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)