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.