Quote from: silva;664110Apocalypse World GM never rolls

MSH early 80s.

Quotesucess at a cost

How is that a mechanic?

QuoteWushu freeform narrative combat

late 70s.

QuoteConflict-resolution

you just through that in to see if anyone was paying attention right? "Conflict resolution?" thats pretty much a description of every rpg system ever.

If there was anything really new about new games it would be...

1. The belief that what is created by a tabletop game is a literary form, but Robin Laws has been pushing that horseshit for a while, way before anyone knew who Edwards was.(As far as Narrativism in gaming goes, Robin Laws is Mohammed, Edwards was like Wahhab).

2. Original ideas misinterpreted and codified.  Examples...

The succeed but with cost is similar to "complications" in earlier games.

The focus on narrative control got it's start in genre emulation mechanics like those in James Bond 007.

The belief that better roleplaying can be achieved through mechanics.  Again, this got it's start in things like Pendragon, but has moved far beyond and at this point is one of the hallmarks of new school design, particularly narrative games.

The belief that bad GMing, bad playing, and social issues at the table can be fixed through mechanics.  Another one of the hallmarks of new school design, specifically narrative games.

In other words, the New Stuff isn't mechanics really, but fundamental conceptual differences about what roleplaying is and how tabletop games can fit playstyles other then traditional roleplaying.

Quote from: TristramEvans;665635MSH early 80s.

On that, the GM never rolls, or is it just duringcombat ?

QuoteHow is that a mechanic?

What?

Quotelate 70s.

Cite the game ir it didnt happen.

Quoteyou just through that in to see if anyone was paying attention right? "Conflict resolution?" thats pretty much a description of every rpg system ever.

Nope. What you describe is "task resolution".

Quote from: silva;665640.


Nope. What you describe is "task resolution".

Assassination rules in AD&D.

And probably some of the winter phase stuff in Pendragon.

Battles in L5R.

Quote from: silva;665640On that, the GM never rolls, or is it just duringcombat ?

Its during any part of the game the GM likes, depending. everything in the game uses the same resolution mechanic. Icons is basically the same game using the Fudge mechanic as opposed to the chart. (and with less support, less material, worse art, etc, but I digress).

QuoteWhat?

"success at a cost". Thats just a phrase. What mechanic are you describing?

QuoteCite the game ir it didnt happen.

Well, you can feel free not to believe me, but I was there.

QuoteNope. What you describe is "task resolution".

so what is conflict resolution as opposed to task resolution? Is combat not conflict? Is this a specific mechanic you're referencing?

Quote from: Piestrio;662946In my estimation "modern" games differ from a lot of older games by being vastly more focused on the existing "gamer market" where as more older games we aimed at a much larger and more diverse market.

That's my main impression too. Agreed.

Quote from: TristramEvans;665646so what is conflict resolution as opposed to task resolution? Is combat not conflict? Is this a specific mechanic you're referencing?

No, combat is obviously a task, not a conflict. True conflict is something like how your character reacts to hubris or a deep-seated fear of resentment.

Quote from: Brad;665862No, combat is obviously a task, not a conflict. True conflict is something like how your character reacts to hubris or a deep-seated fear of resentment.

Conflict resolution vs. Task resolution is a fairly useful distinction for different kinds of mechanics but not quite as clear-cut as a lot of people try and claim.

And it's certainly not some revolutionary insight and groundbreaking.. mummble mummble... LOOK AT ME IM SO SMART!!1!11

Wait... where was I?

Quote from: Piestrio;665864Conflict resolution vs. Task resolution is a fairly useful distinction for different kinds of mechanics but not quite as clear-cut as a lot of people try and claim.

And it's certainly not some revolutionary insight and groundbreaking.. mummble mummble... LOOK AT ME IM SO SMART!!1!11

Wait... where was I?

Of course I was being incredibly sarcastic, but also...Amber Diceless has a system for conflict resolution and it's probably the best of any RPG I've ever played. But the same system is also used for tasks, or whatever the fuck people are trying to call whatever it is older RPGs did. I understand the differentiation they're attempting to make, but I think it's nonsense. Using meta-systems to get results that other/older RPGs leave up to roleplaying isn't revolutionary; in fact, it seems almost devolutionary in nature. Adding more codified rules to do stuff is sort of the antithesis of roleplaying, and yet all these "indie games" tend to have mechanics in place that do just that. I seriously don't get it. How are they pushing boundaries when they're fucking up stuff?

Quote from: Brad;665905I understand the differentiation they're attempting to make, but I think it's nonsense. Using meta-systems to get results that other/older RPGs leave up to roleplaying isn't revolutionary; in fact, it seems almost devolutionary in nature.

1) I think conflict resolution versus task resolution is in practice used very inconsistently to refer to a bunch of differences - such as (a) only rolling off between active opponents; (b) resolving more with each roll; (c) making the results dependent on the stated intent of the PC; (d) modifying the results based on personality traits; (e) having interesting results for every outcome.  

2) Game mechanics that are new and different can be called "evolutionary" only in the scientific sense that they come out of the older ones with changes, but they are not better.  (In science, evolution is strictly adapting to circumstances, and does not imply being more complicated, smarter, or better.)  

In games, there are new mechanics that show up - and sometimes people like them.  I don't think there is any need to classify them as absolutely evolutionary (aka one-true-way) versus devolutionary (aka badwrongfun).  Tastes differ.

Quote from: jhkim;665919(In science, evolution is strictly adapting to circumstances, and does not imply being more complicated, smarter, or better.)  

For example humanity will one day evolve into this:



And Janeway and Paris will have freaky salamander sex.

And that's decidedly NOT a better thing.

QuoteIn games, there are new mechanics that show up - and sometimes people like them. I don't think there is any need to classify them as absolutely evolutionary (aka one-true-way) versus devolutionary (aka badwrongfun). Tastes differ.

Ditto.

QuoteIts during any part of the game the GM likes, depending. everything in the game uses the same resolution mechanic. Icons is basically the same game using the Fudge mechanic as opposed to the chart. (and with less support, less material, worse art, etc, but I digress).

Thats cool. I will take a look at it.

QuoteUsing meta-systems to get results that other/older RPGs leave up to roleplaying isn't revolutionary; in fact, it seems almost devolutionary in nature. Adding more codified rules to do stuff is sort of the antithesis of roleplaying, and yet all these "indie games" tend to have mechanics in place that do just that. I seriously don't get it. How are they pushing boundaries when they're fucking up stuff?

As always, its a matter of taste. I, for one, love this kinf of thing because to me it promotes (or enforces) emulation much more than pure physics-based mechanics. And emulation is everything for me in roleplaying games.

Quote from: jhkim;665919In games, there are new mechanics that show up - and sometimes people like them.  I don't think there is any need to classify them as absolutely evolutionary (aka one-true-way) versus devolutionary (aka badwrongfun).  Tastes differ.

Some people might like shit-flavored ice cream . I'm loathe to make normative statements with regards to aesthetics, but seriously, sometimes things are just worse. It's possible those people have terrible tastes.

Quote from: Brad;665862No, combat is obviously a task, not a conflict. True conflict is something like how your character reacts to hubris or a deep-seated fear of resentment.

So this is just a re-definition of the word "conflict" to apply to personality/mental traits?

In that case I direct you to the literally thousands of "advanced alig\nment" systems that proliferation in fanzines in the early 80s, most of them based on psych 101 Freudian Ego/Superego/Id mixed with the Cardinal Virtues/Sins of Catholic folklore. The first published example I can think of off the top of my head would Pendragon's Passions.

Quote from: TristramEvans;666285So this is just a re-definition of the word "conflict" to apply to personality/mental traits?

In that case I direct you to the literally thousands of "advanced alig\nment" systems that proliferation in fanzines in the early 80s, most of them based on psych 101 Freudian Ego/Superego/Id mixed with the Cardinal Virtues/Sins of Catholic folklore. The first published example I can think of off the top of my head would Pendragon's Passions.

My post was meant to be entirely sarcastic...but yes, Pendragon's Passions fit the bill, and quite honestly, do it better than any stupidass story/indie game.