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

(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

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: