This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: The need for Conflict Resolution?  (Read 22914 times)

James J Skach

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5007
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #30 on: September 07, 2006, 08:40:12 AM »
Before anyone else calls me on it, I'll cop to being completely blind, as Lost Soul points out.  I'll blame it on late-night-dry-contacts.  I missed the "why" in the second example.

But I don't think that changes things.  After going back and reading it again (My word, how could I have missed that!), I noticed a more subtle slight of hand.  Or at least, it seems to be the way in which the distinction is drawn without a difference.

Quote

(Originally from Vincent Baker's Essay, emphasis mine):
"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?)


Why does the GM answer this way.  If the GM and Player are communicating properly, didn't they establish what the roll is for?  Then why does the GM change this?  Could the GM have answered "You Beat Him! You make it to the ship." instead?  In fact, what's with the disarm and kicking butt stuff?  The player doesn't claim to want any of that, only to get to the ship.

Try this on for Task Resolution at a large scale:
Player: "I fight him!"
GM: "Why"
Player: "To get past him to get to the ship before it sails"
GM: "Well, you'll have to make quick work of him, which will add to your difficulty, if you want to make it. And you'll have to run as fast as you can to make it."
Player: "I'll use whatever method I can to finish him quickly, and I have a high movement, so I'll fly down the pier."
GM: Uses mechanics to set success target. "You'll need a 14 to do it all..."
Player: Roll! Success! "A 17! I did it!"
GM: "With the lightning quickness of a single stroke you defeat the guard.  You dodge down the pier and reach The Sea Princess just as she begins to pull away!"

This is my point about the difference - there is none.  It's really about coming to agreement on the granularity of action to be resolved by the mechanics.  If the GM and player don't do that, there might just be problems. And in traditional RPG's, the implied level is very granular.  This means that what you are doing is determining if the character can perform very specific tasks.

Quote from: LostSoul
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.

Does Task Resolution allow for the abuse of GM fiat?  Absolutley.  Is it solved by Conflict Resolution?  Absolutley not; lessened, possibly, to some degree, but not solved.

Quote from: LostSoul
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"?

And herein lies my point, yet again.  If the GM (or "other player" if you so desire) can say no at any level, Task or Conflict or whatever, how are they different? Look at the recent stir in Theory about stakes setting.

Again, I assert, Conflict Resolution is not about resolution at all.  It's about changing who determines the direction of the game.  The true goal of Conflict Resolution is to allow players to determine the results/impacts of the mechanics - see the say yes or roll discussion.
The rules are my slave, not my master. - Old Geezer

The RPG Haven - Talking About RPGs

droog

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4862
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #31 on: September 07, 2006, 08:53:09 AM »
I think Eero Tuovinen's post here is excellent on this topic. Note that it post-dates Vincent's blog entry.

Quote
So-called "conflict resolution" and "task resolution" are illusions, insofar as discrete game systems are concerned. There is no true conflict or task resolutions, or if there is, they are so vanishingly rare that it doesn't matter for our purposes. Instead, what systems do have is the quality of "resolving tasks" and the quality of "resolving conflicts". The thing is, all rpg systems have these qualities, and thus all rpgs have both "conflict" and "task resolution".
The past lives on in your front room
The poor still weak the rich still rule
History lives in the books at home
The books at home

Gang of Four
[/size]

LostSoul

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • L
  • Posts: 107
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #32 on: September 07, 2006, 06:02:40 PM »
Quote from: Feanor
Why does the GM answer this way.  If the GM and Player are communicating properly, didn't they establish what the roll is for?  Then why does the GM change this?  Could the GM have answered "You Beat Him! You make it to the ship." instead?  In fact, what's with the disarm and kicking butt stuff?  The player doesn't claim to want any of that, only to get to the ship.


I think the GM answers it that way because it's an example of Task Resolution.  If they are communicating properly, and they go to the mechanics to resolve the conflict of issue, then it's Conflict Resolution.

I think your example is Conflict Resolution.

example (let's say D&D):
"I jump over the fence!"
Rolls Jump against DC 10; success.
"Okay, you make it over the fence.  The pirate ship sails away."

"I jump over the fence because I want to get to the pirate ship before it sails away!"
Rolls Jump against the NPC's Profession: sailor; PC succeeds.
"Okay, you jump over the fence and make it on board the pirate ship before it sails away."

At least that's my understanding of it.

Quote from: Feanor
Again, I assert, Conflict Resolution is not about resolution at all.  It's about changing who determines the direction of the game.  The true goal of Conflict Resolution is to allow players to determine the results/impacts of the mechanics - see the say yes or roll discussion.


I don't see why that isn't resolution.
 

James J Skach

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5007
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #33 on: September 07, 2006, 08:04:40 PM »
Quote from: LostSoul
I think the GM answers it that way because it's an example of Task Resolution.  If they are communicating properly, and they go to the mechanics to resolve the conflict of issue, then it's Conflict Resolution.

So, just to be clear:  If the GM answers one way, it's Task Resolution.  If the GM answers another way, it's Conflict Resolution.  Oh, and they can only be communicating properly when it's Conflict Resolution.  So, by default, does this mean that Task Resolution is improper communication?:eek: In all seriousness, what's the difference between between conflict and task?

Quote from: LostSoul
I think your example is Conflict Resolution.

Why? Because the GM and Player discussed the ramifications?  Because the player decided the importance of this situation is really about getting to the ship?  Because the resolution included more than one action (fighting, running, jumping)?

Quote from: LostSoul
example (let's say D&D):
"I jump over the fence!"
Rolls Jump against DC 10; success.
"Okay, you make it over the fence.  The pirate ship sails away."

"I jump over the fence because I want to get to the pirate ship before it sails away!"
Rolls Jump against the NPC's Profession: sailor; PC succeeds.
"Okay, you jump over the fence and make it on board the pirate ship before it sails away."

Is that how a typical "Task Resolution" session goes?  Where is the discussion of how far the ship is?  How about the speed of the character? How are those factored into the Difficulty against which the character will roll?

No, the big difference between those two examples is that the ramifications of the result changed - with the addition of "because I want to get to the pirate ship before it sails away!"  This is all well and good.  However, once this occurs, the GM should figure in all of the factors that would result in getting to the ship and reflecting that in the Difficulty.  It's no longer a roll to jump the fence, now the mechanic is going to resolve the large Task of getting to the ship. In some mechanics, this might be a complicated calculation of distances and speeds and sailing skills and who knows what else.  In other systems, it might be a much more simple calculation.  In still others, the mechanic might be "OK, you make the ship and are now surrounded by angry pirates."

In all three of those possiblities, the Task is to get to the ship.  The only difference is the specificity of the mechanics applied to determine the outcome.
The rules are my slave, not my master. - Old Geezer

The RPG Haven - Talking About RPGs

FickleGM

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • F
  • Posts: 106
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #34 on: September 07, 2006, 09:25:35 PM »
Yeah, I can't see the difference, either...aside from semantics.

Maybe that is the difference, semantics.  Okay, obviously what you're trying to point out is that the Conflict Resolution system is supposed to have "table agreement" on the results prior to the roll (as well as perhaps a different method of determining the difficulty).  When the check is made, the results of failure or success are already known and not dependant on DM judgment.  With Task Resolution, it is assumed that the DM tells you what to roll and then decides the results after the roll.

LostSoul, it appears that your example only highlights bad DMing.  I just don't think that is a good example of Task Resolution.

I wouldn't put me with Top Flight against Tiger Woods with Titleist to show the superiority of the Titleist golf ball.

Unfortunately, with good DMing, you aren't going to see any obvious weaknesses in the "Task Resolution" system.
 

LostSoul

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • L
  • Posts: 107
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #35 on: September 08, 2006, 01:45:07 AM »
Quote from: FickleGM
LostSoul, it appears that your example only highlights bad DMing.  I just don't think that is a good example of Task Resolution.


Maybe it is only bad DMing.

Now: maybe systems that support Conflict Resolution over Task Resolution - systems that make it hard to do Task Resolution - maybe those are better systems.

However: do you have a good example of Task Resolution?
 

LostSoul

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • L
  • Posts: 107
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #36 on: September 08, 2006, 02:22:32 AM »
Let me just say: I like this discussion, I find it helpful to argue about these things.  I'm happy with the way things are going.

Oh, and don't take me for any authority on this stuff.  I'm learning it as I discuss it with you guys.  That's the cool stuff for me.

Quote from: Feanor
In all seriousness, what's the difference between between conflict and task?


Conflict: two people want to introduce two different things into the fiction of the game.  That is, two people want two different things to happen.  Don't read this as pure metagame stuff - the GM might be saying, "Warduke will never stand for being Bluffed like that; roll," or "The dragon doesn't want to die; roll," or "He doesn't believe what you're saying; if you want to convince him, you'll have to roll."

Task: how well a character does something, which may or may not reflect on what the player wanted to contribute to the game's fiction.  How well did I jump over the fence?  That's the only consideration.

Quote from: Feanor
Why? Because the GM and Player discussed the ramifications?  Because the player decided the importance of this situation is really about getting to the ship?  Because the resolution included more than one action (fighting, running, jumping)?


Yes, yes, and no.

Conflict resolution could resolve something very large in scale with a single roll: "I want to take over the kingdom through political guile." Or it could take a lot of rolls: Imagine all the rolls that you might need to take over the kingdom.  I want to convince the Baron that I'm trustworthy.  I want to convince the Baron to lend me his forces.  I want to convince those forces to attack the Baron.  etc.

Quote from: Feanor
Is that how a typical "Task Resolution" session goes?
 

I think so.  Any time where the player's intent isn't factored into the roll.  Vincent's example is good:

"I crack the safe to find the dirt on the big bad guy!"
He rolls Disable Device.
Does success in that roll determine:
1) If he cracks the safe or not
2) If he finds the dirt on the big bad guy

1) is Task Resolution.  2) is Conflict Resolution.

Quote from: Feanor
Where is the discussion of how far the ship is?  How about the speed of the character? How are those factored into the Difficulty against which the character will roll?QUOTE]

Who knows?  All that would depend on the specific game in question, right?

But let's say it's D&D.  Don't think of D&D's combat system as Task Resolution.  The whole "Do I get to the pirate ship, past this dude, before it sails?" can easily be done with D&D.  The DM determines how many rounds it takes to set sail, and if you can get there before it does, you succeed.

But sometimes it doesn't matter.  You kill the guy, but that - as per the RAW - doesn't say whether or not you make it onto the ship.  Good DMs will realize this and deal with it; I say that they are using Conflict Resolution.

I don't know; maybe you could look at Conflict Resolution as being composed of tasks that will determine your success in the goal you stated.  I think that's how Dogs works.


Hmmm.... what this thread needs are actual play examples.
 

FickleGM

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • F
  • Posts: 106
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #37 on: September 08, 2006, 07:01:22 AM »
Quote from: LostSoul
Maybe it is only bad DMing.

Now: maybe systems that support Conflict Resolution over Task Resolution - systems that make it hard to do Task Resolution - maybe those are better systems.

However: do you have a good example of Task Resolution?


Actually, I don't think I do have a good example, but here are some possible D&D-style resolution results:

1. Task is succeeded without consideration of the Conflict.
DM: Make a jump roll to clear the fence.
PC: *shooka shooka* I got an 18.
DM: You made it over the fence.
PC: Did I make it on the ship?
DM: Oh, you want on get on the ship?
PC: *sarcasticly* Noooo, I just want to jump fences.

2. Task is succeeded, but the conflict is failed.
DM: Make a jump roll to clear the fence.
PC: *shooka shooka* I got an 18.
DM: You made it over the fence.
PC: Did I make it on the ship?
DM: Nope, it sails away.

3. Task is succeeded and results in the conflict being succeeded.
DM: Make a jump roll to clear the fence.
PC: *shooka shooka* I got an 18.
DM: You made it over the fence.
PC: Did I make it on the ship?
DM: Yes, by jumping the fence, you lessen the distance and make it on the ship before it sails away.

Obviously, #1 and #2 fall under what you will label Task Resolution, while #3 will probably get the Conflict Resolution label.  #1 is stupid DMing...the player may have just said, "I jump the fence." and not explicitly stated that he was trying to get on the ship, but the situation should have made it obvious.

#2 may be bad DMing, because the player's goal was obviously not accomplished through the success of the task.  Of course, perhaps it isn't bad DMing.  The DM may have already calculated that the character cannot make it on the ship before it sails.  Whether or not the player had a chance to perceive this before jumping the fence, I don't know.  Some DMs may just say, "you know that will not make it on the ship." OR they may say, "make a Spot check to see if you think that you can make it on the ship."  OR they may just decide that the character doesn't know if he can make it.

#3 treats "getting on the ship" as the conflict/task that is being rolled for and the fence is can be an obstacle that determines what skill is used or it could have added a penalty to a different roll.  There are probably a lot of DMs that implicitly use a so-called Conflict Resolution system in their games.  By taking what the player says and tying it into what is being rolled for, he is allowing the player to help shape the game.

I usually follow #3, because it just makes sense to me that what the players are trying to accomplish is pretty important to a game.  They rarely word their actions in a way that would allow me to separate Task from Conflict (ala #1 above) without me being an idiot.  Of course, I also don't want to have rules in place that make #2 impossible for me as a DM.  I would never abuse the #2 scenario, as that would quickly alienate the players...but, there are circumstances where I feel that #2 is useful.

Take the safe example, what if I prepared the scenario where the evidence was not in the safe.  The player doesn't know that, nor does his character.  I don't want to discuss this out of character, nor do I want to add a Conflict that will allow the evidence to be in the safe.  I am going to treat a player's request to, "crack the safe to find the dirt" as, "well, you can attempt to crack the safe and find out if the dirt is inside."

I'm not going to tell the player, "Uh, the dirt isn't in the safe, so save yourself the effort", NOR am I going to say, "Well, since you worded your conflict in a way the allows you to change the scenario, I guess that you'll find the dirt if you succeed."

Perhaps there is less specific preparation or team preparation or at the table preparation that takes place in these GMing By Committee games.  Or perhaps there are instance in even these games where the GM can override the committee, but I have been under the impression that these games exist so that the GM doesn't have the authority to make those types of decisions.

I'm getting rambly, so I hope that you can follow what I am getting at.
 

Marco

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 336
    • http://www.jagsrpg.org
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #38 on: September 08, 2006, 07:45:00 AM »
Quote from: LostSoul
I think the GM answers it that way because it's an example of Task Resolution.  If they are communicating properly, and they go to the mechanics to resolve the conflict of issue, then it's Conflict Resolution.


I think this is a key point: Conflict Resolution rules are (IMO) designed to facilitate clear (clearer?) GM-Player communication. Whether they work well or not will be up to the group (if the GM and Player argue forever over the stakes then, while conflict might be "clear" it will not be fruitful).

But that's not the only element of Conflict Resolution:
In DitV (notably) there is pretty much a moratorium on hidden info--anything that only the GM knows at the start pretty much must be revealed in the game so long as the Players are engaged. This is very, very different from a lot of other situations.

I have seen reported cases where Dogs players have (and I'm not sure the rules support this), picked an NPC who they thought was guilty, and then accosted them in a contest to "make the NPC confess." The result (in the player's opinion) wouldn't just be a 'forced confession' but, in their eyes, actually create the fact that the NPC had done what they confessed to even though the GM's notes contradicted that.

In this case, taken as a logical extreme, the dice rolls generate dirt on the governor even though the character has always been played (and perceived by the GM, and perhaps other players) as clean. In such a game the PCs could simply pick the first person they see and force them to tell the whole story of the game as they (the players) saw fit.

I doubt this mode of play would be especially fun for most people and I don't think it's inherently part of Conflict Resolution--but it, like a GM forcing rolls to make coffee or dial a telephone--is an example of what happens if the basic idea gets carried pretty far.

On the other hand, if the GM can arbitrarily reject stakes  then, taking the governor example, either breaking into the safe is simply hand-waved (there is no risk and it isn't played out) or the fact of the governor's lack of corruption is discovered just by asking.

Either way, if the participants aren't on the same page, this could result in a poor gaming experience (a middle ground would be to run the breaking-in scene with risk but hand-wave the safe-cracking part in favor of the characters so they still go through the experience of not knowing if the governor is corrupt until they get there but then do not fail a crucial roll to execute their search).

This middle ground, though, is still pretty much task-resolution, IMO, if the player has to roll to get past guards or open other locks ...

-Marco
JAGS Wonderland, a lavishly illlustrated modern-day horror world book informed by the works of Lewis Carroll. Order it Print-on-demand or get the PDF here free.

Just Released: JAGS Revised Archetypes . Updated, improved, consolidated. Free. Get it here.

gleichman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #39 on: September 08, 2006, 08:24:18 AM »
Quote from: Marco
I think this is a key point: Conflict Resolution rules are (IMO) designed to facilitate clear (clearer?) GM-Player communication.


Watching this debate, I'm getting the impression that 'Conflict Resolution' is nothing more than Task Resolution + a dab of common sense advice- all dressed up to make its proponents feel good about themselves.
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you've simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

FickleGM

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • F
  • Posts: 106
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #40 on: September 08, 2006, 08:47:49 AM »
Quote from: gleichman
Watching this debate, I'm getting the impression that 'Conflict Resolution' is nothing more than Task Resolution + a dab of common sense advice- all dressed up to make its proponents feel good about themselves.


My verbosity/babblosity may not be as clear, but I am in agreement.
 

Abyssal Maw

  • some random jerk!
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5624
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #41 on: September 08, 2006, 09:21:35 AM »
This debate is silly.

Here's something Task Resolution can do to trump Conflict resolution:

GM: Ok, you jumped the fence, but the ship sails away.

(is the situation really over at this point? In Conflict Reslution, it's over. Pass or fail, it's over and the situation ends. The ship has sailed, with or without the PCs on it. There's no room for player input beyond "do I make it- yes or no?" before the situation is resolved. For Task Resolution, however it's not over at all...)

Player: So I missed boarding call?

GM: Yeah..

Player: how far away is the ship?

GM: It's like... 80' or so by now. You never really had a chance to get there in time to make boarding call.

Player: I call my dolphin animal companion, and once it arrives, it carries me.

Player 2: I commandeer another vessel- is there a dinghy around here? Then I catch up by rowing. Otherwise, we gather the rest of the party. We may have to steal a ship and run them down..

Player 3: Let me see the map. (looks at map). Are there other ships in the harbor? How fast is that ship moving? Maybe I can circle around the harbor and cut them off. Hey, does that ship pass under the suspension bridge? I'm thinking of a plan involving 50' of rope and a ring of feather falling.

Player 4: My character is an excellent swimmer. If it's just 80' away and has to maneuver I should be able to cross the distance by sprinting (my swim speed) in the water. Then I'll use my climb skills to sneak aboard.  

Player 5: (etc)

And of course these various ideas from the players may not all work, but what they will do is lead to new tasks: attempts to steal another ship, maybe .. or maybe the crazy plan about bungee jumping off of the suspension bridge with a ring of feather falling and a grappling hook won't work after all.. but the players are engaged and providing their vital input. There is back and forth and interplay and the scene only ends when the players run out of ideas or options.
Download Secret Santicore! (10MB). I painted the cover :)

Balbinus

  • Repairer of Reputations
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 4269
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #42 on: September 08, 2006, 09:41:11 AM »
Quote from: Abyssal Maw
(is the situation really over at this point? In Conflict Reslution, it's over. Pass or fail, it's over and the situation ends. The ship has sailed, with or without the PCs on it. There's no room for player input beyond "do I make it- yes or no?" before the situation is resolved. For Task Resolution, however it's not over at all...)


Yeah, but the point with conflict resolution is to make both outcomes interesting.

Plus, the conflict really isn't do you get on the ship, you want on the ship for a reason, the conflict is whether you achieve the goal getting on the ship is a step towards.

It can also generate new ideas.  Hey, you failed to catch the pirates, that's done and the pirates were not caught.  Now what will you do in a world where pirate catching is no longer an option?

gleichman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4541
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #43 on: September 08, 2006, 09:46:24 AM »
Quote from: Balbinus
Yeah, but the point with conflict resolution is to make both outcomes interesting.


Good task resolution makes both outcomes interesting.


The term 'task resolution' btw is as flawed as the term 'conflict cesolution'. There is only Resolution- i.e. the answering of a question that is in doubt. Nothing more.
Whitehall Paraindustries- A blog about RPG Theory and Design

"The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do — you've simply abdicated the responsibility to think." - William F. Buckley.

Balbinus

  • Repairer of Reputations
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 4269
The need for Conflict Resolution?
« Reply #44 on: September 08, 2006, 09:51:48 AM »
Quote from: gleichman
Good task resolution makes both outcomes interesting.


The term 'task resolution' btw is as flawed as the term 'conflict cesolution'. There is only Resolution- i.e. the answering of a question that is in doubt. Nothing more.


Sure, I have no great attachment to the terms, I just thought Abyssal was a bit off base in that part of his analysis.

This whole discussion though, do we have a single participant who actually advocates conflict resolution?  If not we're just sitting around discussing something none of us do and guessing at what those who do do it get out of it.  We need someone who supports the concept if we are to say anything meaningful.