Quote from: CRKrueger;891452For a lot of people, these aren't really a problem, just a problem with a bad GM.  A good GM knows how to balance skill rolls. A good GM knows that time is a consequence, and makes sure the world reacts appropriately.  For others, this isn't good enough, because a bad GM must be corrected for with mechanics.

Is the bold section what's important?

In the safe example, in order to find the dirt on the villain, TWO things must happen. You must successfully get in the safe, and the dirt must actually be there. Whether we resolve these separately or in tandem is simply a matter of scale.

So here's the thing. If the point you bolded were really the heart of the issue, it would be solved by simply deciding whether or not the dirt is in the safe randomly. 70% of it being there, times 70% lock picking skill is not really all that different, save for scale, from a mechanic that gives about a 50% chance for finding the dirt by picking the lock of the safe.


Now sometimes I do just that. We could be at a point in an adventure where things have gone a completely different direction. I as GM haven't given any thought to whether or not there was any dirt to be found in the safe. So I leave it up to the dice.


However, I have a problem with shoe-horning everything you do into this sort of schematic. For one thing, in an absolute sense, it's just not something that is possible. We've mentioned this time and time again. Sometimes you traverse into an area you've already mapped out. The location of the dirt might already be an established element due to a previous resolution. If it's not there, "conflict resolution" won't make it be there.

People who self-identify as those who use, even prefer CR say that's not what actual play is like. They'd call that a stupid strawman example to try to make CR look bad. Of course we DON'T roll dice to determine things we already know.


So now this circles back to the bolded text. It seems to operate under the assumption that rolling dice is somehow central to the game. That the focus of the game surrounds the dice mechanic. It's not a sensibility exclusive to "simulation" nor "narration" that we just don't roll for stuff we already know. Thus the REAL purpose of dice and game mechanics is NOT resolution. It's NOT players and GMs deferring to the rules because rules are somehow smarter than their human frailties. Or more "fair." None of that is actually true. We defer to dice as a tool to help guide us with things we just don't know. Which is why when I never anticipated players might be looking for dirt on a supervillian and they surmised the safe would be a good place to look, I'll leave that up to a die roll.


To be sure, these are all issues tangential to the point here. But if you're telling me the heart of the matter relies on a bolded quote that implicitly assumes these tangentials, and that those assumptions are false for a lot of people regardless to what other theories they subscribe, then this case just falls apart completely.

The critical aspect of the safe example and my rejection of some versions is, that I would roll when there is a chance but not certainty as defined by the game world situation that there is such info available and could be in the safe (and for example thus possible to get found out by defined and thus meaningful decideable other means) and some other versions sound more like "I want to have some fitting info in the safe - give me a roll".

Quote from: CRKrueger;891452The problem with Task Resolution as some see it is that it can be boring and relies totally on GM authority.  The infamous "35 stealth rolls to get through a castle" are an example, as is the infamous "keep rerolling to open the door".

For a lot of people, these aren't really a problem, just a problem with a bad GM.  A good GM knows how to balance skill rolls. A good GM knows that time is a consequence, and makes sure the world reacts appropriately.  For others, this isn't good enough, because a bad GM must be corrected for with mechanics.

I agree that task resolution can have an issue converging at a solution and a succession of events may not lead to the desired/expected result. The question here is if conflict resolution is the best answer or not.

As it has been pointed out before (and indicated in Baker's comments too) conflict resolution changes the setting in the process or resolving the conflict. The documents are there or not.

Now let me use another example. Your party comes under attack from a man in a room who immediately takes cover behind the wall. I declare that I'll take out the opponent to enter the room. I resolve the conflict and I succeed. I have taken out the opponent by shooting through the wall or dropping a grenade or whatever. This requires the NPC to remain in the room. If the NPC had left the room he'd been impervious to my actions. How can the NPC be dead if it left the room? The NPC's actions seem to depend on the PC's intent, which is good because as you mentioned you're co-authoring the story. Nonetheless this limits NPC actions, the NPC can't opt to leave the room because that would lead to an automatic failure of the conflict resolution roll. Although the room would be empty for all practical purposes.

Now Baker points out that:

Quotewhether you succeed or fail, the GM's the one who actually resolves the conflict.

Really? So you succeed at taking out the NPC by firing through the wall. Great! You walk into the room and get blown up by the claymore mine set by the entrance, or you walk in and get blown up as you turn the NPC's body over and a live grenade rolls out. The NPC set it under the weight of his body just before taking his last breath. Or your armor piercing bullets ripped open a case of VX nerve gas, now your dying, game over. Overall if the GM wants to be an ass the GM will be an ass and no amount of rule design will spare you from it.

Baker says:

QuoteTask resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged authorship. Task resolution will undermine your collaboration.

Not so sure about that. Is the power of the GM derived from task resolution of from just being a GM?

You mention that

QuoteIf you are seeing Roleplaying as creating a story, and you are part authoring that story by Roleplaying your character, then Task vs. Conflict matters, because as a participant in the creation of a narrative, you need OOC mechanical tools to resolve the Conflict, finish the scene in a satisfying way, move to the next Beat in the Sequence, etc. You're partly responsible for Pacing, and you need mechanics to allow you to affect that.

This sounds fine and I agree with it up and to the point it starts removing options from the game. If resolving by conflict resolution implies that something must be a certain way then I begin to have an issue. In the previous example the NPC has no apparent autonomy beyond that which is required to satisfy the player's whim. Which is fine if that's what you want out of the game, a sort of gamified proxy to writing a book. The issue is that I might fall into the habit of always opening safe to find the documents because that finds me the documents. Ah! A room with a safe. Why should I look in the closet, inside the shoe boxes, in the desk drawers, under the bed, etc.? No!. I'll look in the safe, because I always create characters that are good at opening safes and opening the safe gets me the documents. More so, I'll complain that the GM is unfair because in this one room the GM decided not to put a safe when there clearly should be a safe. [Tantrum follows...]

BTW, I also equip my characters with armor piercing bullets. That way I can easily shoot targets behind walls. I don't even need to use that little worm-cammera-thingy under the door. I'll just shoot everyone through the wall. If I succeed, improbable as it may seem, they're all dead, unfortunate enough to have stood in the wrong place at the wrong time. Remember, I can always take a consequence to get that point that gets me the lucky shots through the wall.

And yes, I'm exaggerating a bit, but I hope it makes the point. There's a risk that I always fall into telling the same story the same way, just with different protagonists and there's no sure way to mitigate GM related issues.

Quote from: CRKrueger;891452The problem with Task Resolution as some see it is that it can be boring and relies totally on GM authority.  The infamous "35 stealth rolls to get through a castle" are an example, as is the infamous "keep rerolling to open the door".

For a lot of people, these aren't really a problem, just a problem with a bad GM.

I agree that collaborative storytelling and fixing bad GMs is a rationale for pepole who want conflict resolution mechanics, I don't think they are the only reason. You alluded to another reason when you said, Task Resolution "can be boring."

Certain die rolls can be disappointing (which can be a kind of boredom) in that the expectation of the outcome is better than the actual outcome. We've probably all seen or been the player who rolls really well on a to-hit roll only to roll crap for damage.

• "I rolled [really well]* to hit, what do you mean I only did 1 point of damage?"

This sort of disappointment inspires some designers to give damage bonuses for rolling above the required to hit number or to create degrees of success. It's the same rationale (good roll should mean good damage) that inspires other designers to dispense with a separate damage roll altogether and base any variable in the damage on the amount of the roll over on the to-hit roll.
 
Other examples of disappointed expectations:

• "I cracked the safe but the plans aren't inside? Well that sucks."
• "I rolled well on my persuade skill, but we still get thrown in jail?"
• "I have to make another climbing roll? But I rolled really well on the first roll."
• "I made my running roll but I still didn't catch him? But I wanted to run real fast so I could catch him."
  
• "What do you mean I missed? I rolled a 19 and I have a +6. That means I have to critical just to hit? That sucks!"

I think another aspect of what conflict resolution is designed to do is to align the expectation of what a successful roll means between the player and the GM and part of it is an attempt to avoid the disappointment of rolling something that feels like a good roll only to get a minimal or negligible effect because the player sets the outcome before the die roll.

Like any subjective thing, people will vary on how much they care about stuff like that. T

he example of rolling a 19 but doing only 1 point of damage is a minor disappointment to me because I understand how separate to-hit and damage rolls work and I'm comfortable with and like that method. I've certainly encountered people who have a whole lot more subjective disappointment about getting a crappy damage roll after a decent to-hit roll.


* For "really well" substitute in whatever really well means in your system of choice, e.g. 07 when I had a 60% chance to hit, a 19, 8 over what I needed to roll, etc.

Lunamancer, I think you miss my point.  The bolded part wasn't the most important to understanding Conflict Resolution as the author understands it, the bolded part was important to show that people to whom these things matter and are different are essentially playing a different form of game than you (or playing the same game in a fundamentally different way).

You say - "If it's not there, "conflict resolution" won't make it be there."  That's simply incorrect as many games that feature conflict resolution include some form of OOC Metagame Point Economy that lets them do just that, make it be there.

The key part of the quote really was the following:
"The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket..."

That was an example of Task Failure, Conflict Win.  The character failed to open the safe (presumably failed at a Skill Roll) but there is some mechanism in place to let them succeed at the Conflict anyway, so they find the information.

It could have just as easily said "You open the safe and it's empty, but as you turn away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket."  Success Succeed, Conflict Win.  In the end, Conflict Resolution allows X to happen, no matter how you got there.  There is no reality of the setting, whether or not the information was actually anywhere is immaterial.  The idea is that the goal of the characters was achieved and the story continues, and is not bogged down.

When your First Principle is "we are all telling a story" then the foundation that lays and the structure you build on it is going to be much different then a First Principle of "we are pretending to be other people".

Quote from: CRKrueger;891494Lunamancer, I think you miss my point.

Not really. And I don't much care for the conceit of these discussions that the other guy just doesn't get it. I got your point. I understood it. There are holes in it. I even came right out and said that the holes are tangential to the central point, but they do form a part of the implicit assumptions of the central point.

QuoteThe bolded part wasn't the most important to understanding Conflict Resolution as the author understands it, the bolded part was important to show that people to whom these things matter and are different are essentially playing a different form of game than you (or playing the same game in a fundamentally different way).

I call bullshit on this sentiment. You don't know how I play, what my aim is, or what my priorities are. You've never bothered to ask. There's a very strong sense here in which you are assuming the facts in such a way so as to support your point.

QuoteYou say - "If it's not there, "conflict resolution" won't make it be there."  That's simply incorrect as many games that feature conflict resolution include some form of OOC Metagame Point Economy that lets them do just that, make it be there.

I never said anything to the contrary. I pointed out what forum theorists refuse to admit, even though they do come up in actual play. That there's no guarantee that you can just make it be there. Big difference.

QuoteThe key part of the quote really was the following:
"The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket..."

That was an example of Task Failure, Conflict Win.  The character failed to open the safe (presumably failed at a Skill Roll) but there is some mechanism in place to let them succeed at the Conflict anyway, so they find the information.

It's not as "key" as you imagine. It's no more key than the case of successfully opening the safe and the paper is not there. It's a difference between "Open Lock AND Paper There" and "Open Lock OR Paper There". Which is only a difference of whether it's easier or harder than normal.

QuoteIt could have just as easily said "You open the safe and it's empty, but as you turn away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket."  Success Succeed, Conflict Win.

Inclusive OR handles that.

QuoteIn the end, Conflict Resolution allows X to happen, no matter how you got there.  There is no reality of the setting, whether or not the information was actually anywhere is immaterial.

Never said anything about the reality of the setting. There are constraints placed on the game due to the reality of real life. The people playing it are real people living in the real world.

QuoteThe idea is that the goal of the characters was achieved and the story continues, and is not bogged down.

LOL. That remains to be seen.

QuoteWhen your First Principle is "we are all telling a story" then the foundation that lays and the structure you build on it is going to be much different then a First Principle of "we are pretending to be other people".

As per above. I call bullshit.

Let's be clear about one thing. The first principle isn't "we are all telling a story." People may claim it, but it's definitely not true. Any string of events in a game will make for a story. Clearly not just any old string of events appeases them or they wouldn't sweat it. What some people are really after is a *good* story. I have to say, there isn't anyone at my table who is "pretending to be other people." I want a good story.

Quote from: Lunamancer;891589I have to say, there isn't anyone at my table who is "pretending to be other people." I want a good story.

None of the people at my table are there wanting a good story out of our RPG session. They are to play by exploring and interacting with the setting/world I have created as GM as their character. They aren't interested in narrative mechanics to make the resulting story that a third party might tell after the fact about "better" (where "better" in this case means something like "can be told like a good short story in a publication as opposed to just a string of events"). If they are looking for the secret documents, they expect me as GM to have them in a definite location and they want to explore the environment to find them. If I suggested they bypass actually searching for the papers by making one roll "to find the papers" they would tell me that would take all the fun out of it.

Story elements (from writing) can be useful in creating an adventure, however, as far as playing goes, aren't that helpful.

Quote from: dragoner;891613Story elements (from writing) can be useful in creating an adventure, however, as far as playing goes, aren't that helpful.

If the type of adventure you are creating is an adventure path type, they probably can be. However, IMHO, story elements are far less useful if you are designing an sandbox/location-based adventure. I'm far more interested sandboxes and location-based adventures than I am in adventure path because the latter is very hard to do without at least some railroading/illusionism to keep the PCs on the path.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;891402That's not how opposed checks work in any RPG that I'm aware of.

Ok I get it. I thought you meant opposing rolls as their rolls against individual rolls from the GM. So what you mean is that one team roll opposes the other and the better of the two wins.

The issue I see with this is that the whole fabric of the story is getting modified by the roll of the teams. What if there is only one team? Who do they roll against? What if I setup a really bad blue team that I know will fail? I can rig the roll so red gets out not out of red team's ability, but rather due to blue team's inability to find anything.

Quote from: RandallS;891674... without at least some railroading/illusionism to keep the PCs on the path.

Which is why the story elements aren't that helpful when playing the game. It's ironic, that the sandbox style of play hands off narrative control to the players, and thus gets tagged "storygame", even though it runs against linear plot development like a story.

Quote from: RandallS;891674If the type of adventure you are creating is an adventure path type, they probably can be. However, IMHO, story elements are far less useful if you are designing an sandbox/location-based adventure. I'm far more interested sandboxes and location-based adventures than I am in adventure path because the latter is very hard to do without at least some railroading/illusionism to keep the PCs on the path.

Well, hold up. You seem to be making the same mistake pretty much everyone makes. A game is a different medium from a novel or a film. The "story" in a game isn't required to be linear. It also shouldn't be judged as to it's entertainment value in the same way as a story. In a game, the "audience" are the participants. In order for a story to progress, the sort of knowledge the audience needs is very different from the sort of knowledge a player in an RPG needs in order to effectively participate. This means the nature of "reveals" is going to be different as well.

This is the point I'm getting around to. What I say about all action utilizing scarce means to achieve ends, the reality is you can't just make your intent come into being just because you want it to. If your intent is to make a good story, it's not like you can just go and do "story stuff" and your there. That's just not how it works. What's important is the means. You have to focus on the process. The means is chosen according to the ends. But once chosen--if you've chosen wisely--the way to manifest your intent is by focusing solely on the process.

After much careful consideration of years of experience, and also examining what some of the differences are between good stories and shitty ones, I've concluded that focusing on the process of a role-playing game, by which I mean a game that is engaged through the playing of roles.

Mic's still on

Quote from: Lunamancer;883527intent is at least implied if not stated explicitly.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;886774With narrative/conflict resolution, the players declare "I would like to accomplish X by doing Y".

With action/task resolution, the player declares "I want to do Y" with the expectation or hope that it will result in X being accomplished.

The heart of the matter is whether intent is implicit or explicit. Perhaps there are other differences, but this is the only one I consider important.

Quote from: jhkim;883335In D&D, I can state what I want when I try an action - but the statement of intent isn't connected to the mechanics. A good DM will often take intent into account, but still, whether you succeed or fail is often based on a GM judgement call - not the die roll per se.

Quote from: Arminius;883768there's a ton of GMing advice out there that explicitly encourages GMs to respect the outcome of tasks while thwarting the intent, in order to achieve an outcome that either advances a predetermined storyline or follows a certain dramatic pace. The point of developing the concept of CR was to show that the task was being resolved by the dice, but the conflict was being resolved by something else.

Problem is it's always possible to be a 'Bad Genie'. At some point you're just going to have to assume the rest and resolve the action even if not intentionally invalidating the player's input. And it's sad there's so much more advice like above than on recognizing and respecting player intentions.

Quote from: Agkistro;890486The 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 verbal medium is pretty terrible for this, yet this is exactly what most RPGs are trying to emulate, so they tend to rely on props and rules to do it. Just find this kind of fascinating.

Quote from: jhkim;890567The thing is that there is never a single goal. There is always a hierarchy of things that you want to accomplish, in order to accomplish higher-level things.

I swing my sword because I want to kill this orc. I want to kill this orc because I want to get into the dark fortress he is guarding. I want to get into the dark fortress because I want to discover the secret of the blight. I want to discover the secret of the blight because I want to make life better for the towns being affected. etc.

A lower-level goal is always a step towards a larger-level goal.

The original conflict resolution mechanics (like Dogs in the Vineyard or Trollbabe) resolved this as being always at the level of a single defined opponent. There was a defined set of rolls to resolve conflict with one individual or group.

Taken more broadly, I don't think there is any distinction about what is a goal in itself and what is an action towards a larger goal.

I agree with everything you've said and consider this issue one of the most important open problems in RPG design. Apocalypse World deals with this by immediately resolving certain 'moves' before any higher level goals can even be pursued. Most RPGs do the same with combat. For everything else though things get rather ambiguous.

Quote from: estar;883252The reason for this that the life inside of a RPG Campaign mimics of that of real life.

No it doesn't.

Quote from: estar;883252The players and referee use the same processes they do in real life to evaluate, plan, and act within the setting of the campaign.

No they don't.

Quote from: estar;883252Let's Pretend is considered a childhood game for a good reason as the lack of challenge quickly causes an individual lose interest as they grow older.

That's not why.

Quote from: estar;883252In the real world there is no theory about how to get people to cooperate with each other.

That's not true. Besides a theory explains why something works the way it does, not how to achieve an end, so your statement doesn't even make sense.

Quote from: estar;883252There is are a series of best practices and and examples that a person can draw on to adapt for their own circumstances.

Theories are derived from best practices, and best practices are based on theories.

Quote from: Lunamancer;883265What happened is some people liked one style better than another, gave it a name, made it make sense by unrealistically pigeonholing what everyone else was doing, then making up "mismatch of expectations" as the bullshit reason to justify why it was a superior approach.

Not sure about superior, but it is the more accurate approach. The more implicit consequences you rely on, the more likely you're not going to achieve them.

Quote from: Lunamancer;883265A shaman can be very successful at doing a rain dance. It still does nothing to bring the intended rain.

Quote from: Lunamancer;883804I've used as the example a shaman doing a rain dance. No matter how successful, it will not bring about the ends of making it rain.

So how exactly is a rain dance successful if it doesn't bring the intended rain? What does the shaman achieve for a successful rain dance?

Quote from: Lunamancer;883265The effect is not known before the action is taken. Sure. Some effects are common, expected, and even standard. But you don't actually know until you try.

So what effect does the player get on a successful action? What they expected? And how do you know what that is unless they conveyed it to you in some manner?

Quote from: Lunamancer;883265Why is communicating expectations important?

Because not everybody thinks like you.

Quote from: Lunamancer;883265Where is it carved in stone that players need to know all of the rules in the first place?

Nowhere, which is why I never said that.

Quote from: Lunamancer;883327Well, how about Magic: The Gathering? The individual cards contain rules text. And not only that, but they supersede the rules in the rule book. If you are not aware of the cards in your opponent's deck, you don't know all the rules for that particular match. If you are not aware of the existence of certain cards, you don't know all of the rules for the game in general.

There's a difference between knowing how to play and knowing all the rules. Are you saying you can play Magic without understanding the core rules?

Quote from: Lunamancer;883265Do you hold a written exam before a new player can earn a seat at the table? Are veteran players rendered mute and incapable of communicating just because they haven't committed the DMs guide to memory?

I don't run/play RPGs which require a written exam or committing large chunks of text to memory. Yet for some reason I still encounter backlash regarding RPGs simple enough to fit on a single page, so go figure.

Quote from: Lunamancer;883265Traditional gaming: "I jab at the orc with my pike to hold him at bay."

Explain how what you're describing was ever anything new in RPGs without mischaracterizing what gaming was like before high-minded jargon came along.

I never said it was new, only identified and categorized.

Most RPGs are still ill equipped to handle the degrees of nuance such staged intents require, as you could jab the ork but fail to keep him at bay, or fail to jab him but keep him at bay. Most resolution systems cannot determine the success of each intent independently, and yet they do exactly that when it comes to attack and damage.

Perhaps that's why most players just say "I jab the ork" and leave it at that

Quote from: Lunamancer;883265What he learned from his experience in publishing is that plain English is actually something more people will read and gain a better understanding. Jargon, people praised him because mathematicians don't want to admit they can't read their own language. So they couldn't criticize him otherwise they'd be discovered to have not understood formalized writing.

Mathematicians understand their language just fine. Complicated theorems are hard to understand regardless of which language they're written in, and some are impossible to express in plain English at all. I get the feeling you consider any language you do not understand to not be effective, which actually makes a weird sort of sense.

Quote from: Lunamancer;883725Presumably, the intent of an attack in D&D is to kill (or KO, or disarm, etc).

Presumed by whom?

Quote from: Lunamancer;883804But the means are selected according to what the actor believes will best bring about the ends. Not necessarily according to what will best bring about the ends.

So again what does the player achieve on a successful result?

Quote from: Lunamancer;890275in 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.

So who determines if it's actually sufficient to Take 10 or there's enough time to Take 20? The GM? Then the GM can still make the game flow in any direction they want.

Quote from: Lunamancer;890504It'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.

Yet despite the clarity of that implication it always seems to have the most rules dedicated to it.

Quote from: Lunamancer;891589You don't know how I play, what my aim is, or what my priorities are. You've never bothered to ask. There's a very strong sense here in which you are assuming the facts in such a way so as to support your point.

Despite the saying, all my pots and kettles are silver

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;903655The heart of the matter is whether intent is implicit or explicit. Perhaps there are other differences, but this is the only one I consider important.

It sounds like you've just conceded that there is no difference between task and conflict resolution. All mechanics are fluid in actual play because whether or not something must be explicitly stated is a human affair, not one of game design or game design theory. In some cases, it is possible to communicate intent unambiguously without actually stating it. And even failing that, as a safeguard, the GM can (and yes, I've even seen them do it in actual play) ask, "Why, what are you thinking?"

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;903655The heart of the matter is whether intent is implicit or explicit. Perhaps there are other differences, but this is the only one I consider important.

I agree that is a difference between task-based and conflict-based resolution. Why do you consider it the only important difference? What is you think is important about the difference?

QuoteSo what effect does the player get on a successful action?

The action succeeds. That success may cause other consequences to occur as a result of that success.

QuoteWhat they expected?

That depends on what they expected. An actual example would help.

Player A declares her PC swings their sword at the goblin. What might Player A expect as a result of this?

[1] That if the blow hits, the goblin takes damage.
Sounds good, this is a very reasonable and accurate expectation in many systems, e.g. a system like D&D. However, in a system like Runequest where armor absorbs damage, the expectation needs some adjustment e.g. That if the blow hits and it penetrates the goblin's armor, the goblin takes damage.

[2] That if the blow hits, the goblin dies.
This assumes more than did [1]. But in some systems it might be a very reasonable and accurate expectation e.g. Honor+Intrigue where a goblin counts as a Pawn-type of opponent. Any damage to the goblin-Pawn defeats the goblin. It might be a reasonable expectation in some systems if we had more information e.g. the PC has a damage bonus sufficient that the minimum damage from a hit will kill a goblin.

[3] That they will cut off the goblin's head in a single blow.
This assumes more than did [1] or [2], but might be OK in certain systems, e.g. one's that allow called shots to particular locations. In a lot of systems, [3] is a possible outcome of a successful hit, but not an outcome that should be expected. In a lot of systems [3] is a reasonable outcome from a result like [2].

[4] They will cut off the goblin's head and all the other goblins will flee in terror.
This assumes even more than does [3]. In some systems I'd expect that a morale check would result from the PC's attack. As a GM I use morale regardless of system. Certainly it seems more likely that a morale check would occur if the goblin's head did get cut off in a single blow.

QuoteAnd how do you know what that is unless they conveyed it to you in some manner?

You don't know. Sometimes they don't know either. If they do know, you can often deduce their expectation from the circumstances. Otherwise, they have to tell you. Or if the situation is ambiguous, you (the GM) can ask.

QuoteMost RPGs are still ill equipped to handle the degrees of nuance such staged intents require, as you could jab the ork but fail to keep him at bay, or fail to jab him but keep him at bay.

Sure. Which would be why keeping the orc at bay is (to my mind) a different task than is successfully hitting the orc with your weapon. If all you tell me is "I jab the orc." Then I'm going to resolve that as a normal attack, figure out if the orc takes any damage, figure out if the damage taken cripples or kills the orc, and figure out if the attack or the damage taken triggers a morale check or effect that causes the orc to hold position, retreat, or rout.

QuoteMost resolution systems cannot determine the success of each intent independently, and yet they do exactly that when it comes to attack and damage.

I'm not following you. Can you unpack what you are saying?

QuotePerhaps that's why most players just say "I jab the ork" and leave it at that

Or they assume everyone thinks just like them and their meaning is clear. Or they don't have a clear expectation. Or they differentiate between hoped for outcomes and expected outcomes.