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. 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. 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...

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.
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.
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.