Please allow me to preface the following with this disclaimer: I don't have any problem with people who want to try to create a bigger/faster/better way to handle conflict and/or task resolution. So please don't take any of the following personally, it's not meant to demean anyone's efforts.

Having said that, I have only one question to ask - what is the need for Conflict Resolution as opposed to Task resolution?

I understand the difference between the two.  However, in reading a thread wherein the discussion is about attempts to meld the two ideas into one mechanic (go for it!) I was struck by one thing - the reason people were interested in Conflict Resolution.

First, the background:

Quote from: kryystThe conflict is getting past the guards - that's your goal. In this case the task you are using is sneaking past them. But the task could potentially be diverting them by tossing a stone in the corner and running in (bluff check) or swinging above their heads on a rope grappled to the rafters (dex/acrobatic check).

So you could succeed at the task check of sneaking ie. you made your skill check. But as you made it past the guards a maid stumbles around the corner and bumps into you so you fail the goal.

Now the concern:

Quote from: kryystPicture 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."   Many players would feel cheated by this sort of scenario.

The point of this is to remove that cheated feeling by allowing players some abiltiy to narrate their own fortunes (or lack thereof).

Others shared this cheated sentiment:

Quote from: GunhildaThe light dawns!  I know the misery of that scenario all too well.  As a matter of fact, I don't know if I have EVER had a character sneak in and out of a place without a fight of some sort -- no matter how badass a ninja he was.  And it sucks more and more every fucking time it happens.  :muttering:

I am now on board with this idea, though I have no idea how one would implement it mechancially.  

Quote from: Xavier LangI understand your frustration.  This is nothing like a perfect plan ruined by a GM that won't let there not be a big fight.  I can't remember the last time we didn't end up having a blood bath in a fantasy game no matter how sound the plan was.

Quote from: GunhildaEh, I think that the action point idea would work, but is inelegent.  And, while Maddman the DM gives out something for arbitrarily screwing over the players, he's *still* arbitrarily screwing over the players.
.
.
.
I just love the idea of DMs being forced to let SOMEBODY SOMETIME succeed at a stealth roll too much to give up on this idea.  

These concerns share the common thread of GM's apparently "railroading," a linear approach which leaves the players with few options.  In most cases, this is considered at best mediocre GMing; generally it's viewed as sub-par.  There are those who play this way and enjoy it, but it is hardly considered Best Practice for GMing.

Given that, is Conflict Resolution a reaction to bad GMing?  Are all of the Conflict Resolution efforts, mechnics, discussions, a result of less-than-adequate GM experiences?

As I said, this is a serious inquiry with no malice intended.

Quote from: FeanorThese concerns share the common thread of GM's apparently "railroading," a linear approach which leaves the players with few options.  In most cases, this is considered at best mediocre GMing; generally it's viewed as sub-par.  There are those who play this way and enjoy it, but it is hardly considered Best Practice for GMing.

Given that, is Conflict Resolution a reaction to bad GMing?  Are all of the Conflict Resolution efforts, mechnics, discussions, a result of less-than-adequate GM experiences?

As I said, this is a serious inquiry with no malice intended.

I have something that I guess pretty much fits the definition of conflict resolution in my homebrew, and it isn't to restrain the GM.  I am the GM.

I mostly run diceless, but there are times when, for whatever reason, I don't want to resolve myself.  I might be too partial to a particular outcome, too apt to generate unrealistic patterns over time.  So I want some randomization.  But I'm running online, and heavy mechanics in online play are anti-immersive agony: they're distracting and time-consuming.  So I if I don't want them to be more trouble than they're worth, I need to streamline them to get the most mileage out of a single roll.

I'm not sure if I'm going to keep this approach now that I have broadband and can send diagrams to the players, which I think will make serious tactical play possible.  (It's been too cumbersome in the past while I was on dialup, and could give verbal descriptions only, with my pathetic 40 wpm typing.)  I'm going to have to do some experimenting.

Quote from: KeranI have something that I guess pretty much fits the definition of conflict resolution in my homebrew, and it isn't to restrain the GM.  I am the GM.

Last night, after posting, I realized how loaded a term like "bad GM" might be. It seems to be more accurate to ascribe to Conflict Resolution the charactersitc of restraining the GM, regardless of the abilities of said GM.

Quote from: KeranI mostly run diceless, but there are times when, for whatever reason, I don't want to resolve myself.  I might be too partial to a particular outcome, too apt to generate unrealistic patterns over time.  So I want some randomization.

This seems to be a bit of a contradiction.  In the first sentence, the claim is that Conflict Resolution is not to restrain the GM.  But then the reasons for it in this homebrew are to not allow the GM to resolve a conflict (partiality, patterns, lack of randomization, etc.)

Is Conflict Resolution the result of a preference to restrain the power of the GM?

Here is my take:

#1: Conflict resolution is needed for a game to run smoothly.

#2: There are three ways to resolve conflicts:
             a) Task resolution (example: Skill checks, attack rolls)
                           #1: Most games encourage Conflict resolution viaTask resolution. Pure mechanical resolution. This is where I see D&D fitting in. It doesn't prevent someone from doing in character Role-playing, but just doesn't seem to encourage it either. The heart of these games are the die rolls made to resolve conflicts.

             b) Pure in character Role-playing
                    #1: diceless games fit here. Basically any game that relies mainly in character role-playing. The playes speaks for their character and what they say happens most of the time. They may use chips or tokens to resolve conflicts.
             c) a mix of A& B
                                #1 games that generally encourage role-playing through mechanics such as Burning Wheel or Conspiracy of Shadows. These games generally have ways that players introduce plot elements into the game. Like during character generation the play chooses a "fate", how his character will die.

A note on Conflict Resolution: In my mind Task resolution is a sub class of Conflict Resolution. First there is a conflict, then characers decide how to react to the conflict,and finally a task resolved. A conflict is anything that posses a threat to the PC.

example: a thief sneaking past a gaurd. The conflict is that the thiefs stealth versus the guards perception. What makes it a conflict is the fact that the thief could be caught. If there is no chance of the thief being caught there is not conflict, thus no task to resolve. The player says " I will hug the wall a sneak by quitely". The Task is now to sneak and the pc rolls his stealth and the guard his perception and the task is resolved. If the roll fails the conflict continues and escaltes, the guard would see the thief sneaking and likely try to stop them or alert others. If the roll succeeds the conflict is over, the PC avoids the guard.

hope that makes sense.

In your example, it sound more like a GM who is raliroading the players. It's not so much a problem of whether or not Coflict resolution is the problem, but how the GM is handling them.

Quote from: FeanorThis seems to be a bit of a contradiction.  In the first sentence, the claim is that Conflict Resolution is not to restrain the GM.  But then the reasons for it in this homebrew are to not allow the GM to resolve a conflict (partiality, patterns, lack of randomization, etc.)

How do you figure?  I'm the one who decides when I'm going to roll.

And when did rolling dice become an infringement on the GM's power, anyway? Added: I mean, seriously, that's the standard resolution method.  My deciding, on occasion, to step back from a resolution method in which I assume more control over the outcome than the standard method yields, to take up the standard method, is hardly an unusual restraint on my power.

I hope that I am not causing anyone to become upset.  I'm really not trying to goad anyone into an argument.

Quote from: KeranHow do you figure?  I'm the one who decides when I'm going to roll.

And when did rolling dice become an infringement on the GM's power, anyway?

I understand your point, I think.  There are times when you you, as GM, want a more random element in deciding how play will proceed.  Is there a specific mechanic or rule that would force you to introduce this randomization even if you did not want to?

Rolling dice is, in and of itself, not a constraint on GM perogative, per se. It's a tool, no more, no less. The issue of whether or not this tool infringes on GM perogative depends on how it's used.

Given what I've read about Conflict Resolution, and the description of your homebrew thus far, I'm not sure if it applies.  Can you provide more details regarding how and when these rolls come about (if you decide my curiousity is worthy of the effort)?

Quote from: FeanorI hope that I am not causing anyone to become upset.  I'm really not trying to goad anyone into an argument.

No problem.

The example you gave, it looks like those people are trying to restrain bad GMing.  Restraining bad play isn't something I ever try to do with mechanics, from any position.  I don't think they're adapted to the task.

QuoteI understand your point, I think.  There are times when you you, as GM, want a more random element in deciding how play will proceed.  Is there a specific mechanic or rule that would force you to introduce this randomization even if you did not want to?

Heck, no.

Actually, as far as I can tell, the only thing that can ever force a GM to do anything is the players deciding to walk if they don't.  I mean ... the rules, and the GMing advice, good or bad, are so many black marks on a light background.  They can't make me do anything.

I ended up running a campaign diceless, well before Amber, after starting it in GURPS, because I discovered that keeping track of the mechanics in chat, and trying to communicate who was where and moving how at 2400 bps, was so awkward and slow that it was more trouble than it was worth.  The book didn't have a "hey, you can resolve diceless to speed things up if you want" rule, but how was that going to stop me?

That's one of the things that bemuses me about the way Forgites seem to react to game texts -- they give both the texts they deride and the texts they laud much more weight and authority than I ever gave them.  My reaction to a rule that doesn't suit my purposes is to throw it out and replace it with something that does.  I'm not going to go around complaining that "Such-and-such a game was designed badly and I kept playing it as written anyway and it spoiled my fun for years!"

If I can't get an approach to work any better the third time I try it than it did if it flopped the first time, then I'm going to start looking around for another.  No way am I going to be executing a 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th ... nth iteration of the same failure.

QuoteRolling dice is, in and of itself, not a constraint on GM perogative, per se. It's a tool, no more, no less. The issue of whether or not this tool infringes on GM perogative depends on how it's used.

Given what I've read about Conflict Resolution, and the description of your homebrew thus far, I'm not sure if it applies.  Can you provide more details regarding how and when these rolls come about (if you decide my curiousity is worthy of the effort)?

Well, it's intended for a low combat game, and the reason it's a low combat game is that I never figured out how to do serious tactical play in a satisfactory manner over dialup.  Not with my improvisational GMing style -- since I don't know what the characters are going to decide to do, I can't expect to make tactical maps and diagrams in advance; and trying to communicate who's where and moving how, in text only, is difficult to do.

Under the circumstances, I was finding combat to be an unsatisfactory exercise: if it's too difficult to get across the positional information, it becomes an arbitrary matter of how the GM stacks the dice.  Which is not interesting, and which produces a sense of disconnection from the fictional world and the characters, instead of the You Are There quality I want.  It gets even worse if we also have to spend time communicating about complex mechanics instead.

So the first thing I did was go entirely to diceless and descriptive resolution.  Which is better than having to deal with mechanics that aren't assisting serious tactical play, and are bogging things down.  But it still isn't good.

Thing is, while diceless resolution is entirely satisfactory when I'm deciding on an NPC's reactions, or some such thing, because I know why the NPC is likely to behave in a particular way, it's fairly rare for the physical situation to be so well defined that I have a good in-world reason for determining that a sword-stroke ended in one place instead of another two inches to the left and three inches forward.

I don't want to kill or maim a PC without a compelling reason.  Since I seldom have a compelling reason in any individual case, I'm biased in the PCs' favor.  However, if I act on that bias, it makes combat about as believable as an action movie sequence, where you know the hero is going to come through, and it also means that combat is not a real decision point: it's staged, it's fake.

So I want to offload the decision onto the dice.  However, typical combat mechanics where we roll for every attempt at a blow, and then again at least once to see if does any damage, will bog the online game down badly to no purpose.  So I came up with a mechanic in which a pair of rolls decide the outcome of the fight and how badly damaged the loser ends up.  I make the throw in secret at the beginning of the exchange, and then play the scene out according to the roll, unless the player does something that I think ought to alter the result.  Which isn't ideal, but it's the best solution I ever came up with for playing in chat on dialup.

Now that I've got broadband, other possibilities for communicating information open up, and the homebrew is going to undergo another revision.  So I probably won't be resolving an entire fight a PC is involved in with two rolls in the future.

I apologize for taking so long to repond.  It was not lack of interest, but lack of time (kids starting school and such).

Quote from: KeranNo problem.

The example you gave, it looks like those people are trying to restrain bad GMing.  Restraining bad play isn't something I ever try to do with mechanics, from any position.  I don't think they're adapted to the task.

To be honest, the larger questions about mechanics and play are answered here - and I completely agree.

Quote from: KeranI discovered that keeping track of the mechanics in chat, and trying to communicate who was where and moving how at 2400 bps, was so awkward and slow that it was more trouble than it was worth.
.
.
.
Well, it's intended for a low combat game, and the reason it's a low combat game is that I never figured out how to do serious tactical play in a satisfactory manner over dialup.  Not with my improvisational GMing style -- since I don't know what the characters are going to decide to do, I can't expect to make tactical maps and diagrams in advance; and trying to communicate who's where and moving how, in text only, is difficult to do.

Under the circumstances, I was finding combat to be an unsatisfactory exercise: if it's too difficult to get across the positional information, it becomes an arbitrary matter of how the GM stacks the dice.
.
.
.
However, typical combat mechanics where we roll for every attempt at a blow, and then again at least once to see if does any damage, will bog the online game down badly to no purpose.  So I came up with a mechanic in which a pair of rolls decide the outcome of the fight and how badly damaged the loser ends up.  I make the throw in secret at the beginning of the exchange, and then play the scene out according to the roll, unless the player does something that I think ought to alter the result.

Now this is a brilliant approach to handling things via dialup.  And to those who would rather not get bogged down in simulationist combat rules, it could apply no matter what the medium of play.

But...

To me, it doesn't seem to be about Conflict Resolution as I've seen it used.  This seems to be a - what's the term - rules lite?  Instead of focusing on the particulars of the combat (either for dialup reasons, etc.) the situation is resolved at a higher level - reducing the attempt to simulate. Whereas in Conflict resolution, it would not be about whether or not the combat is resolved at a granular or meta level.

Take, for example, a character attempting to cross a bridge.  There are guards on the bridge. The player could battle across, sneak across, swim across the river below, etc.  It seems to me that Conflict Resolution focuses on the need to cross the bridge, using some mechanic to answer that question, and letting the player or GM narrate depending on the outcome.

Do I even have Conflict Resolution right?  Given your example, perhaps I am misunderstanding Conflict Resolution versus Task Resolution.

Just after sending that...

Is Conflict Resolution a fancy way of saying "This game mechanically raises all resolution to a meta level.  This game prefers very Rules Lite systems and, therefore, it only calls for rolls for very broad tasks..."?

So there are no specific rules for combat, or sneaking, or swimming.  There are just difficulties assigned to very broad goals and a roll to see if the character makes it.

Could this be played-out to the absurd:

PC: My character's goal is to slay the dragon and take his treasure.
GM: That's about an aggregate difficulty of..say..19.  Go ahead an Roll.
PC: A 15!  With my adventuring bonus, that's a 19!
GM: OK.  Go ahead and narrate the game.

Quote from: FeanorTo me, it doesn't seem to be about Conflict Resolution as I've seen it used.  This seems to be a - what's the term - rules lite?  Instead of focusing on the particulars of the combat (either for dialup reasons, etc.) the situation is resolved at a higher level - reducing the attempt to simulate. Whereas in Conflict resolution, it would not be about whether or not the combat is resolved at a granular or meta level.

Take, for example, a character attempting to cross a bridge.  There are guards on the bridge. The player could battle across, sneak across, swim across the river below, etc.  It seems to me that Conflict Resolution focuses on the need to cross the bridge, using some mechanic to answer that question, and letting the player or GM narrate depending on the outcome.

Do I even have Conflict Resolution right?  Given your example, perhaps I am misunderstanding Conflict Resolution versus Task Resolution.

I see your point, I think.

The way I've heard conflict resolution defined, I'm doing it: the mechanic goes up on the scale to address the entire conflict, not every individual task (every attempt to strike) in the conflict.

What I haven't done, but which you sometimes see in narrativist games, is cross over into the metaworld to have the mechanic resolve something that the PC couldn't even be attempting as phrased.

For instance, I played Dogs in the Vineyard to see how it worked, because it looks like the best-designed narrativist game and I wanted the practical experience.  In Dogs you start out play with an opening conflict, before your character takes office, to try to accomplish something when they're still a student.  For instance, mine was to have my character catch someone in authority doing something questionable in a provable manner, but this wasn't an intent the character entertained at the start of the incident -- she didn't know in advance that she was going to see something questionable.  (She failed).

Dogs uses conflict resolution too, but I wouldn't describe it a light mechanic.  It's pretty heavy mechanic for online use, in the sense that if you use it often you'll be playing pretty slowly.

I can attest that in the Dogs game the motive for conflict resolution certainly wasn't to restrain bad GMing: Thomas Robertson is a good GM.  Rather, the mechanic in the game is designed to address a particular kind of social or moral conflict between characters, and to drive the conflict into escalation, to see how far the characters will go.  Which it does.  It's not my style, but it reliably encourages the sort of play the designer intended.

Trying to restrain bad GMing would be another sort of metaworld crossover, I think.

I don't know if I am sidetracking from your point of just get it, but for my two cents, let my re-quote kryyst from the OP:

Quote from: kryystPicture 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." Many players would feel cheated by this sort of scenario.

The point of this is to remove that cheated feeling by allowing players some abiltiy to narrate their own fortunes (or lack thereof).

This is precisely why I don't create a "plot" that has to be followed. "Plots" never survive first contact with the players, and persisting in this old method of game management if full of folly AFAIAC.

I define a game session in terms of situations, goals, and obstacles. Any method the players then use to surmount the situation is fair game, and I the only reason I have to throw in more obstacles is to keep things more fun/challenging, not to preserve a "plot."

This is, in part, why the new generation of "fudgeless" games are so appealing to me.

I hesitate to say it, but it's connected to say yes or roll the dice.

As I understand it, the point with conflict resolution is to make the roll interesting and to make the outcomes interesting.

With task resolution, which personally I tend to use, a particular roll might not really lead anywhere.  I shoot at him, he dodges, nothing has really happened.

Take it to the level of the conflict, and each roll being the summation of a whole conflict necessarily matters.  The conflict is about whether I beat the crap out of this guy or he beats the crap out of me, that matters, that roll is going to get me interested.  Do I hit this round?  Less interesting.

And that I think is the main driver, it's partly to avoid rolling when really the outcome of that particular roll might be dull or unimportant.  By making it a conflict based roll rather than a task based roll it is necessarily interesting.  Not, do I pick this lock, do I get past the guard, do I climb the wall, do I then make it into the princess'es chamber but instead do I get to the princess in time to warn her?

Now, for various other reasons I tend still to like task based, but the point of conflict based is not primarily dealing with sucky GMs (well, sometimes it is but only because some folk are missing the fact that there are many far simpler ways of addressing that) but rather is about making sure that each roll really matters, and that whatever the outcome of the roll is be it pass or fail it is interesting.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI define a game session in terms of situations, goals, and obstacles. Any method the players then use to surmount the situation is fair game, and I the only reason I have to throw in more obstacles is to keep things more fun/challenging, not to preserve a "plot."

Since this sounds like, in general, good advice for anyone trying to run a campaign (or a war, for that matter), it would seem this supports my original read.  That is, in a game run in this matter, railroading would not be necessary.  Therefore, it is less likely that players will feel cheated and Conflict Resolution is not needed (as an alternative to Task Resolution.

Quote from: BalbinusI hesitate to say it, but it's connected to say yes or roll the dice.

As I understand it, the point with conflict resolution is to make the roll interesting and to make the outcomes interesting.

With task resolution, which personally I tend to use, a particular roll might not really lead anywhere.  I shoot at him, he dodges, nothing has really happened.

An interesting definition of nothing happening.  If that were to be in real life, you'd damn sure describe it as "something happening."

Quote from: BalbinusTake it to the level of the conflict, and each roll being the summation of a whole conflict necessarily matters.  The conflict is about whether I beat the crap out of this guy or he beats the crap out of me, that matters, that roll is going to get me interested.  Do I hit this round?  Less interesting.

So what determines who kicks the crap out of whom?  A single roll?  If you are playing in a game with stats/skills that are relavent, do they all get combined into that single roll?  What if you care about whether or not that guy really could kick the crap out of you?

Quote from: BalbinusNow, for various other reasons I tend still to like task based, but the point of conflict based is not primarily dealing with sucky GMs (well, sometimes it is but only because some folk are missing the fact that there are many far simpler ways of addressing that) but rather is about making sure that each roll really matters, and that whatever the outcome of the roll is be it pass or fail it is interesting.

So basically you're saying that you knowingly run a game that is less interesting because you still tend to use a system where rolls are, by definition of Conflict Resolution, dull or unimportant?

Now that I've come across as completely confrontational, please allow me to set all facetiousness aside. :cool:  It seems to me that, in summary, Conflict Resolution:

1) Is sometimes seen, correctly or incorrectly, as a method to combat railroading GM's.  It's "misused" in this sense.  While it works, the root of the problem is the GM style, not Task versus Conflict.

2) Is seen as a way to make every roll meaning full/important.

So if your particular group believes that it's important to know whether or not a character can sneak past the guard unnoticed, or aims well enough to blast the driver through the window at 200 yds while the target is moving at 80mph, then perhaps Conflict Resolution is not necessary.  However, if your group is less interested in these things, Conflict Resolution might be of value.

In the end, we're discussing the specificity at which resolution occurs, nothing more, nothing less.

Fair?  Unfair?

Quote from: FeanorAn interesting definition of nothing happening.  If that were to be in real life, you'd damn sure describe it as "something happening."

Sure, but many things which would be dramatic to experience can be dull in a game.  In real life if I am fighting for my life, in a game I am rolling dice, lots of stuff that would be exciting and dramatic to live through can be quite dull in game.

Quote from: FeanorSo what determines who kicks the crap out of whom?  A single roll?  If you are playing in a game with stats/skills that are relavent, do they all get combined into that single roll?  What if you care about whether or not that guy really could kick the crap out of you?

Depends on the game really, and my point was that that individual roll didn't determine whether he could kick the crap out of you or not as that hit/dodge exchange results in nothing at all happening.  Nobody due to that roll exchange has had the crap kicked out of them, if you hadn't made those rolls the state of play would be no different.

Quote from: FeanorSo basically you're saying that you knowingly run a game that is less interesting because you still tend to use a system where rolls are, by definition of Conflict Resolution, dull or unimportant?

Not quite.  I think conflict resolution does help with making every roll matter, but I don't think that is the most critical thing in a game.  I find task resolution helps ratchet tension, I find it tends to be more intuitive and most of the games I like best use it.  Conflict resolution is just one tool in the kitbox, just because it works better for some stuff doesn't mean it works better overall in a way that makes it best suited to my games.

Quote from: FeanorSo if your particular group believes that it's important to know whether or not a character can sneak past the guard unnoticed, or aims well enough to blast the driver through the window at 200 yds while the target is moving at 80mph, then perhaps Conflict Resolution is not necessary.  However, if your group is less interested in these things, Conflict Resolution might be of value.

In the end, we're discussing the specificity at which resolution occurs, nothing more, nothing less.

To a degree, yes.  I don't think it's anything to get religious about.  That said, many fans of conflict resolution would ask "do you really care about whether you get past that particular guard, or is what you really care about whether you make it into the princes' chamber or not?  Different groups have different answers according to their tastes.  If you're into thematic roleplaying or whatever the term we're using here is then you probably do care more about the overall conflict than the temporary obstacle which is why I think conflict resolution gets used more in those kind of games than in adventure games.

(Oops.  Double post.)