Quote from: Caesar SlaadIt seems to me if CR does not roll everything up into one roll (which I was understanding), then Dramatic Conflicts seem to fit the definition. And, it seems to me that CR does not exist to the exlcusion of TR as I define TR, but exists as a method of framing tasks, a formalization of what most GMs ad hoc.

I would agree with that to a certain extent. Certainly Dramatic Conflicts sound like a form of CR to me (assuming that they are only brought out when there is a conflict of interest in the gameworld, and that the results of the conflict are binding, which it what it sounds like).

Quote from: gleichmanI hate being straightjacketed by a single vision myself, which is what CR is- a single vision of resolution.

In my typical campaign, I run the entire range.

I'm still not seeing what you are saying here. Certainly when I run CR systems I feel both more supported by the system as well as being more free to narrate what I like, as long as it conforms with the goal.

Quote from: warrenI'm still not seeing what you are saying here. Certainly when I run CR systems I feel both more supported by the system as well as being more free to narrate what I like, as long as it conforms with the goal.

A simple example: If I don't want the players to know the stakes, I don't want them to know the stakes. If as a player I don't want to know the stakes, I don't want to know the stakes.

Having it in the rules that the stakes must be agreed upon means that I'm in violation of said rules. Hence I'll take a simple resolution mechanic over a specific CR.

Provide any characteristic of a CR method, and I will have the same objection.

Quote from: warrenI would agree with that to a certain extent. Certainly Dramatic Conflicts sound like a form of CR to me (assuming that they are only brought out when there is a conflict of interest in the gameworld

I would hope that would be the case, but nothing really prevents you from using a seduction conflict on the cute girl at the coffee shop, or from the player telling me he hacks into MSN to play a joke. But as a GM, I'd give those one dice roll and be done with it. I really don't need the rules to tell me not to waste a lot of time on a sidetrack.

Nothing enforces story/world significance; though the outcomes of chases and seductions (among others) are clearly spelled out, they need not be meaningful to the story. The femme fatale may know nothing and the lackeys you chased down could be red herrings. That said, the introductory text in the Dramatic Conflict section does imply it should be reserved for interesting situations:

Quote from: Spycraft 2.0 rulebookChapter 2 introduced Complex Tasks, skill uses too intricate or significant to resolve with a single check. Disarming a bomb, devising or cracking a code — these are activities far too interesting to let go with one die roll and a few modifiers. Likewise, many opposed skill uses deserve the royal treatment, and this is where “Dramatic Conflicts” come into play.
A Dramatic Conflict is an intense contest between two or more individuals. It could be a test of wills (brainwashing, for instance, or an interrogation) or a physical competition (a chase), a game of instinct and wits (an infiltration or manhunt) or a battle of the mind (hacking). It could even be a matter of the heart (a seduction). In all cases, a Dramatic Conflict pits two or more sides against one another in a momentous struggle that unfolds like a great story, with exhilarating highs and lows, unexpected twists and turns, and eventually, a grand finale that reveals the ultimate victor.

I think the emphasis here is not so much "reserve skill rolls for activities of story significance" so much as to apply a ruleset which breeds tension and excitement to resolve situations that should be exciting.

Normally, I would expect these to be story significant, but if I take a few movies or TV shows (or games of my youth) as an example, it could be played for comic releif as well.

Edit: Note, as Brian alludes to in post #75, this is just one tool in the toolbelt. You still have plenty of ways to use skill in the traditional task resolution manner, and the skills chapter treats this as the basic way to use skills, with the DC system merely building on that foundation.

Quote from: gleichmanA simple example: If I don't want the players to know the stakes, I don't want them to know the stakes. If as a player I don't want to know the stakes, I don't want to know the stakes.

Having it in the rules that the stakes must be agreed upon means that I'm in violation of said rules. Hence I'll take a simple resolution mechanic over a specific CR.

Provide any characteristic of a CR method, and I will have the same objection.

:ditto:

Quote from: gleichmanA simple example: If I don't want the players to know the stakes, I don't want them to know the stakes. If as a player I don't want to know the stakes, I don't want to know the stakes.

Having it in the rules that the stakes must be agreed upon means that I'm in violation of said rules. Hence I'll take a simple resolution mechanic over a specific CR.

Provide any characteristic of a CR method, and I will have the same objection.

Well yeah. But I don't claim games with random character generation rules are "straightjacketing me with a single vision". I just don't like random character generation.

You don't like CR, which is cool. It's just the language you used threw me.

Quote from: warrenWell yeah. But I don't claim games with random character generation rules are "straightjacketing me with a single vision". I just don't like random character generation.

Likes and dislikes have reasons. Noting one or the other without giving it seems to leave the question open.

I like know why someone disagrees with me.

For instance, the question "why would a player/GM always want the stakes known up front?" comes to mind.

Is it a result of a history with bad GMing as some have put forth?

Is it that they want more control over the game as players?

etc.

Thanks for the examples warren, sorry for my crap examples everybody...

Ok...a couple of things..

1) I, personally, did not start the thread to discuss whether or not Task Resolution is better/worse, more/less preferred, etc. than Conflict Resolution.  What I'm really trying to uncover is the difference between them.

2) Given number one, I, personally, don't need anyone to defend Conflict Resolution, or Task Resolution for that matter, as a method.  Someone who can explain it well enough to elicit the difference is of great value.

3) This was not really meant to be a theory discussion as such. I'm just trying to figure out of conflict versus task resolution is something to even consider when designing a game mechanic.

4) Having said that, I am loving the discussion (thanks!) to this point as I think it's finally getting down to it.

Quote from: warrenConflict 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).

I do not agree with this characterization.  I think we've pretty well established that good Task Resolution can be applied to those same concerns.  That is, depending on your mechanism, a Task Resolution system may (or may not) address intents, goals, objectives, or intertests of characters.

Quote from: warrenA 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.

This is the Conflict-Resolution-only-rolls-for-what's-important approach.  At lunch, just for kicks, I went through my GURPS (latest edition) rule book.  Now I've never played GURPS in my life, and I'm only passingly familiar with the rule books.  But without much trouble I found what I was looking for - a page (or two) on only rolling when it's important.  I think the terms used were something like "only when there is something to be gained or lost."

Quote from: warrenOK, 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.

If this isn't Task Resolution, I'm not sure I know what is.  The players' goal is not reached as a direct result of the mechanic, but as a result of, to quote LostSoul's definition of TR, "how well a character does something."  Nothing in this example deals with the challenge of getting to the ship - directly at least. And we've all agreed that the slippery & wet action is just bad GM practice.

Quote from: gleichmanWatching this debate, I'm getting the impression that 'Conflict Resolution' is nothing more than Task Resolution + a dab of common sense advice- all dressed up to make its proponents feel good about themselves.

Quote from: gleichmanThe term 'task resolution' btw is as flawed as the term 'conflict cesolution'. There is only Resolution- i.e. the answering of a question that is in doubt. Nothing more.

This has been my suspicion, and assertion, since I first asked the question.  Resolution has many faces, but it's all about using a mechanic to find the answer to a question.

So why is there so much focus on how they do or do not differ?  I think it's because there's another piece of Conflict Resolution and it's not really about resolution at all. As a result, I think the term is misused quite a bit.

Quote from: LostSoulConflict: two people want to introduce two different things into the fiction of the game. That is, two people want two different things to happen. Don't read this as pure metagame stuff - the GM might be saying, "Warduke will never stand for being Bluffed like that; roll," or "The dragon doesn't want to die; roll," or "He doesn't believe what you're saying; if you want to convince him, you'll have to roll."

Task: how well a character does something, which may or may not reflect on what the player wanted to contribute to the game's fiction. How well did I jump over the fence? That's the only consideration.

The emphasis is mine.  The italics I only put in to denote the irony - again, these sound like perfectly reasonable examples for Task Resolution given for Conflict Resolution examples.

I've seen a couple other similar references, but I am still searching for those. But this touches on a fact that really makes a difference. The concepts that drive Conflict Resolution are not about resolution, they are about metagame information, narration controls, "contribut[ing] to the game's fiction." Conflict Resolution is being way overused/misused as some kind of shorthand.

Quote from: MarcoIn DitV (notably) there is pretty much a moratorium on hidden info--anything that only the GM knows at the start pretty much must be revealed in the game so long as the Players are engaged. This is very, very different from a lot of other situations.

I've also seen explanations (as I mentioned, I'm desperately trying to find them for examples) where there is nothing secret from the players.  It might be "secret" from the characters, but the players are as aware as the GM of the scene/plot/adventure/etc. In fact, there is no distinction between GM and Player for this aspect of the game.  The GM is not the one who plays "the world," that is a cooperative effort for all involved.

So, is this a good summary?
1) Conflict Resolution is not really a distinct resolution system, per se.
2) Conclict Resolution is shorthand for shared plot control.

I'd say it's more like shared plot understanding or parsing or something like that.

Quote from: FeanorSo, is this a good summary?
1) Conflict Resolution is not really a distinct resolution system, per se.
2) Conclict Resolution is shorthand for shared plot control.

That's pretty close to how I understand it.

Quote from: FeanorThe italics I only put in to denote the irony

Funny, I think that vBulletin does that to all quotes for the same reason...

Quote from: FeanorThe concepts that drive Conflict Resolution are not about resolution, they are about metagame information, narration controls, "contribut[ing] to the game's fiction." Conflict Resolution is being way overused/misused as some kind of shorthand.

...

So, is this a good summary?
1) Conflict Resolution is not really a distinct resolution system, per se.
2) Conclict Resolution is shorthand for shared plot control.

This seems to cut to the quick of most of what I've been reading.  It seems that the underlying logic behind most of the CR posts on this thread is a larger rules-set convention that, while protecting players from GMs who renege or fudge on possible successes by their characters, mostly undermines the idea of trust between members of a gaming group.

Upfront declaration of everything before all rolls (whether you call them task or conflict) certainly means that we all know what is on the table, but it also seems to imply, and even foment, a fear of what the other person will add to the story.

EDIT: Or at least remove from the GMs quiver the element of surprise.  As a player, it's one of my favorite things to not necessarily know "why" I'm making a perception roll until the consequences actually occur.

Quote from: FickleGMFunny, I think that vBulletin does that to all quotes for the same reason...

This is why I ask so many damn questions.  I can read and re-read something and still miss something...like the upthread post where I completely missed an important part of the text, or reading all those quotes and not even realizing they are in italics. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warrenConflict 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).

I do not agree with this characterization. I think we've pretty well established that good Task Resolution can be applied to those same concerns. That is, depending on your mechanism, a Task Resolution system may (or may not) address intents, goals, objectives, or interests of characters.

You might not agree with it, but when people who use Conflict resolution say "Conflict resolution" that's what they mean. Show me a mechanism in a broadly TR game which mechanically determines the success or otherwise of the intents, goals, objectives, or interests of characters and I'll show you a Conflict resolution mechanic. (Dramatic Conflicts in Spycraft seem to fall into this category from what I've been told here).

And as I've said twice already on this thread, you might use a Task Resolution system + GM skills to resolve conflicts in an informal way. Which is cool.

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warrenA 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.

This is the Conflict-Resolution-only-rolls-for-what's-important approach. At lunch, just for kicks, I went through my GURPS (latest edition) rule book. Now I've never played GURPS in my life, and I'm only passingly familiar with the rule books. But without much trouble I found what I was looking for - a page (or two) on only rolling when it's important. I think the terms used were something like "only when there is something to be gained or lost."

Which is cool. The similar text in the Mountain Witch (a CR system) says something like: "a “Conflict” represents a conflict of interest between characters. One character wants to see one thing happen, and another wants to see something else. If no one cares to contest the current in-game event, then general play may continue uninterrupted. A Conflict Roll roll determines whose interest is realized. Please note that a Conflict roll simply determines whether or not the interest is realized, and to what extent. How the interest is realized is decided by the narration of the Conflict."
Similar, but different.

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warrenOK, 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. (snip)

If this isn't Task Resolution, I'm not sure I know what is. The players' goal is not reached as a direct result of the mechanic

What? Yes it is! Player's goal: "Get on board that ship". Player succeeds. PC is now aboard ship. Sounds like a pretty "direct result of the mechanic" to me. What do you think CR should look like in that case?

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: gleichmanWatching this debate, I'm getting the impression that 'Conflict Resolution' is nothing more than Task Resolution + a dab of common sense advice- all dressed up to make its proponents feel good about themselves.

Quote from: gleichmanThe term 'task resolution' btw is as flawed as the term 'conflict cesolution'. There is only Resolution- i.e. the answering of a question that is in doubt. Nothing more.

This has been my suspicion, and assertion, since I first asked the question. Resolution has many faces, but it's all about using a mechanic to find the answer to a question.

Yep, agreed. Task resolution answers "Did the character perform an action successfully?". Conflict Resolution answers "Did the character get what he wanted?"

Quote from: FeanorSo why is there so much focus on how they do or do not differ? I think it's because there's another piece of Conflict Resolution and it's not really about resolution at all. As a result, I think the term is misused quite a bit.

Quote from: LostSoulConflict: two people want to introduce two different things into the fiction of the game. That is, two people want two different things to happen. Don't read this as pure metagame stuff - the GM might be saying, "Warduke will never stand for being Bluffed like that; roll," or "The dragon doesn't want to die; roll," or "He doesn't believe what you're saying; if you want to convince him, you'll have to roll."

Task: how well a character does something, which may or may not reflect on what the player wanted to contribute to the game's fiction. How well did I jump over the fence? That's the only consideration.

The emphasis is mine. The italics I only put in to denote the irony - again, these sound like perfectly reasonable examples for Task Resolution given for Conflict Resolution examples.

OK, another example time. You have a PC cleric and an NPC King. The cleric's player says "I want to convince the King to give some of his money to my church." You, as the King, have the goal "Hoard as much money for myself as possible". For sake of argument, let's assume you allow it as a valid goal and a conflict results.

With Conflict Resolution you roll out the conflict and if the player wins, that King has got to give money to the church. You can't say "No, the King wouldn't agree to that" after the fact (because the plot requires a poor church, let's say). The conflict is done, that money is getting given to the church.

What the cleric actually did in the game to achieve that can still be up for grabs after the roll has been made (depending on the vagaries of the system used). You (or the player, depending on the exact system used) could say that he could have just talked the King around. He could have jumped up on the throne and put a knife to the King's throat. He could have prayed to his God to make the King change his mind. He could have been beaten to a pulp by the King's guards, and the King felt guilty about it. Or whatever. Depending on the system and what dice were rolled in the conflict, any and all of those are possible. But they all end in one thing: The King giving some of his money to the church.

Some CR systems nail down "what actually happens" as well (like Dogs in the Vineyard, or, from what I can tell, Dramatic Conflicts in Spycraft). But they don't have to.

Now if that sounds like metagame information, narration controls, "contributing to the game's fiction" rather than resolution to you, fair enough. But it sounds like there was a conflict "Will the King give his money to the church?" and it got answered to me. Resolution

Quote from: FeanorSo, is this a good summary?
1) Conflict Resolution is not really a distinct resolution system, per se.
2) Conclict Resolution is shorthand for shared plot control.

Not to me (someone who actually uses CR systems), no.

Quote from: ReimdallUpfront declaration of everything before all rolls (whether you call them task or conflict) certainly means that we all know what is on the table, but it also seems to imply, and even foment, a fear of what the other person will add to the story.

Not in my experience. With upfront declaration, you know what's riding on any given roll, so you get really invested in what's going on with that roll. Which is something I love.

Quote from: ReimdallEDIT: Or at least remove from the GMs quiver the element of surprise.  As a player, it's one of my favorite things to not necessarily know "why" I'm making a perception roll until the consequences actually occur.

Yeah, that wouldn't work with CR. (But as a player, I always used to find "GM suprises" a bit of a let down, so I don't miss them.)