Quote from: RPGPundit;889952Narrative/conflict-resolution are not an RPG mechanic that Pundit likes. They're an anti-RPG mechanic as far as he's concerned.

Here, fixed your omissions for you, 'cause I'm helpful like that;).

Quote from: Justin Alexander;888955Narrative resolution is not a model of human action. It's determining narrative control.

I never mentioned a thing about a model. But the fact that the game is played by humans means humans are acting.

QuoteYou appear to be arguing that you don't like

I never said a thing about what I do or don't like. So you're being dishonest again.

Quotenarrative resolution

What does that even mean? You're resolving a narrative? Or you're resolving things through narrative? Because the ONLY definition of narrative, whether you're talking about the common use of the word or the specialized literature meaning, is that it's an account of events. I don't know how you resolve an account of events. And resolving by account events? As in, "Oh, thank you for your explanation. I guess there was never really a problem to begin with. I guess that resolves the matter."

Quoteand therefore it doesn't exist. That's an... odd way of interpreting reality.

Except you utterly fail to even cite my "interpretation" much less point out where the error is. All you're doing is lying about what I said and stringing together words that don't mean anything--or if they mean anything at all, it's clear they don't match the context you're using.

Yeah. A lot of stuff exists. Like the possibility of stringing together nonsense. Just because you can articulate it doesn't make it not nonsense.

Quote from: Lunamancer;890104

Quotenarrative resolution

What does that even mean?

We know you read the definition because you not only replied to it but insisted that it was irrelevant. But now you're demanding that supposedly irrelevant definition because... you've suffered amnesia? You're illiterate? You're just trolling?

I'd like to pretend to be interested in which of these things is true. But it turns out I'm not, actually.

I gotta echo Lunamancer:  What does Narrative Resolution mean?

As someone who sincerely is not getting the difference between task and conflict in this context, I need clarification.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;890160We know you read the definition because you not only replied to it but insisted that it was irrelevant. But now you're demanding that supposedly irrelevant definition because... you've suffered amnesia? You're illiterate? You're just trolling?

I'd like to pretend to be interested in which of these things is true. But it turns out I'm not, actually.

Well, your dishonest commentary aside, a pretty accurate recap of this thread is that "conflict resolution" doesn't seem to mean anything. Task resolution is also a dubious phrase, but insofar as "traditional mechanics" is sometimes substituted as a synonym for it, we might be able to play along. But in trying to understand how "conflict resolution" is anything new that wasn't done in traditional play, it's been impossible to pin down any definition.

You come along acting like people are just some how confused--as opposed to the reality that they're informed but skeptical about the theoretical difference--and presuming you can solve it just by using different terms.

The fact that you swap in "narrative resolution"--which in terms of the English language is nigh meaningless--in for a term that we've already deemed meaningless, surprisingly, doesn't seem to do anything but pile on the evidence that you're talking about something that doesn't really exist.

I still think the only way this division makes sense is to say that:

One one hand, you can play where you can *wiff* a roll and nothing significantly changes in the game-state. "Boring combats" and unlimited lock-pick attempts in an empty room. This play style led directly to the "take 10, take 20" rules. I.E. people were just re-rolling until they got it anyway.

On the other hand, we have a style where there is no mechanical way to do that. Failure on a dice-roll/procedure always has an outcome on the game-state and narrative.

Quote from: CRKrueger;882464For example, going back to the 2d20 system, if I am fighting an Elite or a Mighty Foe, then we are dealing with a blow by blow situation Attack, Parry, Hit, Miss, Damage, Breaking Guard, Regaining Guard, etc...  Individual Tasks that I can succeed or fail at multiple times, yet still Win or Lose the overall Conflict.

However, when faced with a Mob, I hope we are concluding that I don't literally make one single swing and cut through 5 people, right?  That would be silly.  So, the goal is to kill all of the mob, and my attack and damage is abstracted to determine how well I did against the entire mob.  Perhaps only killing one or two, perhaps killing all five.

So here's the problem I have.  Several editions of D&D, maybe going all the way back to the first (speak up if anybody knows) explicitly declare that each attack roll does NOT represent one action, but actually a series of feints, parries, missed attacks, and so on.  If memory serves, an attack roll in AD&D represented an ENTIRE MINUTE of combat. I know virtually every GM ignores that and treats one roll as "I swing my sword one time at one guy",  but that's not what the book says; if you critically hit with a dagger, you are well within the literall interpretation of the rules to state that this represents stabbing somebody six times over the course of a brief struggle.

So... does that mean that if one GM is picturing an attack roll as representing a series of maneuvers and counter maneuvers (as the rules say), and another GM is picturing an attack roll as representing a single swing of a sword (as most GMs treat it by convention), that it's Task resolution for one of them, and Conflict resolution for the other, even though they are using the exact same mechanics? If so, it seems to be a mere matter of description and the distinction becomes moot as others have said.

Also, if killing a mob in 2d20 represents the resolution to a protracted battle and not a single task, then what do we say about somebody who is killing a mob of five at the same time as his ally is taking a single swing at an Elite in the same combat?

Quote from: Agkistro;890192Also, if killing a mob in 2d20 represents the resolution to a protracted battle and not a single task, then what do we say about somebody who is killing a mob of five at the same time as his ally is taking a single swing at an Elite in the same combat?

That's one of the reasons I don't like Mook rules in general, certain weird anomalies can pop up depending on how the system deals with timing in combat, among a lot of other reasons.

Quote from: Agkistro;890192Also, if killing a mob in 2d20 represents the resolution to a protracted battle and not a single task, then what do we say about somebody who is killing a mob of five at the same time as his ally is taking a single swing at an Elite in the same combat?

That he or she is well-trained. We all know that actually spotting an opening in an Elite's defences might take a while, so that one swing doesn't actually happen immediately, we just abstract the jockeying for position:).

I'm pretty sure the rounds in 2d20 specify not having the same duration all the time, anyway;).

Maybe I'm a freak, but I like rolling to see if I can hit each minion.  OK, I have a game that allows for that, if you take a special Advantage to clean out rooms, depending on the various superpowers, but I can end up missing ONE dood, and the other 20 can really set me up for a world of hurt.

Quote from: Telarus;890186On the other hand, we have a style where there is no mechanical way to do that. Failure on a dice-roll/procedure always has an outcome on the game-state and narrative.

I've heard this argument before. Actually, I think it's been addressed in the thread. The thing is, a "fail" result always does have an outcome on the game-state. If nothing else, the action takes time. And the world continues on. This is most apparent in combat when a failed attack allows that opponent to live longer, another opportunity to hurt you--a pretty substantial consequence to failure.

I always saw the "take 20" rule as being about something else--exchanging risk for uncertainty. You remove the luck of the dice, but in the case of take 10 the possibility of failure comes from not knowing for sure if the 10 is sufficient. In take 20 (assuming you can succeed at all) the possibility of failure comes from not knowing for sure if you have enough time to complete the task. Keep in mind, the player opts whether to take these. It's not the GM that assigns them according to making the game flow the way he likes. As such, they are chosen according to the player's purpose, not the GMs--reducing the odds of failure by only using take 10 when it is believed it will be sufficient, or take 20 only when it is believed time allows.

This raises another crucial point. Hypotheticals like, "Oh, we have this big empty room where you can take unlimited lock pick rolls" is kind of a complete bullshit example. The player who decides his character is doing the lock picking never knows that for sure. As far as the player knows, each failure is important. Is there even an argument to be made without resorting to illegitimate examples? Or is this really just bad GMism?

The better question, Lunamancer, might be:  What type of failure?

D&D is notorious for its binary result, yes/no, hit/miss, and so on.  But other games have wide ranges and actual degrees of success or failure states.  This is actually important.

To continue the Lock Picking example, even if you have all day to open up a chest, a bad slip and you broke the tumblers and the chest will now never open. An even worse slip up and you broke the pick IN the lock, losing part of the toolkit.

On the other hand a good roll, might mean you unlock the chest with incredible speed.

Quote from: CRKrueger;890195That's one of the reasons I don't like Mook rules in general, certain weird anomalies can pop up depending on how the system deals with timing in combat, among a lot of other reasons.

There's something about the theory behind mooks that bothers me. The idea of

"You know how there's bad guys that are so incompetent and unimportant to the story that the heros should be able to dispatch 20 or 30 of them without breaking a sweat?"

not only clashes with the kind of game I tend to run, but it sounds like it's saying "We all know most of the combats in your game are going to be pointless filler with no real threat of failure, so here's a rule to get through them as efficiently as possible."

Which I disagree with. If an encounter is pointless filler, REMOVE it.  This is one of those situations in which RPG's shouldn't emulate movies- a fight where the heroes aren't inany real danger isn't a spectacle (because RPGs are visual media), it's tedious.   The fight in Kill Bill vs. the Crazy 88 was amazing to see, but imagine if you had to describe it.  "Then she kills a guy. Then she kills another guy. Then she kills TWO guys. Then there's this one guy who's like "Hyeeaaaah" but she kills him too. Then she does a flip, and kills this one guy, and his blood is like "PFHSSSSSSSSSshh...."

 The one thing I do like mook rules (at least in 2d20) for is representing mobs of creatures like zombies that are justifiably less dangerous than a human, and only pose a threat due to their quantity.   You can think of treating a 'swarm of rats' as one creature as a sort of mook rules in that sense. That gives the efficiency of dealing with a swarm with out the impression of "These humans with guns are less dangerous than those humans with guns because we both know this is a bullshit encounter, amirite?"

Quote from: Christopher Brady;890395To continue the Lock Picking example, even if you have all day to open up a chest, a bad slip and you broke the tumblers and the chest will now never open. An even worse slip up and you broke the pick IN the lock, losing part of the toolkit.

This is certainly a more obvious example.

I guess the crux of my objection is that the distinction between task and conflict resolutions, or whatever they go by, is an artifact of bad analysis and nothing more. All action utilizes scarce means to achieve ends. Even the Garden of Eden, where resources are presumed to not be scarce, actions still take time and individuals are still unique.

Scarcity is unavoidable. All actions have a cost, even if the only cost is opportunities foregone. The results of the action, whatever they may be, are either of benefit to the actor on net (profit), or not (loss). As indifference is merely an intellectual concept and is never an observable fact, there is no middle no null effect--cost and gross return are not homogeneous quantities that can be merely netted out to zero.

In fairness, Telarus did say "nothing significantly changes"--you see this sort of thing all across RPG message boards. An innocuous little adverb slipped in that allows a vague idea to be communicated without the speaker having actually said anything to be tied down to.

Significantly according to whom?

Quote from: Agkistro;890192So here's the problem I have.  Several editions of D&D, maybe going all the way back to the first (speak up if anybody knows) explicitly declare that each attack roll does NOT represent one action, but actually a series of feints, parries, missed attacks, and so on.  If memory serves, an attack roll in AD&D represented an ENTIRE MINUTE of combat. I know virtually every GM ignores that and treats one roll as "I swing my sword one time at one guy",  but that's not what the book says; if you critically hit with a dagger, you are well within the literall interpretation of the rules to state that this represents stabbing somebody six times over the course of a brief struggle.

I would not argue that you can interpret a good hit as multiple stabs. However, when you consider ranged weapons which use ammo, it's pretty clear that it really is one hit roll represents one attack.

As I understand the AD&D system, you are correct that combat rounds are about a minute long and represent blocks, feints, parries and so on. Where my understanding differs from yours is that the attack roll represents that one opportunity, that one opening to deliver a meaningful attack. When fighters gain multiple attacks at higher level, it's not that the character is literally faster. It's that experience in battle has made him keen to find more opportunities to deliver an effective strike. And so is the case in 1st Ed when a 2nd or higher level fighter attacks a creature of less than a full hit die. The extreme difference in combat ability yields a fighter one opportunity to strike per level.

You might also compare this to 1st Ed magic-users. Most first level spells only have a casting time of 1 segment. Despite there being 10 segments in a round, the magic-user may only cast one spell per melee round. That's the limit of a magic-user's opportunities during combat.

So I think it's worth noting that number of allowable actions per round are not just a matter of how long they take vs how long the round is. They are limited by both time and opportunity.

Still, there's no reason a single hit roll might not actually represent a combination attack when it seems reasonable for the situation.

QuoteSo... does that mean that if one GM is picturing an attack roll as representing a series of maneuvers and counter maneuvers (as the rules say), and another GM is picturing an attack roll as representing a single swing of a sword (as most GMs treat it by convention), that it's Task resolution for one of them, and Conflict resolution for the other, even though they are using the exact same mechanics? If so, it seems to be a mere matter of description and the distinction becomes moot as others have said.

I agree with your assessment, and there was plenty of exactly what you describe observable in the 80's, if not before. This is where jaded me starts to think, "Where the fuck do you think all these so-called innovations of modern gaming came from?" I've yet to see a single idea that I hadn't first seen someone do in D&D more than 20 years ago.

My bigger point with the lack of distinction though is not that there are two different ways to play that are only separated by how you describe D&D combat. Rather there isn't even that much distinction to begin with. Every attack in D&D includes not only a means (I stab with my silver dagger or I swing my flame tongue, etc) but also an ends--a goal. Usually the goal is implicit. It doesn't need to be said. But the mere fact that AD&D does include things like "attacking to subdue" means the so-called 'task' cannot be resolved without also knowing the so-called 'conflict,' or what you hope to accomplish. It's just an assumed default that when you attack someone with a deadly weapon is that you intend to kill them if you can, or at least hurt them. So you don't need to say it. Just because you don't have to say it doesn't mean there isn't an intent that is communicated, understood, and has mechanic effect in the game.

Also note, when you say things like "I attack" you're not saying "I swing" or "I stab." You aren't describing precise movements. The term "attack" carries both the assumption of intent as well as assumption of the "task" that involves. It's efficient language. Not a dictate that lends any credence to the crackpot theory of task vs conflict resolution.