Quote from: LostSoulThe way I see it, you have a lot of trust in the GM, in both his fairness and his creativity.  He won't screw you over just because.  He'll just make things cooler with his rulings.  His rulings are better than the ones that come up as a result of the mechanics, and consistently so, so you're better off going with whatever he says.

This is one of the ways I started this entire fiasco - "Conflict Resolution" is a reaction to bad GM practice and/or lack of trust.

Yes, I did trust the GM's with whom I played. I trusted the whole group. I didn't think his rulings were always going to be more cool or better than the result of the mechanics (otherwise why have mechanics?). But, even at 17, we were able to play withtout these problems and tailored the basic rules to our needs (somebody called the "proto-CR" in some cases).

Having said all that, I think your response leans toward the CR = RSNC. Is this correct?  I mean, you seem to want to remove the ability, at any level, for GM Fiat (Rule 0, I believe, in D&D), which leaves us at RSNC.

Quote from: LostSoulI don't like to play like that, though, so I might be off.  I have played like that, on both sides of the screen.  I just find it too difficult and unrewarding on the GM's side, and I feel "deprotagonized" if I'm a player.

You know, quite honestly, I don't even know what the hell that deprotagonized shit even means.  I mean, really...My character isn't the lead? Really? Cry me a river. What about everyone else in the game? What about their desires to be the protagonist? What about the GM's desire to facilitate a good story? Everyone can't be king. You rely on (trust) the GM to balance all of these competing needs and desires. It's why GM is a tough gig, no matter how easily it comes to some people (not me!). Without GM fiat, none of that is possible. Those shiny terms make me crazy - sorry.

Quote from: LostSoulI think what I'm trying to say is that, if the GM has that fiat authority, the other two options first have to go through GM fiat.  In play it would look something like this:

"I seduce the barmaid!"

GM thinks: Will it be okay if the player succeeds?

ENHHHHHH! WRONG! The first thing is to determine if the players request is covered by the rules. The second, assuming no to the previous, is to talk with the player about options to resolve the issue.

Quote from: LostSoul1. No roll at all, just a flat "No".

You put it first, I'd put it last.

Quote from: LostSoul2. Roll, but add in too many modifiers/set the difficulty too high for the roll to matter.

[LIST=A]

• They matter if they are valid; that is, they are valid for the application to this particular resolution mechanic.
• They are especially valid when discussed with the player and agreed upon.

I dispute your latent assumption that adding modifers that make it especially difficult makes the roll somehow meaningless.

Quote from: LostSoul3. Roll, but ignore any results.
4. Roll, but only give the appearance of success.  e.g. "She is falling for you, but then her husband comes in and takes her home."  "She invites you back to her room, but when you're there she pulls a dagger and stabs you!  Roll Init!" etc.
5+ etc.  GM fiat, basically.

These two are essentially the same.  The GM overrides the (presumably hidden) results - called, I think, Illusionism or some such shiny term. Though I can't say it's a good idea, I've seen it be employed effectively. But it's always a huge risk, especially if used too often. It can be seen as GM railroading and so forth (including players feel deprotagonized :melodramatic:).

Quote from: LostSoulAnyways.  The point is that the resolution has to go through that first step: the GM has to decide if he is going to use fiat or not.  It's like... the GM picks the type of resolution - roll, say yes, or whatever the GM wants.  That choice is fiat just the same.

Ugh... I'm not explaining this well.  

It's like all resolution exists within the bubble of GM fiat.  (Well... all resolution when the stated goal is not explicitly covered by the rules.)

Does that make any sense?

Nope, not really.

I get the sense, as I said before, that you see any possibility of GM fiat as a bad thing.  Therefore, you must choose RSNC as a basic foundation of your rule system, otherwise, you are not going to be satisfied. And might I say, it's a fine choice. I wish you all the good gaming in the world.

Quote from: FeanorYou know, quite honestly, I don't even know what the hell that deprotagonized shit even means.

It's about not being able to contribute to the narrative.

Quote from: FeanorENHHHHHH! WRONG! The first thing is to determine if the players request is covered by the rules. The second, assuming no to the previous, is to talk with the player about options to resolve the issue.

I thought we had established that "seduce the barmaid" was not covered by the rules.  But yeah, you're right, that would be the first thing to check.

Quote from: FeanorI dispute your latent assumption that adding modifers that make it especially difficult makes the roll somehow meaningless.

If I can't do it, just say that I can't do it.  Don't lie to me and have me roll when you've already decided (by manipulating the target number through modifiers) what's going to happen.

I generally distrust systems where the GM can set whatever target number he wants (either by just setting the number or adding modifiers).

Quote from: FeanorI get the sense, as I said before, that you see any possibility of GM fiat as a bad thing.  Therefore, you must choose RSNC as a basic foundation of your rule system, otherwise, you are not going to be satisfied. And might I say, it's a fine choice. I wish you all the good gaming in the world.

Exactly.  

When I play, I don't want to wonder if the GM is going to use a resolution mechanic to determine what happens or if he's going to use fiat.  I want to know that he's going to be using a resolution mechanic every time there's some sort of conflict.

Fantastic!  LostSoul and I have agreed to disagree on particulars, but most of what we disagree on is in the eye of, so I think we're good.  Please correct me if I'm wrong LostSoul.

What I'm left with are two possible definitions of "Conflict Resolution," and no clear answer as to which is more correct.

• Conflict Resolution is a modified version of Task Resolution, but still using Voluntary Shared Narrative Control. It is basically shorthand for one end of the spectrum of VSNC games.
• Conflict Resolution is a Required Shared Narrative Control in which players are capable of changing the narrative of the game in any way desired without GM intervention.

The more I read over the thread, however, the more it seemed to be leaning towards the latter. So can we agree that Conflict Resolution is not about the things that can also be addressed through Task Resolution, but is really about Required Shared Narrative Control?

Back from a nice and long Thanksgiving weekend and some posts but nothing that seems to have gone anywhere. I still disagree with either one of those being a definition of CR.

On CR prevents bad GMing: (Unrelated to previous)
Starting with Dogs. The GM can continual add people from the town onto his side of the conflict (GM has control of the towns folk) as helpers to make it so the PCs will never win a conflict when he does not want them to.
Trollbabe and The Mountain Witch are consider CR but still have ways you can GM badly.
In a CR system that also sets a penalty on a failure (Often called counter stakes) an unacceptable failure penalty could be set by the GM.
These are examples of a CR system where the GM can screw you over you over if he wants to.
The only bad GMing CR prevents is the GM trying to bai the players into a situation where they think they will get something but don't.
So can we have an end to the CR is about preventing bad GMing?

Quote from: FeanorOh, wait.  I know.  Mine goes to 11.

Could you enlighten me on what that means?

Quote from: FeanorThe more I read over the thread, however, the more it seemed to be leaning towards the latter. So can we agree that Conflict Resolution is not about the things that can also be addressed through Task Resolution, but is really about Required Shared Narrative Control?

Totally.

Quote from: tj333On CR prevents bad GMing: (Unrelated to previous)
Starting with Dogs. The GM can continual add people from the town onto his side of the conflict (GM has control of the towns folk) as helpers to make it so the PCs will never win a conflict when he does not want them to.
Trollbabe and The Mountain Witch are consider CR but still have ways you can GM badly.
In a CR system that also sets a penalty on a failure (Often called counter stakes) an unacceptable failure penalty could be set by the GM.
These are examples of a CR system where the GM can screw you over you over if he wants to.
The only bad GMing CR prevents is the GM trying to bai the players into a situation where they think they will get something but don't.
So can we have an end to the CR is about preventing bad GMing?

This is fascinating. I don't know enough about the games you mention to know if what you say is possible or not. But, if true, it certainly sounds like the potential for the same sort of GM-fiat power exists, only through different mechanisms.

"Mine goes to 11," is a reference to the movie "This is Spinal Tap." The lead guitarist of the fictional band Spinal Tap is bragging about how his amplifiers are louder/better because, whereas most amplifiers have volumes that go from 1 to 10, his amp goes to 11.  When the director asks him "Why not just make 10 louder? Wouldn't that be the same thing?" His only response is "Yeah, but..mine goes to 11."

This reminds me of many theory debates.

Quote from: FeanorThis is fascinating. I don't know enough about the games you mention to know if what you say is possible or not. But, if true, it certainly sounds like the potential for the same sort of GM-fiat power exists, only through different mechanisms.

I find that GM fiat still exists with CR, but it tends to be in the open.

I have to continue to express my stunned amazement at this turn in the thread. Until now, I've taken everyone's assertion that "Conflict Resolution" addresses GM fiat so thoroughly that it's a thing of the past. Now I get the impression that, in reality, this is not true; that essentially one still has to rely on the GM not resorting to bad behavior.

If this is true, then I'm more strongly than ever of the impression that TR and CR, strictly from a resolution perspective, are not that different. That what makes them different is the narrative control, and only that aspect.

Quote from: James J SkachI have to continue to express my stunned amazement at this turn in the thread. Until now, I've taken everyone's assertion that "Conflict Resolution" addresses GM fiat so thoroughly that it's a thing of the past. Now I get the impression that, in reality, this is not true; that essentially one still has to rely on the GM not resorting to bad behavior.

I've pretty much said everything I could on CR before; so Lord forgive me for going back into this thread, but I have to respond to this

Nothing in the world can stop a dick GM trying to fuck things up if he really wants to. He can ignore and/or misapply the rules; create overpowered opposition; use fiat to overrule the dice, punch the players in the face when they fail, and so on. CR rules in a book can't protect you from a GM who doesn't follow the rules.

Assuming, however, that the GM still wants to judge things by fiat, but isn't a blatantly ignoring all the rules, TR systems can easily hide this kind of behavior. ("The Baron is searching for you", "Ah-ha! I climb a tree, then" - success - "Yep, you climb the tree OK, but the Baron still finds you", "Damn. OK then, I try and do X"). With CR, this kind of thing is totally out in the open. ("The Baron is searching for you", "I'm going to hide from him. Hmmm, I'll climb a tree" - success - "Yep, you climb the tree OK, but the Baron still finds you", "Hey! I won that conflict, The Baron can't find me! Fuck off!").

Yeah, the Forge Gaming Police aren't going to smash your front door down if you ignore or override a successful player conflict when you are playing The Mountain Witch, for example, but what you are doing is going to be clear to your group.

And if you always, without exception, follow the declared player intent in a TR system (assuming that the player makes his rolls or whatever), how is that not RSNC?

With the DitV mob rules (which IMO are the only weak part of the entire ruleset), there is nothing to stop the GM from getting shitloads of extra dice by setting the PCs against a huge number of NPCs. But he can't do it in the middle of a conflict, and the number of characters involved should be made clear before a conflict is started. This means that, before conflict is joined and dice are rolled, the players can Give and let it go if the GM decides to send a dozen gunmen after them, and (IMO) would be well within their rights to call bullshit (much as they would in any other game; but in GURPS -- for example -- there is nothing in the rules to stop a GM from bringing in extra bandits "from the woods" in the middle of the fight if he wanted to).

Quote from: James J SkachIf this is true, then I’m more strongly than ever of the impression that TR and CR, strictly from a resolution perspective, are not that different. That what makes them different is the narrative control, and only that aspect.

What do you mean by narrative control? I think I might spin that off into a new thread; as this one is big & sprawling enough as is

Quote from: LostSoulI find that GM fiat still exists with CR, but it tends to be in the open.

I can see how that works. It ties in with most of the pieces of CR being in the open as well.

Quote from: warrenBut he can't do it in the middle of a conflict, and the number of characters involved should be made clear before a conflict is started.

Whoops, I thought that could be done at anytime in the conflict.

Quote from: James J SkachI have to continue to express my stunned amazement at this turn in the thread. Until now, I've taken everyone's assertion that "Conflict Resolution" addresses GM fiat so thoroughly that it's a thing of the past. Now I get the impression that, in reality, this is not true; that essentially one still has to rely on the GM not resorting to bad behavior.

If this is true, then I’m more strongly than ever of the impression that TR and CR, strictly from a resolution perspective, are not that different. That what makes them different is the narrative control, and only that aspect.

The one area of GM fiat that CR address is that the GM can not go back on the outcome of a conflict or change the goal of it anymore then he can tell you that you didn't just hit for 8 damage after the rules tell you that you very well did so. Edit: Warren covers this better then I.

To Handle GM Fiat:
In Dogs the players could tell the GM thats just lame (just as the GM could do the same to them.) and by the rules they have to come to some kind of acceptable solution.
In Polaris (a very different game with how it handles its GM(s).) 2 of the other players can overrules the GM figure under certain conditions but those 2 players cannot be a part of the conflict when they do so.

What I see is that these and some other CR systems have procedures in place for handeling GM fiat but they are seperate from the CR mechanics.

In Dogs in the Vineyard has 3 possibles points of required shared narrative control:

• Saying its lame (see above) and "Say yes or roll the dice" work together.
• Can add reasonable items into the game setting such as a rope, a watering trough to throw someone into, or other scenery.
• They have a say in what the conflict is.

Giving the GM final say on 1 and 2 easily and quickly removes them from the list. That's lame can block any "say yes or roll" objections that come up. The only change to conflict resolution is no response to the GM being an ass in the system (Solutions outside of the game still exist) and they lose small amounts of dice from the scenery/items.

Does having the players be in control of the possible outcomes of their actions through the conflict goals make it any more RSNC then the players being in control of who he hits for damage with what weapon?

To me those 2 action are roughly equivalent in their respective resolution systems and can be treated very similarly as they are the main point where the player adds input into the game.



Now I have left Trollbabe and The Mountain Witch out of this because once you win the conflict in those games narration rights are gtiven to you to tell how you succeeded.

Just for fun, more necromancy.

I actually did read this entire thread before posting. I have to agree, the terminology of Task vs Conflict resolution is misleading and deceptive. In plain English, two key parts of any action--means and ends. It is possible that the ends of one action is simply to feed or enable the means of a subsequent action. The ultimate ends is always happiness, or avoidance of unhappiness. The elemental means always has to be some simple command you could issue. Picking a lock is not such a thing. If you commanded most people to pick that lock, they wouldn't know how. You'd have to instruct them step by step on how to do it.

If there are GMs or RPGs requiring a dozen successful rolls and decisions to pick a lock, or having players roll for happiness, then I guess they're doing something different in their resolution mechanics. Everything else is a mid-level link in the means-ends chain of action.

As to narrative control, anyone remember the random dungeon generator in the 1st Ed DMG? If you read closer, its stated purpose is to enable solo play. As such, it doesn't come out and say whether or not a secret door is present. You must search for a secret door. And if it's successful, you find one.

Even this narrow slice of narrative control led to contradictions requiring special exception handlers, like if the secret door generated/discovered leads into an area already mapped. Likewise, in a more general case when narrative control is similarly tied to a resolution mechanic, it can sometimes produce results that contradict facts previously established--perhaps established by the very same mechanic. In the example of the safe cracker, the dirt may have already been removed from that room earlier by a PC who delivered it into the hands of an NPC. It thus may actually be, regardless of how good the roll was, the GM still has to say, "Sorry, it just ain't there."

Which brings me to the idea of an "uninteresting result." There just ain't no such thing. What is really meant by the term is anything where the conditions of the game world over-rule the dice. In terms of Knightian Risk vs Uncertainty, it has the effect of removing Knightian Uncertainty. The problem with removing Knightian Uncertainty? Virtually all, if not all conditions of the real world fall into that category.

Mileage may vary, but for me, Knightian Uncertainty is essential for a) an interesting game, b) a fictional world as nuanced as the real world, and c) a good story. This may be perfectly tolerable if I'm so desperate to game I decide to break out the 1st Ed DMG for some solo play. I have higher standards when it comes to playing with a group.

Picture this. You approach the guards and the GM says they are very alert and it's going to be an extremely difficult check to sneak past them. But you try anyway and roll exceptionally well. For plot reason the GM doesn't want you to sneak past them so as soon as you roll he chymes in with "A maid walks around the corner and shrieks alerting the guards."

Step 1.  Punch the referee in the face so fucking hard he shits his own liver.
Step 2.  Kick the referee in the nuts so fucking hard blood squirts out his ears.
Step 3.  Realize your feet work.  Leave and never return.  Not gaming is better than bad gamng.

The rules can't fix asshole.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;872800Picture this. You approach the guards and the GM says they are very alert and it's going to be an extremely difficult check to sneak past them. But you try anyway and roll exceptionally well. For plot reason the GM doesn't want you to sneak past them so as soon as you roll he chymes in with "A maid walks around the corner and shrieks alerting the guards."

Step 1.  Punch the referee in the face so fucking hard he shits his own liver.
Step 2.  Kick the referee in the nuts so fucking hard blood squirts out his ears.
Step 3.  Realize your feet work.  Leave and never return.  Not gaming is better than bad gamng.

The rules can't fix asshole.

Yeah, on a personal level as it pertains to the games I run, obviously different people like different things about it, but the one thing everyone mentions as something they like is that as players, they really feel in control. Like they can at least attempt anything, and they have a fair chance at it, instead of running up against plot walls. I achieve this by strict adherence to resolution mechanics that do not incorporate narrative control.

This seems to belie all the design goals of distributed narrative power--that players are empowered by the absence of such a thing baked into the mechanics.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;872800Picture this. You approach the guards and the GM says they are very alert and it's going to be an extremely difficult check to sneak past them. But you try anyway and roll exceptionally well. For plot reason the GM doesn't want you to sneak past them so as soon as you roll he chymes in with "A maid walks around the corner and shrieks alerting the guards."

Step 1.  Punch the referee in the face so fucking hard he shits his own liver.
Step 2.  Kick the referee in the nuts so fucking hard blood squirts out his ears.
Step 3.  Realize your feet work.  Leave and never return.  Not gaming is better than bad gamng.

The rules can't fix asshole.

Setting aside the punching and kicking, as GM I would still be annoyed if players walked out as soon as their characters failed because of something they didn't know about. And that's especially likely if the NPCs had reason to know the PCs were coming and what strategies they had previously used, and chose plausible countermeasures.

The GM isn't an asshole just because the players don't think their characters should have failed.