board then" (or whatever skills would be appropriate for the game system & the circumstances)

They are clearly conflicting goals, so everybody rolls dice (or whatever the details of the system are; let's assume it's a d20+skill opposed roll for simplicity) and results are determined.

If the GM beats all the players, the Pirate captain gets away before any of the PCs can get on board. If a player beats the GM on the other hand, his character manages to get onboard before the ship sets sail. The GM(and/or players, depending on the system) can then describe what actually happened in the game as long as they follow those results. There is no fudging like "You run up to the ship in time, but the hull is slippery & wet, so you fall into the sea" if the player won his roll (but it would be fine as a description of failure). If a player won, he is on board that damn ship now.
 
For the sake of argument, let's say that nobody beat the pirate captain, and the PCs are left on shore as the ship sails off. That specific situation is resolved, but it is fair to have a player go "I find a rowing boat" (For the purposes of illustration, let's assume there isn't any character who objects to this: No conflict, so no dice are needed. They find a rowing boat) and then "I row after the pirate vessel. We want to come alongside to board!" The GM, speaking on behalf of the pirate captain says "I want to sink that rowing boat with my cannon!". New situation, new conflict, let's roll. And so on.

Another nice example...very clear.

I will say that, except for the explicit player-DM collaboration, I have done stuff that is almost identical to this.  So, our resolution system is more intuitive and implicit.  I also would not use my "fiat" power to pull a, "You run up to the ship in time, but the hull is slippery & wet, so you fall into the sea".  That just seems to be an abuse of power.

So, we aren't as far apart as I might have thought.  I don't want or require a system to have these rules, but through the use of common sense, perception and interaction, I accomplish most of the same things...

Yeah, it's not rocket science or anything The things I like about it are:

* The consequences of the conflict are right there on the table before any dice are thrown. In the above example, if I were a player I would know that I was risking having my little boat blown away from under me by pursuing the pirate captain like this. That adds tension to the roll, and is a good thing, IME.

* There is no rolling for stuff nobody cares about. Like in my example, nobody really cared about the rowboat, so the player found one without having to roll. No getting sidetracked away from the "good stuff".

* Misunderstandings about what you want from a roll disappear, as that is stated upfront. (Admittedly rare) things like "I roll Athletics", "OK, You are onboard the boat", "I didn't want to do that! I wanted to grab the anchor-rope instead!" just don't happen.

* Yes, it is a protection against bad GMs, but that's not really the main thing for me. As a GM, I like it as it's just easier for me to follow the procedures in the book rather than adjudging things without that support.

I hope I've made things clearer, in any case.