TheRPGSite

Please allow me to preface the following with this disclaimer: I don't have any problem with people who want to try to create a bigger/faster/better way to handle conflict and/or task resolution. So please don't take any of the following personally, it's not meant to demean anyone's efforts.

Having said that, I have only one question to ask - what is the need for Conflict Resolution as opposed to Task resolution?

I understand the difference between the two.  However, in reading a thread  (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1261)wherein the discussion is about attempts to meld the two ideas into one mechanic (go for it!) I was struck by one thing - the reason people were interested in Conflict Resolution.

First, the background:

Quote from: kryystThe conflict is getting past the guards - that's your goal. In this case the task you are using is sneaking past them. But the task could potentially be diverting them by tossing a stone in the corner and running in (bluff check) or swinging above their heads on a rope grappled to the rafters (dex/acrobatic check).

So you could succeed at the task check of sneaking ie. you made your skill check. But as you made it past the guards a maid stumbles around the corner and bumps into you so you fail the goal.

Now the concern:

Quote from: kryystPicture this.  You approach the guards and the GM says they are very alert and it's going to be an extremely difficult check to sneak past them.  But you try anyway and roll exceptionally well.  For plot reason the GM doesn't want you to sneak past them so as soon as you roll he chymes in with "A maid walks around the corner and shrieks alerting the guards."   Many players would feel cheated by this sort of scenario.

The point of this is to remove that cheated feeling by allowing players some abiltiy to narrate their own fortunes (or lack thereof).

Others shared this cheated sentiment:

Quote from: GunhildaThe light dawns!  I know the misery of that scenario all too well.  As a matter of fact, I don't know if I have EVER had a character sneak in and out of a place without a fight of some sort -- no matter how badass a ninja he was.  And it sucks more and more every fucking time it happens.  :muttering:

I am now on board with this idea, though I have no idea how one would implement it mechancially.  :)

Quote from: Xavier LangI understand your frustration.  This is nothing like a perfect plan ruined by a GM that won't let there not be a big fight.  I can't remember the last time we didn't end up having a blood bath in a fantasy game no matter how sound the plan was.

Quote from: GunhildaEh, I think that the action point idea would work, but is inelegent.  And, while Maddman the DM gives out something for arbitrarily screwing over the players, he's *still* arbitrarily screwing over the players.
.
.
.
I just love the idea of DMs being forced to let SOMEBODY SOMETIME succeed at a stealth roll too much to give up on this idea.  :D

These concerns share the common thread of GM's apparently "railroading," a linear approach which leaves the players with few options.  In most cases, this is considered at best mediocre GMing; generally it's viewed as sub-par.  There are those who play this way and enjoy it, but it is hardly considered Best Practice for GMing.

Given that, is Conflict Resolution a reaction to bad GMing?  Are all of the Conflict Resolution efforts, mechnics, discussions, a result of less-than-adequate GM experiences?

As I said, this is a serious inquiry with no malice intended.

Quote from: FeanorThese concerns share the common thread of GM's apparently "railroading," a linear approach which leaves the players with few options.  In most cases, this is considered at best mediocre GMing; generally it's viewed as sub-par.  There are those who play this way and enjoy it, but it is hardly considered Best Practice for GMing.

Given that, is Conflict Resolution a reaction to bad GMing?  Are all of the Conflict Resolution efforts, mechnics, discussions, a result of less-than-adequate GM experiences?

As I said, this is a serious inquiry with no malice intended.

I have something that I guess pretty much fits the definition of conflict resolution in my homebrew, and it isn't to restrain the GM.  I am the GM.

I mostly run diceless, but there are times when, for whatever reason, I don't want to resolve myself.  I might be too partial to a particular outcome, too apt to generate unrealistic patterns over time.  So I want some randomization.  But I'm running online, and heavy mechanics in online play are anti-immersive agony: they're distracting and time-consuming.  So I if I don't want them to be more trouble than they're worth, I need to streamline them to get the most mileage out of a single roll.

I'm not sure if I'm going to keep this approach now that I have broadband and can send diagrams to the players, which I think will make serious tactical play possible.  (It's been too cumbersome in the past while I was on dialup, and could give verbal descriptions only, with my pathetic 40 wpm typing.)  I'm going to have to do some experimenting.

Quote from: KeranI have something that I guess pretty much fits the definition of conflict resolution in my homebrew, and it isn't to restrain the GM.  I am the GM.

Last night, after posting, I realized how loaded a term like "bad GM" might be. It seems to be more accurate to ascribe to Conflict Resolution the charactersitc of restraining the GM, regardless of the abilities of said GM.

Quote from: KeranI mostly run diceless, but there are times when, for whatever reason, I don't want to resolve myself.  I might be too partial to a particular outcome, too apt to generate unrealistic patterns over time.  So I want some randomization.

This seems to be a bit of a contradiction.  In the first sentence, the claim is that Conflict Resolution is not to restrain the GM.  But then the reasons for it in this homebrew are to not allow the GM to resolve a conflict (partiality, patterns, lack of randomization, etc.)

Is Conflict Resolution the result of a preference to restrain the power of the GM?

Here is my take:

#1: Conflict resolution is needed for a game to run smoothly.

#2: There are three ways to resolve conflicts:
             a) Task resolution (example: Skill checks, attack rolls)
                           #1: Most games encourage Conflict resolution viaTask resolution. Pure mechanical resolution. This is where I see D&D fitting in. It doesn't prevent someone from doing in character Role-playing, but just doesn't seem to encourage it either. The heart of these games are the die rolls made to resolve conflicts.

             b) Pure in character Role-playing
                    #1: diceless games fit here. Basically any game that relies mainly in character role-playing. The playes speaks for their character and what they say happens most of the time. They may use chips or tokens to resolve conflicts.
             c) a mix of A& B
                                #1 games that generally encourage role-playing through mechanics such as Burning Wheel or Conspiracy of Shadows. These games generally have ways that players introduce plot elements into the game. Like during character generation the play chooses a "fate", how his character will die.

A note on Conflict Resolution: In my mind Task resolution is a sub class of Conflict Resolution. First there is a conflict, then characers decide how to react to the conflict,and finally a task resolved. A conflict is anything that posses a threat to the PC.

example: a thief sneaking past a gaurd. The conflict is that the thiefs stealth versus the guards perception. What makes it a conflict is the fact that the thief could be caught. If there is no chance of the thief being caught there is not conflict, thus no task to resolve. The player says " I will hug the wall a sneak by quitely". The Task is now to sneak and the pc rolls his stealth and the guard his perception and the task is resolved. If the roll fails the conflict continues and escaltes, the guard would see the thief sneaking and likely try to stop them or alert others. If the roll succeeds the conflict is over, the PC avoids the guard.

hope that makes sense.:D

In your example, it sound more like a GM who is raliroading the players. It's not so much a problem of whether or not Coflict resolution is the problem, but how the GM is handling them.

Quote from: FeanorThis seems to be a bit of a contradiction.  In the first sentence, the claim is that Conflict Resolution is not to restrain the GM.  But then the reasons for it in this homebrew are to not allow the GM to resolve a conflict (partiality, patterns, lack of randomization, etc.)

How do you figure?  I'm the one who decides when I'm going to roll.

And when did rolling dice become an infringement on the GM's power, anyway? Added: I mean, seriously, that's the standard resolution method.  My deciding, on occasion, to step back from a resolution method in which I assume more control over the outcome than the standard method yields, to take up the standard method, is hardly an unusual restraint on my power.

I hope that I am not causing anyone to become upset.  I'm really not trying to goad anyone into an argument.

Quote from: KeranHow do you figure?  I'm the one who decides when I'm going to roll.

And when did rolling dice become an infringement on the GM's power, anyway?

I understand your point, I think.  There are times when you you, as GM, want a more random element in deciding how play will proceed.  Is there a specific mechanic or rule that would force you to introduce this randomization even if you did not want to?

Rolling dice is, in and of itself, not a constraint on GM perogative, per se. It's a tool, no more, no less. The issue of whether or not this tool infringes on GM perogative depends on how it's used.

Given what I've read about Conflict Resolution, and the description of your homebrew thus far, I'm not sure if it applies.  Can you provide more details regarding how and when these rolls come about (if you decide my curiousity is worthy of the effort)?

Quote from: FeanorI hope that I am not causing anyone to become upset.  I'm really not trying to goad anyone into an argument.

No problem.

The example you gave, it looks like those people are trying to restrain bad GMing.  Restraining bad play isn't something I ever try to do with mechanics, from any position.  I don't think they're adapted to the task.

QuoteI understand your point, I think.  There are times when you you, as GM, want a more random element in deciding how play will proceed.  Is there a specific mechanic or rule that would force you to introduce this randomization even if you did not want to?

Heck, no.

Actually, as far as I can tell, the only thing that can ever force a GM to do anything is the players deciding to walk if they don't.  I mean ... the rules, and the GMing advice, good or bad, are so many black marks on a light background.  They can't make me do anything.

I ended up running a campaign diceless, well before Amber, after starting it in GURPS, because I discovered that keeping track of the mechanics in chat, and trying to communicate who was where and moving how at 2400 bps, was so awkward and slow that it was more trouble than it was worth.  The book didn't have a "hey, you can resolve diceless to speed things up if you want" rule, but how was that going to stop me?

That's one of the things that bemuses me about the way Forgites seem to react to game texts -- they give both the texts they deride and the texts they laud much more weight and authority than I ever gave them.  My reaction to a rule that doesn't suit my purposes is to throw it out and replace it with something that does.  I'm not going to go around complaining that "Such-and-such a game was designed badly and I kept playing it as written anyway and it spoiled my fun for years!"

If I can't get an approach to work any better the third time I try it than it did if it flopped the first time, then I'm going to start looking around for another.  No way am I going to be executing a 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th ... nth iteration of the same failure.

QuoteRolling dice is, in and of itself, not a constraint on GM perogative, per se. It's a tool, no more, no less. The issue of whether or not this tool infringes on GM perogative depends on how it's used.

Given what I've read about Conflict Resolution, and the description of your homebrew thus far, I'm not sure if it applies.  Can you provide more details regarding how and when these rolls come about (if you decide my curiousity is worthy of the effort)?

Well, it's intended for a low combat game, and the reason it's a low combat game is that I never figured out how to do serious tactical play in a satisfactory manner over dialup.  Not with my improvisational GMing style -- since I don't know what the characters are going to decide to do, I can't expect to make tactical maps and diagrams in advance; and trying to communicate who's where and moving how, in text only, is difficult to do.

Under the circumstances, I was finding combat to be an unsatisfactory exercise: if it's too difficult to get across the positional information, it becomes an arbitrary matter of how the GM stacks the dice.  Which is not interesting, and which produces a sense of disconnection from the fictional world and the characters, instead of the You Are There quality I want.  It gets even worse if we also have to spend time communicating about complex mechanics instead.

So the first thing I did was go entirely to diceless and descriptive resolution.  Which is better than having to deal with mechanics that aren't assisting serious tactical play, and are bogging things down.  But it still isn't good.

Thing is, while diceless resolution is entirely satisfactory when I'm deciding on an NPC's reactions, or some such thing, because I know why the NPC is likely to behave in a particular way, it's fairly rare for the physical situation to be so well defined that I have a good in-world reason for determining that a sword-stroke ended in one place instead of another two inches to the left and three inches forward.

I don't want to kill or maim a PC without a compelling reason.  Since I seldom have a compelling reason in any individual case, I'm biased in the PCs' favor.  However, if I act on that bias, it makes combat about as believable as an action movie sequence, where you know the hero is going to come through, and it also means that combat is not a real decision point: it's staged, it's fake.

So I want to offload the decision onto the dice.  However, typical combat mechanics where we roll for every attempt at a blow, and then again at least once to see if does any damage, will bog the online game down badly to no purpose.  So I came up with a mechanic in which a pair of rolls decide the outcome of the fight and how badly damaged the loser ends up.  I make the throw in secret at the beginning of the exchange, and then play the scene out according to the roll, unless the player does something that I think ought to alter the result.  Which isn't ideal, but it's the best solution I ever came up with for playing in chat on dialup.

Now that I've got broadband, other possibilities for communicating information open up, and the homebrew is going to undergo another revision.  So I probably won't be resolving an entire fight a PC is involved in with two rolls in the future.

I apologize for taking so long to repond.  It was not lack of interest, but lack of time (kids starting school and such).

Quote from: KeranNo problem.

The example you gave, it looks like those people are trying to restrain bad GMing.  Restraining bad play isn't something I ever try to do with mechanics, from any position.  I don't think they're adapted to the task.

To be honest, the larger questions about mechanics and play are answered here - and I completely agree.

Quote from: KeranI discovered that keeping track of the mechanics in chat, and trying to communicate who was where and moving how at 2400 bps, was so awkward and slow that it was more trouble than it was worth.
.
.
.
Well, it's intended for a low combat game, and the reason it's a low combat game is that I never figured out how to do serious tactical play in a satisfactory manner over dialup.  Not with my improvisational GMing style -- since I don't know what the characters are going to decide to do, I can't expect to make tactical maps and diagrams in advance; and trying to communicate who's where and moving how, in text only, is difficult to do.

Under the circumstances, I was finding combat to be an unsatisfactory exercise: if it's too difficult to get across the positional information, it becomes an arbitrary matter of how the GM stacks the dice.
.
.
.
However, typical combat mechanics where we roll for every attempt at a blow, and then again at least once to see if does any damage, will bog the online game down badly to no purpose.  So I came up with a mechanic in which a pair of rolls decide the outcome of the fight and how badly damaged the loser ends up.  I make the throw in secret at the beginning of the exchange, and then play the scene out according to the roll, unless the player does something that I think ought to alter the result.

Now this is a brilliant approach to handling things via dialup.  And to those who would rather not get bogged down in simulationist combat rules, it could apply no matter what the medium of play.

But...

To me, it doesn't seem to be about Conflict Resolution as I've seen it used.  This seems to be a - what's the term - rules lite?  Instead of focusing on the particulars of the combat (either for dialup reasons, etc.) the situation is resolved at a higher level - reducing the attempt to simulate. Whereas in Conflict resolution, it would not be about whether or not the combat is resolved at a granular or meta level.

Take, for example, a character attempting to cross a bridge.  There are guards on the bridge. The player could battle across, sneak across, swim across the river below, etc.  It seems to me that Conflict Resolution focuses on the need to cross the bridge, using some mechanic to answer that question, and letting the player or GM narrate depending on the outcome.

Do I even have Conflict Resolution right?  Given your example, perhaps I am misunderstanding Conflict Resolution versus Task Resolution.

Just after sending that...

Is Conflict Resolution a fancy way of saying "This game mechanically raises all resolution to a meta level.  This game prefers very Rules Lite systems and, therefore, it only calls for rolls for very broad tasks..."?

So there are no specific rules for combat, or sneaking, or swimming.  There are just difficulties assigned to very broad goals and a roll to see if the character makes it.

Could this be played-out to the absurd:

PC: My character's goal is to slay the dragon and take his treasure.
GM: That's about an aggregate difficulty of..say..19.  Go ahead an Roll.
PC: A 15!  With my adventuring bonus, that's a 19!
GM: OK.  Go ahead and narrate the game.

Quote from: FeanorTo me, it doesn't seem to be about Conflict Resolution as I've seen it used.  This seems to be a - what's the term - rules lite?  Instead of focusing on the particulars of the combat (either for dialup reasons, etc.) the situation is resolved at a higher level - reducing the attempt to simulate. Whereas in Conflict resolution, it would not be about whether or not the combat is resolved at a granular or meta level.

Take, for example, a character attempting to cross a bridge.  There are guards on the bridge. The player could battle across, sneak across, swim across the river below, etc.  It seems to me that Conflict Resolution focuses on the need to cross the bridge, using some mechanic to answer that question, and letting the player or GM narrate depending on the outcome.

Do I even have Conflict Resolution right?  Given your example, perhaps I am misunderstanding Conflict Resolution versus Task Resolution.

I see your point, I think.

The way I've heard conflict resolution defined, I'm doing it: the mechanic goes up on the scale to address the entire conflict, not every individual task (every attempt to strike) in the conflict.

What I haven't done, but which you sometimes see in narrativist games, is cross over into the metaworld to have the mechanic resolve something that the PC couldn't even be attempting as phrased.

For instance, I played Dogs in the Vineyard to see how it worked, because it looks like the best-designed narrativist game and I wanted the practical experience.  In Dogs you start out play with an opening conflict, before your character takes office, to try to accomplish something when they're still a student.  For instance, mine was to have my character catch someone in authority doing something questionable in a provable manner, but this wasn't an intent the character entertained at the start of the incident -- she didn't know in advance that she was going to see something questionable.  (She failed).

Dogs uses conflict resolution too, but I wouldn't describe it a light mechanic.  It's pretty heavy mechanic for online use, in the sense that if you use it often you'll be playing pretty slowly.

I can attest that in the Dogs game the motive for conflict resolution certainly wasn't to restrain bad GMing: Thomas Robertson is a good GM.  Rather, the mechanic in the game is designed to address a particular kind of social or moral conflict between characters, and to drive the conflict into escalation, to see how far the characters will go.  Which it does.  It's not my style, but it reliably encourages the sort of play the designer intended.

Trying to restrain bad GMing would be another sort of metaworld crossover, I think.

I don't know if I am sidetracking from your point of just get it, but for my two cents, let my re-quote kryyst from the OP:

Quote from: kryystPicture this. You approach the guards and the GM says they are very alert and it's going to be an extremely difficult check to sneak past them. But you try anyway and roll exceptionally well. For plot reason the GM doesn't want you to sneak past them so as soon as you roll he chymes in with "A maid walks around the corner and shrieks alerting the guards." Many players would feel cheated by this sort of scenario.

The point of this is to remove that cheated feeling by allowing players some abiltiy to narrate their own fortunes (or lack thereof).

This is precisely why I don't create a "plot" that has to be followed. "Plots" never survive first contact with the players, and persisting in this old method of game management if full of folly AFAIAC.

I define a game session in terms of situations, goals, and obstacles. Any method the players then use to surmount the situation is fair game, and I the only reason I have to throw in more obstacles is to keep things more fun/challenging, not to preserve a "plot."

This is, in part, why the new generation of "fudgeless" games are so appealing to me.

I hesitate to say it, but it's connected to say yes or roll the dice.

As I understand it, the point with conflict resolution is to make the roll interesting and to make the outcomes interesting.

With task resolution, which personally I tend to use, a particular roll might not really lead anywhere.  I shoot at him, he dodges, nothing has really happened.

Take it to the level of the conflict, and each roll being the summation of a whole conflict necessarily matters.  The conflict is about whether I beat the crap out of this guy or he beats the crap out of me, that matters, that roll is going to get me interested.  Do I hit this round?  Less interesting.

And that I think is the main driver, it's partly to avoid rolling when really the outcome of that particular roll might be dull or unimportant.  By making it a conflict based roll rather than a task based roll it is necessarily interesting.  Not, do I pick this lock, do I get past the guard, do I climb the wall, do I then make it into the princess'es chamber but instead do I get to the princess in time to warn her?

Now, for various other reasons I tend still to like task based, but the point of conflict based is not primarily dealing with sucky GMs (well, sometimes it is but only because some folk are missing the fact that there are many far simpler ways of addressing that) but rather is about making sure that each roll really matters, and that whatever the outcome of the roll is be it pass or fail it is interesting.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI define a game session in terms of situations, goals, and obstacles. Any method the players then use to surmount the situation is fair game, and I the only reason I have to throw in more obstacles is to keep things more fun/challenging, not to preserve a "plot."

Since this sounds like, in general, good advice for anyone trying to run a campaign (or a war, for that matter), it would seem this supports my original read.  That is, in a game run in this matter, railroading would not be necessary.  Therefore, it is less likely that players will feel cheated and Conflict Resolution is not needed (as an alternative to Task Resolution.

Quote from: BalbinusI hesitate to say it, but it's connected to say yes or roll the dice.

As I understand it, the point with conflict resolution is to make the roll interesting and to make the outcomes interesting.

With task resolution, which personally I tend to use, a particular roll might not really lead anywhere.  I shoot at him, he dodges, nothing has really happened.

An interesting definition of nothing happening.  If that were to be in real life, you'd damn sure describe it as "something happening."

Quote from: BalbinusTake it to the level of the conflict, and each roll being the summation of a whole conflict necessarily matters.  The conflict is about whether I beat the crap out of this guy or he beats the crap out of me, that matters, that roll is going to get me interested.  Do I hit this round?  Less interesting.

So what determines who kicks the crap out of whom?  A single roll?  If you are playing in a game with stats/skills that are relavent, do they all get combined into that single roll?  What if you care about whether or not that guy really could kick the crap out of you?

Quote from: BalbinusNow, for various other reasons I tend still to like task based, but the point of conflict based is not primarily dealing with sucky GMs (well, sometimes it is but only because some folk are missing the fact that there are many far simpler ways of addressing that) but rather is about making sure that each roll really matters, and that whatever the outcome of the roll is be it pass or fail it is interesting.

So basically you're saying that you knowingly run a game that is less interesting because you still tend to use a system where rolls are, by definition of Conflict Resolution, dull or unimportant?

Now that I've come across as completely confrontational, please allow me to set all facetiousness aside. :cool:  It seems to me that, in summary, Conflict Resolution:

1) Is sometimes seen, correctly or incorrectly, as a method to combat railroading GM's.  It's "misused" in this sense.  While it works, the root of the problem is the GM style, not Task versus Conflict.

2) Is seen as a way to make every roll meaning full/important.

So if your particular group believes that it's important to know whether or not a character can sneak past the guard unnoticed, or aims well enough to blast the driver through the window at 200 yds while the target is moving at 80mph, then perhaps Conflict Resolution is not necessary.  However, if your group is less interested in these things, Conflict Resolution might be of value.

In the end, we're discussing the specificity at which resolution occurs, nothing more, nothing less.

Fair?  Unfair?

Quote from: FeanorAn interesting definition of nothing happening.  If that were to be in real life, you'd damn sure describe it as "something happening."

Sure, but many things which would be dramatic to experience can be dull in a game.  In real life if I am fighting for my life, in a game I am rolling dice, lots of stuff that would be exciting and dramatic to live through can be quite dull in game.

Quote from: FeanorSo what determines who kicks the crap out of whom?  A single roll?  If you are playing in a game with stats/skills that are relavent, do they all get combined into that single roll?  What if you care about whether or not that guy really could kick the crap out of you?

Depends on the game really, and my point was that that individual roll didn't determine whether he could kick the crap out of you or not as that hit/dodge exchange results in nothing at all happening.  Nobody due to that roll exchange has had the crap kicked out of them, if you hadn't made those rolls the state of play would be no different.

Quote from: FeanorSo basically you're saying that you knowingly run a game that is less interesting because you still tend to use a system where rolls are, by definition of Conflict Resolution, dull or unimportant?

Not quite.  I think conflict resolution does help with making every roll matter, but I don't think that is the most critical thing in a game.  I find task resolution helps ratchet tension, I find it tends to be more intuitive and most of the games I like best use it.  Conflict resolution is just one tool in the kitbox, just because it works better for some stuff doesn't mean it works better overall in a way that makes it best suited to my games.

Quote from: FeanorSo if your particular group believes that it's important to know whether or not a character can sneak past the guard unnoticed, or aims well enough to blast the driver through the window at 200 yds while the target is moving at 80mph, then perhaps Conflict Resolution is not necessary.  However, if your group is less interested in these things, Conflict Resolution might be of value.

In the end, we're discussing the specificity at which resolution occurs, nothing more, nothing less.

To a degree, yes.  I don't think it's anything to get religious about.  That said, many fans of conflict resolution would ask "do you really care about whether you get past that particular guard, or is what you really care about whether you make it into the princes' chamber or not?  Different groups have different answers according to their tastes.  If you're into thematic roleplaying or whatever the term we're using here is then you probably do care more about the overall conflict than the temporary obstacle which is why I think conflict resolution gets used more in those kind of games than in adventure games.

(Oops.  Double post.)

Quote from: FeanorNow that I've come across as completely confrontational, please allow me to set all facetiousness aside. :cool:  It seems to me that, in summary, Conflict Resolution:

1) Is sometimes seen, correctly or incorrectly, as a method to combat railroading GM's.  It's "misused" in this sense.  While it works, the root of the problem is the GM style, not Task versus Conflict.

2) Is seen as a way to make every roll meaning full/important.

So if your particular group believes that it's important to know whether or not a character can sneak past the guard unnoticed, or aims well enough to blast the driver through the window at 200 yds while the target is moving at 80mph, then perhaps Conflict Resolution is not necessary.  However, if your group is less interested in these things, Conflict Resolution might be of value.

In the end, we're discussing the specificity at which resolution occurs, nothing more, nothing less.

Fair?  Unfair?

Well, my approach is pretty unForgey and isn't built on the same assumptions the Forgites tend to use.  Say yes or roll the dice is no principle of mine.

In my groups, we are interested in the fiddling setting details and exactly what happens.  I consider diceless resolution better for that purpose than diced most of the time, because it doesn't draw any attention away from the description of the fictional world, and if anything tends to encourage the description -- I draw attention to why something happened, with diceless resolution, as a matter of course.

In diced resolution, on the other hand, it's fairly easy to end up abstracting the details away, not to think about them specifically, since they're covered by the dice.  Not that you can't add detail, of course -- just that it makes it easy to skip over it.

But sometimes I don't know the details enough to determine what should happen, and don't have any good way of figuring them out with as much precision as I need to make a solid diceless resolution.  I'll still resolve dicelessly at this point if an arbitrary resolution by me is acceptable.

But sometimes it isn't acceptable -- in any situation where I want impartial results, but I'm biased in the PC's favor.  Combat is one of these situations.

In most noncombat situations when I want impartial results, with standard task resolution I'd probably end up making only a couple of rolls at most.

But with combat, if I use the standard approach, I end up making too many rolls for the medium I'm playing in, where they're slow and distracting.  So I want to make as few rolls as I can get away with.  So I cover the whole thing with a couple of rolls.  I might modify or override the results of the rolls if the player does something while describing the combat that makes me think the dice aren't representative any more.  I might apply modifiers and roll again for a new phase of the fight, if I think the PC's actions have sufficiently altered the situation.

I don't think I've ever heard anybody whose approach is Forge-inspired say anything like what I just said.  I think you've described the common approaches that I know of reasonably well; mine isn't common.

As far as making every roll important goes: I throw dice if:

• I need an impartial resolution;
• I can't determine the details sufficiently well to make one diceless;
• The character is attempting something difficult;
• And it matters if they succeed on the first attempt.

The undertaking could be important, but if the character can make multiple attempts at getting it right and it isn't way beyond their competence, then I don't need to roll.  They'll probably get it on a later attempt if they don't succeed on the first one.

The thing I'd note is that it's a really common Forge assumption that the important stuff is handled with the mechanics; but my assumption is that the important stuff is handled by roleplaying and description by preference, and I only resort to mechanics if nonmechanical resolution doesn't serve all my purposes.

Quote from: Balbinus

Quote from: FeanorIn the end, we're discussing the specificity at which resolution occurs, nothing more, nothing less.

To a degree, yes.  I don't think it's anything to get religious about.

I guess that's exactly my point - why get religious, or better yet ideological, about it. IMHO, this occurs when a hard line is drawn differentiating between Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution.  Soon the word "versus" gets deployed and battle lines are drawn.  And the question I keep asking myself is "what's the point?"

Quote from: BalbinusThat said, many fans of conflict resolution would ask "do you really care about whether you get past that particular guard, or is what you really care about whether you make it into the princes' chamber or not?  Different groups have different answers according to their tastes.

And I think part of the reason that some Adventure RPGers start to get their backs up is exactly the way the question is asked.  It seems to imply (whether intended or not) that to answer "yes" to the former is somehow a lesser manner of playing RPG's. That is, the question is just as valid as asking - "I know you're goal is to make it to the princess' chamber, but don't you care how?"

It's why I'm asking the question in the OP.  Is it necessary to have differentiation between these two methods of resolution which appear to be alike in every manner but specificity?  Would it be more beneficial to have as a design goal the most flexible resolution mechanic possible - one that allows each group to choose the granularity that best fits style/medium?

Quote from: KeranI think you've described the common approaches that I know of reasonably well; mine isn't common.

As I've previously stated, I love your approach.  Am I mistaken in interpreting this in such a way as to support my response to Balbinus; that is, you adjust the level of resolution to the situation?  Any mechanic that just did not allow this flexibility would not be of great use to you without modification?

If everything we've discussed is covered by a sliding scale of granularity with respect to resolution, task and conflict merely names of points along the spectrum, then what other benefits of design result from the pursuit of Conflict Resolution?

Quote from: FeanorAs I’ve previously stated, I love your approach.  Am I mistaken in interpreting this in such a way as to support my response to Balbinus; that is, you adjust the level of resolution to the situation?  Any mechanic that just did not allow this flexibility would not be of great use to you without modification?

Yeah, that's right.

The scope of the actions varies even in things that are both considered task resolution.  For instance, there's the varying length of combat rounds in different game systems -- off the top of my head I've seen them held to mark off intervals between six seconds and (IIRC) a minute in published games, and I'm sure there are plenty of other variations I haven't noticed because it's not something I tend to pay attention to.  There's a big difference in how much physical action would actually be taking place in intervals that vary by a factor of ten.

When I describe the action in combat, I'm always going strike by strike and motion by motion, with the time intervals a second or less.  I can manage to keep track of who's where, can sort of visualize what's happening, if I slice it up that way, but I lose all sense of what's going on if I have too many changes to account for at once.  Aside from that, a lot of real fights tend to be over fairly quickly.

QuoteIf everything we’ve discussed is covered by a sliding scale of granularity with respect to resolution, task and conflict merely names of points along the spectrum, then what other benefits of design result from the pursuit of Conflict Resolution?

I think you're right about the sliding scale bit: certainly, I use it that way.  I don't see a lot of room for ideological clash here.  Same thing, different scope.

There's also another thing that some people are doing that I don't do, and that is changing the nature of what the resolution mechanic addresses: is it resolving a thing that the PC can be attempting as such -- the usual traditional approach -- or is it resolving something that the player is attempting but the PC couldn't be?  I want to be dealing with things the character can be attempting, regardless of the scale I handle them at.

I think the ideological clash comes in because in a lot of narrativist games -- heck, at the heart of Forge theory -- the conflicts aren't really conceived as conflicts between the characters.  We have people jumping up and down and yelling, "There is no character!  Stop talking about the character!  You're not taking responsibility if you talk about the character!"  That's because the conflicts are conceived of as conflicts between the players over whose vision of the narrative should prevail.  (Which isn't how I look at play at all.)

QuoteThat's because the conflicts are conceived of as conflicts between the players over whose vision of the narrative should prevail.  (Which isn't how I look at play at all.)

I'm totally with Keran here. Care to GM a PBEM? I'd follow you wherever you went:cheerleader:

Hi!
  Well, according to my understanding, kryyst is misusing the point of Conflict Resolution. I've talked to some designers about CR and their reasons generally break down to two reasons:
1) The desire to make a universal resolution mechanic. Meaning that if you are arguing, fighting or riding a horse, you use the exact same rules. If there are HPs while you fight, then there are Social HPs while you argue, etc. This definitely distinguishes it from most D20, where there are mechinaics for fighting, for spells, for skills and movement and never the twain shall meet.
2) Avoiding pointless rolls. The classic example for this is a character who wants to break into the Governor's safe in order to get clues about the curent adventure. The GM knows there are no clues inside the safe and that its an expensive, well-bult safe. So the roll to crack it will be high, but the reward will suck. Where as with proper conflict Resolution, the Player says, I want to get the secrets that the Governor has and then some rolling and narration happens and in the end either they have the clue or they have a PO'd Governor. To put it another way there is no result of "nothing happens"
  Also, Conflict, as defined by proponents of CR, is not necesarily character conflict. A character that wants over a fence into the Governor's estate has a conflict with the fence (who's sole job is to keep that character, and characters like them, out).
  I am not saying I necesarily think this system is better or worse than any other system, but I did take the time to understand it. I think some systems that claim to have CR don't. You can spot those by the fact that they have a follow up conflict mechanic or that most of the conflicts used as examples are actually simple tasks.
  Hope this helps!

Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution (http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html#4)

(The forum was showing a third page to this thread, but it wouldn't load.  I was always ending up on page 2 instead.  I once saw adding an extra post remedy this kind of error, so I tried it.)

Quote from: dindenver2) Avoiding pointless rolls. The classic example for this is a character who wants to break into the Governor's safe in order to get clues about the curent adventure. The GM knows there are no clues inside the safe and that its an expensive, well-bult safe. So the roll to crack it will be high, but the reward will suck. Where as with proper conflict Resolution, the Player says, I want to get the secrets that the Governor has and then some rolling and narration happens and in the end either they have the clue or they have a PO'd Governor. To put it another way there is no result of "nothing happens"

Hi d -

It seems to me that Caesar Slaad's approach obtains in any event, and that the above explanation relies too intently on a single manner for resolving this conflict.  "Nothing happens" can be very interesting:
- it takes too long to crack the Governor's safe and he's alerted to intruders in the mansion
- the safe is cracked, and there aren't clues, but the monthly city guard payroll is in there
- there's a passage through the back of the safe into his secret monkey brothel, which may give them leverage to blackmail him out of whatever information is needed
- it's a big safe, no passage, and the safecracking rogue gets locked in when the cleaning crew happens by

The reward doesn't have to suck. :)

Quote from: LostSoulConflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution (http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html#4)

Um. Wow.

My reactions are mixed.

I can see the utility of the approach, but not the necessity.

If you want to empower players, give them an element of authorship, this is one way to do it. But is there some reason this approach is preferable? He says "Task resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged authorship. Task resolution will undermine your collaboration." I'm not implicitly seeing why collaborating at this level is necessarily desirable, or at least, any more desireable that tradition GM/player roles.

Am I to understand that this is the main "trick" in DitV? Perhaps I should look into it to see if there is something more to it I am missing.

I see the rules as the point of interface between the GM and players. The rules traditionally are more rigorous on defining what the player can do, but generally give the GM carte blanche (with the admonition that this power should be used wisely.) Certain mechanics in traditional games go to greater lengths in empowering players. Mechanics like dramatic editing and Feng Shui's "players making up things about the environment" move things along the continuum between what is being called task and conflict resolution here.

Quote from: Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution articleThat'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.

*Emphasis Mine*

For the most part, this is what my players expect, want and ask for.  For the more proactive players in my groups, I utilize what they give me (no extra rules necessary) and they aren't left out in the cold.  The players know that they are the stars and as such I will base my choices off what they do or don't do.

A number of my players are reactive and would be very uncomfortable if rules existed that "empowered them".  One, in particular, constantly reminds me - "I don't want to think, just give me things to kill" (this would be my wife, the killer of gender-stereotypes in gaming).

Having commented on a subsequent post, let me retract to an earlier post now that I think I have a better idea of what is being discussed here.

Quote from: dindenver1) The desire to make a universal resolution mechanic. Meaning that if you are arguing, fighting or riding a horse, you use the exact same rules. If there are HPs while you fight, then there are Social HPs while you argue, etc. This definitely distinguishes it from most D20, where there are mechinaics for fighting, for spells, for skills and movement and never the twain shall meet.

I consider that an essentially pointless goal, or at least, one that runs counter to my immersion needs. I hesitate to use the term "simulationist" considering that its commonly accepted definition seems to be sliding around. But I'll say this much: fidelity in modeling contributes to my suspension of disbeleif of the setting. I tried systems with one-method-to-rule-them-all resolution systems, and usually there was some thing or another that didn't quite feel right to me.

I think the current industry trend of "a single consistent underlying system with necessary extensions to model specifics" to be more consistent with my needs.

Quote2) Avoiding pointless rolls. The classic example for this is a character who wants to break into the Governor's safe in order to get clues about the curent adventure. The GM knows there are no clues inside the safe and that its an expensive, well-bult safe. So the roll to crack it will be high, but the reward will suck. Where as with proper conflict Resolution, the Player says, I want to get the secrets that the Governor has and then some rolling and narration happens and in the end either they have the clue or they have a PO'd Governor. To put it another way there is no result of "nothing happens"

I can see the point of avoiding pointless rolls (or more general, avoiding player bumbling, as players can waste plenty of time on a false lead with never rolling a dice ;) .) Personally, I address this as a matter of GM technique. Yes, I know the safe does not contain what the player thinks it does. But chances are I have not defined what's in the safe at all. If the player concludes that there is some reasonable chance that there is something of use in the safe, just because it's not something I anticipated does not mean that I can't take the opportunity to decide that the safe contains something that will point them in the right direction--like a letter with a return address of where the info they seek really can be found. Or I can take the opportunity to make it a parallel path and bypass my "planned" path. Like I said earlier, anything the players try that has a reasonable chance of progressing them towards their goal is fair game.

These sorts of things CAN be encoded in the rules (and maybe, if I understand correctly, that's what all the Conflict Resolution bit is about.) Some here may know that my current gaming beau is Spycraft 2.0. In spycraft, the rules for some sorts of dramatic conflicts and the tables for henchmen possessions, for example, are laced with terms like "provides one important clue about the mastermind/organization/etc."

Speaking of Spycraft, do you think dramatic conflicts fit the same mold. A single underlying system with specific extensions for tactical richness and flavor modeling several different activities (chases, hacking, interrogation, seduction)?

QuoteOriginally Posted by Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution article
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.

See, I trust my players and I think they trust me.  I don't think it is the job of the rules to even these things out and I don't thing social things are particularly unreliable if you avoid playing with idiots or fucktards.

That said, when I played Dogs we rolled dice to see if we won arguments, shot people, each step in the conflict had different dice being rolled, it wasn't really all that different.

Anyway, like Caesar I can see the utility, I am happy to say that in no way do I see it as a necessity.  Anyway, when I play I want to explore the GM's world, I do not want to faff about setting stakes and deciding what the conflict is.  That's his job, the lazy bum.

Everyone is quoting this part of of the essay, so I thought I'd continue the trend. Oh, and just for the fun of it, let's give credit where credit is due (emphasis mine):

QuoteOriginally from Vincent Baker's Essay:

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.

Now for anyone who claims that certain theories do not cast aspersions on traditional RPG mechanics, please note the terms "big problem" and "undermine."  If those aren't as red-meat as anything The Pundit might say, I'm missing something. But I digress...

However, there's an assertion made that requires more investigation. That is, it's the GM who resolves conflict, not the dice or rules (or other mechanic).  That seems to me to support my inference that Conflict Resolution is really a reaction to players who feel, rightly or not, they have been railroaded. It also seems to be contradicted in the next portion of the original essay:

QuoteOriginally from Vincent Baker's Essay:

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?)

In both examples, it is strictly the dice that determine the result.  The only difference is the level of resolution - it's granularity.  In the first it's a simple swing, in the second it's the entire fight. But then there's this little parenthetical comment added for which I can see no justification.  How is whether or not you got to the ship resolved in either case?  In fact, it's not mentioned as a goal, or "stake" in theory-speak anywhere in the example.  I assert that it's there to imply that while this example of Task Resolution resolves the entire fight in a roll, it somehow retains the "big problem" of leaving that to the GM, thereby "undermin[ing] your collaboration."

But this, forgive my bluntness, is hogwash. :eek:  What if, in the first example, the remainder of the fight goes against the player?  What's the Conflict Resolution mechanic that addresses the goal of getting to the ship before it sails? Does the GM fudge? Does the GM just say, "Well, he knocks you off the bridge.  But amazingly, the ship you are trying to catch just happens to be sailing under that bridge and you find yourself aboard The Sea Princess!"  How do Conflict Resolution mechanics remove the GM's "priviledged authorship" in this case? How is this different than a GM using Task Resolution, upon the fight going against the player, employing the same tactic?

QuoteOriginally from Vincent Baker's Essay:

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.

Again, the emphasis is mine.  IMHO this essay does more to show Conflict Resolution as a reaction to bad GM practice - defined by the players who feel railroaded.  However, if Conflict Resolution is open to the same GM fiat as Task Resolution, is it an appropriate response?

I assert that Conflict Resolution and Task Resolution are the same mechanic, subject to the same possible bad GM practice, differing only in the granularity of action.  The real goal of Conflict Resolution is to change the GM/Player relationship; the true purpose is to enhance/encourage/enforce "collaboration."

Hang on a sec...

Quote from: FeanorIn both examples, it is strictly the dice that determine the result.  The only difference is the level of resolution - it's granularity.

It's not a question of scale.

The question is "What result is determined by the dice, and what result is determined by the GM?"

In the Conflict Resolution example, the player's goal (putting him off-balance) is resolved using the dice.  In the Task Resolution example, the player's goal (getting on the ship before it sails) is resolved using GM fiat.

Quote from: FeanorBut then there's this little parenthetical comment added for which I can see no justification.  How is whether or not you got to the ship resolved in either case?  In fact, it's not mentioned as a goal, or "stake" in theory-speak anywhere in the example.

It's there.  It's the Intent, in theory-speak.  It's the bolded part of the following line:

"I fight him!" "Why?" "To get past him to the ship before it sails!"

But even though you kill him, via Task Resolution, the GM can say, "But you were too late to get onto the ship - it's sailed."  Or you could lose the fight, but the guy carries your unconcious body onto the ship before it sails.

The outcome doesn't depend on the task.  What you were rolling for - To get past him to the ship before it sails is resolved by the GM, and not the dice.

Quote from: FeanorBut this, forgive my bluntness, is hogwash. :eek:  What if, in the first example, the remainder of the fight goes against the player?  What's the Conflict Resolution mechanic that addresses the goal of getting to the ship before it sails?

The dice do that, however the system handles it.  If you fail at the roll, you don't get on the ship before it sails.  If you succeed at the roll, you do.  It's as simple as that.

The GM doesn't have to fudge anything.  Everyone looks at the dice and sees what happened.

Quote from: FeanorAgain, the emphasis is mine.  IMHO this essay does more to show Conflict Resolution as a reaction to bad GM practice - defined by the players who feel railroaded.  However, if Conflict Resolution is open to the same GM fiat as Task Resolution, is it an appropriate response?

I can't speak for Vincent, but I dig Conflict Resolution because it's "a reaction to bad GM practice".  (I like it as both a player and GM.)  But it's not open to the same GM fiat as Task Resolution.

One thing I don't quite get yet, though: when you determine the Intent - what you are trying to achive - if the GM, or another player, shoots that down, is that GM fiat?  Player (where "player" includes the GM) fiat?  Is that good, bad, whatever?  Does that make Conflict Resolution similar to Task Resolution, just more obvious when the GM/whoever is saying, "No, you can't do that"?

An example:
"I hack into the terminal and take control of every computer on the planet!"
"Dude... that's lame.  That doesn't make any sense to me."

Is that fiat?  There's something I don't get in there.  Probably for a different thread.

So, um, in Forgespeak apparently I could resolve a conflict without having engaged in Conflict Resolution.

:rolleyes:
 
Tangent: I play on a MUSH, and last night I wrote some code that streamlines the dice throws.  Tonight we tested it in a combat scene, and it works handily -- I spent my time describing the scene instead of messing with the mechanics, which did what I wanted them to do without getting in my way.  So now I can afford to go back to resolving every attack and defense. :cool:

Before anyone else calls me on it, I'll cop to being completely blind, as Lost Soul points out.  I'll blame it on late-night-dry-contacts.  I missed the "why" in the second example.

But I don't think that changes things.  After going back and reading it again (My word, how could I have missed that!), I noticed a more subtle slight of hand.  Or at least, it seems to be the way in which the distinction is drawn without a difference.

Quote(Originally from Vincent Baker's Essay, emphasis mine):
"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?)

Why does the GM answer this way.  If the GM and Player are communicating properly, didn't they establish what the roll is for?  Then why does the GM change this?  Could the GM have answered "You Beat Him! You make it to the ship." instead?  In fact, what's with the disarm and kicking butt stuff?  The player doesn't claim to want any of that, only to get to the ship.

Try this on for Task Resolution at a large scale:
Player: "I fight him!"
GM: "Why"
Player: "To get past him to get to the ship before it sails"
GM: "Well, you'll have to make quick work of him, which will add to your difficulty, if you want to make it. And you'll have to run as fast as you can to make it."
Player: "I'll use whatever method I can to finish him quickly, and I have a high movement, so I'll fly down the pier."
GM: Uses mechanics to set success target. "You'll need a 14 to do it all..."
Player: Roll! Success! "A 17! I did it!"
GM: "With the lightning quickness of a single stroke you defeat the guard.  You dodge down the pier and reach The Sea Princess just as she begins to pull away!"

This is my point about the difference - there is none.  It's really about coming to agreement on the granularity of action to be resolved by the mechanics.  If the GM and player don't do that, there might just be problems. And in traditional RPG's, the implied level is very granular.  This means that what you are doing is determining if the character can perform very specific tasks.

Quote from: LostSoulI can't speak for Vincent, but I dig Conflict Resolution because it's "a reaction to bad GM practice".  (I like it as both a player and GM.)  But it's not open to the same GM fiat as Task Resolution.

Does Task Resolution allow for the abuse of GM fiat?  Absolutley.  Is it solved by Conflict Resolution?  Absolutley not; lessened, possibly, to some degree, but not solved.

Quote from: LostSoulOne thing I don't quite get yet, though: when you determine the Intent - what you are trying to achive - if the GM, or another player, shoots that down, is that GM fiat?  Player (where "player" includes the GM) fiat?  Is that good, bad, whatever?  Does that make Conflict Resolution similar to Task Resolution, just more obvious when the GM/whoever is saying, "No, you can't do that"?

And herein lies my point, yet again.  If the GM (or "other player" if you so desire) can say no at any level, Task or Conflict or whatever, how are they different? Look at the recent stir in Theory about stakes setting.

Again, I assert, Conflict Resolution is not about resolution at all.  It's about changing who determines the direction of the game.  The true goal of Conflict Resolution is to allow players to determine the results/impacts of the mechanics - see the say yes or roll discussion.

I think Eero Tuovinen's post here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14602.msg163889#msg163889) is excellent on this topic. Note that it post-dates Vincent's blog entry.

QuoteSo-called "conflict resolution" and "task resolution" are illusions, insofar as discrete game systems are concerned. There is no true conflict or task resolutions, or if there is, they are so vanishingly rare that it doesn't matter for our purposes. Instead, what systems do have is the quality of "resolving tasks" and the quality of "resolving conflicts". The thing is, all rpg systems have these qualities, and thus all rpgs have both "conflict" and "task resolution".

Quote from: FeanorWhy does the GM answer this way.  If the GM and Player are communicating properly, didn't they establish what the roll is for?  Then why does the GM change this?  Could the GM have answered "You Beat Him! You make it to the ship." instead?  In fact, what's with the disarm and kicking butt stuff?  The player doesn't claim to want any of that, only to get to the ship.

I think the GM answers it that way because it's an example of Task Resolution.  If they are communicating properly, and they go to the mechanics to resolve the conflict of issue, then it's Conflict Resolution.

I think your example is Conflict Resolution.

example (let's say D&D):
"I jump over the fence!"
Rolls Jump against DC 10; success.
"Okay, you make it over the fence.  The pirate ship sails away."

"I jump over the fence because I want to get to the pirate ship before it sails away!"
Rolls Jump against the NPC's Profession: sailor; PC succeeds.
"Okay, you jump over the fence and make it on board the pirate ship before it sails away."

At least that's my understanding of it.

Quote from: FeanorAgain, I assert, Conflict Resolution is not about resolution at all.  It's about changing who determines the direction of the game.  The true goal of Conflict Resolution is to allow players to determine the results/impacts of the mechanics - see the say yes or roll discussion.

I don't see why that isn't resolution.

Quote from: LostSoulI think the GM answers it that way because it's an example of Task Resolution.  If they are communicating properly, and they go to the mechanics to resolve the conflict of issue, then it's Conflict Resolution.

So, just to be clear:  If the GM answers one way, it's Task Resolution.  If the GM answers another way, it's Conflict Resolution.  Oh, and they can only be communicating properly when it's Conflict Resolution.  So, by default, does this mean that Task Resolution is improper communication?:eek: In all seriousness, what's the difference between between conflict and task?

Quote from: LostSoulI think your example is Conflict Resolution.

Why? Because the GM and Player discussed the ramifications?  Because the player decided the importance of this situation is really about getting to the ship?  Because the resolution included more than one action (fighting, running, jumping)?

Quote from: LostSoulexample (let's say D&D):
"I jump over the fence!"
Rolls Jump against DC 10; success.
"Okay, you make it over the fence.  The pirate ship sails away."

"I jump over the fence because I want to get to the pirate ship before it sails away!"
Rolls Jump against the NPC's Profession: sailor; PC succeeds.
"Okay, you jump over the fence and make it on board the pirate ship before it sails away."

Is that how a typical "Task Resolution" session goes?  Where is the discussion of how far the ship is?  How about the speed of the character? How are those factored into the Difficulty against which the character will roll?

No, the big difference between those two examples is that the ramifications of the result changed - with the addition of "because I want to get to the pirate ship before it sails away!"  This is all well and good.  However, once this occurs, the GM should figure in all of the factors that would result in getting to the ship and reflecting that in the Difficulty.  It's no longer a roll to jump the fence, now the mechanic is going to resolve the large Task of getting to the ship. In some mechanics, this might be a complicated calculation of distances and speeds and sailing skills and who knows what else.  In other systems, it might be a much more simple calculation.  In still others, the mechanic might be "OK, you make the ship and are now surrounded by angry pirates."

In all three of those possiblities, the Task is to get to the ship.  The only difference is the specificity of the mechanics applied to determine the outcome.

Yeah, I can't see the difference, either...aside from semantics.

Maybe that is the difference, semantics.  Okay, obviously what you're trying to point out is that the Conflict Resolution system is supposed to have "table agreement" on the results prior to the roll (as well as perhaps a different method of determining the difficulty).  When the check is made, the results of failure or success are already known and not dependant on DM judgment.  With Task Resolution, it is assumed that the DM tells you what to roll and then decides the results after the roll.

LostSoul, it appears that your example only highlights bad DMing.  I just don't think that is a good example of Task Resolution.

I wouldn't put me with Top Flight against Tiger Woods with Titleist to show the superiority of the Titleist golf ball.

Unfortunately, with good DMing, you aren't going to see any obvious weaknesses in the "Task Resolution" system.

Quote from: FickleGMLostSoul, it appears that your example only highlights bad DMing.  I just don't think that is a good example of Task Resolution.

Maybe it is only bad DMing.

Now: maybe systems that support Conflict Resolution over Task Resolution - systems that make it hard to do Task Resolution - maybe those are better systems.

However: do you have a good example of Task Resolution?

Let me just say: I like this discussion, I find it helpful to argue about these things.  I'm happy with the way things are going.

Oh, and don't take me for any authority on this stuff.  I'm learning it as I discuss it with you guys.  That's the cool stuff for me.

Quote from: FeanorIn all seriousness, what's the difference between between conflict and task?

Conflict: 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.

Quote from: FeanorWhy? Because the GM and Player discussed the ramifications?  Because the player decided the importance of this situation is really about getting to the ship?  Because the resolution included more than one action (fighting, running, jumping)?

Yes, yes, and no.

Conflict resolution could resolve something very large in scale with a single roll: "I want to take over the kingdom through political guile." Or it could take a lot of rolls: Imagine all the rolls that you might need to take over the kingdom.  I want to convince the Baron that I'm trustworthy.  I want to convince the Baron to lend me his forces.  I want to convince those forces to attack the Baron.  etc.

Quote from: FeanorIs that how a typical "Task Resolution" session goes?

I think so.  Any time where the player's intent isn't factored into the roll.  Vincent's example is good:

"I crack the safe to find the dirt on the big bad guy!"
He rolls Disable Device.
Does success in that roll determine:
1) If he cracks the safe or not
2) If he finds the dirt on the big bad guy

1) is Task Resolution.  2) is Conflict Resolution.

Quote from: FeanorWhere is the discussion of how far the ship is?  How about the speed of the character? How are those factored into the Difficulty against which the character will roll?QUOTE]

Who knows?  All that would depend on the specific game in question, right?

But let's say it's D&D.  Don't think of D&D's combat system as Task Resolution.  The whole "Do I get to the pirate ship, past this dude, before it sails?" can easily be done with D&D.  The DM determines how many rounds it takes to set sail, and if you can get there before it does, you succeed.

But sometimes it doesn't matter.  You kill the guy, but that - as per the RAW - doesn't say whether or not you make it onto the ship.  Good DMs will realize this and deal with it; I say that they are using Conflict Resolution.

I don't know; maybe you could look at Conflict Resolution as being composed of tasks that will determine your success in the goal you stated.  I think that's how Dogs works.


Hmmm.... what this thread needs are actual play examples.

Quote from: LostSoulMaybe it is only bad DMing.

Now: maybe systems that support Conflict Resolution over Task Resolution - systems that make it hard to do Task Resolution - maybe those are better systems.

However: do you have a good example of Task Resolution?

Actually, I don't think I do have a good example, but here are some possible D&D-style resolution results:

1. Task is succeeded without consideration of the Conflict.
DM: Make a jump roll to clear the fence.
PC: *shooka shooka* I got an 18.
DM: You made it over the fence.
PC: Did I make it on the ship?
DM: Oh, you want on get on the ship?
PC: *sarcasticly* Noooo, I just want to jump fences.

2. Task is succeeded, but the conflict is failed.
DM: Make a jump roll to clear the fence.
PC: *shooka shooka* I got an 18.
DM: You made it over the fence.
PC: Did I make it on the ship?
DM: Nope, it sails away.

3. Task is succeeded and results in the conflict being succeeded.
DM: Make a jump roll to clear the fence.
PC: *shooka shooka* I got an 18.
DM: You made it over the fence.
PC: Did I make it on the ship?
DM: Yes, by jumping the fence, you lessen the distance and make it on the ship before it sails away.

Obviously, #1 and #2 fall under what you will label Task Resolution, while #3 will probably get the Conflict Resolution label.  #1 is stupid DMing...the player may have just said, "I jump the fence." and not explicitly stated that he was trying to get on the ship, but the situation should have made it obvious.

#2 may be bad DMing, because the player's goal was obviously not accomplished through the success of the task.  Of course, perhaps it isn't bad DMing.  The DM may have already calculated that the character cannot make it on the ship before it sails.  Whether or not the player had a chance to perceive this before jumping the fence, I don't know.  Some DMs may just say, "you know that will not make it on the ship." OR they may say, "make a Spot check to see if you think that you can make it on the ship."  OR they may just decide that the character doesn't know if he can make it.

#3 treats "getting on the ship" as the conflict/task that is being rolled for and the fence is can be an obstacle that determines what skill is used or it could have added a penalty to a different roll.  There are probably a lot of DMs that implicitly use a so-called Conflict Resolution system in their games.  By taking what the player says and tying it into what is being rolled for, he is allowing the player to help shape the game.

I usually follow #3, because it just makes sense to me that what the players are trying to accomplish is pretty important to a game.  They rarely word their actions in a way that would allow me to separate Task from Conflict (ala #1 above) without me being an idiot.  Of course, I also don't want to have rules in place that make #2 impossible for me as a DM.  I would never abuse the #2 scenario, as that would quickly alienate the players...but, there are circumstances where I feel that #2 is useful.

Take the safe example, what if I prepared the scenario where the evidence was not in the safe.  The player doesn't know that, nor does his character.  I don't want to discuss this out of character, nor do I want to add a Conflict that will allow the evidence to be in the safe.  I am going to treat a player's request to, "crack the safe to find the dirt" as, "well, you can attempt to crack the safe and find out if the dirt is inside."

I'm not going to tell the player, "Uh, the dirt isn't in the safe, so save yourself the effort", NOR am I going to say, "Well, since you worded your conflict in a way the allows you to change the scenario, I guess that you'll find the dirt if you succeed."

Perhaps there is less specific preparation or team preparation or at the table preparation that takes place in these GMing By Committee games.  Or perhaps there are instance in even these games where the GM can override the committee, but I have been under the impression that these games exist so that the GM doesn't have the authority to make those types of decisions.

I'm getting rambly, so I hope that you can follow what I am getting at.

Quote from: LostSoulI think the GM answers it that way because it's an example of Task Resolution.  If they are communicating properly, and they go to the mechanics to resolve the conflict of issue, then it's Conflict Resolution.

I think this is a key point: Conflict Resolution rules are (IMO) designed to facilitate clear (clearer?) GM-Player communication. Whether they work well or not will be up to the group (if the GM and Player argue forever over the stakes then, while conflict might be "clear" it will not be fruitful).

But that's not the only element of Conflict Resolution:
In 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 have seen reported cases where Dogs players have (and I'm not sure the rules support this), picked an NPC who they thought was guilty, and then accosted them in a contest to "make the NPC confess." The result (in the player's opinion) wouldn't just be a 'forced confession' but, in their eyes, actually create the fact that the NPC had done what they confessed to even though the GM's notes contradicted that.

In this case, taken as a logical extreme, the dice rolls generate dirt on the governor even though the character has always been played (and perceived by the GM, and perhaps other players) as clean. In such a game the PCs could simply pick the first person they see and force them to tell the whole story of the game as they (the players) saw fit.

I doubt this mode of play would be especially fun for most people and I don't think it's inherently part of Conflict Resolution--but it, like a GM forcing rolls to make coffee or dial a telephone--is an example of what happens if the basic idea gets carried pretty far.

On the other hand, if the GM can arbitrarily reject stakes  then, taking the governor example, either breaking into the safe is simply hand-waved (there is no risk and it isn't played out) or the fact of the governor's lack of corruption is discovered just by asking.

Either way, if the participants aren't on the same page, this could result in a poor gaming experience (a middle ground would be to run the breaking-in scene with risk but hand-wave the safe-cracking part in favor of the characters so they still go through the experience of not knowing if the governor is corrupt until they get there but then do not fail a crucial roll to execute their search).

This middle ground, though, is still pretty much task-resolution, IMO, if the player has to roll to get past guards or open other locks ...

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI think this is a key point: Conflict Resolution rules are (IMO) designed to facilitate clear (clearer?) GM-Player communication.

Watching 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: 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.

My verbosity/babblosity may not be as clear, but I am in agreement.

This debate is silly.

Here's something Task Resolution can do to trump Conflict resolution:

GM: Ok, you jumped the fence, but the ship sails away.

(is the situation really over at this point? In Conflict Reslution, it's over. Pass or fail, it's over and the situation ends. The ship has sailed, with or without the PCs on it. There's no room for player input beyond "do I make it- yes or no?" before the situation is resolved. For Task Resolution, however it's not over at all...)

Player: So I missed boarding call?

GM: Yeah..

Player: how far away is the ship?

GM: It's like... 80' or so by now. You never really had a chance to get there in time to make boarding call.

Player: I call my dolphin animal companion, and once it arrives, it carries me.

Player 2: I commandeer another vessel- is there a dinghy around here? Then I catch up by rowing. Otherwise, we gather the rest of the party. We may have to steal a ship and run them down..

Player 3: Let me see the map. (looks at map). Are there other ships in the harbor? How fast is that ship moving? Maybe I can circle around the harbor and cut them off. Hey, does that ship pass under the suspension bridge? I'm thinking of a plan involving 50' of rope and a ring of feather falling.

Player 4: My character is an excellent swimmer. If it's just 80' away and has to maneuver I should be able to cross the distance by sprinting (my swim speed) in the water. Then I'll use my climb skills to sneak aboard.  

Player 5: (etc)

And of course these various ideas from the players may not all work, but what they will do is lead to new tasks: attempts to steal another ship, maybe .. or maybe the crazy plan about bungee jumping off of the suspension bridge with a ring of feather falling and a grappling hook won't work after all.. but the players are engaged and providing their vital input. There is back and forth and interplay and the scene only ends when the players run out of ideas or options.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw(is the situation really over at this point? In Conflict Reslution, it's over. Pass or fail, it's over and the situation ends. The ship has sailed, with or without the PCs on it. There's no room for player input beyond "do I make it- yes or no?" before the situation is resolved. For Task Resolution, however it's not over at all...)

Yeah, 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?

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

Good task resolution makes both outcomes interesting.


The 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.

Quote from: gleichmanGood task resolution makes both outcomes interesting.


The 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.

Sure, 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.

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.

Quote from: FickleGMAnother 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...

I agree that was a better example. And I further agree that you shouldn't fiat things like "the hull is too slippery". Especially if there's already rules that handle things like climbing aboard slippery ships as part of the game system.

I think we have come full circle as I am now arguiing that the GM should "say yes or roll the dice" (haha, but seriously)  in any given situation where a player can come up with a reasonable plan.

I find this acceptable, gameable, and interesting:

GM: The ships side is too slippery to climb...
Player: I throw my grappling hook!  

This just isn't:

GM: Ok, so the stakes are getting on the ship and defeating the slaver OR the slaver escapes and you experience serious doubt in your status as a protector.

Player: I roll my 'love for humanity' 6d6!

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.

I think a lot of the theory has to do with power-struggle and ways to either re-frame it or minimize it. If the group you game with doesn't go "Sure you got past the guard--but ha ha! The ship gets away!" then a lot of this is going to look like extra steps ("Gee, of course I'm trying to get to the ship--why do I need to specify it?")

That said, I don't mind having a name for different points of view on resolution if you can show how they are different. And they are, IMO: explicitly setting stakes is different from implying stakes. One may be better for ensuring no one is surprised--one may be better for immersion and speed of play.

One has the GM exercise fiat power before the role ("No, those are not the stakes.") one after.

They're different--but saying one is globally better is going to be problematic. And that I'd dispute.

-Marco

Quote from: Abyssal MawGM: Ok, so the stakes are getting on the ship and defeating the slaver OR the slaver escapes and you experience serious doubt in your status as a protector.

Player: I roll my 'love for humanity' 6d6!

:D

Yeah, I'm not denying that there are games like this to have come out the Forge, and they use Conflict Resolution. But they are not the way they are because of Conflict Resolution.

Quote from: MarcoThey're different--but saying one is globally better is going to be problematic. And that I'd dispute.

Yeah cool. I think I would always prefer a CR system over a TR one. But that is just that, a preference. You guys might well be the opposite, and that's cool as well.

I just didn't want CR to be misrepresented, that's all :)

Cool.   That was good, Warren.

Having tension in a roll is a good thing (and I think that is an explicit and desirable feature of diced resolution), but I don't see CR as acheiving what I want out of it.

First, as stated earlier, one of the explicit goals is to minimize dice rolls. I can see that as a laudible goal to some extent (frex, I loathed how oWoD had two sets of opposed rolls to resolve an attack... it DID slow things down and not every roll there was emotionally charged.) But when you start subtracting out dice rolls, you subtract that emotional charge associated with them.

Second, a dice roll in typical task resolution need not be the game breaker that it sounds like CR could be. If you fail a task, you can find other routes to your goals, or get metered success in the form of clues, etc. It can become a story telling and excitement-inducing tool. If you wrap the entirety of the conflict in one roll, if that roll fails, you fail to reach your goal. That may sound like the point, but I'd like to focus on it here in the light that is not what I want.

As a GM, I want the authority and opportunity to move the game forward in interesting ways. Having small failures is just an opportunity to introduce interesting conflicts and conundrums into the game that might never occur as anything more than a narration if everything hinged on one roll.

Having said that, it occurs to me that I am coming off more negative on the concept that I really am. I don't see this as a dichotomy so much as a continuum and I have seen situations of broadening the stakes of a roll used with good effect.

For example, I have spoken at some length about Dramatic Conflicts in spycraft. Dramatic Conflicts are a metered success mechanic... it models a conflict as a succession of goals with different available strategies by both parties. It's not the one-roll resolution that you speak of when you speak of CR. But it does cut down the rolls and details that might be involved in playing everything out in some cases.

For example, hacking. Hacking a computer system is resolved as a Dramatic Conflict in spycraft. But it is typically an activity that only one player is involved with. Regardless of what opportunities there might be for additional detail and developing tension that is getting abstracted away, if only one player is involved, everyone else sits there bored. So streamlining the action, while still giving it some detail, is a meaningful and desireable compromise in the face of concerns about having everyone at the table involved for as much of the time as possible.

Conflict Resolution doesn't need to be resolved in a single roll.  (Though it could be.)  Look at Dogs in the Vineyard - there's a whole series of rolls and decisions taken throughout the process.

Quote from: LostSoulConflict Resolution doesn't need to be resolved in a single roll.  (Though it could be.)  Look at Dogs in the Vineyard - there's a whole series of rolls and decisions taken throughout the process.

Okay, not having DitV, I can only come at it as presented in the linked-to essay.

Would you say that DitV dwells in this middle ground with Spycraft Dramatic Conflicts, or would you say that DitV is representative of CR as presented in the essay?

Quote from: MarcoThat said, I don't mind having a name for different points of view on resolution if you can show how they are different.

I do mind myself. Things like this are damaging to the hobby.

Before the Forge, I would have seen questions stated plainly- "Do you require a skill check on things that don't matter?" for example.

Or someone could have complained about the game where they fought an entire battle and did a series of fence jumping only to watch the ship sail away.

That would result in a exchange of why such gaming is good or bad, and other options for how that encounter could have been resolved would immediately be presented. Everyone would be on the same page.

With "Task Resolution" and "Conflict Resolution", we get threads like this- beh.

Too much theory, not enough actual meat.

Quote from: MarcoThey're different--but saying one is globally better is going to be problematic. And that I'd dispute.

Given Warren's better examples, I'd say only that Conflict Resolution is a sub-group under what he calls Task Resolution. Not really different, rather just a single method of using the wide range of possible Task Resolution methods.

As for calling one globally better.

Caring little for what turns other people's cranks if that what you mean by 'globally'- I can certainly make that call for my own taste and leave everyone else to their own.

For myself, I wouldn't play in a campaign where the GM focused on Conflict Resolution. It says too much about his lack of ability to manage a full ranging ruleset.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadFirst, as stated earlier, one of the explicit goals is to minimize dice rolls. I can see that as a laudible goal to some extent (frex, I loathed how oWoD had two sets of opposed rolls to resolve an attack... it DID slow things down and not every roll there was emotionally charged.) But when you start subtracting out dice rolls, you subtract that emotional charge associated with them.

I have found that in (CR-based) games we play rolls happen more-or-less as often as they do when I used to play TR systems, for example (that is, fairly often). But because CR skips over stuff that doesn't really 'matter', more stuff happens ingame, and each roll is important (if it wasn't, we wouldn't roll for it).

Quote from: Caesar SlaadSecond, a dice roll in typical task resolution need not be the game breaker that it sounds like CR could be. If you fail a task, you can find other routes to your goals, or get metered success in the form of clues, etc. It can become a story telling and excitement-inducing tool. If you wrap the entirety of the conflict in one roll, if that roll fails, you fail to reach your goal. That may sound like the point, but I'd like to focus on it here in the light that is not what I want.

Yes, a failure in CR means you didn't get your goal, true. But remember that because the guy you are in conflict with had a goal to, he may well have got his intent. If you goal is "discover the identity of the traitor", mine could be "Implicate you as a spy". If you fail your goal, the game will still move forward (everybody thinks you're a spy now -- that's going to have an effect on the game!) Plus it would certainly complicate any future conflicts to try and uncover the traitor.

[EDIT: And as a hint I've just recently realised, goals that are "stay", "keep" or "prevent" are really dull. Much better to always have 'active' goals like. "Capture all intruders" rather than "Keep intruders out" for trivial example. It means that whatever the outcome of the dice, something new & interesting happens.]

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAs a GM, I want the authority and opportunity to move the game forward in interesting ways. Having small failures is just an opportunity to introduce interesting conflicts and conundrums into the game that might never occur as anything more than a narration if everything hinged on one roll.

That seems to be as if you would just prefer smaller conflicts over larger ones. Rather than "Do I find the big bad's hideout?", "Do I convince the snitch to trust me?", for example. Whenever I run (CR-based) games, I always aim for smaller conflicts over bigger ones, because as you point out, small failures and complications tend to be interesting. (This is also the advice given in the Dogs in the Vineyard rulebook as well)

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWould you say that DitV dwells in this middle ground with Spycraft Dramatic Conflicts, or would you say that DitV is representative of CR as presented in the essay?

I know DitV, but I don't know Spycraft (the size of the book puts me off, if I'm honest). But in DitV you have a large-ish scale conflict ("Do I stop this guy beating his wife?")  that, during the resolution process, is 'played-out' in detail by describing individual actions ("I fire my pistol into the air", "He punches you in the jaw") which mechanically go towards 'your side' winning the overall conflict. It's a very deep system in that regard, and a lot better than this two-line description can suggest.

But yeah, nothing about CR requires "one-roll" systems or "scene-level" scale.

Quote from: gleichmanGiven Warren's better examples, I'd say only that Conflict Resolution is a sub-group under what he calls Task Resolution. Not really different, rather just a single method of using the wide range of possible Task Resolution methods.

Can you expand what you mean by this? There are as many ways and varients on Conflict Resolution (if not more) than I've seen for Task Resolution.

Quote from: warrenCan you expand what you mean by this? There are as many ways and varients on Conflict Resolution (if not more) than I've seen for Task Resolution.

It means that I've used the key features of what you call "Conflict Resolution" using what you reference as "Task Resolution" for decades. Until the Forge, they were common sense methods of using a game's mechanics- things you'd find spoken of in plain english in the GM advice section of the rulebook.

Much better if you ask me than reams of Theory and Labels that spead confusion.

Quote from: gleichmanIt means that I've used the key features of what you call "Conflict Resolution" using what you reference as "Task Resolution" for decades.

Well yeah, as I said upthread, if you have ever played in a game that's not been deathly dull, you will have had conflicts in it. If that game went anywhere, those conflicts got resolved somehow. So you have been using your GM skills and the advice in the rulebook and so on to do that with a Task Resolution system. Which is cool, and it obviously works for you and your group.

Me, on the other hand, prefer to have the mechanics of the game support this process more explictly (amongst other things), so I like CR systems.

Quote from: warrenI know DitV, but I don't know Spycraft (the size of the book puts me off, if I'm honest). But in DitV you have a large-ish scale conflict ("Do I stop this guy beating his wife?")  that, during the resolution process, is 'played-out' in detail by describing individual actions ("I fire my pistol into the air", "He punches you in the jaw") which mechanically go towards 'your side' winning the overall conflict. It's a very deep system in that regard, and a lot better than this two-line description can suggest.

Spycraft Dramatic Conflicts:
http://www.spycraftrpg.com/rpg/spycraft2/dramatic_conflicts.html (edit: AEG finally pulled down their spycraft stuff... this link is dead).

To sum up dramatic conflicts:

• Dramatic connflicts are a family of subsystems with a basic method of resolution. Different types of dramatic conflicts include chases, seduction, infiltration, manhunts, hacking, and interrogation.
• One player or team represents the predator, the other is the prey. Predator is the active participant.
• There is an abstract "lead" that represents progress in the conflict. In a chase, this is physical distance. In others sorts of conflicts, it is more abstract. A 10 lead means that the prey escapes/meets their goal. A 0 lead means that the predator wins.
• What "winning" means in each of these cases is particular to the type of conflict. In a chase, for example, if the predator wins, the prey's vehicle is disabled or boxed in. In a seduction, if the predator wins, the prey becomes helpful to the predator.
• Dramatic Conflicts are resolved in rounds. Time that each round takes depends on either or both the strategy (see below) or the type of conflict.
• Each round, predator and prey select "strategies" that are defined in general terms. Each then makes an opposed skill check. The winner then can select an advantage (or multiple, if the roll is good enough). Advantages often involve changing the lead, but can be more immediate benefits as well, such as finding facts, etc.

That's about it.

It occurs to me that the "ship is about to sail" thing given as an example above could be modeled as a chase Dramatic Conflict. I would probably model it more loosely, but the skill checks involved would be similar.

Spycraft also has complex skill checks, which are similar, but a bit more freeform. The GM defines a number of tasks that have to be completed and meter out information (or other results) to the players as they succeed in these tasks.



It 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.

Quote from: warrenMe, on the other hand, prefer to have the mechanics of the game support this process more explictly (amongst other things), so I like CR systems.

I 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.

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. :D

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.)

Quote from: warrenYou 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.

Cool, absolutely, the money's going to the church, but it really seems like the main driving force behind this mechanic (as gathered from your explanation above) is to force the GM to not renege on whatever construct the players and she decided before the roll.

Quote from: warrenNow 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.

I hear you, but aren't the players sacrificing mystery and surprise in the long run to feel taken care of and supported in the short?  The tradeoff here seems to be a greater security in anticipating GM response (or understanding player risk) against what might be a bit of a wilder (and not necessarily acceptable to all) time?

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.

Seems to be the case to me.

Except I'd toss in

Conflict Resolution is shorthand for *required* shared plot control.

Quote from: gleichmanConflict Resolution is shorthand for *required* shared plot control.

Where the hell do you get that idea from?

Quote from: warrenWhere the hell do you get that idea from?

From the fact that the stakes must be determined and agreed to up front.

Quote from: ReimdallCool, absolutely, the money's going to the church, but it really seems like the main driving force behind this mechanic (as gathered from your explanation above) is to force the GM to not renege on whatever construct the players and she decided before the roll.

That is one effect of it yes. The other effect that CR gives me is that since outcomes aren't tightly linked with actions, like in TR, I can be much more creative (read "cooler") when I describe what happens in the gameworld.

Quote from: ReimdallI hear you, but aren't the players sacrificing mystery and surprise in the long run to feel taken care of and supported in the short?  The tradeoff here seems to be a greater security in anticipating GM response (or understanding player risk) against what might be a bit of a wilder (and not necessarily acceptable to all) time?

Sounds fair, but I would say that the upside is less "to feel taken care of and supported" and more "to be involved in a way that will 100% matter in high-stakes situations right now" :)

Quote from: gleichmanFrom the fact that the stakes must be determined and agreed to up front.

What, saying "I want to smash this guy's face in" and another guy saying "Hell no, I want to smash his face in" is requiring me to have any more "shared plot control" than I would with TR?

or

"I want to sneak into the Princess' bedchamber" and another guy going "I want to confront any intruders in the palace"?

or

"I want to stab that dude in the back" and another guy going "I want to stop you doing that"?

or

"I want to catch the Pirate King!" and another guy going "Dude! Too large scale!" and the first guy going "OK, I want to get onboard his ship." and the other guy goes "cool"?

All valid goals (also known as 'stakes') for Conflict Resolution, and I can't see how that is requiring me to have any more "shared plot control" than I would with TR.

Quote from: warrenAll valid goals (also known as 'stakes') for Conflict Resolution, and I can't see how that is forcing me into "shared plot control".

The very concept that the stakes must be stated up front and agreed to is shared control of and by itself as it prevents some types of GM actions.

You can't claim that your concept makes a difference and then claim it doesn't.

Quote from: gleichmanThe very concept that the stakes must be stated up front and agreed to is shared control of and by itself as it prevents some types of GM actions.

If you see that saying "I want X", "well, I want Y", as "shared plot control" then that's up to you. I don't, personally.

Quote from: gleichmanYou can't claim that your concept makes a difference and then claim it doesn't.

* I find it increases tension, as the consequences of a roll are known upfront.
* I fing it increases clarity in what the PCs really want to achieve & risk, for the same reason. (No retconning)
* Some CR systems give you more freedom to describe what happened ingame than TR systems.
* It's a lot easier for me to run as a GM.
* Yes, I find it does provide a buffer against bad GMing.

EDIT:
* Yes, it also prevents things like "GM-surprises". Mystery and surprise in the long run, may well be affected.

Quote from: warrenIf you see that saying "I want X", "well, I want Y", as "shared plot control" then that's up to you. I don't, personally.

It is what it is. You wouldn't be the first person to be blind to the effects of a favored mechanic.

As but one example that you've already admitted to, it can't be a buffer against bad GMing if it doesn't pass some element of plot control to the players.

Quote from: warrenIf you see that saying "I want X", "well, I want Y", as "shared plot control" then that's up to you. I don't, personally.

  It is though.  It'was what the Forgites call the Lumpley principle and what you're doing when you're saying "I want X" is negotiating the social contract between you and the GM.  By enterring into that conversation with you the GM is giving you power because he's acknowledging that you're in a position to negotiate.

Quote from: warrenWhat? 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: warrenOK, 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.

Quote from: warrenShow 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.

Thanks for making part of my point! ;) I don't see how any of the examples are exclusively "Conflict Resolution".  In fact, in D&D (can't get much more "TR" than that) it's called an opposed roll or some such. A good GM would manage the process, but if two characters want to have their characters engage in this kind of conflict, they could without any "TR" rule to get in the way.

The fact is people have been using what is now termed Task Resolution in this manner for years - long before the concept of Conflict Resolution was codified.  At least that's my limited understanding of the history.

Quote from: warrenAnd 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.

So we are in agreement on this point. We could show example back and forth about situations and both say "That's X Resolution" - and be right!

Task Resolution, as currently distinguished, seems to contain only certain behaviors within it's bounds.  But Good GM's and Players use tools that are now also seemingly exclusively part of what is now called Conflict Resolution - for years. But at some point a line was drawn, as I mentioned earlier, and suddenly people are talking as if they are mutually exclusive.  (was it the Vincent Baker article?) When the fact is, parts of "Conflict Resolution" have been part of traditional gaming for years.

But this is what drew me to the question at the start. If they are NOT mutually exclusive, what exactly is different about them?  What benefits would one gain from using one or the other?  And it seems that most agree that, from the actual mechanic aspect, not much differs.  There is a question of some sort that has to be answered and the mechanic is applied.  The question may vary in specificity, but both approaches can handle that.

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

As I've said before, I think this is a false difference.  I think both approaches can handle either question, from strictly a mechanics/resolution perspective.  This is what has always confused me - and I think this is where the shorthand comes in.

Now my assumption in all of this is the GM != Player.  If this is not the case, then we have our difference.  But let's say that's an incorrect assumption and go back to the church/king example.  If the GM is either the church or the king, then I think we are getting somewhere - as Reimdall nails:

Quote from: ReimdallCool, absolutely, the money's going to the church, but it really seems like the main driving force behind this mechanic (as gathered from your explanation above) is to force the GM to not renege on whatever construct the players and she decided before the roll.

If the GM is the King or the church, then the GM is being "forced" to do something, to change the narrative.  Now force is a bad word, because if the negotiations have taken place, everyone's agreed.

So the real difference is that plot/world/narrative control are subject to negotiations.  In most "TR" system of which I am aware, this is not the case.  Specifically in D&D, as I read the DMG last night, the GM is in control of these things - just as an example.

And just to be specific, I don't see "I want X" versus "I want Y" as necessarily a plot control issue. But in traditional gaming, if it is, the GM does have fiat to override.  This is not mandated, but they do have that power.  In "CR," they would not have that prerogative.  And that is all the difference that exists.

So Conflict Resolution is really shorthand for "narrative control subject to negotiations" or "negotiaions on stakes to include plot and/or narratrive control."

So, what if as the GM, when the cleric states that he wants to convince the king to donate money to his church, I decide that the king wouldn't do that?

In my games, I can decide that. I am not reneging, as I will not force a meaningless roll to begin with.  I will just state that he will not donate any money to the cleric's church.

In CR games, it would seem that the rules state that I can't say "no".  We must roll...

That is "forced" by the rules.  That is shared plot control, as the player was able to modify the plot in a way that he may not have been able to in my games.

I prefer gleichman's addition of the word forced, because in most games, the players have some control over the plot via their character's actions.  In these CR systems, however, that control is forced.

I have enjoyed the commentary in this thread, as it has helped clarify these concepts for me.  Unfortunately, it has also convinced me that the CR concept is definately not for me...

Quote from: FickleGMSo, what if as the GM, when the cleric states that he wants to convince the king to donate money to his church, I decide that the king wouldn't do that?

By saying that the cleric's player has to come up with another goal. This is where (I guess) people have got "negotiation" from. I certainly haven't used it in this thread before now. But, basically when a player sets a goal of X, the GM can respond.

* "No. That's an stupid goal" and veto it. This is really no different than a player in a TR system going "I leap over the castle walls!" and the GM saying "Uh, no. They are way too high for that. You can try to climb them, if you want." Nothing very unusual here, I would have thought. I guess that if you used this option a lot, the players could get annoyed. I think I have only used this once or twice ever across two years and running dozens of games ("Can I have a M134 Minigun?" in an Old-West Dogs in the Vineyard game springs to mind.) so I don't know for sure.

* "Yes", and not even bother with launching a conflict over it.

* "Yes, let's roll", and launch a conflict, fighting hard for his corner. But all parties involved need to stick to the outcome.

There is an option that most CR games do have (although it's not used a lot in practice, I've found) where can have a negotiation step where everybody can alter their goals until everybody (players and GM) is agreed on what's at stake on the roll before the dice are thrown. So you could employ that if needed in the "Greedy King" situation.

Quote from: FickleGMI prefer gleichman's addition of the word forced, because in most games, the players have some control over the plot via their character's actions. In these CR systems, however, that control is forced.

Yeah, when presented like that, I'll agree. (I prefer the word 'definite' rather than forced in this context, but that's just splitting hairs)

Quote from: FickleGMI have enjoyed the commentary in this thread, as it has helped clarify these concepts for me.  Unfortunately, it has also convinced me that the CR concept is definately not for me...

Yeah, cool. I didn't expect it to work for everyone.

Quote from: warrenOK, 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.

The thing is, this has always been a basic part of traditional resolution.  Yes, it is physically possible for a real GM to say "OK, you got a critical success for Persuasion, but the guy still isn't convinced".  However, that's pretty well recognized as bad GMing, and isn't what is suggested by the resolution mechanic.  Most games suggest that success actually (gasp) mean something.  

For example, here's the text on persuasion from the James Bond 007 game:

QuoteA Persuasion task uses a character's Charisma skill.  The initial Reaction of the character will modify the Ease Factor for this task.  Depending on the result of the Persuasion roll, the NPC will either turn the character down flat, agree willingly to go along with the request, or vacillate in his commitment for the moment.

There is a small chart which compares the player's success with the NPCs willpower, and gives the three results above: i.e. turn down, agree, or vacillate.  There is also an example of persuasion use in the game, matching Bond's desperate gamble to make Goldfinger let him live.

Quote"Then I'm going to have to Persuade him to keep me alive."
 
"Go ahead, but you don't have much of a chance. There's a -6 Ease Factor due to his Opposition to you."
 
"So be it. It's the only chance I've got. Let's see, that takes the Ease Factor down to 1/2. Bummer. Ah well, let's roll. Come on, 10 or less." David rolls. "An 09, I made it!"
 
"Maybe so, but Goldfinger's Willpower is a 9, which means that he is sufficiently strong to turn down your request. C'est la vie."
 
"Wait a minute. I can use Hero Points here, can't I?"
 
"Sure, go ahead."
 
"How many will it take to convince him to let me live? That laser must be getting awfully close?"
 
"Indeed it is. It'll take three Hero Points to make him agree, but only one to earn you another Reaction Roll. Do you want to take the chance on doing better?"  

"No thanks. I'll spend the Hero Points."

Note that the GM is simply explaining the rules to the player.  If the player was more familiar with the game, then he'd know the number of Hero Points required to turn this into an "agree" result.  Alternatively, if he had rolled an 01 the same thing would have happened without Hero Points.  (Also note that even if he rolled a 99, he could have done the same thing with four Hero Points.)  

Note what's happening here: the GM states the difficulty, but if the player succeeds, then Goldfinger is convinced.  Yes, you can posit that the GM could say "You succeeded, but Goldfinger kills you anyway".  However, that's not what the rules say.  The rules say that if you succeed in your Persuasion roll, the NPC agrees to what you're asking.  If you ask something ridiculous, then the GM can modify the difficulty or even make it flatly impossible -- but if you roll and succeed, then you succeed.

(Nevermind)

Quote from: warren(Nevermind)

But what if I want to mind?

Just kidding...you've been very helpful in this thread and I think that semantics more than playstyle separate our views (not that there aren't differences in playstyle).

Thanks again for the exchange.

warren, I think you are my hero.

Quote from: jhkimThe thing is, this has always been a basic part of traditional resolution.

I think that Conflict Resolution is a pretty traditional method of game play.  It's not a "Forgie" thing; people have been doing it for years.

Quote from: FeanorBut this is what drew me to the question at the start. If they are NOT mutually exclusive, what exactly is different about them?

They are mutually exclusive.

One resolves the character's conflict of interest.

One doesn't.

Thanks for the response :) I'm going to go back to the OP and try to answer that clearly:

You have got 'pure' TR systems on one hand (I wouldn't put D&D 3.5 in this category, actually; see why later. I've not played it, but stuff like Savage Worlds sounds like it could lie here) that rules-wise deals with if a character can perform an action. The actions a character performs are pretty nailed down. When to roll, converting the effect of these actions in the gameworld (and therefore if the character actually gets what he wanted) is left up to the GM (and any GM advice in the book).

On the other hand, you have 'pure' CR systems (Primetime Adventures and The Mountain Witch spring to mind). Rules-wise all the system deals with is if a character gets what he wants. How that happens, and what actions the character performs, and how well, is left completely open, and the GM (and often players) can describe whatever they like (subject to veto by the GM or the group, usually) as long as it ends up with the goal being fulfilled (or not, obviously).

Note that in the "King & cleric" example, what actually happened in the game is left very open. In an opposed D&D Diplomacy check (or a James Bond Persuade check for that matter) where what happened to get the result is fixed. You couldn't (as I understand the rules) describe a victory in those systems as "The cleric jumps up onto the throne before the guards have time to react, and puts his hidden knife to the King's throat. The King slowly nods and agrees to the cleric's demands." or "The cleric turns his back on the King, who outraged by this breach of protocol gets the guards to beat the cleric black and blue in front of him. Later that evening, however, the King's guilty conscience makes him give the church the money." In a pure CR system, both of those would be perfectly fine.

And between these two extremes you have got systems which nail down some parts of both actions and goals. Some are on the CR side: Dogs in the Vineyard, for example where you work out if you are going to get your goals mechanically by performing actions against your opposition (Raising & Seeing) using a dice pool. But at the end of it, if you run out of dice in your pool, you have to give up on your goal, and you don't get what you want. So actions and goals are covered, but the actions are just there to help you win your goal. It still follows CR, but the 'roll' is actually made up of lots of little 'raises', and the result gives us more stuff than just who managed to win what goal.

There is a similar blend that's more to the TR side as well (James Bond, and I would suggest some parts of D&D 3.5). You perform an action using the system, but the overall effects of that action on the gameworld are explicit and mechanical (like Bluff checks, in D&D, for example, or John Kim's example above). But this approach seems to be less explicit about rolling only "when there is a conflict of interest" (instead when there is "something to be gained or lost" or something; slightly different) and this way still looks at the action first (I will persuade him (roll) success! So he won't kill me!) rather than the goal first (I don't want him to kill me (roll) success! I persuaded him not to.)

It's a matter of focus, I think: Do the rules focus on resolving the conflicts of interest themselves, or the component tasks within it?

I don't know if this helps, but that's pretty much my take on it.

Quote from: LostSoulI think that Conflict Resolution is a pretty traditional method of game play.  It's not a "Forgie" thing; people have been doing it for years.

Well, in a way, this is my point - although I come at it from a different angle.  I would ask, if that if so, were they doing it in the early days of gaming?  How long have they been doing it?  Were people playing this way when there were only (what woud now be called, almost derisively in some circles) Task Resolution Systems?

Yes. Close to 20 years according to my own experience (see below). Yes.

That conclusion leads to my assertion.  That from a resolution  mechanic perspective, they are not mutually exclusive. It's why I don't agree with the next statement.

Quote from: LostSoulThey are mutually exclusive.

One resolves the character's conflict of interest.

One doesn't.

Both resolution "systems" can handle both, it largely depends on the style of play chosen by those involved.  Are there cases where system choose, or lend themselves better, to one focus or another? Do systems focus on levels of specificity, requiring people to change them to fit the style of play of the group?  Yes and Yes - welcome to House Rules.

warren, while not my hero ;)  I really appreciate you participation.  You sure do know quite a few games.

Quote from: warrenNote that in the "King & cleric" example, what actually happened in the game is left very open. In an opposed D&D Diplomacy check (or a James Bond Persuade check for that matter) where what happened to get the result is fixed. You couldn't (as I understand the rules) describe a victory in those systems as "The cleric jumps up onto the throne before the guards have time to react, and puts his hidden knife to the King's throat. The King slowly nods and agrees to the cleric's demands." or "The cleric turns his back on the King, who outraged by this breach of protocol gets the guards to beat the cleric black and blue in front of him. Later that evening, however, the King's guilty conscience makes him give the church the money." In a pure CR system, both of those would be perfectly fine.

Having watched, and in a couple of rare instances played in, a few games like this, I'd again assert that what are now called TR systems find this perfectly fine - assuming that's the way those involved choose to play.  These games were in 1987 or so I don't think CR had been developed yet - as a mutually exclusive concept anyway. About the only difference I can see between this and actual play from beck then is if the player of the cleric did not like the idea of being beaten black and blue. That player might request it to be changed to "forcefully thrown from the palace" or the two might have another conflict on their hands.

Quote from: warrenBut this approach seems to be less explicit about rolling only "when there is a conflict of interest" (instead when there is "something to be gained or lost" or something; slightly different) and this way still looks at the action first (I will persuade him (roll) success! So he won't kill me!) rather than the goal first (I don't want him to kill me (roll) success! I persuaded him not to.)

Fantastic!  With all of the examples we've tossed back and forth, from Vincent Baker's thief/safe to our own ship-sailing-away, this one gets to the crux of the issue. This is going to take a moment, so please bear with me.

• A player wants X (I'm using the positive form, instead of "I don't want X)


• In order to obtain X, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to obtain X. This must be the case, or we are in a completely separate world of issues.
  
  
• The mechanic is applied and determines if the player gets X or not.

How do these two examples fit?

• Both examples start with the player wanting the same thing,  that is, another entity will not kill the players character.
  
  
• Both examples then determine the character's chance of success.  The difference in this case is that process is implied in the second example, but it must be the case or the roll and success that follow are meaningless.
  
  
• Both examples then apply the mechanic to determine success or failure.

What's different?  Well, in the first example, the determination of how is explicit.  Since the player chose for the character to attempt to persuade, that's the how.  In the second example, the how is determined after.  It's quite possible that it's implied in step two of our list, the determination of the chance of success, but that makes our two examples even more alike. So where does the "how" take place? In the player's narration of the event. It has to be that way, or there is nothing different about the two.

In your examples, it's too simplified to see how this makes a difference. Since the player in the second example chose the same "how" as the player in the first example, it seems to be the same.  But what if the player had said, instead, "Before he gets to me, I pull a knife, hold it to his throat, and persuade him not to kill me."?  This might (read: will) set off all kinds of red flags in traditional role-playing, but might be (read: is) fine in shared-narrative story games.  And that's where the difference lies.

Conflict Resolution is really shorthand for a resolution system that focuses on facilitation of shared story building games that require the GM to relinquish story control, not adventure games (as Settembrini aptly names them).  This is fine, but confusing.  Perhaps Narration Resolution would be a better term? This would imply a distinction far better then most descriptions/examples.

Narration Resolution
A Technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on conflicts in narration, rather than on the capabilities of characters to perform tasks. This technique is designed to facilitate collaborative plot control, allowing players to share in creating the fiction of the adventure setting. This technique requires the GM share control of the fiction with players.

Task Resolution
A Technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on within-game cause/effect in terms of whether the character is able to perform a task or acheive a goal. The specificity of the task is a function of the specific resolution system and thus can very greatly. This technique assumes GM control of the fiction, but allows for sharing of narration control if desired.

I would assume that RPGPundit would say that Narration Resolution is not the preferred subject of theory debate here.:)

Quote from: FeanorPerhaps Narration Resolution would be a better term?

I can certainly see the case for it. Arguably all RPG rules are more or less about "conflict resolution".

Quote from: FeanorHaving watched, and in a couple of rare instances played in, a few games like this, I'd again assert that what are now called TR systems find this perfectly fine - assuming that's the way those involved choose to play. These games were in 1987 or so I don't think CR had been developed yet - as a mutually exclusive concept anyway.

I would say that they have drifted the rules away from those as written and more to a CR way of doing things (before the terms were invented, of course). At the fundamental level "roll d20, add a number, highest wins" is the same across TR & CR. It's when to make the roll, what is agreed upfront before the roll, and what effects the outcome of that roll has on the game, and how much of that is up to GM judgement and how much is strictly mechanical that move things into one camp or the other. What the roll means to the game, in other words.

Quote from: FeanorAbout the only difference I can see between this and actual play from beck then is if the player of the cleric did not like the idea of being beaten black and blue. That player might request it to be changed to "forcefully thrown from the palace" or the two might have another conflict on their hands.

Yeah a lot of CR systems would handle that kind of player request in various ways as well. I just went for the simplest example :)

Quote from: Feanor

• A player wants X (I’m using the positive form, instead of “I don’t want X)


• In order to obtain X, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to obtain X. This must be the case, or we are in a completely separate world of issues.
  
  
• The mechanic is applied and determines if the player gets X or not.

I'd buy that; but this is what I see as the difference. 'Expanding' your list for a pure TR system, this is what I see happening:

• A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He can keep it secret if he wants.


• A player 'translates' his desire into an appropriate (series) of tasks for his character - let's call that task Y ("I'll persuade him"). He has to tell the GM this.
  
  
• In order to perform Y, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to do Y.


• The mechanic is applied and determines if the character does Y or not.


• The GM* describes what happened, taking into account the results of Y and the current situation. Or, if Y is failed, the GM* comes up with the consequences of failure (which could be "nothing happens", or it could be "take 10d6 falling damage", or whatever) and applies them. (You can see this as translating the effects of action Y back into "did X happen", if you like)

* Subnote: This can just be GM skills, or it can be GM + specific rules, like Bluff checks in D&D 3.5 or Persuasion in the James Bond RPG or whatever.

• Depending on how good the translation from X->Y->X went, the player may or may not have got his original X, even if he succeeded. In the case of failure, the consequences are not always known to the player when he started his action by telling the GM 'Y'.

In CR, there is less translation:

• A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He has to tell the GM this.
  
  
• Another character must want to prevent or interfere with X by wanting Z ("I want to stay as rich as possible"). If not, we are done, the player gets X and somebody describes what happened.


• In order to obtain X against Z, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to obtain X against Z.


• The mechanic is applied and determines if the player gets X or not, as well as if the other guy gets his Z or not.


• The GM (or sometimes players, depending on system) describes what happened, taking into account the results of X & Z (and maybe other restrictions that steps 3 & 4 might apply).

Quote from: FeanorIn your examples, it’s too simplified to see how this makes a difference. Since the player in the second example chose the same “how” as the player in the first example, it seems to be the same.  But what if the player had said, instead, “Before he gets to me, I pull a knife, hold it to his throat, and persuade him not to kill me.”?

Um... what examples are you talking about here. I'm getting confused :)

Quote from: FeanorConflict Resolution is really shorthand for a resolution system that focuses on facilitation of shared story building games that require the GM to relinquish story control, not adventure games (as Settembrini aptly names them).  This is fine, but confusing.

Now I don't get this. Look at what John said about the 007 game:

Quote from: jhkimNote what's happening here: the GM states the difficulty, but if the player succeeds, then Goldfinger is convinced. Yes, you can posit that the GM could say "You succeeded, but Goldfinger kills you anyway". However, that's not what the rules say. The rules say that if you succeed in your Persuasion roll, the NPC agrees to what you're asking.

Surely that rule requires the GM to relinquish as much story control as he would with a CR system? The NPCs can be 'pushed around' in a mechanically supported way by PC actions in either case.

Quote from: FeanorTask Resolution
A Technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on within-game cause/effect in terms of whether the character is able to perform a task or achieve a goal. The specificity of the task is a function of the specific resolution system and thus can very greatly. This technique assumes GM control of the fiction, but allows for sharing of narration control if desired.

Sounds good to me.

Quote from: FeanorNarration Resolution
A Technique in which the resolution mechanisms of play focus on conflicts in narration, rather than on the capabilities of characters to perform tasks. This technique is designed to facilitate collaborative plot control, allowing players to share in creating the fiction of the adventure setting. This technique requires the GM share control of the fiction with players.

Close. First off, I don't get this "conflicts in narration". If you had said "conflicts of interest", yep.

"This technique is designed to facilitate collaborative plot control, allowing players to share in creating the fiction of the adventure setting." I don't think it was designed for that purpose; as you have pointed out, people had been using forms of CR long before the name came along. I like CR as it is more explicit, for one thing & everything at stake is known and "on the table" before the dice are thrown. Works for Vegas, works for me ;)

"This technique requires the GM share control of the fiction with players." I'll accept to a certain extent, but I don't think that this is really very different to TR + a good GM. If a GM totally ignores what the players are doing, and the gameworld does not change in any way in response to their actions, I would say that he is a bad GM. Hell, it's against the rules to ignore the effects of tasks in some TR systems (the Persuade check in 007, for example). Perhaps the TR definition should add "This technique works best when the GM allows the players to alter the fiction through their characters actions."

And I still prefer the term Conflict Resolution :)

Quote from: FeanorI would assume that RPGPundit would say that Narration Resolution is not the preferred subject of theory debate here.:)

I'd best shut up now then :)

I still think Eero put it most cogently:

QuoteConflict: a decision-point in a narrative where the different ways the story could go carry thematic meaning. In nar terms, the conflict is a vector for a Premise, and resolving it answers the premise.
Task: events of a story, in general.
.....................
The key property of those definitions is that while tasks happen because of SIS congruity ("realism", in other words), conflicts are caused by the artist (players) perceiving premise-weight in a task.  That premise-weight is our problem, and the reason for the need to differentiate between task and conflict resolution: to create a good story (that is, to play satisfying narrativism), you need to be able to create and resolve those conflicts. A story is good if it has good conflicts, it's that simple. Conflict resolution rules, as they are called, allow us to introduce and resolve conflicts, and thus create a good story. Without conflict resolution rules there is no guarantee that conflicts even happen, much less that they get resolved.

Short sidetrack: I'm saying above that conflicts are just tasks with Premise-weight attached. This means that "winning the fight" or "impressing the lady" or whatever are always only tasks, and become conflicts only when they have that meaning. Like, "winning the fight to end the war" or "impressing the lady to love her and leave her" are conflicts. This is probably clear to you all, but I emphasize it anyway: the distinction between conflict and task is not about f***ing scale or stakes or anything at all, it's about story meaning only. Every task can potentially carry conflicts, and no task is always a conflict task. (Hmm... protagonist suicide is a conflict in almost all cases...)

To repeat the earlier bit of Eero's post that I quoted, all RPGs have tasks and conflicts. Somehow tasks get resolved and conflicts get resolved, no matter what game you're playing (unless your game does not have conflicts in Eero's sense; ie points of thematic meaning).

So, the distinction between tasks and conflicts is really only important to thematic play (aiming at Story, narrativist, what-have-you). In other words, I think Feanor is on the right track.

Quote from: warrenI would say that they have drifted the rules away from those as written and more to a CR way of doing things (before the terms were invented, of course).

Could you please rephrase this without using the term "drift"? I find it an obstacle to understanding precisely what you mean here.

Sorry. I expect the rules as written would have said something like "a player announces that his character performs an action. When the outcome of that action is in doubt, roll dice and describe what happens accordingly."

If you played it that way, and the cleric wants the King to give him money, and he rolled his Diplomacy skill (let's say), I think you would be going against the spirit of the rules as written if a success was described as "You turn you back on the King, who outraged at this breach of protocol has his guards rough you up and throw you out. Later on, however, his guilty conscious makes him donate some money".

Feanor said he has seen groups play this way with those kinds of rules. Therefore they must have come to some (maybe unspoken, maybe written down, doesn't matter) agreement on 'house rules' that which must have said something along the lines "the description for what happens can be anything, regardless of your character's stated action, as long as it is cool". That kind of change in process is what I would call a drift in the rules, but yeah, sorry about the jargon.

Ah, okay, I must have missed that in Feanor's posts.

See, aside from occasional GMing advice/guidelines which at the time of writing were considered distinct from rules per se, I don't believe that most traditional RPGs had rules in them that discouraged looking at the intent of task resolution mechanics--which in terms of this discussion would turn them into proto-CR. Instead I think the rules were largely silent on this, proceeding from the cultural assumption that tasks would be linked into meaningful outcomes, and that GMs wouldn't railroad--a set of assumptions which came naturally to people whose entry to roleplaying was via the "parent hobbies" of board wargaming and miniatures. Only a subset of the hobby interpreted TR rules to allow or encourage manipulative tactics, e.g., "no matter what or how many tasks you succeed at, the GM will creatively interpret the outcome to advance the preplanned plot".

In short if the rules are "a player announces that his character performs an action. When the outcome of that action is in doubt, roll dice and describe what happens accordingly" then I'd find it very much against the spirit of the rules as written for a success to be described as "You sneak past the guard, but [because the GM's plan for the scenario requires an alarm to be sounded] on your way to the treasury room you stumble across a maintenance crew." What I would find most in the spirit of the rules would be for the GM to either take the successful task as ending the "conflict" (in a "let it ride" sense) or to have a map or random event table prepared in advance to give explicit shape and limits to the difficulty of the character's actions.

Quote from: Elliot WilenSee, aside from occasional GMing advice/guidelines which at the time of writing were considered distinct from rules per se, I don't believe that most traditional RPGs had rules in them that discouraged looking at the intent of task resolution mechanics--which in terms of this discussion would turn them into proto-CR. Instead I think the rules were largely silent on this, proceeding from the cultural assumption that tasks would be linked into meaningful outcomes, and that GMs wouldn't railroad--a set of assumptions which came naturally to people whose entry to roleplaying was via the "parent hobbies" of board wargaming and miniatures. Only a subset of the hobby interpreted TR rules to allow or encourage manipulative tactics, e.g., "no matter what or how many tasks you succeed at, the GM will creatively interpret the outcome to advance the preplanned plot".

Yep, I'd buy that. CR makes things more explict (as I pointed out above, there is less 'translation' involved) and de-couples action and goal, both of which I find to be good things.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn short if the rules are "a player announces that his character performs an action. When the outcome of that action is in doubt, roll dice and describe what happens accordingly" then I'd find it very much against the spirit of the rules as written for a success to be described as "You sneak past the guard, but [because the GM's plan for the scenario requires an alarm to be sounded] on your way to the treasury room you stumble across a maintenance crew." What I would find most in the spirit of the rules would be for the GM to either take the successful task as ending the "conflict" (in a "let it ride" sense) or to have a map or random event table prepared in advance to give explicit shape and limits to the difficulty of the character's actions.

See, the "TR" systems I played in, or more accurately, the Groups in whcih I played "TR" systems, had rules that amounted to:

"A player announces that his character reacts to an event in the following way(s).  When the outcome of that announcement is in conflict with another character or the world-as-emulted-by-the-GM (including, but not limited to NPC's, physics, magic, etc.) consult the resolution system to determine success or failure of the character's stated actions. Describe what happens within the scope of the actions agreed upon. If the GM determines that the description exceeds the bounds of the scope, the GM may alter accordingly."

Because I've played in games where everyone understood that the maintenance crew might be there, depending on the "wandering monster" tables and so forth.  Other games, the GM was fine with eschewing such things, knowing that the players would prefer to assume the resolution mechanic took that into account. We would literally interrupt the GM's description and say something like "No, no...wait...X has Y happen..."  While most times, the GM would say "Yeah, cool..and then Z happens," there were situations where we would be overruled.

The point is, the differentiation between Conflict and Task is meaningless with respect to the event.  It's all about who gets something called narrative authority.  And that's a fine distinction to draw. If your game tends towards that kind of play (required shared narrative authority), then it should be explicit in differentiating that from traditional "TR" play. I just think it muddy's the waters to call it Conflict Resolution and somehow try to draw the distinction in the specificity of the event or in the determination of stakes up front, or any of a myriad of practices that have been a part of "TR" gaming for as long as I've known the game (25+ years).

I think it's called "Conflict" resolution because it deals with conflicts of interest between characters.

Feanor, I'd like to see your opinion on this breakdown:

Task Resolution

Quote from: warren

• A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He can keep it secret if he wants.


• A player 'translates' his desire into an appropriate (series) of tasks for his character - let's call that task Y ("I'll persuade him"). He has to tell the GM this.
  
  
• In order to perform Y, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to do Y. (EDIT: the GM might say that doing Y is automatically successful, and not require the mechanics to be applied; in which case the next step is skipped).


• The mechanic is applied and determines if the character does Y or not.


• The GM* describes what happened, taking into account the results of Y and the current situation. Or, if Y is failed, the GM* comes up with the consequences of failure (which could be "nothing happens", or it could be "take 10d6 falling damage", or whatever) and applies them. (You can see this as translating the effects of action Y back into "did X happen", if you like)

* Subnote: This can just be GM skills, or it can be GM + specific rules, like Bluff checks in D&D 3.5 or Persuasion in the James Bond RPG or whatever.

• Depending on how good the translation from X->Y->X went, the player may or may not have got his original X, even if he succeeded. In the case of failure, the consequences are not always known to the player when he started his action by telling the GM 'Y'.

Conflict Resolution

Quote from: warren

• A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He has to tell the GM this.
  
  
• Another character (PC or NPC) must want to prevent or interfere with X by wanting Z ("I want to stay as rich as possible"). If not, we are done, the player gets X and somebody describes what happened.


• In order to obtain X against Z, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to obtain X against Z.


• The mechanic is applied and determines if the player gets X or not, as well as if the other guy gets his Z or not.


• The GM (or sometimes players, depending on system) describes what happened, taking into account the results of X & Z (and any other restrictions that steps 3 & 4 might apply).

Make sense?

Quote from: warrenIf you see that saying "I want X", "well, I want Y", as "shared plot control" then that's up to you. I don't, personally.

That's a pretty strange way to frame everything.  

First, it fails to capture what happens when the character is trying to achieve something without active opposition.  "I want to climb the cliff and the cliff doesn't want me to climb it"?  The cliff doesn't want anything.

Second, it fails to capture all sorts of situations where the opposition is passive or incidental.  "I want to avoid being seen by Fred so that I don't have to talk to him," does not automatically mean that Fred actively wants to see me so he can talk to me.

Third, wants are not always consistent throughout an entire conflict.  A warrior might enter a battle wanting to kill his opponent.  When he realizes the opponent is better than he is, his wants may shift to simple survival and escape.  If he find himself wounded and trapped, his wants may shift to surrender.  Similarly, the opponent may shift from wanting to kill their opponent to taking them prisoner if surrender is offered.  I have trouble seeing has those nuances can all be captured up front, nor can I see how they can be effectively resolved with a single roll.

Fourth, do the common task resolution systems allow ties or neither person to win?  That happens, too.  Double-kills.  Mutual withdrawals.  Etc.

Quote from: warren* I find it increases tension, as the consequences of a roll are known upfront.

It also reduces surprise.

Quote from: warren* I fing it increases clarity in what the PCs really want to achieve & risk, for the same reason. (No retconning)

Does your group have a problem with retconning?  Is this a reaction to a problem that not all groups have?

Quote from: warren* Some CR systems give you more freedom to describe what happened ingame than TR systems.

Which is shared control over the game.

But that's another point that leaves me cold about conflict resolution systems.  If everything is abstracted into a conflict and the details don't really matter once everything is set, what's the point of that freedom of description?  Is it simply the freedom to do something because it doesn't make any difference?

Quote from: warren* It's a lot easier for me to run as a GM.

Why?

Quote from: warren* Yes, I find it does provide a buffer against bad GMing.

Again, is this a reaction to a problem certain groups have but others don't?

Quote from: warren* Yes, it also prevents things like "GM-surprises". Mystery and surprise in the long run, may well be affected.

So it sounds like a lot of this is about trying to reign in bad GMing.  GM surprises can be very legitimate when there is information in the setting or situation that they player doesn't know.  People enter plenty of situations where they don't know the stakes up front and get surprised.  

My biggest problem with the systems that I've seen is that hey abstract all conflicts to the point where they are all resolved the same way and look the same way.  No matter what the situation is, you play a round of Yahtzee to win.  Yes, you can describe what happens but what difference does it make what I say if the dice are ultimately driving everything once the stakes are set?

Quote from: warrenYep, I'd buy that. CR makes things more explict (as I pointed out above, there is less 'translation' involved) and de-couples action and goal, both of which I find to be good things.

What meaning does the action have once it is de-coupled from the goals?

Quote from: John MorrowFirst, it fails to capture what happens when the character is trying to achieve something without active opposition.  "I want to climb the cliff and the cliff doesn't want me to climb it"?  The cliff doesn't want anything.

Not really.  "The sea doesn't want you to get back with that beautiful swordfish."  "The sea" really is a character, with wants and goals of its own.

Or... suriviving a night on Hoth is a conflict.  Hoth is a hard, cruel character that wants to kill Luke and Han.  Surviving the blazing, sweltering heat of the day on Tatooine isn't a conflict.  Tatooine isn't a character in the same way.

The other way to deal with it is to ask, "Why do you want to climb the cliff?"  If you just want to climb the cliff, there's probably not a conflict there.  If you want to climb a cliff to "Catch up with the orcs," then you'd roll against the orc's skill.

If you want to climb the cliff because it's The Cliff of DOOM, and only the pure of heart can climb that cliff, then you might want to roll against the cliff.  (Because here the cliff is a character.)

Quote from: John MorrowSecond, it fails to capture all sorts of situations where the opposition is passive or incidental.  "I want to avoid being seen by Fred so that I don't have to talk to him," does not automatically mean that Fred actively wants to see me so he can talk to me.

Yeah, you just don't roll.  There's no Conflict of Interest, so no roll needs to be made.  You don't want to see Fred?  Fred doesn't care.  No roll.  Fred doesn't see you.

Quote from: John MorrowThird, wants are not always consistent throughout an entire conflict.

Some games allow you to change your intent during the conflict.  I'm thinking of Sorcerer and The Shadow of Yesterday, when Bringing Down the Pain.  Your example sounds a lot like the example for that from TSoY, actually.

Quote from: LostSoulNot really.  "The sea doesn't want you to get back with that beautiful swordfish."  "The sea" really is a character, with wants and goals of its own.

But the sea really isn't a character.  It's indifferent to whether I get back with the swordfish or not.  It's not going to be disappointed if I do.

What you are doing is stretching a concept beyond all recognition for the purpose of making it fit a theory.  That's the tail wagging the dog.

Quote from: LostSoulThe other way to deal with it is to ask, "Why do you want to climb the cliff?"  If you just want to climb the cliff, there's probably not a conflict there.  If you want to climb a cliff to "Catch up with the orcs," then you'd roll against the orc's skill.

So the skill of the orcs determines how difficult it is to climb a cliff?  So no matter what my character tries to do all boils down to a skill roll against the Orcs and everything else is just flavor text?

Quote from: LostSoulIf you want to climb the cliff because it's The Cliff of DOOM, and only the pure of heart can climb that cliff, then you might want to roll against the cliff.  (Because here the cliff is a character.)

What's the conflict?

Quote from: LostSoulYeah, you just don't roll.  There's no Conflict of Interest, so no roll needs to be made.  You don't want to see Fred?  Fred doesn't care.  No roll.  Fred doesn't see you.

But the game can go in a very different direction if Fred does or doesn't notice my character.   To take the flapping of a butterfly's wings out of the picture because they are deemed too insignificant is to take hurricanes out of the picture.  Life doesn't only deal people with surprises and setbacks then they are goal related.

Quote from: LostSoulSome games allow you to change your intent during the conflict.  I'm thinking of Sorcerer and The Shadow of Yesterday, when Bringing Down the Pain.  Your example sounds a lot like the example for that from TSoY, actually.

And from the example I've just read of Bringing Down the Pain, once a game switches into that mode, how are the results that are being challenged and the extra work needed to finalize things any better than the traditional means of working through that sort of situation at a task-based level?

What I'd like to know is how the following would look in conflict resolution terms.

Four characters face off against four opponents.  Early in the fight, characters 1 and 2 are doing well, character 3 is holding their own, and character 4 is in trouble.  Character 2 comes to character 4's aid so that characters 2 is now fighting opponent 2 and 4 to save character 4.  Around the middle of the fight, characters 2 and 3 also get into trouble and character 1 dispatches their opponent.  Character 1 decides to go to the aid of character 2, knowing that if character 2 goes down, character 4 will also be killed.  This leaves character 3 to finish off their battle alone.  Near the end of the battle, opponent 2 is dispatched by character 1 while opponent 4 shifts over to attack character 3, helping opponent 3 kill character 3.  Character 1 decides not to press the attack after opponents 3 and 4 flee.

Could that play out in a conflict resolution system and, if so, how?

Quote from: John MorrowFour characters face off against four opponents.  Early in the fight, characters 1 and 2 are doing well, character 3 is holding their own, and character 4 is in trouble.  Character 2 comes to character 4's aid so that characters 2 is now fighting opponent 2 and 4 to save character 4.  Around the middle of the fight, characters 2 and 3 also get into trouble and character 1 dispatches their opponent.  Character 1 decides to go to the aid of character 2, knowing that if character 2 goes down, character 4 will also be killed.  This leaves character 3 to finish off their battle alone.  Near the end of the battle, opponent 2 is dispatched by character 1 while opponent 4 shifts over to attack character 3, helping opponent 3 kill character 3.  Character 1 decides not to press the attack after opponents 3 and 4 flee.

Pretty hard to follow, that.

Quote from: John MorrowCould that play out in a conflict resolution system and, if so, how?

Yes. I don't get the "How?" part. By following the rules? I'm sure I'm missing something here...

Quote from: warrenPretty hard to follow, that.

Diagram it out.  That sort of combat represents what I normally see in a lot of games.  Most of the conflict resolution examples I can find deal with one-on-one conflicts so I'm curious how they work out with many-on-many conflicts.

Quote from: warrenYes. I don't get the "How?" part. By following the rules? I'm sure I'm missing something here...

Where are the conflicts?  How can a concept like "Bringing Down the Pain" be used in a combat like that?  How does it break down into discreet GM and player choices?

Quote from: John MorrowBut the sea really isn't a character.  It's indifferent to whether I get back with the swordfish or not.  It's not going to be disappointed if I do.

Well, that would depend on the setting, actually: in a mythic or animistic gameworld, the sea might very well be a character in its own right.

Quote from: GrimGentWell, that would depend on the setting, actually: in a mythic or animistic gameworld, the sea might very well be a character in its own right.

Are we talking about systems suitable for use only with animistic gameworlds?  Tail wagging dog.

Quote from: John MorrowAre we talking about systems suitable for use only with animistic gameworlds?  Tail wagging dog.

It's more that you can build a system around the concept easily enough, and assume that even inanimate objects will have a stake of some sort in any conflict that involves them directly.There already are settings which work like that, after all, such as Creation in Nobilis: for example, even though it's in the nature of a locked safe to keep its owner's secrets secure, persuading it to give them up is still possible, either figuratively with a burglar's tools or literally through a convincing argument.

Quote from: John Morrow

Quote from: LostSoulThe other way to deal with it is to ask, "Why do you want to climb the cliff?" If you just want to climb the cliff, there's probably not a conflict there. If you want to climb a cliff to "Catch up with the orcs," then you'd roll against the orc's skill.

So the skill of the orcs determines how difficult it is to climb a cliff? So no matter what my character tries to do all boils down to a skill roll against the Orcs and everything else is just flavor text?

Pretty much, yes. Isn't that just what a Climb roll is, however? A roll against a DC and some "flavour text"?

Quote from: John Morrow

Quote from: LostSoulIf you want to climb the cliff because it's The Cliff of DOOM, and only the pure of heart can climb that cliff, then you might want to roll against the cliff. (Because here the cliff is a character.)

What's the conflict?

In this case, the cliff could have the goal "Throw all those who climb me down onto the jagged rocks below" and the player might have the goal "Get to the top of that cliff" or something. Lame example, I admit :)

Quote from: John Morrow

Quote from: LostSoulYeah, you just don't roll. There's no Conflict of Interest, so no roll needs to be made. You don't want to see Fred? Fred doesn't care. No roll. Fred doesn't see you.

But the game can go in a very different direction if Fred does or doesn't notice my character. To take the flapping of a butterfly's wings out of the picture because they are deemed too insignificant is to take hurricanes out of the picture. Life doesn't only deal people with surprises and setbacks then they are goal related.

This is how I see it:
"PC avoiding Fred", "Fred doesn't care" - No conflict; Fred doesn't care to look, so the PC successfully avoids him.
"PC looking for Fred", "Fred doesn't care" - No conflict; The PC spots Fred.
"PC looking for Fred", "Fred looking for PC" - No conflict; The both spot each other without rolling.
"PC avoiding Fred", "Fred avoiding PC" - No conflict; The both avoid each other without rolling.
"PC avoiding Fred", "Fred looking for PC" - Conflict!; Go to dice to determine if Fred spots the PC or not.
"PC doesn't care", "Fred doesn't care" - No conflict; Nobody really cares about looking or avoiding the other, so you may as well skip it and get to something that that does engage the players.

Quote from: John MorrowThird, wants are not always consistent throughout an entire conflict. A warrior might enter a battle wanting to kill his opponent. When he realizes the opponent is better than he is, his wants may shift to simple survival and escape. If he find himself wounded and trapped, his wants may shift to surrender. Similarly, the opponent may shift from wanting to kill their opponent to taking them prisoner if surrender is offered. I have trouble seeing has those nuances can all be captured up front, nor can I see how they can be effectively resolved with a single roll.

Who said anything about a single roll? The Mountain Witch, for example, says this about Conflicts:

Quote from: The Mountain WitchHow much imaginary “stuff” does a single Conflict roll cover? Usually, a Conflict encompasses the actions a single character takes to achieve a simple, specific goal. Any goal that requires multiple, progressive steps should be broken into separate Conflicts for each step.

So "I want to kill my opponent" could be your initial goal. But you might fail that and change my goal to "I want to get away from my opponent". If that failed, you might want to go "I want my opponent to accept my surrender" and so on.

Not all systems are like this -- the whole fight would be resolved in a single roll if you were playing Primetime Adventures (and if you wanted that kind of tactical nuance, then PTA isn't the game for you) but that's a difference between systems, rather than something inherent in Conflict Resolution.

Quote from: John MorrowFourth, do the common task resolution systems allow ties or neither person to win? That happens, too. Double-kills. Mutual withdrawals. Etc.

Some do, some don't. PTA doesn't. The Mountain Witch does. Sorcerer (I think) does. Dogs in the Vineyard always ends up with a definite "yes" or "no" to a conflict, but it can produce a lot of side-effects in doing so, so pyhrric (sp?) victories and the like are very possible.

Quote from: John MorrowBut that's another point that leaves me cold about conflict resolution systems.  If everything is abstracted into a conflict and the details don't really matter once everything is set, what's the point of that freedom of description?  Is it simply the freedom to do something because it doesn't make any difference?

I don't see where you are getting "details don't really matter" in CR. If anything the details matter more, as they are guaranteed to make an impact. But I'm not 100% on what you mean here.

In any case, the freedom of description is a way to present things in as cool a way as possible. If I'm a master swordsman, and I keep on rolling bad dice in a "I want to kill the Ogre" conflict, I don't have to go, "damn, missed again" (which sucks). It could be described as, "Toying with the huge creature, but deft weaves and feigns distract him before I prepare my next flurry of attacks". Same mechanical effect, but I don't feel like my character is an incompetent doofus.

Quote from: John MorrowSo it sounds like a lot of this is about trying to reign in bad GMing.  GM surprises can be very legitimate when there is information in the setting or situation that they player doesn't know.  People enter plenty of situations where they don't know the stakes up front and get surprised.

In my experience 99% of GM surprises are a big let down and not worth the build up. The best GM surprise I had was when I found out that my character's ex-wife (who he was still obsessing over) was getting married to my mortal enemy. That was very cool, and there is nothing in CR that would have prevented that from happening.

Quote from: John MorrowMy biggest problem with the systems that I've seen is that hey abstract all conflicts to the point where they are all resolved the same way and look the same way.  No matter what the situation is, you play a round of Yahtzee to win.  Yes, you can describe what happens but what difference does it make what I say if the dice are ultimately driving everything once the stakes are set?

I don't get how this is different from TR, really. Does True20 feel bland because you always "just roll d20, add a modifier and try to beat a target number"? (I don't know, does it? I've never played it.)

On the whole "the cliff is a character" point. I personally, tend not to use this very much. As I said (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=26467&postcount=20) in the Rolls: All Opposed All the Time (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1847) thread:

Quote from: WarrenThe fact that you have to "look around" for sombody to provide the opposition roll is a feature, not a bug, for me. Can't find good opposition? It's unlikely to be an interesting situation, so why make them roll? Skip over the dull stuff and get to a place where you get the good opposition you need.

Example: "I want to climb the tree". Pretty dull, IMO. "I want to climb the tree to evade the Evil Baron's men"; you are rolling Climb vs. the Spot (or Track, or whatever) of the "Evil Baron's men", and the situation is much more interesting.

Quote from: John MorrowDiagram it out. That sort of combat represents what I normally see in a lot of games. Most of the conflict resolution examples I can find deal with one-on-one conflicts so I'm curious how they work out with many-on-many conflicts.

OK, Cool; that's a fair point. Can I use a more concrete example?

I'll use The Mountain Witch rules, which are smallish-scale CR. The 4 PCs are all Ronin in feudal Japan who are travelling through a haunted forest on the way to Mount Fuji. The GM decribes a scene where a small pack of four feral wolves block their path, growling angrily at them.

Players 1, 2 & 3 state that they are going to charge the Wolves; trying to kill them. Player 4 says that his goal is to sneak around the fight and get past. The wolves split up and want to tear the throats out of all four Ronin.

Dice are rolled, results are determined. Let's say that Player 1 manages to kill a wolf because he rolled so well, Player 2 failed but his wolf only got a partial success against him. Players 3 and his wolf tie. Player 4 gets just a partial success against his wolf.

So, as PC #1 cuts one wolf into ribbons, PC #2 is injured and on the ground, trying to get another off of him. PC #3 and another wolf are circling each other, neither one prepared to commit to a full on attack. PC #4 skirts the outside of the clearing, but a wolf chases him down before he can get away.

Now, Player 1 decides that he wants to aid Player 2 in fighting his wolf, and all the other Players are still wanting to kill the wolves. In return, the wolves want to chew down on one ronin each.

Dice are rolled, results are determined. Let's say that Player 2 manages to tie with his wolf thanks to the help of Player 1. Players 3 gets a partial success against his wolf, but Player 4 is beaten soundly by his attacker.

So, PC #1 manages to scare the wolf off of PC #2, but the wolf is getting ready to pounce again. PC #3 and the wolf launch at each other, with the Ronin getting the upper hand with a nasty cut down the flank of one wolf. The final wolf is mauling the leg of PC #4, who is swiping uselessly at it with his Katana.

Now Player 1 wants to scare 'his' wolf off, whilst player 2 is going to defend himself against any attacks. Player 3 is still fighting with his wolf, and Player 4 is going to try and clamber up a tree to get away from being bitten any further.  The wolves are going to attack Players 1, 3 and 4, ignoring 2, who doesn't have to roll.

Dice are rolled, results are determined. Let's say for brevities sake that all the Players beat the wolves.

PC #1 scares his wolf off, with PC #2 watching carefully with his sword at the ready. PC #3 finally manages to slice the head off of his wolf, and poor cowardly PC #4 is left up a tree with his wolf watching angrily from the ground.

And so on.

Quote from: warrenPretty much, yes. Isn't that just what a Climb roll is, however? A roll against a DC and some "flavour text"?

The difference is that the nature of the cliff determines the nature of the attempt to climb it in one case, while in the other case, that the challege is a cliff is irrelevant because the players are rolling against the orcs.  

Quote from: warrenIn this case, the cliff could have the goal "Throw all those who climb me down onto the jagged rocks below" and the player might have the goal "Get to the top of that cliff" or something. Lame example, I admit :)

But it's not lame at all if you simply cast it as an attempt to climb a cliff that's a certain difficulty to clime.  So why jump through hoops to turn every uncertainty into a conflict between parties with active interests?

Quote from: warrenThis is how I see it:
"PC avoiding Fred", "Fred doesn't care" - No conflict; Fred doesn't care to look, so the PC successfully avoids him.

No chance of the PC being surprised by Fred noticing him anyway?  Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: warren"PC looking for Fred", "Fred doesn't care" - No conflict; The PC spots Fred.

No chance of the PC not spotting someone he's looking for?  Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: warren"PC looking for Fred", "Fred looking for PC" - No conflict; The both spot each other without rolling.

No chance of them missing each other?  Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: warren"PC avoiding Fred", "Fred avoiding PC" - No conflict; The both avoid each other without rolling.

No chance of them running into each other anyway?  Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: warren"PC avoiding Fred", "Fred looking for PC" - Conflict!; Go to dice to determine if Fred spots the PC or not.

What if Fred wants to harm the PC (thus the PC has a vested interest in not being found) but it not actively avoiding Fred because the PC is not aware that Fred is looking for him?  Happens all the time in real life.  Does the PC really have any impact on whether Fred finds them or not of they are not actively avoiding Fred?

Quote from: warren"PC doesn't care", "Fred doesn't care" - No conflict; Nobody really cares about looking or avoiding the other, so you may as well skip it and get to something that that does engage the players.

Like the PC and Fred accidentally bumping into each other?  How do you know what might engage the players before it happens?  Some of the most entertaining role-playing experiences I've had were triggered or driven by the characters responding to random rolls.

Quote from: warrenWho said anything about a single roll? The Mountain Witch, for example, says this about Conflicts:

At the point where the conflicts get broken down to discreet actions, how does this become any different than a traditional task resolution system with opposed rolls for certain situations (e.g., Fudge)?  

My main points of concern are the benefits and/or problems of the key differences from traditional resolution systems.

1) Framing all tasks as opposed rolls, forcing the identification of things like cliffs as "characters" with "wants" rather than simply using straight task rolls rather than opposed rolls when there is no sentient opposition.

2) Reducing conflicts down to one roll or a handful of rolls that produce a higher abstraction level than traditional task resolution systems.  If you are rolling for every blow in a fight, you are doing exactly what traditional RPGs do except that you are requiring an opposed roll.

3) Abstracting conflcts in such a way that climbing a cliff becomes a conflict against orcs rather than an attempt to climb a cliff.  Or abstracting so that what the conflict is about is meaningless such that anything said about it is simply flavor.

4) Setting stakes up front rather than treating them simply as the motivation for making certain task rolls.

5) The idea that what a player wants and what their opponent wants can produce predictable success or failure without any room for chance.

Yes, I'm sure you can make a conflict resolution system that's very much like a traditional task resolution system and focus on the similarities to answer my questions.  That misses the point.  What's the benefit of the differences and how do they behave in practice?

Please note that I'm also not saying it doesn't work or can't work.  Of course it can.  But just because I can hammer nails into a board with a screwdriver does not mean that a screwdriver is a good hammer.  And maybe the problem is simply that you are trying to use screws and I'm trying to use nails and we just need different tools for the jobs we are trying to do.

Quote from: warrenSo "I want to kill my opponent" could be your initial goal. But you might fail that and change my goal to "I want to get away from my opponent". If that failed, you might want to go "I want my opponent to accept my surrender" and so on.

What does it mean to "fail my goal"?  Am I not killing my opponent because I can't hit him, because he's beating the snot out of me, or because I've had some bad luck?  A traditional system would tell me that.  Once I fail to kill him the first time, can I keep trying to kill him again or do I need to do something else?

That's part of why this all seems so abstract to me.  You don't know why I'm failling my goal and it doesn't seem to matter at all.  But that's exactly what a traditional role-playing game would tell me and it would matter.

Quote from: warrenNot all systems are like this -- the whole fight would be resolved in a single roll if you were playing Primetime Adventures (and if you wanted that kind of tactical nuance, then PTA isn't the game for you) but that's a difference between systems, rather than something inherent in Conflict Resolution.

People are talking about several different elements of Conflict Resolution here.  See my list above for what I'm concerned with -- the stark differences.

Quote from: warrenSome do, some don't. PTA doesn't. The Mountain Witch does. Sorcerer (I think) does. Dogs in the Vineyard always ends up with a definite "yes" or "no" to a conflict, but it can produce a lot of side-effects in doing so, so pyhrric (sp?) victories and the like are very possible.

But will it produce the same range of possible results that a traditional task resolution system would produce?

Please note that I like opposed rolls when there are really opponents facing each other.  I use single-roll combat in my Fudge games.  I'm interested in taking that to the levels that games for which Conflict Resolution is a key selling point take it (e.g., Primetime Adventures resolving conflicts in one roll).

Quote from: warrenI don't see where you are getting "details don't really matter" in CR. If anything the details matter more, as they are guaranteed to make an impact. But I'm not 100% on what you mean here.

It could simply be the way people are giving examples.  Every time I read a Conflict example, it feels like the details of the conflict don't really matter because they get glossed over in the example.  Perhaps an example that illustrates how environmental details and such play a role in the outcome would help.

Quote from: warrenIn any case, the freedom of description is a way to present things in as cool a way as possible.

See, to me that freedom comes from irrelevance.  If I can say anything, then what I say means nothing.  It's just flavor text.  That's what I mean by that.  Cool descriptions are just flavor text that have no impact on what really happens.

Quote from: warrenIf I'm a master swordsman, and I keep on rolling bad dice in a "I want to kill the Ogre" conflict, I don't have to go, "damn, missed again" (which sucks).

See, I don't think that sucks.  I think that experiencing the failure that way is integral to understanding why I'm having trouble killing the Ogre (he's hard to hit -- maybe he's better than I am or maybe I'm having bad luck).  If I'm missing the Ogre even when I roll well, I know that the Ogre is probably better than I can hit and I might retreat.  If I'm missing the Ogre because I'm rolling bad, I might stick around hoping for a change in luck.  And I can translate that all into appropriate in character perceptions of what's going on.

But, ultimately, "Damn, missed again," is a part of life.

Now, in single roll opposed roll combat in Fudge, you do get someone hitting every round.  But it's still a round-by-round affair and there are other things, like climbing a cliff, that can be handled with an unopposed roll.

Quote from: warrenIt could be described as, "Toying with the huge creature, but deft weaves and feigns distract him before I prepare my next flurry of attacks". Same mechanical effect, but I don't feel like my character is an incompetent doofus.

In real combat and in movies, misses are common.  Do you automatically assume that a series of misses makes a person an "incompetent doofus"?

Quote from: warrenIn my experience 99% of GM surprises are a big let down and not worth the build up. The best GM surprise I had was when I found out that my character's ex-wife (who he was still obsessing over) was getting married to my mortal enemy. That was very cool, and there is nothing in CR that would have prevented that from happening.

Then let's just say that I've had different experiences with that than you have.

Quote from: warrenI don't get how this is different from TR, really. Does True20 feel bland because you always "just roll d20, add a modifier and try to beat a target number"? (I don't know, does it? I've never played it.)

Maybe True20 does work that way.  I don't know, either.  In most Task Resolution systems, what the player is doing and the details of the situation matter, through skill selection, setting difficulty, modifiers, and so on.  When you abstract climbing a cliff to a roll against the fleeing Orcs, the cliff ceases to have any real impact on the situation and becomes little more than flavor text.  It could be a swamp, a bear trap, or whatever.  It's just something between the PC and Orcs that's there for color.  And that also can trivialize the player's ability to use knowledge about the shared imaginary space to make decisions that have any impact on the outcome.

Quote from: warren'll use The Mountain Witch rules, which are smallish-scale CR.

Thanks for the example.  That's exactly what I was looking for.  Very similar to a traditional task resolution system that uses degrees of success and opposed rolls like Fudge. Maybe you'd consider parts of Fudge to be a Conflict Resolution system?  How about games with larger scale CR?   That's where it would seem to cause the most problems.

Quote from: warrenThe fact that you have to "look around" for sombody to provide the opposition roll is a feature, not a bug, for me. Can't find good opposition? It's unlikely to be an interesting situation, so why make them roll?

Because that's how some players learn how good their characters are in character.  Mary Kuhner posted some threads to rec.games.frp.advocacy where she talked about how her husband liked to play through lopsided battles where the outcome was certain (e.g., a high-powered PC killing a bunch of little monsters) because that's how he got a sense of just how good his character was in character.  I've had similar experiences.

Further, the dice represent the unpredictable.  See my points about what happens in the real world all the time.  To a degree, it's a verisimilitude issue for me.  If my character can do everything he wants to do when nobody stands in the way, that just feels wrong.  I've slipped going down the stairs of my own house and almost broke my leg.  A game without anything like that feels as artificial to me as a computer graphics picture where everything is perfect.  Part of creating photorealism in computer images involves making things imperfect because the human eye can pick up perfection and it feels artificial.  I think the same thing applies to what happens in games.  Perfect feels artificial to me.

Quote from: warrenSkip over the dull stuff and get to a place where you get the good opposition you need.

I don't know about you but I never know for sure what's going to be dull and what's going to be interesting until I do it.  What you are doing is assuming things will be dull and are not worth dealing with.  In my experience, those little things are frequently not dull and can be very worth playing out.

Quote from: warrenExample: "I want to climb the tree". Pretty dull, IMO. "I want to climb the tree to evade the Evil Baron's men"; you are rolling Climb vs. the Spot (or Track, or whatever) of the "Evil Baron's men", and the situation is much more interesting.

What about, "I want to climb a tree and take a look around before we settle down for the night in this clearing"?

I think there's some conflation going on of types of CR with the idea or goal of CR in general. Admittedly some of that comes from the ongoing efforts of Ron Edwards et. al. to define it, but the essence of CR, in my opinion, is that it forces the group, collectively, to establish "facts" in the setting which can't be fudged based on someone's informally-expressed preferences or intentions. It's even possible that the "facts" might be known only to one person. E.g., a GM might have a prison cell with a high, barred window, and forgot to decide beforehand what if anything a character could do to escape via the window. If the situation then comes up in play, the conflict "can X escape through the window" needs to be resolved by some means. The GM could privately decide that no, it isn't possible. At that point the game can proceed, even if it involves some frustration, but at least without the participants having to worry whether the goalposts are going to be changed in a way that invalidates all their possible future input.

Mechanical conflict resolution, which is what people usually mean when they talk about CR, is a way of accomplishing this in a manner that doesn't rely purely on the discretion of one person. By contrast, when people draw a line between TR and CR, they're saying that TR outcomes can be invalidated if they aren't tied into "general conflict resolution" either through mechanics or through social contracts, i.e., "good GMing".

Going back to the prison cell, if the player wants to escape and the GM wants to keep the character there, then the conflict is over escaping, and the issue is whether that is ultimately going to be resolved via player input or GM whim. The GM has to admit a nonzero metaphysical possibility that the PC could escape by some means; otherwise all the TR in the world isn't going to contribute to resolving the conflict. And if the possibility is nonzero, and you don't just roll percentile dice or whatever, opting instead for TR, then the GM has to put his desires in abeyance as he judges the impact of any tasks on the outcome of the overall conflict. If he does this without moving the goalposts, you've achieved CR via TR. If he has trouble doing this, then overt mechanical conflict resolution will help overcome his railroading instincts.

It helps to note that mechanical CR doesn't necessarily imply single-roll-resolution, or use of thematic or nonsimulative attributes (like "Love my wife d10" instead of "Cryptography 90%"). It does require the identification of conflict (even if it's conflict with nature) and goals, a clear understanding of the resources that can be brought to bear, and a clear understanding of how the mechanics are linked to achieving the goal(s).

Quote from: Elliot WilenAt that point the game can proceed, even if it involves some frustration, but at least without the participants having to worry whether the goalposts are going to be changed in a way that invalidates all their possible future input.

I don't have time to finish a lengthier reply right now (probably not until after the weekend) but I will just say, "Wow, this whole post is just really alien to the way I role-play and the relationship I have with the GMs I role-play with."  And it really does suggest that the whole point of these mechanics is simply a backlash against bad experiences with GMs who abuse their power to railroad stories.

If anything, my bad experiences have been in the opposite direction -- GMs who let the players succeed no matter what they do.

Quote from: John MorrowIt could simply be the way people are giving examples.  Every time I read a Conflict example, it feels like the details of the conflict don't really matter because they get glossed over in the example.  Perhaps an example that illustrates how environmental details and such play a role in the outcome would help.

Let's say we're playing Heroquest.

The PC tracks the orcs to the cliff face.  He's got "Man of the Wild 5w" (which is pretty good - it's like 25) and a bunch of other skills "climby" skills that he can augment his roll with.  He ends up with, let's say 15w (35).  He rolls that against the orcs, and if he succeeds, he catches up with them.  If he fails (that is, the orcs win), the orcs get away.

But let's say the PC is an urban rake.  All his skills are social ones.  He only has "Strong 17" and "Nimble 17" that could apply here.  He ends up with 19.  He rolls that against the orcs, and if he succeeds, he catches up with them.  If he fails (that is, the orcs win), the orcs get away.

The fact that it is a cliff influenced the conflict in this case.

(Cross-posted with Lost Soul)

Well, don't take me as an authority on the divide between TR and (mechanical) CR--it's not something I feel a great need to emphasize, either, and I agree with you that it seems like a backlash against railroading, either by GMs or by bad modules. What I wrote above is my effort to charitably interpret the concept as put forward by its chief advocates--i.e., to make it intelligible.

I do think there's something there in the overall concept, though--that is, conflict resolution is clearly a method of avoiding GM manipulation, often by foregrounding goals and establishing a clear scope of conflict. Or if it doesn't avoid GM manipulation, it brings it out into the open so that the GM can't foil a player's intent without everyone seeing clearly how it's happening. E.g., GM restricting scope, refusing to invoke resolution, refusing to respect resolution, imposing negative modifiers, disallowing actions, & so forth. In general a GM may have good reasons for any of those things, but if there's any disagreement, CR puts it on the table.

I'm not sure the problem of pushover GMs is directly related to CR but I suppose it could be argued that CR gives a GM a way to find a middle ground. Or particularly that CR + "say yes" allows a GM to give shape to a scenario without railroading. But it only guarantees that conflicts which are of interest to both the GM and players will be engaged. If so, then I'm with you that it's a deficiency which takes away from a world's "weight".

(One thought: it might be better, if a GM is "saying yes" too much and no conflicts are arising, to go straight to the question of goals and then turn everything into a conflict beginning with the PCs' initial action. Thus while climbing a tree may be uninteresting in itself, the fact that the ultimate goal conflicts with the Baron's men's interest in catching you allows you to factor in your tree-climbing ability and then whether you succeed or fail in your goal, the CR system is alsocapable of spitting out an answer to what happened when you climbed the tree. E.g., via Taking the Blow in DitV, or various "fortune in the middle" systems found in other games such as Heroquest.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenI do think there's something there in the overall concept, though--that is, conflict resolution is clearly a method of avoiding GM manipulation, often by foregrounding goals and establishing a clear scope of conflict. Or if it doesn't avoid GM manipulation, it brings it out into the open so that the GM can't foil a player's intent without everyone seeing clearly how it's happening. E.g., GM restricting scope, refusing to invoke resolution, refusing to respect resolution, imposing negative modifiers, disallowing actions, & so forth. In general a GM may have good reasons for any of those things, but if there's any disagreement, CR puts it on the table.

I'm not sure the problem of pushover GMs is directly related to CR but I suppose it could be argued that CR gives a GM a way to find a middle ground. Or particularly that CR + "say yes" allows a GM to give shape to a scenario without railroading.

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut it only guarantees that conflicts which are of interest to both the GM and players will be engaged. If so, then I'm with you that it's a deficiency which takes away from a world's "weight".

Depending on your definition of 'a world's "weight"', I agree. CR skips over stuff that doesn't interest the GM and players quickly. I consider that a feature, not a bug. I don't think it makes the world any less interesting than the world in any TV show (which also skips over lots of uninteresting stuff), but that may or may not be "weighty" enough for your tastes :)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(One thought: it might be better, if a GM is "saying yes" too much and no conflicts are arising, to go straight to the question of goals and then turn everything into a conflict beginning with the PCs' initial action. Thus while climbing a tree may be uninteresting in itself, the fact that the ultimate goal conflicts with the Baron's men's interest in catching you allows you to factor in your tree-climbing ability and then whether you succeed or fail in your goal, the CR system is alsocapable of spitting out an answer to what happened when you climbed the tree. E.g., via Taking the Blow in DitV, or various "fortune in the middle" systems found in other games such as Heroquest.)

Yeah, makes sense to me.

Hi John,

Taking into consideration that the only difference between mechanical TR and mechanical CR as "procedures of play", I have already put forward in post #121 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=26694&postcount=121), but yes, that could well have an effect on the game as a whole.

Conflict resolution is designed to resolve conflicts of interest between fictional characters as clearly as possible. To engage a CR system, you need to have a conflict of interest (i.e. incompatible or interfering goals), as that is what the system focuses on.

You said:

Quote from: John MorrowHow do you know what might engage the players before it happens? Some of the most entertaining role-playing experiences I've had were triggered or driven by the characters responding to random rolls.

I'm willing to bet that every single scene which has a (direct or indirect) conflict between the PCs and interesting NPCs the players like (or like to hate) should always produce engaging, entertaining, damn fine, role-playing experiences. I also find that when you have a conflict, it always drives the game, and makes it go somewhere (anywhere!) and feel dynamic. My game sessions don't last much more than three to four hours nowadays, and I want to come out of every session feeling like a whole bunch of awesome happened, so dynamism is important to me.

So, both as a GM & a player, I want the game to deal with everything that isn't part of a conflict as quicky as possible, in order to get to the "good stuff". Yes, that might mean I miss out on some entertaining stuff triggered by random rolls, but I, personally, think that's an acceptable trade-off for the amount of awesome I get :)

It seems to me that you, on the other hand, want a more prosaic, 'detaily' game, which works just like the real world and real life:

Quote from: John MorrowNo chance of the PC being surprised by Fred noticing him anyway? Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: John MorrowNo chance of the PC not spotting someone he's looking for? Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: John MorrowNo chance of them missing each other? Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: John MorrowNo chance of them running into each other anyway? Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: John MorrowNo chance of the PC being surprised by Fred noticing him anyway? Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: John MorrowNo chance of the PC being surprised by Fred noticing him anyway? Happens all the time in real life.

Quote from: John MorrowBut, ultimately, "Damn, missed again," is a part of life.

Quote from: John MorrowFurther, the dice represent the unpredictable. See my points about what happens in the real world all the time.

So, with the differences in what we want in mind, I'll address your questions:

Quote from: John Morrow1) Framing all tasks as opposed rolls, forcing the identification of things like cliffs as "characters" with "wants" rather than simply using straight task rolls rather than opposed rolls when there is no sentient opposition.

As I said before, the fact that you have to "look around" for somebody to provide the opposition roll is a feature, not a bug, for me. Can't find good opposition? It's unlikely to be an interesting situation, so why make them roll? Skip over the dull stuff and get to a place where you get the good opposition you need. I tend not to use the "cliff character" option.

Quote from: John Morrow2) Reducing conflicts down to one roll or a handful of rolls that produce a higher abstraction level than traditional task resolution systems. If you are rolling for every blow in a fight, you are doing exactly what traditional RPGs do except that you are requiring an opposed roll.

But different levels of abstraction happen with TR systems too:

For example, you could have an overall task of
* "Do reach the hidden Isle of St.Norbert?"
which you could resolve with one task (Seamanship or something), or break it down into:
* "Do we hire a ship?" (Bargain)
* "Do we find a map chart?" (Library Use)
* "Do we navigate a good course?" (Navigation)
* "Can we keep this ship on this course?" (Sailing)
etc.

That last one could be decomposed down into:
* "Do we tie off the mainsail correctly?" (Rope Use)
* "Do we avoid the boom during this tack?" (Athletics)
* "Can I hold onto this line in a heavy storm?" (Strength)
* "Do I know what angle to trim the topsail at?" (Sailing)
and so on.

If the game is about an evil lurking in the ancient temple on the island, you may want to use the larger scale. If the game is more a Master & Commander style-game, and the players want to get to the safe haven of St.Norbert, you might use the smallest scale. You work at the level which works for your game and players.

Some games (PTA, yes) work differently; but saying "All CR games work like PTA" is similar to saying "All TR systems work like TOON". PTA is pretty much the only CR system I know of which mandates scene-scale resolution, and is really rules-lite. I doubt you would ever use it to determine just who wins a fight. Most of the "major" CR systems (tMW, DitV, Sorcerer, HQ) are pretty much 'scalable' in the same way as TR systems are. You look at where the conflict is, and who they are, and it falls out "naturally".

Quote from: John Morrow3) Abstracting conflicts in such a way that climbing a cliff becomes a conflict against orcs rather than an attempt to climb a cliff. Or abstracting so that what the conflict is about is meaningless such that anything said about it is simply flavour.

As LostSoul said (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=26936&postcount=142), the Cliff does has a bearing on the conflict. Also, this also shows the fact that climbing a cliff (unless it's an epic, "character" cliff) isn't very interesting by itself. Look around someone who has an interest in seeing you fail to climb it, and the whole thing becomes a hell of a lot more interesting.

Quote from: John Morrow4) Setting stakes up front rather than treating them simply as the motivation for making certain task rolls.

I don't have a problem with this. Others might, which is fair enough. I like CR as it promotes clear communication at our table, which is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: John Morrow5) The idea that what a player wants and what their opponent wants can produce predictable success or failure without any room for chance.

This is just a mechanism that keeps things moving. If nobody is interested in the outcome of the event it's not that important to the game. Skip over it quickly and get into a conflict scene where people do have a interest in what could happen.

Quote from: John MorrowYes, I'm sure you can make a conflict resolution system that's very much like a traditional task resolution system and focus on the similarities to answer my questions. That misses the point. What's the benefit of the differences and how do they behave in practice?

The Benefits:
* Quicker play, focused on things which interest the players & GM.
* Clearer communication at the table, you know what the PCs really want to achieve & risk.
* I find it increases tension, as the consequences of a roll are known upfront.
* Some CR systems give you more freedom to describe what happened ingame than TR systems.
* It's a lot easier for me to run as a GM.
* Yes, I find it does provide a buffer against bad GMing.

How it plays? With a strong CR system, I'd guess it makes games feel, pacing wise, more like modern movies, TV shows or novels than "real life". Stuff which is uninteresting is skipped over quickly in order to get to stuff which is interesting to the players and the GM. As narration is usually more open than in a TR system, descriptions of what happens ingame are cooler, more varied, vivid and dramatic, than "I hit him & missed". The players and GM are really into it, as stuff which doesn't interest them is glossed over, and then, because the goals are known upfront, the possible consequences of any conflict roll (or rolls) are known upfront, which makes that roll a hell of a lot more tense. And it's easier to run; you have some NPCs which all want something, and the PCs want something else. You run your NPCs as hard as you can, trying to get what they want for them, and the players do the same for their PCs. The system then tells me who got what. This differs from the TR systems I used to run, where you have to use the system to "model the physics of the world", which needs more judgement and interpretation, so I can't focus on what the players are grooving on (and not) as much.

To stretch things a little, I'd say that, in my experience, strong CR generates play more like the new Battlestar Galactica or Deadwood than Star Trek: The Next Generation or The Hobbit, if that makes any sense :)

Quote from: John MorrowPlease note that I'm also not saying it doesn't work or can't work. Of course it can. But just because I can hammer nails into a board with a screwdriver does not mean that a screwdriver is a good hammer. And maybe the problem is simply that you are trying to use screws and I'm trying to use nails and we just need different tools for the jobs we are trying to do.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that at all.

Quote from: warrenDepending on your definition of 'a world's "weight"', I agree. CR skips over stuff that doesn't interest the GM and players quickly. I consider that a feature, not a bug.

Just to be clear, the problem I was pointing to was that CR + "say yes" means that you'll only roll if both the GM and players are interested. If only one is interested, no roll. This is especially bad if the player's interested and not the GM--the whole world outside the GM's "dungeon" of prepared conflicts is then just a papier mache facade and instead of being "railroaded" into following a particular course, the players are bored into seeking out the GM's lead. I know I've played video games like that--know what I mean? You can go anywhere you like, but nothing happens unless you go here.

(I just had a minor revelation that in DitV I think the advice to actively reveal the town in play is probably important to avoid this issue.)

Quote from: Elliot WilenJust to be clear, the problem I was pointing to was that CR + "say yes" means that you'll only roll if both the GM and players are interested. If only one is interested, no roll.

Yep, that's how it works.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThis is especially bad if the player's interested and not the GM--the whole world outside the GM's "dungeon" of prepared conflicts is then just a papier mache facade and instead of being "railroaded" into following a particular course, the players are bored into seeking out the GM's lead. I know I've played video games like that--know what I mean? You can go anywhere you like, but nothing happens unless you go here.

I guess you could look at it that way; it's not been my experience. When I prep for my CR games, I come up with a bunch of NPCs that want things from the PCs and other NPCs (aid, information, them dead, whatever) and at least a few of them are desperate/insane/driven enough to do something fucked up to get what they want. That always leads straight to conflict. If the players run away from that conflict, obviously those NPCs and their desires isn't getting them jazzed. Since running CR systems is really easy, I, as a GM, can see that early on, and adjust things until I do set up something that they want to engage with.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen(I just had a minor revelation that in DitV I think the advice to actively reveal the town in play is probably important to avoid this issue.)

Yeah, totally.

I've remained quiet on responding on this for a few days - and I begin to see from where Pundit's anger grows.  There's too much to call out specifics, so I'm going to Rant instead.

How many ways can you try to show the need for differentiation between two things and end up showing that two things are so similar as to eschew the need for distinction? What I see is one group saying "Look what we can do with our rules!" and another saying "Yeah, we do that to!"  If you can both cover a wide spectrum of play styles and situations, what's the difference?  Aren't they both just resolution approaches with flexible focus?

I have no problem with people who want to call what they do "Conflict Resolution."  I know you might be suprised to hear it, but it's true.  What I deny is:

• it's something revolutionary -it's been part of gaming for years.
• it's significantly different from "Task Resolution."

I assert that Conflict Resolution:

• is, as a term, used incorrectly in the sense that people who are trying to draw a distinction are only seeing the resolution side of things.
  
• if only considering resolution, "Conflict" and "Task" are points on a wide spectrum of play styles.
• is no different, in a broad sense, as "Task Resolution" with respect to resolution mechanics and when to apply them.

Elliot and warren have focused on this aspect of resolution or that situation in which they do or do not apply mechanics, and seem to imply that it's "Conflict Resolution" that allows them to do that.  My point from about half way through this thread has been that "Task Resolution," encompassing a wide variety of play styles, allows for these approaches as well - and has for years...

Quote from: Elliot WilenI don't believe that most traditional RPGs had rules in them that discouraged looking at the intent of task resolution mechanics--which in terms of this discussion would turn them into proto-CR. Instead I think the rules were largely silent on this, proceeding from the cultural assumption that tasks would be linked into meaningful outcomes, and that GMs wouldn't railroad--a set of assumptions which came naturally to people whose entry to roleplaying was via the "parent hobbies" of board wargaming and miniatures.

"proto-CR?" Is that meant to describe "Task Resolution" as some sort of unevolved form of resolution system? The fact that people were using these approaches made them proto-CR users?  How about looking at it from the other angle - CR is just another name for something people have been doing for years?  If there were no specific rules, then we were free to do as we pleased.  Lo and behold, some of us did something not so different from what is now termed "Conflict Resolution."  Little did we know that we were just unevolved "Task Resolution" users slouching towards Bethlehem.

Many of us never were "board wargamers" or "minatures" players.  We just picked up the boxed D&D set cause it looked cool (and we just finished reading LOTR for the 20th time).  And holy crap look at those cool dice! We didn't need rules on how to "look at the intent of the task resolution." We played.  We figured out the best way to play for that group.  Then, later, when we switched groups, we switched styles (if necessary). Some times we rolled for every little thing - other times we didn't.  Sometimes we focused on every sword stroke, sometimes on getting to the pirate ship - and sometimes we did this in the very same game session. :eek: I'm amazed to think that between 7th and 12th grade, which as everyone knows is the height of maturity, we were able to find our way through a system without specific rules telling us how to play as a group.

One thing remained constant - and it's the one thing that is different between "Conflict Resolution" and "Task Resolution."  The GM was the final authority about what mecahnic was used, how it was used, and when it was applied. Was there discussion about this between players and GMs?  Sure. Did we rules-lawyer sometimes?  Who doesn't.  Did railroading take place?  Absolutley.  Did we learn from it? If not, we've no one to blame but ourselves.  What never happened was a player taking over the narrative control of the game - ever.  And that's what's really different about "Conflict Resolution" when used in it's correct form.

For those of you using "Conflict Resolution" as shorthand for a different slant on resolution, I'd suggest that you rethink this. If narrative control is not really a part of your system, then don't describe it as "Conflict Resolution."  Call it "Modified Resolution" or "Goal Resolution".  Better yet, let's get agreement that "Conflict Resolution" is really "Narrative Control Resolution" and you can go on using "Conflict Resolution."  But mixing these things, and then trying to draw a false distinction is just confusing, misleading, and wrong.

Feanor, I think you've got me wrong. I won't address your entire rant, though. I'd suggest you reread my posts to this thread as coming from someone who actually prefers "Task Resolution" and is just trying to figure out the attraction of (mechanical, rules-based) "Conflict Resolution" for people who espouse it.

Urgh, let me talk about this, though:

Quote from: Feanor"proto-CR?" Is that meant to describe "Task Resolution" as some sort of unevolved form of resolution system?

No. What it means is you might have task resolution rules and then, in the book, tell the GM something like, "When a player wants to accomplish some goal, have the player test an appropriate ability, applying a difficulty modifier as appropriate. Be sure the player is clear about the goal he wants to accomplish before rolling. If the player rolls successfully, then the goal is accomplished." That would be "proto-CR", or really proto-mechanical-CR. I've seen it in a couple places. E.g., John Harper in a 1994 description of Talislanta (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.misc/msg/03ead5eb91776f5b) (skip down to the part about INTENT). Or when I was playing Dead of Night with the co-author, Merwin S., I noticed that whenever a player said he was going to do something, Merwin would try to zero in on the intent or goal of the action. There was an understanding that goals had to be limited in scope, but if one was successful, the goal would be achieved. This is what I mean by "proto-(mecahnical)-CR".

By contrast the way I'm used to playing is to not focus on goals but instead to execute tasks based on a faith in shared understanding of how the consequences of those tasks would be determined. For example I once played an illusionist in a Rolemaster game who was captured (along with the rest of the party) by a group of barbarians. Through roleplaying I learned the barbarian chieftain was suspicious of sorcerers whom he believed were in consort with "lizards". So I pretended to do a bad job of denying any connection to lizards, I surreptitiously cast illusions of giant lizards sneaking around the barbarian camp, and eventually our captors freaked out and ran away. Did I explicitly declare my goal? I doubt it. Was it understood? Sort of--I don't remember if I had a specific outcome in mind or if I was just trying to mess with their heads, for lack of anything more effective in my arsenal. But everybody understood what the problem was, and the linkage between "successful spells" and "escaping captivity" was made somehow. We were friends, and we knew how each other thought, and what we'd enjoy.

Hey Feanor;

Quote from: FeanorHaving said that, I have only one question to ask - what is the need for Conflict Resolution as opposed to Task resolution?

This question has been answered, right?  You can see why some people might like "Conflict Resolution", or whatever anyone wants to call it, eh?

I was going to answer warren's post in detail but it all really boils down to a few basic things that are primarily issues of personal taste.

I tend to like the parts of the game that lots of other people consider boring.  It all goes back to my point about playing for in character experience rather than a story.  Like Chekov in the classic Star Trek episode Specre of the Gun, who was more interested in flirting with the girl than the OK Corral scenario the Melkotians had created for the crew, I often feel that the GM's scenario gets in the way of what I'm really interested in.  What you consider "awesome" probably isn't what I consider "awesome", and vice versa.  

I don't want quicker play.  As anyone who has role-played with me can tell you, I always say that things should take as long as they need to take in a game when people try to speed things up.  If I could have my way and had the free time, I'd play games in real time.  As such, I consider time compression a necessary evil, not something desirable that should be maximized.  Even when that means, in the 2-4 hour session weeknight game I play in (my normal game has 10-12 hour session) that nothing exciting happens or gets resolved.  

Ultimately, I'm looking for pacing closer to "real life" than a movie.  Why?  Because I play looking through my character's eyes and thinking in character and I want to experience my character's life as a "real life".  The pacing of a movie, TV show, or novel feels artificial from the inside.  See the movie The Truman Show for a good illustration of what it feels like to play an immersive character in a game being run like a TV show.

You mention, "Some CR systems give you more freedom to describe what happened ingame than TR systems."  The way many systems give you freedom to describe what happened is that the description is irrelevant to the outcome.  At that point, to me, the description is just a lot of fluff and a chore.  I'm more interested in the mental image of what's happening than cool narration and can find cool narration distracting.  That preference extends into the fiction I like.  I prefer authors with plain prose that disappears off the page and don't like authors who generate clever prose that makes the reader aware of they words they are reading.  I want description to be background, not foreground.

Giving the PCs and NPCs wants and needs to encourage interesting things to happen in a game is a technique that can be used with any role-playing game.  There are plenty of ways other to get that out of your game without it being hard-coded into the rules.  There is no reason why the advice used to craft adventures in conflict resolution games couldn't be applied to any conventional system.

Finally, some food for thought:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/0a219b7a29c3ad8a?dmode=source&hl=en

In particular, note Mary's analogy of "a garden" and "a bit of wild ground".  The sort of intense game you are talking about feels like a garden to me.  It's planned to be cool.  I'm looking for "a bit of wild ground" where any cool that I find isn't planned.  While you can plan something that looks like the wilderness, it's not the same thing as a real wilderness.

Quote from: LostSoulThe fact that it is a cliff influenced the conflict in this case.

Thanks for the example.  Not sure how that's radically different from a normal task resolution system, though.

Quote from: John MorrowThe way many systems give you freedom to describe what happened is that the description is irrelevant to the outcome.  At that point, to me, the description is just a lot of fluff and a chore.  I'm more interested in the mental image of what's happening than cool narration and can find cool narration distracting.

The description is the outcome for me.  The cool narration is what's happening.

Just differing tastes, I guess.

Feanor, I'd really like to see your opinion on this breakdown. It's the same as post #121; it describes the procedural differences between Task & Conflict resolution.

Task Resolution

Quote1.) A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He can keep it secret if he wants.

2.) A player 'translates' his desire into an appropriate (series) of tasks for his character - let's call that task Y ("I'll persuade him"). He has to tell the GM this.

3.) In order to perform Y, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to do Y. The GM might say that doing Y is automatically successful, and not require the mechanics to be applied; in which case the next step is skipped.

4.) The mechanic is applied and determines if the character does Y or not.

5.) The GM* describes what happened, taking into account the results of Y and the current situation. Or, if Y is failed, the GM* comes up with the consequences of failure (which could be "nothing happens", or it could be "take 10d6 falling damage", or whatever) and applies them. (You can see this as translating the effects of action Y back into "did X happen", if you like)

* Subnote: This can just be GM skills, or it can be GM + specific rules, like Bluff checks in D&D 3.5 or Persuasion in the James Bond RPG or whatever.

6.) Depending on how good the translation from X->Y->X went, the player may or may not have got his original X, even if he succeeded. In the case of failure, the consequences are not always known to the player when he started his action by telling the GM 'Y'.

EDIT: Sometimes, negotiation takes place here between the player & GM to make things 'line up' again. This process usually requires the player telling the GM what he wanted now, even if he kept it to himself during step 1.

Conflict Resolution

Quote1.) A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He has to tell the GM this.

2.) Another character (PC or NPC) must want to prevent or interfere with X by wanting Z ("I want to stay as rich as possible"). If not, we are done, the player gets X and somebody describes what happened.

3.) In order to obtain X against Z, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to obtain X against Z.

4.) The mechanic is applied and determines if the player gets X or not, as well as if the other guy gets his Z or not.

5.) The GM (or sometimes players, depending on system) describes what happened, taking into account the results of X & Z (and any other restrictions that steps 3 & 4 might apply).

See the difference?

Quote from: John MorrowI was going to answer warren's post in detail but it all really boils down to a few basic things that are primarily issues of personal taste.

Yeah, cool. It seems like we want very different things from our games. TR supports what you want, CR supports what I want.

Quote from: John MorrowGiving the PCs and NPCs wants and needs to encourage interesting things to happen in a game is a technique that can be used with any role-playing game.  There are plenty of ways other to get that out of your game without it being hard-coded into the rules.  There is no reason why the advice used to craft adventures in conflict resolution games couldn't be applied to any conventional system.

Yep, totally. I find it easier to do with a CR system, as that is what the rules focus on more, but as you say, it's totally possible to do with a TR system.

Cool - thanks for the discussion! :)

Quote from: LostSoul

Quote from: John MorrowThe way many systems give you freedom to describe what happened is that the description is irrelevant to the outcome. At that point, to me, the description is just a lot of fluff and a chore. I'm more interested in the mental image of what's happening than cool narration and can find cool narration distracting.

The description is the outcome for me. The cool narration is what's happening.

Same for me as well. But I'll totally accept it's a taste thing.

Again, short for time, but I wanted to at least make this clear...

Quote from: LostSoulHey Feanor;
This question has been answered, right?  You can see why some people might like "Conflict Resolution", or whatever anyone wants to call it, eh?

Nope...if you go back to that text again, you'll see the words "...as opposed to Task Resolution." In other words, why is there a need to draw such a hard distinction between the two?  Why not just agree that resolution mechanics occur at different levels of specificity and should be applied at the level agreed to by the group?

I'll tell you why, IMHO.  There's nothing sexy about that.  There's no "Look at our New and Improved Ultra Mechanic - Now with more FibltyBlurp!"  There's no way to set yourself apart and make a name.  Instead, you're just saying, "well, we had a problem with the groups interaction if we focused on each sword stroke, so we messed around and came up with this way to resolve things that has a little different approach..."

But that's not how most discussions of CR vs. TR came across.  Mind you, this disucssion has been fantastic.  I've only see a few hints of instances where someone from either side got into the mine-is-better-than-yours.  However, since the time I started lurking on sites about a year ago, trying to find some helpful theory, what I found were people defending an ideological position about one or the other.  Why the need?  Why opposition?

I'm going to go back to something I said before and you're probably tired of hearing (step away from the ignore list!).  Buried in the discussion of CR is a little referenced aspect - Narrative Control. Are people saying this is not part of CR? Perhaps. But then there are little hints about the real difference, like these:

Quote from: LostSoulThe description is the outcome for me.  The cool narration is what's happening.

Just differing tastes, I guess.

Quote from: warrenThe GM (or sometimes players, depending on system) describes what happened, taking into account the results of X & Z (and any other restrictions that steps 3 & 4 might apply).

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but both bolded portions seem to imply that something else is going on here as well.  Perhaps I'm reading too much into it - that in warren's, the application of steps 3 & 4 are enough to keep narrative control in the GM's hands, or that LostSoul's description is restricted by other circumstances, such as the GM fiat.

Now, let's say I'm wrong about my suspicions. Narrative Control has nothing to do with CR; CR facilitates Narrative Control "better" than TR; this leads to CR and NC to be paired far more often which, in turn, leads to the perception that CR and NC are linked when, really, they aren't. So no, Feanor, you paranoid dork, CR and NC are not linked - there is no conspiracy to avoid all  talk of Narrative Control when describing CR because we figure we can fool you all into using CR and THEN we'll spring the Narrative Control aspect - it will be too late for you all to turn back....

So, there's no specific link between NC and CR.  But if you determine that TR is the "traditional" method used for years, and then someone who played way-back-when says, "Well the stuff you describe as CR we were doing in 1980," then doesn't that call into question the TR/CR demarcation?  Didn't people using what has been termed as TR cover simimlar ground as the things now being called CR?  (Oh no, we're told - you had evolved past TR and moved into proto-CR and towards the enlightment that is proper role-playing, CR!  But I'll let that unintended insult pass, promise and go back to my original point) CR and TR, while different, are not distinct enough to warrant the hard line of differentiation that's been drawn (yes, warren, it makes sense, I do see where they are different, but in another post, I'll show you how they aren't).  Instead, CR and TR are just points on a spectrum of resolution mechanic tastes - and should be seen merely as shorthand for this.

This screen is giving me a headache and lunch calls to me from afar, or my stomachis growling - whichever...so have at me, I can take it :)

Quote from: FeanorMaybe I'm just paranoid, but both bolded portions seem to imply that something else is going on here as well.  Perhaps I'm reading too much into it - that in warren's, the application of steps 3 & 4 are enough to keep narrative control in the GM's hands, or that LostSoul's description is restricted by other circumstances, such as the GM fiat.

Yeah, it's totally a system-specific thing. So this:

Quote from: FeanorNow, let's say I'm wrong about my suspicions. Narrative Control has nothing to do with CR; CR facilitates Narrative Control "better" than TR; this leads to CR and NC to be paired far more often which, in turn, leads to the perception that CR and NC are linked when, really, they aren't. So no, Feanor, you paranoid dork, CR and NC are not linked - there is no conspiracy to avoid all  talk of Narrative Control when describing CR because we figure we can fool you all into using CR and THEN we'll spring the Narrative Control aspect - it will be too late for you all to turn back....

Is bang on.

Quote from: FeanorSo, there's no specific link between NC and CR.  But if you determine that TR is the "traditional" method used for years, and then someone who played way-back-when says, "Well the stuff you describe as CR we were doing in 1980," then doesn't that call into question the TR/CR demarcation?

As I said in an early post, every game has had conflicts in it (or that game is really, really dull) and those conflicts need to get resolved somehow (or else the game goes nowhere). You can either use "TR + GM skills" to do that (the "traditional" way), or the rules can resolve those conflicts directly (the CR way).

Quote from: FeanorCR and TR, while different, are not distinct enough to warrant the hard line of differentiation that's been drawn (yes, warren, it makes sense, I do see where they are different, but in another post, I'll show you how they aren't).

I'll look forward to it :)

Actually, I'd be very interested to see a (mechanical)-CR system which doesn't incorporate what Feanor calls giving "narrative control" to a player. Except perhaps for the trivial case where the conflict is "I want to succeed at this task."

Until I see such an example, I'm inclined to disagree with you about that, Warren. I do believe that mechanical CR is about narrative control, even if it's in the rudimentary form of being able enforce having your goals respected.

However, Feanor, I really wish you would not take my use of the term "proto-CR" as an insult. All I meant by it was that it contained a hint of the key feature in CR which CR-fans point to: a rule or guideline that enforces a mechanical linkage between the player's goal and the resolution system. I gave an example in my "illusionist captured by barbarians" story, and Warren's outline of TR is basically a diagram of how it worked. I didn't enunciate a specific goal, I just did stuff that I thought might work toward that goal, and the GM interpreted that stuff as causing other stuff to happen. It's possible the GM picked up on my intention, but the chain of causality was handled socially, not mechanically, and at most partly by me (to the degree I made the GM understand what I wanted to achieve and/or how I thought my actions might work out). Again, this is the type of gaming I'm most used to and which I tend to enjoy. It depends very strongly on social consensus--good communication, trust, and/or being on the same wavelength. (Whether that makes it superior or inferior to mechanical CR isn't something I want to go into in this thread.)

However, Warren, in your outline of CR, Z is not required. All you need to invoke CR is that someone wants X, and somebody else wants not-X.

Quote from: warren1. A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He can keep it secret if he wants.
1. A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He has to tell the GM this.

The only difference here seems to be whether or not the player must tell the GM. This is a bit of a straw man as a differentiation point as I don't know of a game I've personally played in where X wasn't known to all involved. Also, just as a niggling detail - the player doesn't want X, the player's character wants X.

Quote from: warren2. A player 'translates' his desire into an appropriate (series) of tasks for his character - let's call that task Y ("I'll persuade him"). He has to tell the GM this.
2. Another character (PC or NPC) must want to prevent or interfere with X by wanting Z ("I want to stay as rich as possible"). If not, we are done, the player gets X and somebody describes what happened.

This is where I claim the major point of contention lies - and I believe it's because there's a ton of stuff skipped in the latter.  What I mean is that when you state, for TR, that the player translates and you mention no translation for CR, you're missing something.

I know that you claim this is the difference. But I'd argue that in order for you to determine if another PC/NPC wants not-X (thanks Elliot) you must translate.  This translation might be simple, it might be complex, but it must take place in order to determine if there's a "conflict of interest" to be resolved.

So, let's assume that you've done the "implied translation" of CR and determined that nobody wants not-X, that you would just allow the player to attain X.  And I'm assuming you claim this is different than TR.  It's not.  Let's assume that in a TR situation, the player does the "explicit translation" and the GM determines that it's not important for there to be any opposition, guess what will happen - no dice will roll and the King will give it up.  In fact, in my limited, old, crabby, grey-haired, when-I-was-young-you-whipper-snappers experience, the "explicit tranlsation" was skipped if the GM saw no reason for opposition.

So, really, what you have, is the difference between implicit and explicit translation?  I'd go a step further and claim that the implied translation is actually talked out in CR as people are defining the conflict further.  As I've said in the past, I'm not even a novice when it comes to playing these games, but from what I've read (that's what Actual Play discussion is for, no?), there's all kinds of discussion in defining "I want X" - and that's the translation happening.

Quote from: warren3. In order to perform Y, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to do Y. (EDIT: the GM might say that doing Y is automatically successful, and not require the mechanics to be applied; in which case the next step is skipped).
3. In order to obtain X against Z, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to obtain X against Z.

Let's assume Elliot's not-X notation.  If this is the case, and you assume that Y is an opposed roll (that is, the translated-to-task is against someone else) these are the same.  Now these might seem like alot of caveats, but they are not. You might be tempted to say "But look at all the combat rolls - they're unopposed!" And you'd be wrong for a huge portion of "TR" games.  GURPS - all combat rolls are opposed.  D&D, it's optional.  The default is to assume a take 10 for the defender, but the DMG specifically provides for several options of opposed combat rolls.

Quote from: warren4. The mechanic is applied and determines if the character does Y or not.
4. The mechanic is applied and determines if the player gets X or not, as well as if the other guy gets his Z or not.

If we use not-X, There's nothing to see here folks - move along.

Quote from: warren5. The GM* describes what happened, taking into account the results of Y and the current situation. Or, if Y is failed, the GM* comes up with the consequences of failure (which could be "nothing happens", or it could be "take 10d6 falling damage", or whatever) and applies them. (You can see this as translating the effects of action Y back into "did X happen", if you like)
5. The GM (or sometimes players, depending on system) describes what happened, taking into account the results of X & Z (and any other restrictions that steps 3 & 4 might apply).

Again, other than tortured verbiage to make them seem different, these are really the same. Particulary, I would argue with the "GM comes up with the consequences" portion.  This is usually understood up front, or at least the risks of various consequences are known (1 of these 3 things could happen).  In both cases, the description is bounded by what was defined in previous steps.

Quote from: warren6. Depending on how good the translation from X->Y->X went, the player may or may not have got his original X, even if he succeeded. In the case of failure, the consequences are not always known to the player when he started his action by telling the GM 'Y'.

Though you placed this under TR, I would argue that this is the same for CR depending on how much the GM and player(s) agree to in front of the resolution mechanic coupled with the specificity of that resolution

And, ignoring Narrative Control, this is it.  Again, my point is that they are not all that different from each other - at least not enough for the line of distinction that has been drawn; certainly not enough for the word 'versus'.

That is, of course, ignoring Narrative Control.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, Feanor, I really wish you would not take my use of the term "proto-CR" as an insult. All I meant by it was that it contained a hint of the key feature in CR which CR-fans point to: a rule or guideline that enforces a mechanical linkage between the player's goal and the resolution system.

As I said, Elliot, I'm going to let this pass - I'm not really insulted.  I only brought it up because I think sometimes people forget what can be taken as an insult. I see people shocked, after they say something, to find others defensive about it, and they never realize that what they said could easily be taken as an insult.

Now I don't think you meant to be insulting - not in the least.  It's just a bit of an idiosyncrasy with me, at least tangentially; related to the reason I would spend so much time discussing the meaning of Conflict and Task when used to describe resolution mechanics. My apologies if you were upset by my idiosyncrasy.

I think you're right; narrative control is what "Conflict Resolution" is about.

You could hand out the actual narration in different ways, depending on the system.  The GM could do it; the person who rolled highest could do it; the guy who got the single highest value on a card or die could do it; or something else.  But in any case, the narration has to incorporate the player's intent.

In the orcs + cliff example, the player is saying "I catch up to the orcs" and when he rolls successfully, yes, he does catch up to the orcs.  The GM can't say, "Okay, you climb the cliff, and from this vantage point you see the orcs getting on horseback.  You'll never catch them now."  Nope, sorry GM; the player has, through the roll, established that he will catch up to them.

I think that Task Resolution does offer a degree of narrative control as well... but it's more limited.  Limited to how well a character does something.

Quote from: LostSoulIn the orcs + cliff example, the player is saying "I catch up to the orcs" and when he rolls successfully, yes, he does catch up to the orcs.  The GM can't say, "Okay, you climb the cliff, and from this vantage point you see the orcs getting on horseback.  You'll never catch them now."  Nope, sorry GM; the player has, through the roll, established that he will catch up to them.

I think part of my problem with these examples is that I consider that scenario entirely legitimate and even fun.  If my character sets off to catch the orcs, it's entirely possible that he doesn't know if he could catch them or not.  So climbing the cliff after them and watching them get onto their horses to flee is the point at which my character would realize that he won't catch the orcs and that the orcs had executed a well-planned attack that allowed them to escape.  I see nothing wrong with that.  Why go through that whole process if there is no way I can capture the orcs?  To experience the situation as my character does -- the hope of catching up to the orcs followed by the realization, after climbing a cliff, that he never will and that the orcs had planned their attack well.

I'll deal with this first:

Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, Warren, in your outline of CR, Z is not required. All you need to invoke CR is that someone wants X, and somebody else wants not-X.

Yes, it's not required. But it's a good idea to have an "active" opposing goal, as it means whatever the outcome of the roll, something interesting happens. Contrast:

PC: "I want to catch up to the Orcs". NPC Orc Chief: "I DON'T want anybody to catching up with me". If the PC loses, what happens? Nothing. The PC fails to catch up. The game goes nowhere.

PC: "I want to catch up to the Orcs". NPC Orc Chief: "I want my men to ambush anybody following us". If the PC loses, what happens? The PC fails to catch up and is jumped by some angry Orcs. That moves the game on and keeps the tempo up.

But yeah, you can read Z as not-X and nothing will really break. I'll keep with "not-X" opposition for the rest of my examples, for clarity.

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warren1. A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He can keep it secret if he wants.
1. A player wants X to happen ("I want to get the King to give my church money"). He has to tell the GM this.

The only difference here seems to be whether or not the player must tell the GM. This is a bit of a straw man as a differentiation point as I don't know of a game I've personally played in where X wasn't known to all involved. Also, just as a niggling detail - the player doesn't want X, the player's character wants X.

On the character thing; yeah, my mistake. But you say "I don't know of a game I've personally played in where X wasn't known to all involved." I only pointed this out because as Brian Gleichman said earlier in the thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=24046&postcount=78):

Quote from: GleichmanIf 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.

That reminded me that not all people who use TR want to announce their intent to the table.

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warren2. A player 'translates' his desire into an appropriate (series) of tasks for his character - let's call that task Y ("I'll persuade him"). He has to tell the GM this.
2. Another character (PC or NPC) must want to prevent or interfere with X by wanting Z ("I want to stay as rich as possible"). If not, we are done, the player gets X and somebody describes what happened.

This is where I claim the major point of contention lies - and I believe it's because there's a ton of stuff skipped in the latter. What I mean is that when you state, for TR, that the player translates and you mention no translation for CR, you're missing something.

I know that you claim this is the difference. But I'd argue that in order for you to determine if another PC/NPC wants not-X (thanks Elliot) you must translate. This translation might be simple, it might be complex, but it must take place in order to determine if there's a "conflict of interest" to be resolved.

Now, this is where we disagree. I have an PC who tells me the goal "I to evade the Baron's men". The GM can look at his NPC and say, "I want my men to find the PC". There is no translation there, IMHO, just little more than negation.

(Admittedly, If you go further and set Z to be more than not-X, which is usually a good idea as I said above, you have to look at what the NPC wants, but you don't have to consider what he is going to do about it at all, so I still think that there isn't any translation here)

On the other hand, a player might state his action is "I am going to climb that tree". They might say "because I want to evade the Baron's men" (but I guess that Gleichman wouldn't want to) to make things clearer. I think that requires an (albeit minor) translation from "evade men"->"climb tree".

Quote from: FeanorSo, really, what you have, is the difference between implicit and explicit translation? I'd go a step further and claim that the implied translation is actually talked out in CR as people are defining the conflict further. As I've said in the past, I'm not even a novice when it comes to playing these games, but from what I've read (that's what Actual Play discussion is for, no?), there's all kinds of discussion in defining "I want X" - and that's the translation happening.

I wouldn't say it's "translation" (in the way I am using it to go from goal->action), but clarifying of goals does happen in some cases.

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warren3. In order to perform Y, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to do Y. (EDIT: the GM might say that doing Y is automatically successful, and not require the mechanics to be applied; in which case the next step is skipped).
3. In order to obtain X against Z, something in the mechanics determines the chances of success of the character to obtain X against Z.

Let's assume Elliot's not-X notation. If this is the case, and you assume that Y is an opposed roll (that is, the translated-to-task is against someone else) these are the same. Now these might seem like alot of caveats, but they are not. You might be tempted to say "But look at all the combat rolls - they're unopposed!" And you'd be wrong for a huge portion of "TR" games. GURPS - all combat rolls are opposed. D&D, it's optional. The default is to assume a take 10 for the defender, but the DMG specifically provides for several options of opposed combat rolls.

Yeah, pretty much. The details may differ, but I agree in general.

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warren4. The mechanic is applied and determines if the character does Y or not.
4. The mechanic is applied and determines if the player gets X or not, as well as if the other guy gets his Z or not.

If we use not-X, There's nothing to see here folks - move along.

Fair enough, but as I have said above, Z doesn't just have to be not-X.

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warren5. The GM* describes what happened, taking into account the results of Y and the current situation. Or, if Y is failed, the GM* comes up with the consequences of failure (which could be "nothing happens", or it could be "take 10d6 falling damage", or whatever) and applies them. (You can see this as translating the effects of action Y back into "did X happen", if you like)
5. The GM (or sometimes players, depending on system) describes what happened, taking into account the results of X & Z (and any other restrictions that steps 3 & 4 might apply).

Again, other than tortured verbiage to make them seem different, these are really the same. Particulary, I would argue with the "GM comes up with the consequences" portion. This is usually understood up front, or at least the risks of various consequences are known (1 of these 3 things could happen). In both cases, the description is bounded by what was defined in previous steps.

OK, but my experiences with TR differed. When I played (and when I GMed) I didn't often make sure the consequences were explictly understood before the roll. But yeah, I'll buy that these are otherwise similar. For example, with the goals given above, the consequences for a CR failure would be "get discovered by the Baron's men". What are the concequences for failing to climb a tree? 10' falling damage? The Baron's men spotting you? Something else? All of the above?

Quote from: Feanor

Quote from: warren6. Depending on how good the translation from X->Y->X went, the player may or may not have got his original X, even if he succeeded. In the case of failure, the consequences are not always known to the player when he started his action by telling the GM 'Y'.

Though you placed this under TR, I would argue that this is the same for CR depending on how much the GM and player(s) agree to in front of the resolution mechanic coupled with the specificity of that resolution

I'm not sure what you are saying here. If the players stated goal was "I want to evade the Baron's men", and he gets a success under a CR system, he has done it, and evaded them somehow. There is no way around that fact. Also, depending on the system, the PC might have climbed a tree, or hidden in long grass, or changed outfits with a passing peasant, or whatever, (that all depends on the specifc narration) but in any case, he has got away from the Baron's men.

On the other hand, if the players stated action is "I want to climb that tree" and he gets a success, the GM could say "You climb the tree, but the Baron's men see you doing it and ride towards you." Now, of course, the player can say "But I wanted to get away from them!" and things can be fudged around here, but I personally dislike doing that as both a GM and as a player.

Quote from: FeanorAnd, ignoring Narrative Control, this is it. Again, my point is that they are not all that different from each other - at least not enough for the line of distinction that has been drawn; certainly not enough for the word 'versus'.

Yeah, I think I would agree :) It is a different (not neccesarily new) way of looking at things, I think, but probably not enough for 'versus'. I'm a bit surprised by the reaction people have when you say "Conflict Resolution", to be honest.

Quote from: LostSoulI think you're right; narrative control is what "Conflict Resolution" is about.

I think we are using "narrative control" to mean different things.

Quote from: LostSoulYou could hand out the actual narration in different ways, depending on the system.  The GM could do it; the person who rolled highest could do it; the guy who got the single highest value on a card or die could do it; or something else.

This "who gets to narrate" is what I consider to be "narrative control". CR is a good match for it, but certainly doesn't require it.

Quote from: LostSoulBut in any case, the narration has to incorporate the player's intent.

In the orcs + cliff example, the player is saying "I catch up to the orcs" and when he rolls successfully, yes, he does catch up to the orcs.  The GM can't say, "Okay, you climb the cliff, and from this vantage point you see the orcs getting on horseback.  You'll never catch them now."  Nope, sorry GM; the player has, through the roll, established that he will catch up to them.

This isn't what I consider narrative control. It is certainly what CR is all about, however.

Quote from: LostSoulI think that Task Resolution does offer a degree of narrative control as well... but it's more limited.  Limited to how well a character does something.

Going on what you mean by narrative control, I agree with this. Look at John Kim's example from Persuasion in the James Bond 007 RPG (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=24369&postcount=104), or the explict and mechanical effects of Bluff or Intimidate in D&D3.5. The effects of a certain roll have definaite impact on the game, which the GM can't overrule.

(Crossed posted with Warren)

John, I don't see a problem with that example because it perfectly illustrates why you won't have fun with CR: because it does give at least a small amount of narrative control over "the world" to the player, which the character doesn't have. (Again, if there's a counter example, I'd like to see it.)

To go back to my illusionist example again, I might not even have been trying to escape at all. Maybe my illusionist was just trying to discomfit his captors out of spite or mischief. In that case, the outcome "you escape" came entirely from the GM, and that's fine. Now from my perspective this doesn't mean the GM was "in control of the plot". It just means I was doing something to affect the game-world, and my action was rewarded by having something else interesting occur. At the end of the day we could turn it into a story about how I saved the party but the idea of a goal didn't even have to enter into it.

A more extreme example would be something like a character sneaking around the enemy camp, tasting the enemy captain's dinner, mistakenly pouring alum instead of salt onto the potatoes before running away to avoid a guard, and unintentionally causing an argument that results in the cook killing the captain.

To achieve something like this, either the GM has to exercise "narrative control" or the player does--there's basically no way to go from the character's intentions, whatever they were, as expressed via the tasks attempted/performed, to the outcome. But furthermore, if the player's intention was to kill the captain, and the player "won the conflict", then even if the GM narrates the result, the fact that the GM has to conform to the player's intentions means that the player does, in fact, exert narrative control.

Quote from: warrenI think we are using "narrative control" to mean different things.

Probably. :)  I am taking it to mean, "Who gets input on what happens in the game."  That is different from who actually says (that is, narrates) what happens.  When you state your intent, and hit the mechanics to determine if you achieve your intent, you have input on what is actually said (or narrated).

So: you have control over the narrative by using Conflict Resolution.

I do think that there is "narrative control" in Task Resolution: "Do I climb the cliff?"  "Do I open the safe?"  It's just that it's a lot more limited.  "Yes, you climb the cliff, but the orcs are already gone."  Here, you have input over whether or not your PC can climb the cliff, but not over whether or not you catch up to the orcs.

To put it another way, the GM can't say that you didn't climb the cliff.  He doesn't have that authority; you made the roll, you climbed the cliff.  He can say that you don't catch up to the orcs.

Quote from: John MorrowI think part of my problem with these examples is that I consider that scenario entirely legitimate and even fun.

That's not what I find fun, but tastes differ, so it's cool.

I'm glad we agree on Narrative Control as being the real reason to differentiate.  However, I would disagree that the following is strictly a function of the one or the other (CR/TR that is):

Quote from: LostSoulIn the orcs + cliff example, the player is saying "I catch up to the orcs" and when he rolls successfully, yes, he does catch up to the orcs.  The GM can't say, "Okay, you climb the cliff, and from this vantage point you see the orcs getting on horseback.  You'll never catch them now."  Nope, sorry GM; the player has, through the roll, established that he will catch up to them.

Player: "I strike the knave with my rapier."
GM:"The knave does not wish to be hit, so he dodges left. Roll."
Player Rolls, GM rolls for knave.  Player wins.
Player: "I strike him in the shoulder"
GM:"Well, you swing and your rapier seems to connect. But really the point passes through his sleeve."

And I quote: "Nope, sorry GM; the player has, through the roll, established that he will [strike the knave]."

In any game, the GM going back on what the roll represents would be seen as a major malfunction.  The fact that one group would play at a level of "I want to catch the orcs!" and another would play at a level of "I want to swing my rapier and strike the knave!" doesn't change that fact.  It is interesting to note that many believe only CR prevents this.  The only difference in the two is whether the rapier swing or the catching-up-to-the-orcs is "proteted" from GM railroading. This doesn't require mutually exclusive resolution mechanics.  People like to play at different levels of detail, and that no matter which they prefer, the resolution system must be respected by all players, including the GM.

That's an interesting point.  I'll have to think about that one.

Quote from: LostSoulThat's an interesting point.  I'll have to think about that one.

Quote from: LostSoulTo put it another way, the GM can't say that you didn't climb the cliff.  He doesn't have that authority; you made the roll, you climbed the cliff.  He can say that you don't catch up to the orcs.

Actually, it looks to me like you already have been thinking it :)

Here's the difference I see, Feanor. In the rapier example, in most RPGs (D&D, BRP, GURPS, for example), the rules spell out exactly what it means to succeed on a to-hit roll. You find the location, roll damage, subtract armor, determine injury effects mathematically, etc. In that sense, combat is both task resolution and a very constrained form of mechanical CR.

The point of distinguishing CR from TR though isn't to say that some games use one or the other exclusively, but to identify their use in various instances. (Yes, you can later try to write games that exclusively use CR, but you have to go through the step of identifying CR first.) In the orc example, we can say with certainty that the mechanic of rolling to climb the cliff wasn't CR, certainly not with respect to the issue of catching up to the orcs. Instead the conflict was resolved by the GM's determining that the orcs were already on the move.

From that observation you can then look at ways that "catching up to the orcs" can be mechanically resolved. It's not likely that you will have a "catch up to orcs" skill but if the game has one, you can say that CR & TR are the same in that instance, just as with the rapier example, in the sense that the conflict is directly resolved through mechanical application of the task system. More likely you might have a Pursuit or Tracking skill that is defined to allow "catching up" with your quarry on a successful roll.  And again, the conflict would be resolved through the mechanics.

But if not then you might want a general system to accomplish things that aren't precisely defined by tasks and without relying on GM-judgments and calculations that aren't defined by the rules. In that case the general system at least has to transition to the concept of "accomplishing goals via task + intent".

If you also build in the idea of focusing resolution around character conflicts, then you're in the realm of full-on CR.

That, for the love of Christ, is what Eero said in the thread I linked to about fifty pages back.

Possibly. The nice thing about this place is that people explain things in the context of the discussion instead of pointing to old threads and quotes and expecting the reader to hunt down the meaning and extrapolate all the ramifications that the linker believes are present.

Additionally; RPGs are fun. Things related to RPGs should be fun. Reading that post and parsing it for English meaning is, for myself, not fun.

I read the whole damn thing and nodded along, then realized that I simply had no idea what he was trying to say. It's like an algebra lesson that ends with "and THAT'S why horses can't go to college".

Let's put it on the table.

The players are resting at the bottom of a cliff after tracking a band of mercenaries for days – ever since they kidnapped the child of an important personage.  The players are pretty sure they can actually see the mercenaries peering over the precipice.  The GM would like the characters to chase the mercenaries back across the border, as that's where the remainder of the overarching plot is to be resolved.  He's actually going to have the mercenaries tease and taunt the characters to keep them on the chase.  The GM has prepared for the players doing the unexpected, as the best he can. However, the only thing that the GM would prefer not happen is that the characters catch the mercenaries until at least the border is in site.  He's prepared contingencies for that possibility, but they seem too much like railroading to him and he'd prefer not to go that route.

This is a very traditional setup for what would be deemed a "Task Resolution" game.  There may be several conflicts that exist (at least in the way "Conflict Resolution" is often used in discussion); the characters don't like the person from whom the child was kidnapped, but are duty-bound to pursue the kidnappers; the characters want to avoid a war, so they are not sure if they will cross the border to save the child.

Let us assume a player states, "I want to catch up to the mercenaries."

In the "Task Resolution" game, it depends on what level of specificity the resolution mechanics are applied.  In a granular game (most D&D or GURPS games, I'd wager) the GM and player might break down this goal into the component goals that better fit the resolution system.  Knowing this, the GM has already decided that in goal three of the six needed to "catch the mercenaries," the mercenaries would move out. This is the case in our example as the GM has already determined that the mercenaries are toying with the characters, attempting to lure them on. In a rules-light game, the GM may just rely on luck and preparation. The task is catching the mercenaries, and if the character succeeds, then the GM has a few other methods up his sleeve of steering the plot in the direction he desires – methods that do not violate the sanctity of the resolution.  Please note that in this case, if "Conflict Resolution" were really about resolution, "Task Resolution" would equal "Conflict Resolution."

In a "Conflict Resolution" Game, none of what I've just written matters. In truth, this entire scenario is probably not even allowed.  Why? Too much of the narrative/plot/story has already been decided by the GM. Too many conflicts have already been defined without the players input.

The original statement of goal itself has no meaning, at least according to the Eero explanation, it requires more. Why do you want to catch up to the mercenaries? Do you want to avoid a war? Do you want to prove your honor by saving the kidnapped child even though you dislike the parent?  And most importantly, it doesn't matter whether or not the GM wants the players to catch the mercenaries or not.  If the player states "I want to catch up with the mercenaries," the GM must allow for this.  The GM could require mechanics applied to determine if it takes place; this is still allowing for the possibility that the player character catches up to the mercenaries – something the GM, in our example, did not want to happen.

Let us assume that the player states "I want to catch up to the mercenaries to avoid the war."

Now we have "Meaning," so according to Eero, we have conflict. The argument goes that "Task Resolution" as a mechanic only deals with the first part of the statement, the part that, according to Eero, doesn't have meaning.  In "Task Resolution," according to everything I've read to date, there is no mechanical resolution for avoiding the war, only for catching up to the mercenaries. In "Task Resolution," the GM would decide if the war is avoided.

However, since we've agreed that "Task Resolution" can be used to resolve "tasks" as specific as a sword stroke or as broad as a battle, the "Task Resolution" GM could allow for the roll to include "avoid the war" as part of the consequences.  If the player succeeds, the war is avoided.  If the player fails, the war begins.  Suddenly, "Task Resolution" has addressed the "Premise-weight" that changed the original statement to a "conflict." So, I assert, it's not even about whether or not the desired goal of the player-character includes "Premise" or "Meaning" or any of another dozen capitalized words that mean "it's not just a task."

The issue is whether or not the GM can say "You caught up to them before the border, but soldiers of the army of your sworn enemy mistake your approach as an attack and counter with a massive swarm of arrows – the War has begun."  So the difference is that in "Conflict Resolution" the GM is required to allow the player to introduce, through statement of desired actions/goals, a part of the fiction and that the GM abide by that narrative direction once successfully introduced. Once the player adds "to avoid a war," the GM has only two options – allow it, or apply mechanics to determine if it occurs or not (the "Say Yes or Roll" approach).

It's interesting that even in Eero's explanation, he seems to avoid the basic element of narrative control, hiding it behind terms like "introduce and resolve conflicts," and mixes things up with terms like "Premise-weight."  In one breath, he says, "the distinction between conflict and task is not about f***ing scale or stakes or anything at all," but then says in the very next breath, "it's about story meaning only."  No, it's about who gets to create the story.  Eero starts with a blatant Truth – "A story is good if it has good conflicts, it's that simple."  But the next statement, "Conflict resolution rules, as they are called, allow us to introduce and resolve conflicts, and thus create a good story," is only true in circumstances if you assume the "us" refers to players. If the "us" includes the GM, you're back to traditional resolution.  You are back to a situation in which the GM and players, to the extent your play style provides, introduce conflicts and together resolve them.

So, with all due respect, if your system, no matter what you want to call it, allows the GM final authority over narrative control, it's not "Conflict Resolution," it's a variation on "Task Resolution." If your GM can say no, it's not "Conflict Resolution."

PS: It wouldn't be fair to ride Elliot for the "proto-CR" reference without pointing out what could be taken as an amazingly snobbish insult in the last quote I cited from Eero.  If you're not using "Conflict Resolution" you're not capable of "creat[ing] a good story"?  Are you kidding me?

Quote from: droogThat, for the love of Christ, is what Eero said in the thread I linked to about fifty pages back.

Looks like it.  But now I get it!

This thread was, for me, an instance of "saying it for yourself."  The issues that Feanor brought up challenged my old beliefs, which is cool.

Quote from: FeanorSo, with all due respect, if your system, no matter what you want to call it, allows the GM final authority over narrative control, it's not "Conflict Resolution," it's a variation on "Task Resolution." If your GM can say no, it's not "Conflict Resolution."

Sweet.  That changes how I saw Conflict Resolution, but I think I have a better grasp on it now.  Thanks. :)

Quote from: FeanorPS: It wouldn't be fair to ride Elliot for the "proto-CR" reference without pointing out what could be taken as an amazingly snobbish insult in the last quote I cited from Eero.  If you're not using "Conflict Resolution" you're not capable of "creat[ing] a good story"?  Are you kidding me?

I think what he means by "you" is "the group".  If the GM is the final authority over narrative control, then the group cannot create a good story.  Only the GM can.  (I have a feeling that this could be a whole other issue.)

Feanor, that's a great analysis. But do you also see what I'm talking about, in terms of linking intent to outcomes? Particularly since "conflicts" are a matter of subjective perception, I think it's easy to stumble if you go straight to talking about "Premise" (or most any other Forge-speak, which I'd just as soon avoid).

Let's just say there is an identified conflict--the PC wants something, and the GM doesn't want to just give it to him. Then if the outcome of the conflict is arrived at through mechanical resolution, we have an instance of conflict resolution. It really doesn't matter what the scale is, as long as we consider the issue in doubt to be a "conflict" and it gets resolved mechanically.

Sure, the "conflict" could actually be part of a larger macro-conflict, and that conflict in turn might not be resolved mechanically. That's important for a reason I'll get to in a second. But if we restrict our scope to the "conflict" at hand, we can see how it's possible to resolve it in a way that mechanically forces everyone to respect the player's intent. That's very different from a situation where there's no mechanical linkage between the intent behind a action and the outcome that results.

However, you're absolutely right to point to the scale issue when you look at the game as a whole. If instances of "conflict resolution" are separated by stretches where events occur purely according to the GM's judgment or whim, or if the scope of "conflict resolution" is restricted to whatever scale the GM allows ("You can roll to catch the mercenaries, but not to stop the war"), or even if the GM has the power to set the borders of resolution ("You can roll the catch the mercenaries, but if you're successful you have to make a separate roll to stop the war."), then on the whole the GM is still exercising a lot of narrative control. At most the GM is sharing control of "the story". But there's no guarantee that control will be shared except if you put more power in the players' hands to define the conflicts which allow them to mechanically enforce their intent. That in turn means handing over narrative control to the players.

Edit: the more I look at Feanor's post and mine, the more mine looks like a gloss of what he's saying. Still, I hope it helps clarify--and if there's something Feanor or anyone else disagrees with, I'd like to hear it.

Quote from: Elliot WilenFeanor, that's a great analysis. But do you also see what I'm talking about, in terms of linking intent to outcomes? Particularly since "conflicts" are a matter of subjective perception, I think it's easy to stumble if you go straight to talking about "Premise" (or most any other Forge-speak, which I'd just as soon avoid).

First - Thanks, I try...

Second - I wasn't the one who went straight to "Premise," that would be the person to whom droog linked, Eero.

Quoteconflicts are caused by the artist (players) perceiving premise-weight in a task. That premise-weight is our problem, and the reason for the need to differentiate between task and conflict resolution

Eero is saying that "Premise" is the entire reason for differentiating the two.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLet's just say there is an identified conflict--the PC wants something, and the GM doesn't want to just give it to him. Then if the outcome of the conflict is arrived at through mechanical resolution, we have an instance of conflict resolution. It really doesn't matter what the scale is, as long as we consider the issue in doubt to be a "conflict" and it gets resolved mechanically.

Sure, the "conflict" could actually be part of a larger macro-conflict, and that conflict in turn might not be resolved mechanically. That's important for a reason I'll get to in a second. But if we restrict our scope to the "conflict" at hand, we can see how it's possible to resolve it in a way that mechanically forces everyone to respect the player's intent. That's very different from a situation where there's no mechanical linkage between the intent behind a action and the outcome that results.

See, this is where it all comes apart for me. You might like the term "Conflict," but the ability to address this situation is not completely exclusive to "Conflict Resolution." It all depends upon on you, as a group, determine where and when to apply the mechanics, and what will be the risk/reward of the result.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHowever, you're absolutely right to point to the scale issue when you look at the game as a whole. If instances of "conflict resolution" are separated by stretches where events occur purely according to the GM's judgment or whim, or if the scope of "conflict resolution" is restricted to whatever scale the GM allows ("You can roll to catch the mercenaries, but not to stop the war"), or even if the GM has the power to set the borders of resolution ("You can roll the catch the mercenaries, but if you're successful you have to make a separate roll to stop the war."), then on the whole the GM is still exercising a lot of narrative control. At most the GM is sharing control of "the story". But there's no guarantee that control will be shared except if you put more power in the players' hands to define the conflicts which allow them to mechanically enforce their intent. That in turn means handing over narrative control to the players.

Which is exactly my point. If you really want a guarantee, then you require the GM is not sole arbiter of the story.  Otherwise, you must trust in the GM to share/retain control in the proper balance (and apply mechanics accordingly).  And there's your real difference between the two.

Quote from: FeanorSee, this is where it all comes apart for me. You might like the term "Conflict," but the ability to address this situation is not completely exclusive to "Conflict Resolution." It all depends upon on you, as a group, determine where and when to apply the mechanics, and what will be the risk/reward of the result.
..................................
Which is exactly my point. If you really want a guarantee, then you require the GM is not sole arbiter of the story.  Otherwise, you must trust in the GM to share/retain control in the proper balance (and apply mechanics accordingly).  And there's your real difference between the two.

That, as Eero points out, is why Sorcerer causes problems. The conflict resolution system is disguised as GM advice for what tasks to put forward.

Nice work, Feanor and Elliot. I'm sorry if just posting the link wasn't the right thing to do, but I didn't think I could really make his ideas more succinct. How about we post some detailed analyses of how various games break down in how they handle tasks and conflicts (and whether conflicts are in fact important in that game)? Some edge cases might be interesting.

Quote from: droogThat, as Eero points out, is why Sorcerer causes problems. The conflict resolution system is disguised as GM advice for what tasks to put forward.

I don't get what you're saying here.  Can you expand on it?  (I've got Sorcerer, so I can look stuff up.)

Sorcerer, mechanically, uses task res (as Eero points out). But for narrativist play, you must introduce and resolve conflicts. Players don't have abilities to do so in Sorcerer as compared with, say, Primetime Adventures.

Feanor said:

QuoteWhich is exactly my point. If you really want a guarantee, then you require the GM is not sole arbiter of the story. Otherwise, you must trust in the GM to share/retain control in the proper balance (and apply mechanics accordingly). And there's your real difference between the two.

So in Sorcerer, the traditional strong GM role is retained. But as Feanor points out, that doesn't guarantee that conflicts you have a stake in will be introduced and resolved. That's where the GM advice comes in.

The GM is supposed to base his preparation for play on the player's Kicker (and the diagram on the back of the sheet), and to drive play, by throwing appropriate tasks (ie Bangs) at the player to resolve. Thus, while it is often the GM who introduces tasks, these tasks, by the rules, are aimed at the player-written Kicker (the big, overarching conflict).

This can break down. The player might write a Kicker he's not really interested in, the GM's prep might not properly use the material the player writes, etc. Basically, the text of Sorcerer is a kind of transitional document, and some people find it difficult to interpret.

I was going to put it a little differently: to see Sorcerer as having CR, you basically have to include the GM advice, "Don't railroad", as part of the rules. Which, for a lot of people, isn't really revolutionary.

What is different, and which is causing some quibbling between me and Feanor, is the inclusion of "Premise" as part of CR. You can take this from a bunch of different angles. First there's the approach you bring up, the idea that the GM should use the PC's Kicker to generate situations that can be resolved through the task system. This turns all the task resolution into CR, unambiguously by Eero's conception, since the tasks genuinely resolve stuff, and that stuff is connected to the big, overarching conflict that the player's interested in.

Then there's a more freeform approach, which simply says that whatever a player frames as an intent must ipso facto be an important conflict, and therefore a Premise. I don't think it's too important to get hung up over this bit of logical gamesmanship, except to note that the expanding/contracting definition of Premise is often key to the various Nar/Sim arguments people have. (And apologies for bringing in that jargon.)

The third viewpoint, which is the one I've basically been endorsing in this thread, is to just forget about Premise and concentrate on the "don't railroad" part of CR. In this respect, beyond the use of the Kicker, Sorcerer is completely traditional--meaning that it swerves between "don't railroad" and allowing for a great deal of GM manipulation in the interest of plot (even, if I'm not mistaken, planning ending scenes beforehand). Whereas full-blown CR works mechanically to prevent manipulation, or at least make it hard to hide, and the mechanical innovation of incorporating "intent" and allowing negotiation over scope is something that can be used whether or not you think in terms of "Premise". This isn't to say that CR comes without cost, though, as we've observed that there are different tastes in terms of how much narrative control a player wants to exert directly.

Quote from: droogSorcerer, mechanically, uses task res (as Eero points out). But for narrativist play, you must introduce and resolve conflicts. Players don't have abilities to do so in Sorcerer as compared with, say, Primetime Adventures.

Wait... I thought Sorcerer used Conflict Resolution (Eero's changed his mind on this point).  I don't see how it's not CR.

I guess my question is what mechanics in Sorcerer make it TR rather than CR?

(I'd also like to talk about resolution in D&D, and how you can tinker with it to get different results.)

Hmmm, I think Sorcerer uses an early form of mechnical CR. It's "action-scale", but (IIRC) you state intentions and only roll when there is a conflict of interest, which puts it squarely in the CR camp to me.

Personally, I think that Eero's "meaning" is not required for CR, and is a bit of a red herring.

To move D&D into a CR way of looking at things, I think you simply need to state goals for everybody up-front, only roll if there is a conflict of interest with another character, and make as many rolls as you can opposed. And hold to the results. Job done.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat is different, and which is causing some quibbling between me and Feanor, is the inclusion of "Premise" as part of CR.

Me?  Quibble? I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find you believe me a Quibbler! ;)

Quote from: Elliot WilenI don't think it's too important to get hung up over this bit of logical gamesmanship, except to note that the expanding/contracting definition of Premise is often key to the various Nar/Sim arguments people have. (And apologies for bringing in that jargon.)

The third viewpoint, which is the one I've basically been endorsing in this thread, is to just forget about Premise and concentrate on the "don't railroad" part of CR. In this respect, beyond the use of the Kicker, Sorcerer is completely traditional--meaning that it swerves between "don't railroad" and allowing for a great deal of GM manipulation in the interest of plot (even, if I'm not mistaken, planning ending scenes beforehand). Whereas full-blown CR works mechanically to prevent manipulation, or at least make it hard to hide, and the mechanical innovation of incorporating "intent" and allowing negotiation over scope is something that can be used whether or not you think in terms of "Premise". This isn't to say that CR comes without cost, though, as we've observed that there are different tastes in terms of how much narrative control a player wants to exert directly.

Elliot, I love you, man.  But the point I'm trying to get you to see is that there is no difference between the "don't railroad part of CR" and "Task Resolution."  People, myself among them, were playing the "don't railroad" CR for years before CR was ever spawned as a unique concept.  We had different methods, sometimes expanding scope, sometimes messing with Intent, sometimes even having the GM voluntarily relinquish narrative control (in an admittedly limited way).  Assuming I'm correctly understanding you as saying TR+Intent = CR, I think we actually agree on this point.

But I'm calling Bullocks on the rest.  You draw a line between this not-full-blown-CR and "full-blown CR." I'm saying you can't do that. That CR, by definition, is really about narrative control.  If you take that away, if GM keeps final authority in any way, it's not really CR anymore, it's modified TR. In fact, I claim that not-full-blown-CR has more in common with TR than it does with full-blown-CR!

I'm not an expert on Sorcerer - never played it, haven't seen the rules, and probably won't.  I'm too busy to even think about a new game now (my wife would kill me - it's hard enough getting time to peruse the rule books I have now). So I can't comment on that game and its system. But I wasn't trying to call out any specific game or system.  What I really wanted to know when I spawned this mess was the real difference between TR and CR and why there is such a hard line of distinction drawn between them to understand how choosing one or the other might affect my game design aspirations (that will probably, due to the aforementioned lack of time, never be fulfilled).

The conclusion I would draw from this nearly-two-hundred-post thread is that:

• You can use the "don't railroad" portion of CR without ever delving into forcing the GM to relinquish narrative control. You can do the same with TR (TR plus GM ability).
• You can use CR to help incorporate the players' intent into the resolution system without ever delving into forcing the GM to relinquish narrative control. You can do the same with TR (TR plus Intent plus GM-agreement-on-possible-narrative-impacts).
• You can use CR at various levels of resolution specificity to suit the group's style of play without ever delving into forcing the GM to relinquish narrative control. You can do the same with TR.
• You can use CR (the "full-blown CR" to which you refer), to force the GM to relinquish narrative control.  You can't do that in TR.

If in the first three examples, TR and CR can accomplish the same things, is there a need to draw a hard (often times, an implied mutually exclusive) distinction?

It might surprise some to see me write it, but I have absolutely no animosity, ill will, or sense of superiority over those games that require the GM to relinquish this control; to each his own. I just like words and concepts to have some sort of concrete foundation, and it always seemed to me that the way CR is tossed around in discussions, people are focusing on what really is TR plus GM ability, TR plus Intent, or modified TR specificity - the not-full-blown-CR. It's only in the last item where they truly differ – so let's call it what it is so we can all be clear.

Quote from: FeanorAssuming I'm correctly understanding you as saying TR+Intent = CR, I think we actually agree on this point.

I think so, too. At least that's a kind of CR advanced by the folks who talk about it. And you know, whatever we call it, it's kind a cool and/or different approach compared to narrowly interpreting tasks and leaving large amounts of in-game action to the GM's discretion. To go back to a common example:

QuotePlayer: I want to get into the treasury using my Sneak skill
GM: Okay, that's Difficult so you have to get a score of 4 on the dice.
Player: (Rolls) Hotcha, I did it!
GM: Okay, you're in. [Regardless of what the GM wants to have happen.]

is different from

QuotePlayer: I want to get into the treasury using my Sneak skill.
GM: Okay, roll.
Player: (Rolls) Crap, I didn't make it.
GM: [Doesn't want the player to fail.] As you climb along the roof, a loose tile falls and clatters on the group. A guard is sitting nearby and begins to look up from his post.
Player: I hit the deck and make a sound like a cat meowing. Then I throw a stone to make it sound like the cat is bounding off.
GM: Roll Hide augmented by Mimicry.
Player: (Rolls) Success!
GM: Okay, you're in.

Compare having a detailed map of the palace, guard locations marked, specific tasks noted to get past each obstacle, with consequences preplanned, etc. But, crucially, because having everything mapped out would leave nothing to improv, the GM would be forced to respect intent as expressed through task rolls and player decisions. I'm saying that compared to the first example, the mapping approach is just a higher level of detail in resolution. While in the second example, where the GM isn't really respecting dicerolls (or if you alter the scenario a bit, the GM could use similar tricks to avoid respecting intents), you have something qualitatively different.

QuoteBut I'm calling Bullocks on the rest.  You draw a line between this not-full-blown-CR and "full-blown CR."

Guilty. In fact I described "full-blown" or "full-on" CR in two ways:

1) Application of resolution purely in terms of character conflicts.
2) Explicit understanding that the player can achieve his intent, if he wins the conflict in terms of the mechanics. ("Can", because there might be situations where the player would change his mind partway through and not follow through on intent even after winning.)

In my defense, I'm not trying to turn those particular distinctions into hard definitions so much as identify the things that CR-advocates tend to put into their games. And also regardless of semantics ("full-on", "full-blown", "proto" or whatever) I do think those approaches are different from what I'm used to, which would be more like the "respect intents/don't railroad" and "map out ahead of time" methods.

I'll add a third point to "full blown", which is rarely seen, namely

3) Having explicit scope for all conflicts in the entire campaign, and/or allowing the player to define scope just as much as intent.

Candidates based on my reading of the rules or from comments on the net include My Life with Master, Trollbabe, Burning Empires. Maybe Primetime Adventures. (Of those, i've only actually read MLwM.)

QuoteI'm saying you can't do that. That CR, by definition, is really about narrative control.  If you take that away, if GM keeps final authority in any way, it's not really CR anymore, it's modified TR. In fact, I claim that not-full-blown-CR has more in common with TR than it does with full-blown-CR!

Again, I think once we leave the land of black & white definitions, we can see that there's a sliding scale. E.g., Dogs in the Vineyard doesn't say the GM has final authority (at least I don't think it does) but it does say the GM can discuss the stakes/scope of a conflict, encourage breaking a big conflict into smaller bits, etc. In short you can have shared authority which works through social interaction. And in fact many games are played this way regardless of what the rulebooks say--not only that, but one could argue games are always played this way (by virtue of the fact that the GM doesn't kidnap players off the street and strap them into their chairs).

Quote

• You can use the "don't railroad" portion of CR without ever delving into forcing the GM to relinquish narrative control. You can do the same with TR (TR plus GM ability). Yes--EW
  
• You can use CR to help incorporate the players' intent into the resolution system without ever delving into forcing the GM to relinquish narrative control. You can do the same with TR (TR plus Intent plus GM-agreement-on-possible-narrative-impacts).Yes but this implies a somewhat greater emphasis on working things out socially instead of relying on the GM in all cases.
  
• You can use CR at various levels of resolution specificity to suit the group's style of play without ever delving into forcing the GM to relinquish narrative control. You can do the same with TR.Yes, if by this you mean that the PCs may have significant but limited scope to affect things mechanically.
  
• You can use CR (the "full-blown CR" to which you refer), to force the GM to relinquish narrative control.  You can't do that in TR.I agree
  

[...]it always seemed to me that the way CR is tossed around in discussions, people are focusing on what really is TR plus GM ability, TR plus Intent, or modified TR specificity - the not-full-blown-CR. It's only in the last item where they truly differ – so let's call it what it is so we can all be clear.

Yes, I agree that there are a least four different things clustered under the CR label. And to complete the spectrum, you can add TR plus GM manipulation (all the time, everywhere), which is what people usually fall back on when they're trying to distinguish CR and TR.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThen there's a more freeform approach, which simply says that whatever a player frames as an intent must ipso facto be an important conflict, and therefore a Premise. I don't think it's too important to get hung up over this bit of logical gamesmanship, except to note that the expanding/contracting definition of Premise is often key to the various Nar/Sim arguments people have. (And apologies for bringing in that jargon.)

Yes, I think you're on to something. My hypothesis is that this attitude will come mainly from people playing games that thrust Premise ('meaning', what-have-you) to the forefront. It's difficult to make a move in a game of Dogs without making moral choices, because that's how it's built.

QuoteThe third viewpoint, which is the one I've basically been endorsing in this thread, is to just forget about Premise and concentrate on the "don't railroad" part of CR.... Whereas full-blown CR works mechanically to prevent manipulation, or at least make it hard to hide, and the mechanical innovation of incorporating "intent" and allowing negotiation over scope is something that can be used whether or not you think in terms of "Premise". This isn't to say that CR comes without cost, though, as we've observed that there are different tastes in terms of how much narrative control a player wants to exert directly.

I think that if you define it this way you run into all the problems of this thread. So what you're saying, to check, is that CR is not equivalent to narrativist play? That you could use it in any sort of game?

Quote from: LostSoulWait... I thought Sorcerer used Conflict Resolution (Eero's changed his mind on this point).  I don't see how it's not CR.

I guess my question is what mechanics in Sorcerer make it TR rather than CR?

Going by Eero's definition in the thread I linked, the resolution system in Sorcerer primarily addresses events in the story: Does my character beat the other in this fight? Does he Summon the demon he requires? Does Janey grab the vase? This is task res. None of these actions automatically resolve conflict unless they have been invested with significance.

Quote from: droogI think that if you define it this way you run into all the problems of this thread. So what you're saying, to check, is that CR is not equivalent to narrativist play? That you could use it in any sort of game?

The CR that I'm describing in my third viewpoint, yes. If the Nar/Sim distinction means something to you other than "Sim is pure GM Force", I'm saying that this type of CR can be used in a Sim game. If you're agnostic, atheistic, skeptical, or apostate on the whole GNS thing, then this type of CR is just irrelevent to GNS. Someone might look at you playing and say you're playing Nar, someone else might disagree, but it wouldn't matter.

I don't see a problem. Note that later on Feanor and I've basically agreed that what people refer to as conflict resolution encompasses a bunch of things that don't necessarily have to go together. "Premise"/significance is one of them.

Hmmm. I guess that's a useful unpacking, especially for Feanor's purposes, but it leaves the term itself a bit useless. Maybe that's not a problem.

Quote from: droogI think that if you define it this way you run into all the problems of this thread. So what you're saying, to check, is that CR is not equivalent to narrativist play? That you could use it in any sort of game?

Yeah, I think that CR doesn't require, or imply, narrativist (or Sim, or Gamist, or whatever-ist) play. It's just an approach to resolution that:

1) 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 concequences of failure clear and upfront.
2) Skips over stuff people don't care about (don't roll unless there is a conflict of interest).
3) Ensures that "what happens" respects the goals given upfront.
3a) 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; (combat being a common exception, but even then you can say that the situation is very changeable, so re-attempts make some kind of sense).

You can do this mechanically, you can do this by following GM advice in the book, you can do this by GM skills and a TR core, or whatever.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think so, too. At least that's a kind of CR advanced by the folks who talk about it.

The reason I've such a difficult time with this is precisely because it's almost the only kind I've seen discussed – certainly outside that other site and many times even there. This has been what I was trying to confirm when I asked the first question. If this kind of CR is really what people mean, then I say "Bullocks!" It's no more than a modified TR based on people's play style preference. Perhaps in the most extreme of border cases, where players are barely using a resolution system and it focuses solely on intent with virtually no reference to skills and/or traits, "CR" might be different enough to justify some differentiation.  Otherwise, the concepts being discussed just aren't that different! As I said, this assumes we're talking about the kind of CR being discussed.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd you know, whatever we call it, it's kind a cool and/or different approach compared to narrowly interpreting tasks and leaving large amounts of in-game action to the GM's discretion.

As I've said before, to each his own.  Me, I lean towards the crunchier emulation/simulation/contest-of-skills aspects. I'm of the opinion that if you can't trust the GM, you need to change GM. But I could see where some gamers would prefer a system that focuses the resolution system differently, even if it's not to avoid GM power issues. But that's all preference.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut, crucially, because having everything mapped out would leave nothing to improv, the GM would be forced to respect intent as expressed through task rolls and player decisions.

Umm, I completely reject your premise (there's that damn word again). Having everything mapped out does not rule out improvisation. Only if the GM forces the issue, commonly referred to as railroading, is that the case. A 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." The GM doesn't map out what the characters are going to do/say. If he does, he might as well just write a script and hire actors. He sure as hell won't have a group much longer.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'm saying that compared to the first example, the mapping approach is just a higher level of detail in resolution. While in the second example, where the GM isn't really respecting dicerolls (or if you alter the scenario a bit, the GM could use similar tricks to avoid respecting intents), you have something qualitatively different.

I 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 only qualitatively different if you don't allow the GM to determine whether or not the player can include his intent. If the GM is forced to "say yes or roll," as the pithy phrase goes, then what's qualitatively different is required shared narrative control – which is the only thing I've asserted is the difference between "TR" and "CR."

Quote from: Elliot WilenI described "full-blown" or "full-on" CR in two ways:

1) Application of resolution purely in terms of character conflicts.

Character conflicts...defined as...?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen2) Explicit understanding that the player can achieve his intent, if he wins the conflict in terms of the mechanics. ("Can", because there might be situations where the player would change his mind partway through and not follow through on intent even after winning.)

Read that again.  You have to admit that it's no different than "TR," don't you? It simply depends on your group/game determines when/what level to apply resolution mechanics, and the risks/rewards once applied.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn my defense, I'm not trying to turn those particular distinctions into hard definitions so much as identify the things that CR-advocates tend to put into their games.

I've said before, and I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge again: It is true that CR-advocates tend to focus resolution mechanics at a broader level, as well as incorporate intent as part of those mechanics. Also, this approach facilitates the real meaning of Conflict Resolution, player-controlled-narrative, far better than mechanics more granularly focused. I assert this does not provide differentiation between "TR" and "CR."

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd also regardless of semantics ("full-on", "full-blown", "proto" or whatever) I do think those approaches are different from what I'm used to, which would be more like the "respect intents/don't railroad" and "map out ahead of time" methods.

They are not common in non-full-blown-CR games, but they are possible. I assert this does not provide differentiation between "TR" and "CR."

Quote from: Elliot Wilen3) Having explicit scope for all conflicts in the entire campaign, and/or allowing the player to define scope just as much as intent.

I'm not sure what you mean by the first part of the statement (explicit scope for all conflicts), but I would change the second part of your statement only slightly. It's not about allowing the player to define scope.  Again, progressive GM's could do that in a "TR" system, and did way back in..well..my youth :)  I would change the word allowing to requiring. Then we are in some agreement - that it is a characteristic of "CR" and is the aspect that is rarely seen. Which is ironic to me as that's the only thing that actually differentiates the two!

Quote from: Elliot WilenAgain, I think once we leave the land of black & white definitions, we can see that there's a sliding scale.

Why leave?  The weather is great! In seriousness, this whole exercise, for me, has been an attempt to get a solid definition of these concepts that have, IMHO, become muddled. And the conclusion I've come to is that the sliding scale is the very reason "TR" and "CR," at least the kind of CR advanced by many, are really just one big spectrum of resolution mechanics that have advantages and challenges depending on play-style.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, I agree that there are a least four different things clustered under the CR label.

I don't know how many there are, though four seems as good a number as any.  But only one makes a difference. I'm sure, by now, you know what I'm going to say next.

PS: I'll get to warren later...breakfast..Mmmmm...

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. (http://home.comcast.net/~b.gleichman/)

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.

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

Not exactly. I really think they're (often) using the term "CR" in a slipshod manner without being clear what they're really talking about. I'd trace this back to problems with the Forge concept of System, which is defined in such broad terms as to be trivially unarguable--but vacuous--in order to defend the theory, but then when the discussion turns to design or aesthetics, it leads into a hardcore assertion that a good RPG has all the stuff needed for goodness spelled out unequivocally in the rules.

In exactly the same fashion, the broad definition of "CR" covers up the fact that unless you nail everything down through explicit procedures and boundaries (as in a boardgame), the goals of CR are impossible without "the right attitude". And then when looking at various games, certain ones are given the benefit of the doubt for somehow fostering "the right attitude" while others aren't.

What can be said for the broad definition is that it focuses attention on the issue of how the group determines what to resolve, and how they determine to resolve it. The former is almost always a matter of judgment rather than hard & fast rules, the latter may be either, but the key here is that whether you have "required shared narrative control" or "voluntary shared narrative control", the broad sense of conflict resolution is to foreground problems of narrative control. E.g., if you're playing a game like Sorcerer, where the GM is "supposed to" present situations that engage your Kicker (i.e., your publicly-stated narrative focus) in ways--you can as a group look at the situation and see that you're not being given the opportunity to use the mechanics for "conflict resolution" because your input on "what to resolve" has been nullified.

Again, my preference is not to use the CR language. The above is just an effort at a charitable reading of what "CR" is trying to highlight--what it might illuminate for me, not why anyone has to accept tendentious claims of deprotagonization as a necessary consequence of playing "simulationist" games by the book.

QuoteBut 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.

I certainly agree that the form and degree of shared narrative control is something that should be laid out clearly when asked. (It may not matter to everyone, though.) That is, touting some game as having "CR", with all the benefits CR supposedly offers, simply because the game's GMing advice says "don't railroad", is a bit of a smokescreen. The same would apply to calling a given resolution mechanic "CR" without acknowledging the importance of GM and player advice on how to frame conflicts. What's really needed is a total critique along the lines I gave above, showing how the mechanics of the game mesh with the playstyle proposed by the advice and color text.

Shifting gears, and going back to your earlier post, you wrote

QuoteI 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.

I assume you're talking about this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=21520&postcount=146). But that is where Clinton says that everything is founded on the assumption that all the participants are on the same wavelength, and with that requirement, combined with the fact that RPGs aren't formal games like boardgames, or even analog games like Icehouse or Tiddlywinx, the criteria for the "rule" move into the social realm; it ceases to be "hard & fast".

Quote from: Elliot WilenNot exactly. I really think they're (often) using the term "CR" in a slipshod manner without being clear what they're really talking about.

Agreed.  They are talking about modifications to a task resolution system, generally through, though not limited to, scope/granularity of the resolution and fitting that to the players desire to address meaningful (to them) things.

I argue, yet again, that if this is CR, and it has nothing to do with RSNC versus VSNC, then CR is a lot of hype about nothing. The techniques have been around for years and certainly used in crunchy systems without changing or violating the rules. Were the rules specifically written to "address intent" or "force resolution meaningful to the character." No. But they certainly didn't stop us from addressing those things on our own.

CR-Advocate (CRA):Wow! Look at this neat new concept I wrote into my rules!
Crabby Old Gamer (COG): Really? Cool. How is it different?
CRA: Well, see, people are forced to focus the resolution on meaningful things and to address the character's intent, not just tasks.
COG: Umm..OK...
CRA: Yeah, this keeps the GM from railroading and makes the game follow what the players want.
COG: Oh. I see.  Are you aware that some people have played this way for years?
CRA: But we wrote it right into the rules! And gave it a neat new name!
COG: Oh, so people who don't like to play that way won't want to play your game because it limits them to one style.
CRA: No - this way is objectively better for reasons X, Y, and Z. That will be self-evident and everyone will want to play this way!
COG: But those who don't...
CRA: Don't know what they're missing.  Mine goes to 11...

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'd trace this back to problems with the Forge concept of System, which is defined in such broad terms as to be trivially unarguable--but vacuous--in order to defend the theory, but then when the discussion turns to design or aesthetics, it leads into a hardcore assertion that a good RPG has all the stuff needed for goodness spelled out unequivocally in the rules.

No offense, but...blah blah blah.  I've got too much work in my head to worry about how crappy Forge theory of system may or may not be. I just want a simple answer to a basic question.

Quote from: Elliot WilenIn exactly the same fashion, the broad definition of "CR" covers up the fact that unless you nail everything down through explicit procedures and boundaries (as in a boardgame), the goals of CR are impossible without "the right attitude". And then when looking at various games, certain ones are given the benefit of the doubt for somehow fostering "the right attitude" while others aren't.

Yeah..see..I always thought the right attitude was to play the game in a socially acceptable group dynamic. That the rule set was meaningless with respect to attitude.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWhat can be said for the broad definition is that it focuses attention on the issue of how the group determines what to resolve, and how they determine to resolve it. The former is almost always a matter of judgment rather than hard & fast rules, the latter may be either,

I disagree.  The question of RSNC or VSNC certainly applies to "how the group determines what to resolve."  In fact, that's the whole point. In RSNC the players (in traditional sense) do that. In VSNC, the GM determines what to resolve, with varying degrees of player input dependant on the group's style. At that point, how it actually gets resolved is almost meaningless with respect to RSNC versus VSNC.

Quote from: Elliot Wilenbut the key here is that whether you have "required shared narrative control" or "voluntary shared narrative control", the broad sense of conflict resolution is to foreground problems of narrative control.

Oh goody! A new term! "Foreground Problems of Narrative Control". Cool!  I like how it's so shiny.  And the new term smell! Enjoy it now, it never lasts.

Quote from: Elliot WilenE.g., if you're playing a game like Sorcerer, where the GM is "supposed to" present situations that engage your Kicker (i.e., your publicly-stated narrative focus) in ways--you can as a group look at the situation and see that you're not being given the opportunity to use the mechanics for "conflict resolution" because your input on "what to resolve" has been nullified.

I really love your example, too.  I mean, cripes. If I was in a game where the GM wasn't addressing my (admittedly unwritten) "Kickers," we would have talked about it.  If it fit into his vision, great, he'd work it in.  If not, then maybe I could convince him how to work it in and make it part of his vision.  If, after all this discussion, it still wasn't going to fly, then I have a choice to make: find a new "Kicker," find a new character, or find a new game.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAgain, my preference is not to use the CR language. The above is just an effort at a charitable reading of what "CR" is trying to highlight--what it might illuminate for me, not why anyone has to accept tendentious claims of deprotagonization as a necessary consequence of playing "simulationist" games by the book.

Well, I guess my problem is that I'm not a charitable person.  I want a word to mean something.  Or, more accurately, I want the meaning of a word to be known and consistent. If it means RSNC, great! But let's all understand it that way when it's used. And my side issue is that if it's not RSNC, why is it touted as so different and new when it's been available and used for years?

Quote from: Elliot WilenI certainly agree that the form and degree of shared narrative control is something that should be laid out clearly when asked. (It may not matter to everyone, though.) That is, touting some game as having "CR", with all the benefits CR supposedly offers, simply because the game's GMing advice says "don't railroad", is a bit of a smokescreen. The same would apply to calling a given resolution mechanic "CR" without acknowledging the importance of GM and player advice on how to frame conflicts. What's really needed is a total critique along the lines I gave above, showing how the mechanics of the game mesh with the playstyle proposed by the advice and color text.

No, what you need is a resolution system that is flexible enough to allow for individual groups to decide how far along the scale of sharing the narrative control they want to go and then apply their own style onto that system.  Oh wait, those already exist.  We need new! Must...have...shiny...new...term...

Quote from: Elliot WilenShifting gears, and going back to your earlier post, you wrote
I assume you're talking about this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=21520&postcount=146). But that is where Clinton says that everything is founded on the assumption that all the participants are on the same wavelength, and with that requirement, combined with the fact that RPGs aren't formal games like boardgames, or even analog games like Icehouse or Tiddlywinx, the criteria for the "rule" move into the social realm; it ceases to be "hard & fast".

Yep, that's the one. Bologna. It's a nice dodge. So the rules is "The GM can say no if people are behaving badly; otherwise he must say yes or roll." It's just a longer way of saying "Say Yes Or Roll" to include something most of us assumed anyway. Removing that straw man, you're back to the GM not being allowed to say no. I assume you're being charitable again.

Quote from: FeanorWell, I guess my problem is that I'm not a charitable person.  I want a word to mean something.  Or, more accurately, I want the meaning of a word to be known and consistent. If it means RSNC, great! But let's all understand it that way when it's used. And my side issue is that if it's not RSNC, why is it touted as so different and new when it's been available and used for years?

I think it does mean RSNC.  Not that RSNC hasn't been around for years - informally, maybe - but to some people (like me) pointing it out and saying, "If you want to require shared narration, here is a technique that will help you do that" is new and shiney.

Quote from: FeanorNo, what you need is a resolution system that is flexible enough to allow for individual groups to decide how far along the scale of sharing the narrative control they want to go and then apply their own style onto that system.  Oh wait, those already exist.  We need new!

Maybe I played my Star Wars games with RSNC.  But if I went into another guy's campaign and played with him, I couldn't be sure that we'd have RSNC or not.  With the rules in place, there ya go.  You know what you got.

Now using the term "Conflict Resolution" (or actually the concept of it) I can go to that guy's game and ask him if they use RSNC or not.  Before I heard about CR I couldn't do that.  I'd just say, "I don't have fun playing in that guy's game," and not really know why.

So as I see it, there's benefit to the term as well as having it in the rules.

Quote from: LostSoulI think it does mean RSNC.  Not that RSNC hasn't been around for years - informally, maybe - but to some people (like me) pointing it out and saying, "If you want to require shared narration, here is a technique that will help you do that" is new and shiney.

Well, to that I can't speak - but I trust you and will take your word that RSNC has been around for years. Requiring shared negative control is a fairly new concept to me. So from that perspective, the perspective of RSNC, it is shiny and new and I've got no problem - bring on the new concepts and lets shoot spitballs at them to see if they stand up.

Quote from: LostSoulMaybe I played my Star Wars games with RSNC.  But if I went into another guy's campaign and played with him, I couldn't be sure that we'd have RSNC or not.  With the rules in place, there ya go.  You know what you got.

Yup, agreed. With RSNC in place, you know what you're getting. At least you know, in general, what kind of game you're in.

Quote from: LostSoulNow using the term "Conflict Resolution" (or actually the concept of it) I can go to that guy's game and ask him if they use RSNC or not.  Before I heard about CR I couldn't do that.  I'd just say, "I don't have fun playing in that guy's game," and not really know why.

So as I see it, there's benefit to the term as well as having it in the rules.

And I apologize if my opinion (rants) imply that I'm against RSNC or using 'Conflict Resolution" as a name for it. What I've seen, and what got me on this subject, was the use of the term to describe VSNC approaches/mechanics that look alot like RSNC, but are not. These are different styles of play, applied to the VSNC systems, both of which (style and system) have been around for years.

Like a thread I've seen (I can't remeber if it was here or somehwere else) where someone was talking about doing D&D as "Conflict Resolution." The discussion didn't even bring up the RSNC aspects (as I recall).  It focused mainly on different specificty of resolution to address character intent and so forth.  Nothing about whether or not the Player could introduce story elements through intent and whether or not the GM could overrule.  Without that, IMHO, you're just talking about a specific style of play withing the VSNC realm. Again, some of which could look alot like RSNC.

Now I'm not saying D&D as RSNC can't be done. It might even be interesting to see as an academic excercise.  Put the two against each other and really see the difference between RSNC and VSNC. But to ignore that aspect (R v. V) seems to be the norm rather than the exception when using of the term "Conflict Resolution," and it's that with which I have a problem.

Quote from: FeanorI assume you're being charitable again.

Actually, no, I was being critical there. I was saying that if the only thing holding the game together is the collective agreement of the participants not to "push at the boundaries", and to settle disagreements by talking about them, then there's nothing special about "say yes or roll dice" as a rule. It's subject to breakdowns in exactly the same way as any "traditional" game.

That is, both the "traditional" and the "say yes or roll dice" game handle "I want to build an A-bomb" the same way: the group's not buying it, so it doesn't happen and probably doesn't even get suggested. They handle "I shoot the sheriff" the same way: "Uh, roll dice." And they also both have a grey area somewhere in between where some people at the table think it's perfectly okay, and others look uncomfortable and give the player the stink eye. If those "grey area" cases aren't solved by discussion, the game is doomed either way.

I would say there is no universal need for conflict resolution but for a game like Dogs in the Vineyard it is very useful.
Dogs deals with what means and costs are you willing to use or pay to achieve a goal. Having the stakes of the conflict explicitly stated  and out front lets the game and players deal with it more effectively.

Quote from: tj333I would say there is no universal need for conflict resolution but for a game like Dogs in the Vineyard it is very useful.
Dogs deals with what means and costs are you willing to use or pay to achieve a goal. Having the stakes of the conflict explicitly stated  and out front lets the game and players deal with it more effectively.

Apparently you haven't been reading the thread. Otherwise, you wouldn't make this statement.  This is the exact kind of statement that so blurs the line of "Conflict Resolution" with what people have been doing with "Task Resolution" for years as to make them indistinguishable.

D&D deals with what means and costs you are willing to pay to achieve a goal.  So does GURPS.  In fact, you make an interesting point only in the follwing sense: If you are saying that at it's base, DitV is about resources ("means") and how much you are willing to pay ("costs") to achieve a goal, DitV is more like D&D than I thought... :D

I have read the thread (even read most of it a second time to make sure) and I still disagree with you that what I am saying blurs the line between the two.

As near as I can tell all that you have said is that TR can acheive the same goals as CR. I agree.
But the formalized process of CR (at least in the systems I have played) lets/forces the group produce the results consistently.


With my descrition of Dogs it could be mistaken for most any RPG.:o
But the point is that CR works some places but not others. I used Dogs in the Vineyard as the example becuase the enclosed nature of conflict resolution (By that I mean conflicts cannot overlap and must have a conclusion.) works well for it.

Quote from: tj333I have read the thread (even read most of it a second time to make sure) and I still disagree with you that what I am saying blurs the line between the two.

As near as I can tell all that you have said is that TR can acheive the same goals as CR.

Well, actually what I've asserted is that "Conflict Resolution" is one of two things:

• A modified version of "Task Resolution," but still using Voluntary Shared Narrative Control. If this is true, "Conflict Resolution" is nothing new, but is basically shorthand for one end of the spectrum of VSNC games.
• A Required Shared Narrative Control in which player are capable of changing the narrative of the game in any way desired without allowing GM intervention.

To which were you referring?

Quote from: tj333I agree.

This leads me to the (possibly incorrect) assumption that you see "Conflict Resolution" as the former. I agree as well, in that case. That is, you can modify "Task Resolution" in subtle ways to achieve this version of "Conflict Resolution."

Quote from: tj333But the formalized process of CR (at least in the systems I have played) lets/forces the group produce the results consistently.

This seems to imply that if a group modifies "Task Resolution" in a specific way (say to address intent), they cannot produce consistent results. I disagree. But this statement makes me believe, however, that you see "Conflict Resolution" as the latter definition. Why?

Because the first definition will produce consistent results as long as its consistent with the GM's vision. The only way to force consistent results outside the influence of the GM is to move the RSNC.

Quote from: tj333With my descrition of Dogs it could be mistaken for most any RPG.:o
But the point is that CR works some places but not others. I used Dogs in the Vineyard as the example becuase the enclosed nature of conflict resolution (By that I mean conflicts cannot overlap and must have a conclusion.) works well for it.

I can't, as I've mentioned, speak directly to DitV.  I can point out neat shiny terms like "enclosed nature." Shiny...

I'm pretty sure that anything you tell me you can do with "Conflict Resolution" I could point to an example of how to do it with "Task Resolution." Unless, of course, you mean the second definition...

And that, in a nutshell, is how the terms get blurred in a seemingly straightforward post.

Quote from: FeanorWell, actually what I've asserted is that "Conflict Resolution" is one of two things:

• A modified version of "Task Resolution," but still using Voluntary Shared Narrative Control. If this is true, "Conflict Resolution" is nothing new, but is basically shorthand for one end of the spectrum of VSNC games.
• A Required Shared Narrative Control in which player are capable of changing the narrative of the game in any way desired without allowing GM intervention.

(Cut stuff.)

I can point out neat shiny terms like "enclosed nature." Shiny...

I'm pretty sure that anything you tell me you can do with "Conflict Resolution" I could point to an example of how to do it with "Task Resolution." Unless, of course, you mean the second definition...

And that, in a nutshell, is how the terms get blurred in a seemingly straightforward post.

I see what you mean by blurred now. To me its people confusing implementations with the basic setup.
I see 1 & 2 as ways to implement CR. Aside from the certainty of how it will be handled I agree that there is nothing to little that CR does that TR can't do as TR seems to be a catch all for everthing that hasn't called itself something different. And the only thing really new about it is looking at it as a formalized process.

To me all this GM/player protecting and shared narrative control is not conflict resolution. I think that is where we are having a lot of misunderstanding (This also leads to me thinking the original discussion died off rather quickly compared to the thread so that I felt it was appropriate to post how I did.).  They are related as they are optional parts of a resolution mechanic.


On consistency:
Conflict resolution is:
Stated Goal -> Resolution Mechanics-> Resolution of goal.
Both parts of goal handling are required by the rules.
Task resolution is:
GM/Players do stuff-> Mechanics-> Players/GM do stuff.
"do stuff" is a lot of optional elements.

The fact that you can choose to do stuff like conflict resolution or not with TR that makes it inconsistent and flexable.
What is a bug or feature depends on a lot of thing like players, game, and that specific instance. I like the idea of being able to switch modes between TR and CR mid game myself, with the process formalized in the rules so it can just happen.


:melodramatic:Shiny New Term: Enclosed Nature
Mmmm, Shiny...
Short version is a DitV conflict has only one goal/stake and all resource management is limited to that one conflict.
If you want I can go into details on how that's done.

Quote from: tj333I see what you mean by blurred now. To me its people confusing implementations with the basic setup.

I'm glad we agree on blurring - regardless of the source, it exists.  My intent, from the beginning, was to stop the blurring; to really nail down definitions.

Quote from: tj333I see 1 & 2 as ways to implement CR.

Umm.  Well, It's an interesting point, but I disagree. 1 and 2 are completely different things. Fundamentally they are different kinds of systems. And to me, this is where the blurring comes in. Is CR the one kind of system, or the other.

What you might be saying to me is that CR is a set of goals. This is all well and good.  However, it's not the way the term is used.

Quote from: tj333Aside from the certainty of how it will be handled I agree that there is nothing to little that CR does that TR can't do as TR seems to be a catch all for everthing that hasn't called itself something different. And the only thing really new about it is looking at it as a formalized process.

Formalized, I'm assuming you mean, as being written into the rules.  In other words, the addressing intent, resolution at a broader scale, etc. are encapsulated in the rules. I'm not familiar enough with all the rules systems that have been generated, but it's probably true that this specific approach has not been formalized until the term "Conflict Resolution" came along.

Again, all well and good. But I've asserted that the practices themselves have been around informally for years. Was a new term needed? Perhaps as a shorthand, but then the practices are not revolutionary in and of itself, but it's formalization might be relatively new.

Quote from: tj333To me all this GM/player protecting and shared narrative control is not conflict resolution. I think that is where we are having a lot of misunderstanding (This also leads to me thinking the original discussion died off rather quickly compared to the thread so that I felt it was appropriate to post how I did.).  They are related as they are optional parts of a resolution mechanic.

So it's the first definition, with the modification that the difference is it's instantiation as a formal part of the rules.

Quote from: tj333On consistency:
Conflict resolution is:
Stated Goal -> Resolution Mechanics-> Resolution of goal.
Both parts of goal handling are required by the rules.
Task resolution is:
GM/Players do stuff-> Mechanics-> Players/GM do stuff.
"do stuff" is a lot of optional elements.

The fact that you can choose to do stuff like conflict resolution or not with TR that makes it inconsistent and flexable.

As 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.

Quote from: tj333What is a bug or feature depends on a lot of thing like players, game, and that specific instance. I like the idea of being able to switch modes between TR and CR mid game myself, with the process formalized in the rules so it can just happen.

Intersting, because most "Task Resolution" systems I've ever played allowed for both.  Can "Conflict Resolution" systems, assuming the first definition, say the same? If so, then what the hell is the difference?

Quote from: tj333:melodramatic:Shiny New Term: Enclosed Nature
Mmmm, Shiny...
Short version is a DitV conflict has only one goal/stake and all resource management is limited to that one conflict.
If you want I can go into details on how that's done.

No thank you.  I've no interest, except to say that it sounds like...well...Task Resolution.

Quote from: FeanorFundamentally they are different kinds of systems. And to me, this is where the blurring comes in. Is CR the one kind of system, or the other.

I can't argue that voluntary shared and required shared narrative control are fundamentally different systems. In those two examples CR just happens to be involved as well.
The only RSNC system that I have played was a task resolution for example.
Is there any reason that CR can not move about the VSNC spectrum like TR does?
Note that most games that use CR have some level of shared control but I only see that as confusing to determining what CR is.

CR to me is no more one unified way to do things then TR or die pools. Each is just a part of the system that can also let you make assumptions about the rest of the system. DitV and D&D are systems. TR, CR, d20+modifier, levels of narrative control, and what ever else are just parts of those systems.
The system has to be more then one of those parts to actually be usable. And as you observed with "that it sounds like...well...Task Resolution" the rest of the system outside of the C/T resolution can vary greatly.

Quote from: FeanorAgain, all well and good. But I've asserted that the practices themselves have been around informally for years. Was a new term needed? Perhaps as a shorthand, but then the practices are not revolutionary in and of itself, but it's formalization might be relatively new.

Never argued that and I thought I went out of my way to let you know I agree with that.
And if my programming and management courses have taught me anything its that formalized concepts with convenient terms are big business. The last part is 50/50 joke/serious.

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.

What you think I'm implying is not what I intended to imply. In fact I stated that there is nothing CR does that TR can't do. Other people may have implied otherwise but I don't care about what they implied.
The only way I simplified TR here is by not starting what could turn into pages of TR in a discussion that is not about that.  I just considered that staying on topic.
To clarify using an analogy:
Task Resolution is a multitool that handles damn near anything (Continuing that analogy CR is a specialized tool that does a few things better). By inconsistent I meant that you don't know what part of that tool will be used in a given situation. You can guess at it by knowing the people/system that you play with but that is more variable then conflict resolution that just has less options.
You may perceive me as being sorry for any insult that you perceived from using the term inconsistent. Variable seems like a more neutral term so I'll use that one, unless you have a better term.


How does "Conflict resolution uses explicitly stated goals and intents (often referred to as stakes) to determine what the conflict will resolve. The goals and intents must be defined before the actual resolution of the conflict begins. The resolution of the conflict must resolve the stated goals and intents. Anything else is incidental." sound as a definition of conflict resolution since that's what this started as looking for? (Previously typoed explitly as implicit and did not notice until Feanor popinted it out in his next post.)
As an example:
In 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.

I know that definition can be applied to a wide range of things that are better defined as task resolution but I also think that things called task resolution could better be done as conflict resolution. It should have been clear from the second post that I think they overlap and that situation determines the best one.

Quote from: tj333I can't argue that voluntary shared and required shared narrative control are fundamentally different systems. In those two examples CR just happens to be involved as well.
The only RSNC system that I have played was a task resolution for example.
Is there any reason that CR can not move about the VSNC spectrum like TR does?

No, none at all.  But then my question always becomes, "what exactly is the difference between TR and CR?" I mean, if they can both move through the spectrum of VSNC and RSNC (I've never seen that – how interesting), then how are they different enough, what are the distinguishing characteristics?

And please, please, please don't throw the "CR addresses goals/intents" stuff.  I've been through this before. We did that 20 years ago with systems that are now deemed, usually in a derogatory way by One True Wayists, "Task Resolution." Now if you're telling me that the difference isn't in the mechanic itself, but that it's "formalized in the rules," then that's a different story.  If that's the case, though, then I wonder about "Conflict Resolution's" ability to handle the traditional "Character X's ability versus a Difficulty." For if you tell me that CR can, even if written into the rules, handle this, then I really have to wonder how it's different.

Quote from: tj333Note that most games that use CR have some level of shared control but I only see that as confusing to determining what CR is.

Agreed – and usually in the way that people really mean RSNC when they say CR.

Quote from: tj333CR to me is no more one unified way to do things then TR or die pools. Each is just a part of the system that can also let you make assumptions about the rest of the system. DitV and D&D are systems. TR, CR, d20+modifier, levels of narrative control, and what ever else are just parts of those systems.
The system has to be more then one of those parts to actually be usable. And as you observed with "that it sounds like...well...Task Resolution" the rest of the system outside of the C/T resolution can vary greatly.

And again, I begin to wonder where the crossing point is.  At what point is something CR?

Quote from: tj333Never argued that and I thought I went out of my way to let you know I agree with that.
And if my programming and management courses have taught me anything its that formalized concepts with convenient terms are big business. The last part is 50/50 joke/serious.

The 50% that's serious is, perhaps, the truth of the matter.  That "Conflict Resolution" was a means to differentiate something that was, in reality, indistinguishable.

Quote from: tj333What you think I'm implying is not what I intended to imply. In fact I stated that there is nothing CR does that TR can't do.

Then, again, why the differentiation?

Quote from: tj333Other people may have implied otherwise but I don't care about what they implied.
The only way I simplified TR here is by not starting what could turn into pages of TR in a discussion that is not about that.  I just considered that staying on topic.

Well, it's a bit of a cop-out. What other people are saying/implying is part of the discussion. It's the way people use the CR term that has resulted, at least for me, the need for clarification.

Quote from: tj333To clarify using an analogy:
Task Resolution is a multitool that handles damn near anything (Continuing that analogy CR is a specialized tool that does a few things better). By inconsistent I meant that you don't know what part of that tool will be used in a given situation. You can guess at it by knowing the people/system that you play with but that is more variable then conflict resolution that just has less options.

I know you're not trying to be insulting, but it's always in the analogies. If you're confused, think of hearing people call your software product as a good general tool. But hey, this other one over hear is "specialized." It might be objectively true, but it still carries the undertone of calling your software product "not as good as the specialized one." As I said, I doubt (highly) you meant it that way. But some might take it that way, particularly in this issue where it's often meant to carry that sting.

I will say that if you want to go with the multi-tool analogy, think of it differently.  It's not inconsistent, at least if you have a mature group of players. It's flexible. It allows the group to determine which tool to use in which situation. Can that lead to group having problems? It certainly can. But that's a group issue, not a system issue.

Quote from: tj333You may perceive me as being sorry for any insult that you perceived from using the term inconsistent. Variable seems like a more neutral term so I'll use that one, unless you have a better term.

To be honest, I don't perceive you as being sorry at all. In fact, I get the sense that you find me somehow lacking for taking "inconsistent" as an insult. That's OK. I'm just trying to point out where seemingly innocuous statements and labels can lead to misunderstanding – one I'm trying to address with a solid understanding and definition.

Quote from: tj333How does "Conflict resolution uses implicit stated goals and intents (often referred to as stakes) to determine what the conflict will resolve. The goals and intents must be defined before the actual resolution of the conflict begins. The resolution of the conflict must resolve the stated goals and intents. Anything else is incidental." sound as a definition of conflict resolution since that's what this started as looking for?

• I would say the term "implicit" is wrong if they must be stated/defined.
• It sounds like what many of us have used for years – in "Task Resolution" systems.

Quote from: tj333As an example:
In 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.

I disagree.  I think that in one situation you address the outcome, in the other the action. The level of disconnect is the issue at hand. It is often framed as "Task Resolution allows for a disconnect between actions and outcome." This is handled easily by adjusting the the point at which the resolution mechanic is applied to address the outcome - in other words matching the level of resolution to the desired level of outcomes addressed. Whether the group agrees that outcomes are at the "Task" or "Conflict" level is up to the group (please note that I'm using the terms "Task" and "Conflict" only as a result of the current discussion that draws a distinction between the two).

Quote from: tj333I know that definition can be applied to a wide range of things that are better defined as task resolution but I also think that things called task resolution could better be done as conflict resolution. It should have been clear from the second post that I think they overlap and that situation determines the best one.

Which again makes me ask "Then where is the difference?"

Now that is one heck of typo to use implicit instead of explicit. I've edited my previous post and made a note of the edit there.

As for where the difference is; it is in my games. Conflict resolution plays a hell of a lot different then task resolution for me. This leads me to thinking that CR is significant and far from indistinguishable.
But you seem to play a different style of TR then I do so it is not worth while to you.
Now what plays better or different seems too subjective to be worth discussin here. And since we agree on most of the remainder it seems there is not much left to discuss.

As for the crossing point between CR and TR I've been thinking on that and not being able to come up with a definite point. It seems there should be more then that so I'll think on it more. It could take a while so don't expect a post here anytime soon or perhaps at all depending on the amount of time involved.

Edit: Changed my mind about how done I feel here. But it could be a while before I post something here again.

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 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.

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?

Quote from: LostSoulThe 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.

This is one of the ways I started this entire fiasco - "Conflict Resolution" is a reaction to bad GM practice and/or lack of trust.

Yes, I did trust the GM's with whom I played. I trusted the whole group. I didn't think his rulings were always going to be more cool or better than the result of the mechanics (otherwise why have mechanics?). But, even at 17, we were able to play withtout these problems and tailored the basic rules to our needs (somebody called the "proto-CR" in some cases).

Having said all that, I think your response leans toward the CR = RSNC. Is this correct?  I mean, you seem to want to remove the ability, at any level, for GM Fiat (Rule 0, I believe, in D&D), which leaves us at RSNC.

Quote from: LostSoulI 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.

You know, quite honestly, I don't even know what the hell that deprotagonized shit even means.  I mean, really...My character isn't the lead? Really? Cry me a river. What about everyone else in the game? What about their desires to be the protagonist? What about the GM's desire to facilitate a good story? Everyone can't be king. You rely on (trust) the GM to balance all of these competing needs and desires. It's why GM is a tough gig, no matter how easily it comes to some people (not me!). Without GM fiat, none of that is possible. Those shiny terms make me crazy - sorry.

Quote from: LostSoulI 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?

ENHHHHHH! WRONG! The first thing is to determine if the players request is covered by the rules. The second, assuming no to the previous, is to talk with the player about options to resolve the issue.

Quote from: LostSoul1. No roll at all, just a flat "No".

You put it first, I'd put it last.

Quote from: LostSoul2. Roll, but add in too many modifiers/set the difficulty too high for the roll to matter.

[LIST=A]

• They matter if they are valid; that is, they are valid for the application to this particular resolution mechanic.
• They are especially valid when discussed with the player and agreed upon.

I dispute your latent assumption that adding modifers that make it especially difficult makes the roll somehow meaningless.

Quote from: LostSoul3. 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.

These two are essentially the same.  The GM overrides the (presumably hidden) results - called, I think, Illusionism or some such shiny term. Though I can't say it's a good idea, I've seen it be employed effectively. But it's always a huge risk, especially if used too often. It can be seen as GM railroading and so forth (including players feel deprotagonized :melodramatic:).

Quote from: LostSoulAnyways.  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?

Nope, not really.

I get the sense, as I said before, that you see any possibility of GM fiat as a bad thing.  Therefore, you must choose RSNC as a basic foundation of your rule system, otherwise, you are not going to be satisfied. And might I say, it's a fine choice. I wish you all the good gaming in the world.

Quote from: FeanorYou know, quite honestly, I don't even know what the hell that deprotagonized shit even means.

It's about not being able to contribute to the narrative.

Quote from: FeanorENHHHHHH! WRONG! The first thing is to determine if the players request is covered by the rules. The second, assuming no to the previous, is to talk with the player about options to resolve the issue.

I thought we had established that "seduce the barmaid" was not covered by the rules.  But yeah, you're right, that would be the first thing to check.

Quote from: FeanorI dispute your latent assumption that adding modifers that make it especially difficult makes the roll somehow meaningless.

If I can't do it, just say that I can't do it.  Don't lie to me and have me roll when you've already decided (by manipulating the target number through modifiers) what's going to happen.

I generally distrust systems where the GM can set whatever target number he wants (either by just setting the number or adding modifiers).

Quote from: FeanorI get the sense, as I said before, that you see any possibility of GM fiat as a bad thing.  Therefore, you must choose RSNC as a basic foundation of your rule system, otherwise, you are not going to be satisfied. And might I say, it's a fine choice. I wish you all the good gaming in the world.

Exactly.  

When I play, I don't want to wonder if the GM is going to use a resolution mechanic to determine what happens or if he's going to use fiat.  I want to know that he's going to be using a resolution mechanic every time there's some sort of conflict.

Fantastic!  LostSoul and I have agreed to disagree on particulars, but most of what we disagree on is in the eye of, so I think we're good.  Please correct me if I'm wrong LostSoul.

What I'm left with are two possible definitions of "Conflict Resolution," and no clear answer as to which is more correct.

• Conflict Resolution is a modified version of Task Resolution, but still using Voluntary Shared Narrative Control. It is basically shorthand for one end of the spectrum of VSNC games.
• Conflict Resolution is a Required Shared Narrative Control in which players are capable of changing the narrative of the game in any way desired without GM intervention.

The more I read over the thread, however, the more it seemed to be leaning towards the latter. So can we agree that Conflict Resolution is not about the things that can also be addressed through Task Resolution, but is really about Required Shared Narrative Control?

Back from a nice and long Thanksgiving weekend and some posts but nothing that seems to have gone anywhere. I still disagree with either one of those being a definition of CR.

On CR prevents bad GMing: (Unrelated to previous)
Starting with Dogs. The GM can continual add people from the town onto his side of the conflict (GM has control of the towns folk) as helpers to make it so the PCs will never win a conflict when he does not want them to.
Trollbabe and The Mountain Witch are consider CR but still have ways you can GM badly.
In a CR system that also sets a penalty on a failure (Often called counter stakes) an unacceptable failure penalty could be set by the GM.
These are examples of a CR system where the GM can screw you over you over if he wants to.
The only bad GMing CR prevents is the GM trying to bai the players into a situation where they think they will get something but don't.
So can we have an end to the CR is about preventing bad GMing?

Quote from: FeanorOh, wait.  I know.  Mine goes to 11.

Could you enlighten me on what that means?

Quote from: FeanorThe more I read over the thread, however, the more it seemed to be leaning towards the latter. So can we agree that Conflict Resolution is not about the things that can also be addressed through Task Resolution, but is really about Required Shared Narrative Control?

Totally.

Quote from: tj333On CR prevents bad GMing: (Unrelated to previous)
Starting with Dogs. The GM can continual add people from the town onto his side of the conflict (GM has control of the towns folk) as helpers to make it so the PCs will never win a conflict when he does not want them to.
Trollbabe and The Mountain Witch are consider CR but still have ways you can GM badly.
In a CR system that also sets a penalty on a failure (Often called counter stakes) an unacceptable failure penalty could be set by the GM.
These are examples of a CR system where the GM can screw you over you over if he wants to.
The only bad GMing CR prevents is the GM trying to bai the players into a situation where they think they will get something but don't.
So can we have an end to the CR is about preventing bad GMing?

This is fascinating. I don't know enough about the games you mention to know if what you say is possible or not. But, if true, it certainly sounds like the potential for the same sort of GM-fiat power exists, only through different mechanisms.

"Mine goes to 11," is a reference to the movie "This is Spinal Tap." The lead guitarist of the fictional band Spinal Tap is bragging about how his amplifiers are louder/better because, whereas most amplifiers have volumes that go from 1 to 10, his amp goes to 11.  When the director asks him "Why not just make 10 louder? Wouldn't that be the same thing?" His only response is "Yeah, but..mine goes to 11."

This reminds me of many theory debates.

Quote from: FeanorThis is fascinating. I don't know enough about the games you mention to know if what you say is possible or not. But, if true, it certainly sounds like the potential for the same sort of GM-fiat power exists, only through different mechanisms.

I find that GM fiat still exists with CR, but it tends to be in the open.

I have to continue to express my stunned amazement at this turn in the thread. Until now, I've taken everyone's assertion that "Conflict Resolution" addresses GM fiat so thoroughly that it's a thing of the past. Now I get the impression that, in reality, this is not true; that essentially one still has to rely on the GM not resorting to bad behavior.

If this is true, then I'm more strongly than ever of the impression that TR and CR, strictly from a resolution perspective, are not that different. That what makes them different is the narrative control, and only that aspect.

Quote from: James J SkachI have to continue to express my stunned amazement at this turn in the thread. Until now, I've taken everyone's assertion that "Conflict Resolution" addresses GM fiat so thoroughly that it's a thing of the past. Now I get the impression that, in reality, this is not true; that essentially one still has to rely on the GM not resorting to bad behavior.

I've pretty much said everything I could on CR before; so Lord forgive me for going back into this thread, but I have to respond to this :)

Nothing in the world can stop a dick GM trying to fuck things up if he really wants to. He can ignore and/or misapply the rules; create overpowered opposition; use fiat to overrule the dice, punch the players in the face when they fail, and so on. CR rules in a book can't protect you from a GM who doesn't follow the rules.

Assuming, however, that the GM still wants to judge things by fiat, but isn't a blatantly ignoring all the rules, TR systems can easily hide this kind of behavior. ("The Baron is searching for you", "Ah-ha! I climb a tree, then" - success - "Yep, you climb the tree OK, but the Baron still finds you", "Damn. OK then, I try and do X"). With CR, this kind of thing is totally out in the open. ("The Baron is searching for you", "I'm going to hide from him. Hmmm, I'll climb a tree" - success - "Yep, you climb the tree OK, but the Baron still finds you", "Hey! I won that conflict, The Baron can't find me! Fuck off!").

Yeah, the Forge Gaming Police aren't going to smash your front door down if you ignore or override a successful player conflict when you are playing The Mountain Witch, for example, but what you are doing is going to be clear to your group.

And if you always, without exception, follow the declared player intent in a TR system (assuming that the player makes his rolls or whatever), how is that not RSNC?

With the DitV mob rules (which IMO are the only weak part of the entire ruleset), there is nothing to stop the GM from getting shitloads of extra dice by setting the PCs against a huge number of NPCs. But he can't do it in the middle of a conflict, and the number of characters involved should be made clear before a conflict is started. This means that, before conflict is joined and dice are rolled, the players can Give and let it go if the GM decides to send a dozen gunmen after them, and (IMO) would be well within their rights to call bullshit (much as they would in any other game; but in GURPS -- for example -- there is nothing in the rules to stop a GM from bringing in extra bandits "from the woods" in the middle of the fight if he wanted to).

Quote from: James J SkachIf this is true, then I’m more strongly than ever of the impression that TR and CR, strictly from a resolution perspective, are not that different. That what makes them different is the narrative control, and only that aspect.

What do you mean by narrative control? I think I might spin that off into a new thread; as this one is big & sprawling enough as is :)

Quote from: LostSoulI find that GM fiat still exists with CR, but it tends to be in the open.

I can see how that works. It ties in with most of the pieces of CR being in the open as well.

Quote from: warrenBut he can't do it in the middle of a conflict, and the number of characters involved should be made clear before a conflict is started.

Whoops, I thought that could be done at anytime in the conflict.

Quote from: James J SkachI have to continue to express my stunned amazement at this turn in the thread. Until now, I've taken everyone's assertion that "Conflict Resolution" addresses GM fiat so thoroughly that it's a thing of the past. Now I get the impression that, in reality, this is not true; that essentially one still has to rely on the GM not resorting to bad behavior.

If this is true, then I’m more strongly than ever of the impression that TR and CR, strictly from a resolution perspective, are not that different. That what makes them different is the narrative control, and only that aspect.

The one area of GM fiat that CR address is that the GM can not go back on the outcome of a conflict or change the goal of it anymore then he can tell you that you didn't just hit for 8 damage after the rules tell you that you very well did so. Edit: Warren covers this better then I.

To Handle GM Fiat:
In Dogs the players could tell the GM thats just lame (just as the GM could do the same to them.) and by the rules they have to come to some kind of acceptable solution.
In Polaris (a very different game with how it handles its GM(s).) 2 of the other players can overrules the GM figure under certain conditions but those 2 players cannot be a part of the conflict when they do so.

What I see is that these and some other CR systems have procedures in place for handeling GM fiat but they are seperate from the CR mechanics.

In Dogs in the Vineyard has 3 possibles points of required shared narrative control:

• Saying its lame (see above) and "Say yes or roll the dice" work together.
• Can add reasonable items into the game setting such as a rope, a watering trough to throw someone into, or other scenery.
• They have a say in what the conflict is.

Giving the GM final say on 1 and 2 easily and quickly removes them from the list. That's lame can block any "say yes or roll" objections that come up. The only change to conflict resolution is no response to the GM being an ass in the system (Solutions outside of the game still exist) and they lose small amounts of dice from the scenery/items.

Does having the players be in control of the possible outcomes of their actions through the conflict goals make it any more RSNC then the players being in control of who he hits for damage with what weapon?

To me those 2 action are roughly equivalent in their respective resolution systems and can be treated very similarly as they are the main point where the player adds input into the game.



Now I have left Trollbabe and The Mountain Witch out of this because once you win the conflict in those games narration rights are gtiven to you to tell how you succeeded.

Just for fun, more necromancy.

I actually did read this entire thread before posting. I have to agree, the terminology of Task vs Conflict resolution is misleading and deceptive. In plain English, two key parts of any action--means and ends. It is possible that the ends of one action is simply to feed or enable the means of a subsequent action. The ultimate ends is always happiness, or avoidance of unhappiness. The elemental means always has to be some simple command you could issue. Picking a lock is not such a thing. If you commanded most people to pick that lock, they wouldn't know how. You'd have to instruct them step by step on how to do it.

If there are GMs or RPGs requiring a dozen successful rolls and decisions to pick a lock, or having players roll for happiness, then I guess they're doing something different in their resolution mechanics. Everything else is a mid-level link in the means-ends chain of action.

As to narrative control, anyone remember the random dungeon generator in the 1st Ed DMG? If you read closer, its stated purpose is to enable solo play. As such, it doesn't come out and say whether or not a secret door is present. You must search for a secret door. And if it's successful, you find one.

Even this narrow slice of narrative control led to contradictions requiring special exception handlers, like if the secret door generated/discovered leads into an area already mapped. Likewise, in a more general case when narrative control is similarly tied to a resolution mechanic, it can sometimes produce results that contradict facts previously established--perhaps established by the very same mechanic. In the example of the safe cracker, the dirt may have already been removed from that room earlier by a PC who delivered it into the hands of an NPC. It thus may actually be, regardless of how good the roll was, the GM still has to say, "Sorry, it just ain't there."

Which brings me to the idea of an "uninteresting result." There just ain't no such thing. What is really meant by the term is anything where the conditions of the game world over-rule the dice. In terms of Knightian Risk vs Uncertainty, it has the effect of removing Knightian Uncertainty. The problem with removing Knightian Uncertainty? Virtually all, if not all conditions of the real world fall into that category.

Mileage may vary, but for me, Knightian Uncertainty is essential for a) an interesting game, b) a fictional world as nuanced as the real world, and c) a good story. This may be perfectly tolerable if I'm so desperate to game I decide to break out the 1st Ed DMG for some solo play. I have higher standards when it comes to playing with a group.

Picture this. You approach the guards and the GM says they are very alert and it's going to be an extremely difficult check to sneak past them. But you try anyway and roll exceptionally well. For plot reason the GM doesn't want you to sneak past them so as soon as you roll he chymes in with "A maid walks around the corner and shrieks alerting the guards."

Step 1.  Punch the referee in the face so fucking hard he shits his own liver.
Step 2.  Kick the referee in the nuts so fucking hard blood squirts out his ears.
Step 3.  Realize your feet work.  Leave and never return.  Not gaming is better than bad gamng.

The rules can't fix asshole.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;872800Picture this. You approach the guards and the GM says they are very alert and it's going to be an extremely difficult check to sneak past them. But you try anyway and roll exceptionally well. For plot reason the GM doesn't want you to sneak past them so as soon as you roll he chymes in with "A maid walks around the corner and shrieks alerting the guards."

Step 1.  Punch the referee in the face so fucking hard he shits his own liver.
Step 2.  Kick the referee in the nuts so fucking hard blood squirts out his ears.
Step 3.  Realize your feet work.  Leave and never return.  Not gaming is better than bad gamng.

The rules can't fix asshole.

Yeah, on a personal level as it pertains to the games I run, obviously different people like different things about it, but the one thing everyone mentions as something they like is that as players, they really feel in control. Like they can at least attempt anything, and they have a fair chance at it, instead of running up against plot walls. I achieve this by strict adherence to resolution mechanics that do not incorporate narrative control.

This seems to belie all the design goals of distributed narrative power--that players are empowered by the absence of such a thing baked into the mechanics.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;872800Picture this. You approach the guards and the GM says they are very alert and it's going to be an extremely difficult check to sneak past them. But you try anyway and roll exceptionally well. For plot reason the GM doesn't want you to sneak past them so as soon as you roll he chymes in with "A maid walks around the corner and shrieks alerting the guards."

Step 1.  Punch the referee in the face so fucking hard he shits his own liver.
Step 2.  Kick the referee in the nuts so fucking hard blood squirts out his ears.
Step 3.  Realize your feet work.  Leave and never return.  Not gaming is better than bad gamng.

The rules can't fix asshole.

Setting 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.

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.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;873261I think you're still conflating the narrative control and conflict-resolution aspects.

Not really. Conflating does seem to be the go-to word in response to someone pointing out the logical consequences of so-called "modern" gaming mechanics, though.

QuoteUnder 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).

And I'm sure a lot of people in the CR camp would agree with you, however it is wrong. That's why I took the time to demonstrate why searching for secret doors is intent-based. It may not be the intent you think of or anything they would admit to being an intent. It is an intent nonetheless, not elemental, mechanical action. I'm sure we could find plenty of examples in actual play where that really is some player's intent.

In fairness to you, you did admit something CRists often refuse to admit. That intent-based resolution does tend to be on a different scale than task-based resolution. Most CRists deny this because someone like myself will point out, "Well hey, why not just make an adventure check to see whether or not I come back with the dungeon full of loot."

And then they'll go and claim I'm engaging in every logical fallacy in the book. But I'm not. Depending on the scope of the game, that may be entirely appropriate. Maybe it's a game about politics and intrigue among guilds, and this is how the Adventurers Guild gathers resources. We don't want to actually play out the dungeon expedition because that's not what the game is about.

But see, if you admit that this is a fair look at things, I'm going to argue that "traditional" gaming also sometimes just sums up with a quick roll things that are not central to what the game is about. AD&D doesn't have you do individual knocks on walls, because how to find a secret door is not what the game is about. So it says "If your intent is to find a secret door, this is the check you use." AD&D also does not concern itself with every last feint, parry, and thrust in combat. So it sums up an entire minute of combat with just one hit roll for each side. Because it's an adventuring game, not a combat simulator. It's enough to say, "Okay, your intent is to hurt that guy? This is what you roll."

This is the reason why I call modern game design theory a game of three card Monty. Logically, the card I'm looking for is definitely one of the three, but the con artist is always going to use some slight of hand so no matter which I pick he'll show me I'm wrong. And he'll never lay all three cards out at the same time.

QuoteNegotiated resolution: no, since what happens is wholly rules-defined.

And this is another fuzzy term. Let's say we're playing AD&D 1st Ed and the player says, "I want to try to ambush the orcs." AD&D doesn't have a specific ambush check. What it has is that lightly armored elves surprise opponents 4 in 6 instead of 2 in 6. Rangers surprise opponents 3 in 6 instead of 2 in 6. And thieves and assassins have Move Silently and Hide in Shadows skills. And if none of those are applicable to the character, we can always default to the standard surprise check.

The player is telling me the intent. I'm setting a reasonable chance based on what he's trying to achieve and the skills/resources he has available to put into it. This is very common in old-school style play.

QuoteYou'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.

Actually, that is not what I have argued. "Interesting" is their word. Not mine. They use it to mean that the die roll determines the outcome. Their example is picking the lock on a safe to get some dirt on the villain. Their claim is that task-resolution is bad because they can successfully pick the lock only for the GM to say, "Ha! The safe was empty!" Insofar as the intent was to find dirt, the lock picking roll was irrelevant. They call that not interesting. And this is really the cornerstone of what they're claiming differentiates intent-resolution from task-resolution.

Me personally, I find that very interesting, because the lock pick roll was like a rain dance. You do it to achieve a certain ends that are actually impossible to achieve by the chosen means. When CRists say they want to make sure every roll is interesting, they're saying they want to eliminate the rain dance. They could give a fuck what you or I might find interesting. It's just another example of modern theory using a value-loaded term and then redefining it far away from any common meaning it has.

Where this necessarily becomes narrative control is, what if the GM wasn't just being a dick? What if the safe really was empty all along? What if the villain burned whatever evidence so it's not conveniently in the waste basket by the safe either? To make the check to open the safe "interesting" we have to ret-con the world in the event of a successful check just to make sure the player gets what he intended to find one way or another.

Quote from: Lunamancer;873271Actually, that is not what I have argued. "Interesting" is their word. Not mine. They use it to mean that the die roll determines the outcome. Their example is picking the lock on a safe to get some dirt on the villain. Their claim is that task-resolution is bad because they can successfully pick the lock only for the GM to say, "Ha! The safe was empty!" Insofar as the intent was to find dirt, the lock picking roll was irrelevant. They call that not interesting. And this is really the cornerstone of what they're claiming differentiates intent-resolution from task-resolution.

Me personally, I find that very interesting, because the lock pick roll was like a rain dance. You do it to achieve a certain ends that are actually impossible to achieve by the chosen means. When CRists say they want to make sure every roll is interesting, they're saying they want to eliminate the rain dance. They could give a fuck what you or I might find interesting. It's just another example of modern theory using a value-loaded term and then redefining it far away from any common meaning it has.

Where this necessarily becomes narrative control is, what if the GM wasn't just being a dick? What if the safe really was empty all along? What if the villain burned whatever evidence so it's not conveniently in the waste basket by the safe either? To make the check to open the safe "interesting" we have to ret-con the world in the event of a successful check just to make sure the player gets what he intended to find one way or another.

I think you only have half an example since you're focussed on the 'task' side of things without having a 'conflict resolution' system for comparison.
In either case, the safe can be empty: in conflict resolution, the roll isn't to open the safe.

Really I'm only a "CRist" in as much as I believe it exists. Its potentially interesting in that there not being a set relation between means and ends opens up some descriptive opportunities (as in the example earlier in the thread where the priest PC successfully attempting to beg a favour from the king is framed as them being beaten unconscious, and the king feeling remorseful and giving in later) and that's as far as my interest in it goes.

Well, a task can line up with an intent, but the reverse isn't necessarily true.

One of the better examples I thought was earlier in the thread where someone describes a priest successfully squeezing concessions out of the king by getting beaten to a pulp and then the king feeling remorseful later. That sort of thing would be a more ideal example of conflict-based: there's a roll which determines a specified outcome, with the details being 'colour'. Its I suppose a top-down approach to constructing what happens, rather than bottom-up where you're rolling a bunch of dice for specific details which eventually intersect to build up and say whether you succeed or fail.

That's IMHO really the point of conflict-based resolution, not specifically avoiding bad GMing or whatever.  This sort of thing also being why I don't view the secret door example as being other than task-resolution.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;873385One of the better examples I thought was earlier in the thread where someone describes a priest successfully squeezing concessions out of the king by getting beaten to a pulp and then the king feeling remorseful later. That sort of thing would be a more ideal example of conflict-based: there's a roll which determines a specified outcome, with the details being 'colour'.

Which is an example of narrative control. Albeit a subtle one. I offer a simple test here. Would this have worked on another player character? Of course there's a long list of traditional RPGs with their falsely dubbed task-based mechanics that are just as guilty of this, with con, deception, persuasion, or charisma checks are used in the place of an actually convincing argument, whatever argument the player actually articulates is just used as color.

(There is a certain amount of irony, that if the description in the bloody priest example weren't just color--if the priest was actually in mortal danger, and the players knew it because the standard damage system was being applied consistently with the player's colorful attempt at persuasion--the probability of a PC caving of its player's own free will would increase dramatically.)

QuoteIts I suppose a top-down approach to constructing what happens, rather than bottom-up where you're rolling a bunch of dice for specific details which eventually intersect to build up and say whether you succeed or fail.

Again, I'll point out AD&D's 1 minute combat rounds. A lot of GMs took advantage of how abstract combat was and did a lot of creative narration. In the besieged thread, I mention my experience playing Battle Lords of the 23rd Century back in 1993 with a particularly colorful GM. It's not quite the 70's, but it does pre-date the modern theories. Every GM of course had their own style. But this sort of top-down approach, where the mechanics produced the outcome was not exactly rare.

I used to do the exact same thing until I realized it wasn't such a great way of doing things. Ironically, it's the creative players that would get frustrated when I'd run things this way. They'd think of all these clever things, and in the end, none of it mattered. You had x chance at doing ydz+w damage in a combat round. Everything you described your character doing was just meaningless color. Sometimes as GM I was even clever in trying to create the illusion that it did matter. "Oh? You want to knee him in the groin? Make your hit roll. You hit? Okay, you do one point of damage and he's stunned just long enough for you to get in a free attack that automatically hits for ydz+w-1 damage."

QuoteThat's IMHO really the point of conflict-based resolution, not specifically avoiding bad GMing or whatever.  This sort of thing also being why I don't view the secret door example as being other than task-resolution.

Well, the "rain dance" doesn't just apply to fictional characters. Real life people often choose a certain method of doing things with a certain goal in mind not realizing their choice of means has no chance to bring about the ends they seek. So just because I point out that a game mechanic that tries to eliminate rain dances doesn't actually produce a the qualitative distinction of intent-based resolution--doesn't mean there can't be a whole school of thought that says it does.

Isn't the whole point of these sorts of discussions and analysis and theorizing because sometimes peoples initial impressions can be wrong and need to be questioned? Because we all engage in rain dances from time to time. For that matter, can an entire school of thought be objectively wrong? I will say, when it's considered to be beyond the pale to even suggest that as a possibility, that's when they're most likely to flourish.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;873385That sort of thing would be a more ideal example of conflict-based: there's a roll which determines a specified outcome, with the details being 'colour'. Its I suppose a top-down approach to constructing what happens, rather than bottom-up where you're rolling a bunch of dice for specific details which eventually intersect to build up and say whether you succeed or fail.

That's IMHO really the point of conflict-based resolution, not specifically avoiding bad GMing or whatever.

That's what the intent of conflict resolution seems to be to me as well.

Conflict Based: The dice tell you if you succeeded or failed in achieving your aim, say convincing the king, and then someone narrates how the success occurred. "Tell me how you convinced the king."

Task Based: The dice tell you if you succeeded or failed at some specific action you attempted and then the situation tells you (or the GM) what the result of that success or failure is and the GM (or sometimes the player) narrates in what way you succeeded or failed or why you succeeded or failed i.e. the in-universe reason that explains the dice roll. Then the player chooses another specific action and the dice tell you if that succeeded or failed and someone narrates that, lather, rinse, and repeat until it is clear from the situation whether or not you want to stop or must stop trying to do whatever you were trying to do.

Asking or allowing the player to roll the dice to try to find a secret door when the GM knows there is no secret door to be found isn't an example of much other than the actions of an inexperienced GM. Not having the player roll is why the twin gods Gygax & Arneson first gave the DM a set of dice.

Quote from: Bren;873417Asking or allowing the player to roll the dice to try to find a secret door when the GM knows there is no secret door to be found isn't an example of much other than the actions of an inexperienced GM. Not having the player roll is why the twin gods Gygax & Arneson first gave the DM a set of dice.

Exactly.

Quote from: Bren;873417Asking or allowing the player to roll the dice to try to find a secret door when the GM knows there is no secret door to be found isn't an example of much other than the actions of an inexperienced GM. Not having the player roll is why the twin gods Gygax & Arneson first gave the DM a set of dice.

No. To an experienced GM, it's always understood that he reserves the right to roll secretly any dice, even those normally assigned to a player. Only a forum troll takes the idea of having a player roll to exclude any possibility of the GM rolling.

Quote from: Lunamancer;873409Which is an example of narrative control. Albeit a subtle one. I offer a simple test here. Would this have worked on another player character? Of course there's a long list of traditional RPGs with their falsely dubbed task-based mechanics that are just as guilty of this, with con, deception, persuasion, or charisma checks are used in the place of an actually convincing argument, whatever argument the player actually articulates is just used as color.

(There is a certain amount of irony, that if the description in the bloody priest example weren't just color--if the priest was actually in mortal danger, and the players knew it because the standard damage system was being applied consistently with the player's colorful attempt at persuasion--the probability of a PC caving of its player's own free will would increase dramatically.)

I don't see this being necessarily any more 'narrative' than any other mechanical resolution system, as you say. In any case its just one example.

QuoteAgain, I'll point out AD&D's 1 minute combat rounds. A lot of GMs took advantage of how abstract combat was and did a lot of creative narration. In the besieged thread, I mention my experience playing Battle Lords of the 23rd Century back in 1993 with a particularly colorful GM. It's not quite the 70's, but it does pre-date the modern theories. Every GM of course had their own style. But this sort of top-down approach, where the mechanics produced the outcome was not exactly rare.

I used to do the exact same thing until I realized it wasn't such a great way of doing things. Ironically, it's the creative players that would get frustrated when I'd run things this way. They'd think of all these clever things, and in the end, none of it mattered. You had x chance at doing ydz+w damage in a combat round. Everything you described your character doing was just meaningless color. Sometimes as GM I was even clever in trying to create the illusion that it did matter. "Oh? You want to knee him in the groin? Make your hit roll. You hit? Okay, you do one point of damage and he's stunned just long enough for you to get in a free attack that automatically hits for ydz+w-1 damage."

Yes, generally that's a known feature of these sort of things. Rolling per task does give a greater chance of being able to try again via some other means or otherwise get from A to B, whereas the outcome of a conflict roll is generally more final, with no further correspondence entered into.
I guess there's a caveat, in that systems that do this might give some sort of bonus for a player doing something especially appropriate, or cool, or exciting - or skip a roll completely if the character has resources that should sort out a problem easily. It does at least let players do things a more detailed set of rules might otherwise actively stop players from doing - i.e. would you rather have a call shot to the groin that overall is just the same as any other attack, or a called shot to the groin that no one will ever use because its -8 to hit and you've better off just stabbing them? I don't think there's one right answer there - different strokes for different folks.

Quote from: Lunamancer;873430No.

Really? :rolleyes:

Then explain why in your example the GM mandates or allows the player to roll the dice to find a secret door (that the GM already knows doesn't exist) rather than the GM simply rolling some dice himself and announcing "You don't find anything"?

This isn't brain surgery or rocket science, Lunamancer. It's DMing 101. Even if the solution of having the DM roll wasn't painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain, the solution to the very silly problem you posed was published in the 1974 edition of the D&D rules. Reading the example of play on pages 12-14 of The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures shows the DM is rolling the checks to listen, open doors, and detect secret doors on behalf of the players. The DM doing the rolling avoids the problem that would occur by the player rolling and then wondering why they didn't see find a secret door even though they rolled a 1 on their D6. By the way, the secret door "problem" is the exact same problem as the listen at the door problem or the open the door problem. And the exact same solution (the DM rolls the dice for the player) applies in all three cases.

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."

Um, ... are you really saying that?
I'm not gonna be nasty about it like Gronan, i'll just point out that occasional "raindances" is part of any rpg, and I have no idea why that would be any problem.

Personally I consider it wrong to refer to it as "raindances" for a few reasons, but even if we do it:
Some systems rewards experience/levels/whatever after actions performed, no matter wether they succeeded or failed.
And, in the cases one don't, one better have to ask an important question:
Why am I playing Roleplaying Games?
Is it to win?
Sure, that is ok, but similar to reality, and unlike most computer games today, you will not get a FLAWLESS VICTORY always.
Heck, depending on what game and GM or DM you have, you may even have to consider yourself lucky to have survived a 100-room dungeoun, despite only having explored 10 rooms, "wasted" tenths of great rolls and equipment on non-existent traps and illusions of enemies.
An rpg (the original kind) just isn't that kind of game!

If a player said the thing you suggested there, i'd react in one of several possible ways, including "No, there is no trap to remove" or "if you want to waste an action, sure, why not" or I might even go Dread Gazebo on the idiot's ass saying "oop, I was wrong there is a kind of trap there, it is the dungeon wall itself, and it falls over you, collapsing the roof above you as a well, and it deals like 50 D100 crushing damage to you".
Or I might say "Are you joking?" and hopefully he'll realise how silly his comment is, and say "yes" and then we'll continue playing.

EDIT:
And sometimes one proves ones own point excellently by not understanding what the discussion really is about .... and writes a reply showcasing this lack of understanding.
XD

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;872800Picture this. You approach the guards and the GM says they are very alert and it's going to be an extremely difficult check to sneak past them. But you try anyway and roll exceptionally well. For plot reason the GM doesn't want you to sneak past them so as soon as you roll he chymes in with "A maid walks around the corner and shrieks alerting the guards."

That sounds like hysterically fun, but only if the maid was a random event as well. I absolutely love Mr. Murphy showing up in games, but "for plot reasons" is just lame.

Quote from: Lunamancer;873114Have you ever had a player say, "I made this awesome find traps roll and you're telling me there's no trap?

Yes! That's my best friend Scott. He loves doing stuff like that to DMs who let him roll those kinds of perception rolls because he's a dork.

Since I do secret rolls, I fuck with the players by saying stuff like "you didn't find any evidence of a trap, but damn you get the feeling this would be the perfect place to set one."

Quote from: Lunamancer;873271In fairness to you, you did admit something CRists often refuse to admit. That intent-based resolution does tend to be on a different scale than task-based resolution. Most CRists deny this because someone like myself will point out, "Well hey, why not just make an adventure check to see whether or not I come back with the dungeon full of loot."

And then they'll go and claim I'm engaging in every logical fallacy in the book. But I'm not. Depending on the scope of the game, that may be entirely appropriate. Maybe it's a game about politics and intrigue among guilds, and this is how the Adventurers Guild gathers resources. We don't want to actually play out the dungeon expedition because that's not what the game is about.

Indeed, and I've done this-in a traditional system to boot.
Then again,task resolution has always allowed scaling the mechanical engagement back and forth.
http://www.vajraenterprises.com/new/?p=362

QuoteBut see, if you admit that this is a fair look at things, I'm going to argue that "traditional" gaming also sometimes just sums up with a quick roll things that are not central to what the game is about.

Yes, of course? Why would anyone argue?

QuoteActually, that is not what I have argued. "Interesting" is their word. Not mine. They use it to mean, that the die roll determines the outcome. Their example is picking the lock on a safe to get some dirt on the villain. Their claim is that task-resolution is bad because they can successfully pick the lock only for the GM to say, "Ha! The safe was empty!" Insofar as the intent was to find dirt, the lock picking roll was irrelevant. They call that not interesting. And this is really the cornerstone of what they're claiming differentiates intent-resolution from task-resolution.

Where this necessarily becomes narrative control is, what if the GM wasn't just being a dick? What if the safe really was empty all along? What if the villain burned whatever evidence so it's not conveniently in the waste basket by the safe either? To make the check to open the safe "interesting" we have to ret-con the world in the event of a successful check just to make sure the player gets what he intended to find one way or another.

Actually,  CR proponents that I have talked to would say "if the GM knows the evidence isn't in the safe, just don't allow a roll, let him open it and move on to searching for evidence". This is the version I'd use on my brief forays into narrative systems.