Quote from: FickleGMAnother nice example...very clear.

I will say that, except for the explicit player-DM collaboration, I have done stuff that is almost identical to this.  So, our resolution system is more intuitive and implicit.  I also would not use my "fiat" power to pull a, "You run up to the ship in time, but the hull is slippery & wet, so you fall into the sea".  That just seems to be an abuse of power.

So, we aren't as far apart as I might have thought.  I don't want or require a system to have these rules, but through the use of common sense, perception and interaction, I accomplish most of the same things...

I agree that was a better example. And I further agree that you shouldn't fiat things like "the hull is too slippery". Especially if there's already rules that handle things like climbing aboard slippery ships as part of the game system.

I think we have come full circle as I am now arguiing that the GM should "say yes or roll the dice" (haha, but seriously)  in any given situation where a player can come up with a reasonable plan.

I find this acceptable, gameable, and interesting:

GM: The ships side is too slippery to climb...
Player: I throw my grappling hook!  

This just isn't:

GM: Ok, so the stakes are getting on the ship and defeating the slaver OR the slaver escapes and you experience serious doubt in your status as a protector.

Player: I roll my 'love for humanity' 6d6!

Quote from: gleichmanWatching 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.

I think a lot of the theory has to do with power-struggle and ways to either re-frame it or minimize it. If the group you game with doesn't go "Sure you got past the guard--but ha ha! The ship gets away!" then a lot of this is going to look like extra steps ("Gee, of course I'm trying to get to the ship--why do I need to specify it?")

That said, I don't mind having a name for different points of view on resolution if you can show how they are different. And they are, IMO: explicitly setting stakes is different from implying stakes. One may be better for ensuring no one is surprised--one may be better for immersion and speed of play.

One has the GM exercise fiat power before the role ("No, those are not the stakes.") one after.

They're different--but saying one is globally better is going to be problematic. And that I'd dispute.

-Marco

Quote from: Abyssal MawGM: Ok, so the stakes are getting on the ship and defeating the slaver OR the slaver escapes and you experience serious doubt in your status as a protector.

Player: I roll my 'love for humanity' 6d6!

Yeah, I'm not denying that there are games like this to have come out the Forge, and they use Conflict Resolution. But they are not the way they are because of Conflict Resolution.

Quote from: MarcoThey're different--but saying one is globally better is going to be problematic. And that I'd dispute.

Yeah cool. I think I would always prefer a CR system over a TR one. But that is just that, a preference. You guys might well be the opposite, and that's cool as well.

I just didn't want CR to be misrepresented, that's all

Cool.   That was good, Warren.

Having tension in a roll is a good thing (and I think that is an explicit and desirable feature of diced resolution), but I don't see CR as acheiving what I want out of it.

First, as stated earlier, one of the explicit goals is to minimize dice rolls. I can see that as a laudible goal to some extent (frex, I loathed how oWoD had two sets of opposed rolls to resolve an attack... it DID slow things down and not every roll there was emotionally charged.) But when you start subtracting out dice rolls, you subtract that emotional charge associated with them.

Second, a dice roll in typical task resolution need not be the game breaker that it sounds like CR could be. If you fail a task, you can find other routes to your goals, or get metered success in the form of clues, etc. It can become a story telling and excitement-inducing tool. If you wrap the entirety of the conflict in one roll, if that roll fails, you fail to reach your goal. That may sound like the point, but I'd like to focus on it here in the light that is not what I want.

As a GM, I want the authority and opportunity to move the game forward in interesting ways. Having small failures is just an opportunity to introduce interesting conflicts and conundrums into the game that might never occur as anything more than a narration if everything hinged on one roll.

Having said that, it occurs to me that I am coming off more negative on the concept that I really am. I don't see this as a dichotomy so much as a continuum and I have seen situations of broadening the stakes of a roll used with good effect.

For example, I have spoken at some length about Dramatic Conflicts in spycraft. Dramatic Conflicts are a metered success mechanic... it models a conflict as a succession of goals with different available strategies by both parties. It's not the one-roll resolution that you speak of when you speak of CR. But it does cut down the rolls and details that might be involved in playing everything out in some cases.

For example, hacking. Hacking a computer system is resolved as a Dramatic Conflict in spycraft. But it is typically an activity that only one player is involved with. Regardless of what opportunities there might be for additional detail and developing tension that is getting abstracted away, if only one player is involved, everyone else sits there bored. So streamlining the action, while still giving it some detail, is a meaningful and desireable compromise in the face of concerns about having everyone at the table involved for as much of the time as possible.

Conflict Resolution doesn't need to be resolved in a single roll.  (Though it could be.)  Look at Dogs in the Vineyard - there's a whole series of rolls and decisions taken throughout the process.

Quote from: LostSoulConflict Resolution doesn't need to be resolved in a single roll.  (Though it could be.)  Look at Dogs in the Vineyard - there's a whole series of rolls and decisions taken throughout the process.

Okay, not having DitV, I can only come at it as presented in the linked-to essay.

Would you say that DitV dwells in this middle ground with Spycraft Dramatic Conflicts, or would you say that DitV is representative of CR as presented in the essay?

Quote from: MarcoThat said, I don't mind having a name for different points of view on resolution if you can show how they are different.

I do mind myself. Things like this are damaging to the hobby.

Before the Forge, I would have seen questions stated plainly- "Do you require a skill check on things that don't matter?" for example.

Or someone could have complained about the game where they fought an entire battle and did a series of fence jumping only to watch the ship sail away.

That would result in a exchange of why such gaming is good or bad, and other options for how that encounter could have been resolved would immediately be presented. Everyone would be on the same page.

With "Task Resolution" and "Conflict Resolution", we get threads like this- beh.

Too much theory, not enough actual meat.

Quote from: MarcoThey're different--but saying one is globally better is going to be problematic. And that I'd dispute.

Given Warren's better examples, I'd say only that Conflict Resolution is a sub-group under what he calls Task Resolution. Not really different, rather just a single method of using the wide range of possible Task Resolution methods.

As for calling one globally better.

Caring little for what turns other people's cranks if that what you mean by 'globally'- I can certainly make that call for my own taste and leave everyone else to their own.

For myself, I wouldn't play in a campaign where the GM focused on Conflict Resolution. It says too much about his lack of ability to manage a full ranging ruleset.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadFirst, as stated earlier, one of the explicit goals is to minimize dice rolls. I can see that as a laudible goal to some extent (frex, I loathed how oWoD had two sets of opposed rolls to resolve an attack... it DID slow things down and not every roll there was emotionally charged.) But when you start subtracting out dice rolls, you subtract that emotional charge associated with them.

I have found that in (CR-based) games we play rolls happen more-or-less as often as they do when I used to play TR systems, for example (that is, fairly often). But because CR skips over stuff that doesn't really 'matter', more stuff happens ingame, and each roll is important (if it wasn't, we wouldn't roll for it).

Quote from: Caesar SlaadSecond, a dice roll in typical task resolution need not be the game breaker that it sounds like CR could be. If you fail a task, you can find other routes to your goals, or get metered success in the form of clues, etc. It can become a story telling and excitement-inducing tool. If you wrap the entirety of the conflict in one roll, if that roll fails, you fail to reach your goal. That may sound like the point, but I'd like to focus on it here in the light that is not what I want.

Yes, a failure in CR means you didn't get your goal, true. But remember that because the guy you are in conflict with had a goal to, he may well have got his intent. If you goal is "discover the identity of the traitor", mine could be "Implicate you as a spy". If you fail your goal, the game will still move forward (everybody thinks you're a spy now -- that's going to have an effect on the game!) Plus it would certainly complicate any future conflicts to try and uncover the traitor.

[EDIT: And as a hint I've just recently realised, goals that are "stay", "keep" or "prevent" are really dull. Much better to always have 'active' goals like. "Capture all intruders" rather than "Keep intruders out" for trivial example. It means that whatever the outcome of the dice, something new & interesting happens.]

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAs a GM, I want the authority and opportunity to move the game forward in interesting ways. Having small failures is just an opportunity to introduce interesting conflicts and conundrums into the game that might never occur as anything more than a narration if everything hinged on one roll.

That seems to be as if you would just prefer smaller conflicts over larger ones. Rather than "Do I find the big bad's hideout?", "Do I convince the snitch to trust me?", for example. Whenever I run (CR-based) games, I always aim for smaller conflicts over bigger ones, because as you point out, small failures and complications tend to be interesting. (This is also the advice given in the Dogs in the Vineyard rulebook as well)

Quote from: Caesar SlaadWould you say that DitV dwells in this middle ground with Spycraft Dramatic Conflicts, or would you say that DitV is representative of CR as presented in the essay?

I know DitV, but I don't know Spycraft (the size of the book puts me off, if I'm honest). But in DitV you have a large-ish scale conflict ("Do I stop this guy beating his wife?")  that, during the resolution process, is 'played-out' in detail by describing individual actions ("I fire my pistol into the air", "He punches you in the jaw") which mechanically go towards 'your side' winning the overall conflict. It's a very deep system in that regard, and a lot better than this two-line description can suggest.

But yeah, nothing about CR requires "one-roll" systems or "scene-level" scale.

Quote from: gleichmanGiven Warren's better examples, I'd say only that Conflict Resolution is a sub-group under what he calls Task Resolution. Not really different, rather just a single method of using the wide range of possible Task Resolution methods.

Can you expand what you mean by this? There are as many ways and varients on Conflict Resolution (if not more) than I've seen for Task Resolution.

Quote from: warrenCan you expand what you mean by this? There are as many ways and varients on Conflict Resolution (if not more) than I've seen for Task Resolution.

It means that I've used the key features of what you call "Conflict Resolution" using what you reference as "Task Resolution" for decades. Until the Forge, they were common sense methods of using a game's mechanics- things you'd find spoken of in plain english in the GM advice section of the rulebook.

Much better if you ask me than reams of Theory and Labels that spead confusion.

Quote from: gleichmanIt means that I've used the key features of what you call "Conflict Resolution" using what you reference as "Task Resolution" for decades.

Well yeah, as I said upthread, if you have ever played in a game that's not been deathly dull, you will have had conflicts in it. If that game went anywhere, those conflicts got resolved somehow. So you have been using your GM skills and the advice in the rulebook and so on to do that with a Task Resolution system. Which is cool, and it obviously works for you and your group.

Me, on the other hand, prefer to have the mechanics of the game support this process more explictly (amongst other things), so I like CR systems.

Quote from: warrenI know DitV, but I don't know Spycraft (the size of the book puts me off, if I'm honest). But in DitV you have a large-ish scale conflict ("Do I stop this guy beating his wife?")  that, during the resolution process, is 'played-out' in detail by describing individual actions ("I fire my pistol into the air", "He punches you in the jaw") which mechanically go towards 'your side' winning the overall conflict. It's a very deep system in that regard, and a lot better than this two-line description can suggest.

Spycraft Dramatic Conflicts:
http://www.spycraftrpg.com/rpg/spycraft2/dramatic_conflicts.html (edit: AEG finally pulled down their spycraft stuff... this link is dead).

To sum up dramatic conflicts:

• Dramatic connflicts are a family of subsystems with a basic method of resolution. Different types of dramatic conflicts include chases, seduction, infiltration, manhunts, hacking, and interrogation.
• One player or team represents the predator, the other is the prey. Predator is the active participant.
• There is an abstract "lead" that represents progress in the conflict. In a chase, this is physical distance. In others sorts of conflicts, it is more abstract. A 10 lead means that the prey escapes/meets their goal. A 0 lead means that the predator wins.
• What "winning" means in each of these cases is particular to the type of conflict. In a chase, for example, if the predator wins, the prey's vehicle is disabled or boxed in. In a seduction, if the predator wins, the prey becomes helpful to the predator.
• Dramatic Conflicts are resolved in rounds. Time that each round takes depends on either or both the strategy (see below) or the type of conflict.
• Each round, predator and prey select "strategies" that are defined in general terms. Each then makes an opposed skill check. The winner then can select an advantage (or multiple, if the roll is good enough). Advantages often involve changing the lead, but can be more immediate benefits as well, such as finding facts, etc.

That's about it.

It occurs to me that the "ship is about to sail" thing given as an example above could be modeled as a chase Dramatic Conflict. I would probably model it more loosely, but the skill checks involved would be similar.

Spycraft also has complex skill checks, which are similar, but a bit more freeform. The GM defines a number of tasks that have to be completed and meter out information (or other results) to the players as they succeed in these tasks.



It seems to me if CR does not roll everything up into one roll (which I was understanding), then Dramatic Conflicts seem to fit the definition. And, it seems to me that CR does not exist to the exlcusion of TR as I define TR, but exists as a method of framing tasks, a formalization of what most GMs ad hoc.

Quote from: warrenMe, on the other hand, prefer to have the mechanics of the game support this process more explictly (amongst other things), so I like CR systems.

I hate being straightjacketed by a single vision myself, which is what CR is- a single vision of resolution.

In my typical campaign, I run the entire range.