I didn't read the whole thread, but what I got out of it is that I constantly switch back and forth between task resolution and conflict resolution in any given game session, with a very blurry line between the two distinctions.

Quote from: Old One Eye;904179I didn't read the whole thread, but what I got out of it is that I constantly switch back and forth between task resolution and conflict resolution in any given game session, with a very blurry line between the two distinctions.

I'm still trying to figure out what makes them different.  All the examples so far just seem to be the same thing.

Quote from: Bren;903677I’m not following you. Can you unpack what you are saying?

I think he means that when you do something as simple as jabbing with a spear at a humanoid with an axe, you're not only focused on inflicting damage. You want to keep a distance that favours you, get a position that makes future attacks easier, get a position that makes your future defences easier as well, threaten the orc psychologically, prevent the orc from getting a superior position himself, and going around his armour or through a weak spot and actually inflicting damage is exactly last in this until you've covered all your bases:).

Most RPGs outright suck at modelling anything more than the damage part, though, which is why many RPG battles devolve into slugfests, so if it's going to be a slugfest anyway, you don't actually need two rolls;).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;904187I'm still trying to figure out what makes them different.  All the examples so far just seem to be the same thing.

There are far too many RPG designers who make it their goal to redefine the wheel, so it's only expected to see them describing different (perhaps slightly similar) events and aspects with same words and expressions, without making sure whether they are properly defined and what the definition is. Quite often it either means something different than they assume, or there's no definition at all, what doesn't stop them from using it, like "everyone knows what it is".

Therefore, it is common for players and GMs alike, each with a slightly different background and experience in RPGs to argue over shit, without realizing that what they defend/attack/propagate is poorly defined stuff they've read in some sourcebook written by apparent meth addict thinking his subjective opinion is enough to dictate how things are in reality.

Happens all the time. :cool:

Anyway, in real life the difference between conflict and task would be similar to the one between a square and a rectangle - each square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square, hence all conflicts involve/consist of tasks, but not each task involves/consists of a conflict. In case of former one might claim that certain conflicts simply exist, with all involved parties/people not lifting a finger to solve them, and therefore there are no tasks, AND in case of latter one might argue by evoking highly esoteric and philosophical constructs along the lines of "the task to satiate one's hunger is an emptiness-based conflict happening in the microcosm of his body", but way I see it, everyone who uses similar line of defense should consider visiting nearest mental asylum, like everyone who thinks that once-in-a-lifetime, very specific scenarios prove a thing. I'm not talking about applying for the position of any staff member, of course.

Well, it's been 20 pages so far. Who's winning?

Quote from: AsenRG;904397Most RPGs outright suck at modelling anything more than the damage part, though, which is why many RPG battles devolve into slugfests, so if it's going to be a slugfest anyway, you don't actually need two rolls;).

Meh. I think it's more likely the case that gamers suck at breaking out of the modeling mindset. Models, by their nature, are inaccurate and terribly limiting. They may be good for illustrating a particular point or getting across a particular idea. But to model anything broader than that (pretty much anything in reality) is asking for trouble. RPGs CAN be written to model something. But they are NOT inherently models. So say I have a bunch of stats, Strength, Magic, Angst, whatever. If an RPG says (and most do) that the GM (or group as a whole, however y'all run things) have to look at a situation and decide which stat or stats are most applicable, then roll against the stat.

The mechanics of the RPG only hash out how to make that stat check. It's not modeling anything. It doesn't even know the situation. The participants aren't modeling anything either. They have a better understanding of the specific situation than the game system or the game designer. But all they're doing is matching the situation to the most appropriate rule.

The example of jabbing at the orc with the polearm to hold him at bay is mine, so I can claim some authority as to the situation there.

First, the player actually specified "I'm jabbing with my polearm to hold the orc at bay." This is a pretty common sort of description players give about what their character is doing. Obviously not everything has to fit this form. But it is common, nonetheless, not uncommon as some who would prefer to railroad this discussion insist. In fact the rules call upon you to announce things like "attacking to subdue." The same exact allegedly "task-driven" mechanic affects the game very differently depending upon the Player/Character's intent. It is in a very real way intent-driven. Players decline to list an intent for specific reason--either they feel the intent is obvious, or they prefer to hide their intent at that time for one reason or another. That a player could be mistaken about the clarity of their intent changes nothing. You can make your intent explicit and still be misunderstood.

That said, next we can look at how to resolve this action specifically. Here's how most GMs I know would handle it. Make your regular skill check. Success doesn't indicate a hit. It indicates you have "guarded" the space, and the orc cannot enter it without dire consequences. And presumably the orc somehow knows he will step into an auto-hit if the PC's skill check is successful.

I handle it a little differently. Jabbing at the orc is a simple, physical movement. It requires no check. Anybody can jab. The main effect is it communicates to the orc that you are ready and able to harm him if he steps to you. Whether or not you successfully have kept the orc at bay is not a function of your skill, but rather the orc's decision-making. How bold is he? And is it worth a fight just to cross the guarded area? If I chose to resolve this strictly mechanically, I would call for a morale-type check, with modifiers for how important or unimportant it is to the orc. If the orc steps into the guarded area, the player hasn't actually "gone" yet, so a normal attack roll is called for.

Notice the way I handle it. The "task" as it's being termed here is the jab. The jab is not what's "resolved." The intent is. Had the player announced he was jabbing playfully, the effect would have been very different because it would have communicated something different to the orc. You could have also given a jab while nodding towards the open door to a prison cell--communicating "If you don't get in there, I will hurt you."

Have I made the leap to conflict resolution? Not quite. Notice also that my way adheres more strictly to the traditional rules. I don't make up new combat options of "guard space" or "hold at bay" or "march at pike-point." I'm just being observant and honest about the fact that what the player is trying to achieve with a weapon is not actually a function of weapon skill but rather something else, and that the "something else" doesn't require special rules.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;904404Well, it's been 20 pages so far. Who's winning?

Not all tasks have been completed and the conflict is still ongoing.

Quote from: AsenRG;904397Most RPGs outright suck at modelling anything more than the damage part, though, which is why many RPG battles devolve into slugfests, so if it's going to be a slugfest anyway, you don't actually need two rolls;).

I think that certain versions of D&D, sans magic, can degenerate into a slug fest. That is not inherent in the rules for some versions of D&D nor for Boot Hill, Traveller, In the Labyrinth, Runequest/CoC/BRP, Pendragon, Star Wars D6, or Honor+Intrigue.* Certain players may default to that style of combat, but that is no more indicative of a rules failing than is playing chess by focusing almost solely on eliminating your opponent's pieces.

The notion that a player saying "I want to use my spear to try to keep him at bay" would result in the GM saying, "You can't do that, all you can do is try to do damage and pray that he falls down first" doesn't strike me as a problem with the rules as much as a problem with the GM. Now if the player never says anything other than, "I jab him with my spear." That isn't the fault of the rules or the GM.



* H+I does include specific maneuvers for a lot of things that are abstracted or left as a judgment call in other RPGs, such as gaining, maintaining, and countering positional advantage (offensive or defensive), disarming an opponent, intimidating an opponent, and aimed attacks to hit specific locations or to avoid armor. Many systems use situational bonuses and penalties to more abstractly model things in combat that aren't jabbing for damage. I'm unable to think of a system that completely ignores position, morale, etc.

Quote from: Lunamancer;904456Meh. I think it's more likely the case that gamers suck at breaking out of the modeling mindset. Models, by their nature, are inaccurate and terribly limiting. They may be good for illustrating a particular point or getting across a particular idea. But to model anything broader than that (pretty much anything in reality) is asking for trouble.

Depends. Models tend to be pretty good at what they model - the problem is when all you have is a model that accounts for X and Y, but you want to make it account for the variable Z, and it predictably can't do that:).

QuoteRPGs CAN be written to model something. But they are NOT inherently models.

From my PoV, that's what they are;).

QuoteThe example of jabbing at the orc with the polearm to hold him at bay is mine, so I can claim some authority as to the situation there.

First, the player actually specified "I'm jabbing with my polearm to hold the orc at bay." This is a pretty common sort of description players give about what their character is doing. Obviously not everything has to fit this form. But it is common, nonetheless, not uncommon as some who would prefer to railroad this discussion insist. In fact the rules call upon you to announce things like "attacking to subdue." The same exact allegedly "task-driven" mechanic affects the game very differently depending upon the Player/Character's intent. It is in a very real way intent-driven. Players decline to list an intent for specific reason--either they feel the intent is obvious, or they prefer to hide their intent at that time for one reason or another. That a player could be mistaken about the clarity of their intent changes nothing. You can make your intent explicit and still be misunderstood.

That said, next we can look at how to resolve this action specifically. Here's how most GMs I know would handle it. Make your regular skill check. Success doesn't indicate a hit. It indicates you have "guarded" the space, and the orc cannot enter it without dire consequences. And presumably the orc somehow knows he will step into an auto-hit if the PC's skill check is successful.

Weird. Most GMs I know would model it as a "hold your action, stab if anyone gets into your range", possibly with some bonus damage to reflect that the orc was moving towards you.
It's easy for the orc to notice you're preparing to use his forward movement and attack him while he's on the move, if he's got any experience fighting at all.-

QuoteI handle it a little differently. Jabbing at the orc is a simple, physical movement. It requires no check. Anybody can jab. The main effect is it communicates to the orc that you are ready and able to harm him if he steps to you. Whether or not you successfully have kept the orc at bay is not a function of your skill, but rather the orc's decision-making. How bold is he? And is it worth a fight just to cross the guarded area? If I chose to resolve this strictly mechanically, I would call for a morale-type check, with modifiers for how important or unimportant it is to the orc. If the orc steps into the guarded area, the player hasn't actually "gone" yet, so a normal attack roll is called for.

So, you'd resolve it...the way it is resolved in GURPS and similar systems. Which are very much doing their best to model reality.

QuoteNotice the way I handle it. The "task" as it's being termed here is the jab. The jab is not what's "resolved." The intent is. Had the player announced he was jabbing playfully, the effect would have been very different because it would have communicated something different to the orc. You could have also given a jab while nodding towards the open door to a prison cell--communicating "If you don't get in there, I will hurt you."

Err, it's not the same jab.

QuoteHave I made the leap to conflict resolution? Not quite. Notice also that my way adheres more strictly to the traditional rules. I don't make up new combat options of "guard space" or "hold at bay" or "march at pike-point." I'm just being observant and honest about the fact that what the player is trying to achieve with a weapon is not actually a function of weapon skill but rather something else, and that the "something else" doesn't require special rules.

Then it's funny how you reached the exact same result as "ready action" achieves. Maybe the people who wrote that rule were just being honest about the intent of preparing an action to be delivered if a trigger happens:p?
At least, I'd hope so.

Quote from: Bren;904469I think that certain versions of D&D, sans magic, can degenerate into a slug fest. That is not inherent in the rules for some versions of D&D

Some people would argue that if other actions aren't in the rules, it is inherent. If the GM doesn't know how to apply the rules in non-standard situations, they would be right for that specific group at least...

Quotenor for Boot Hill,

Not familiar, but from what I know of passing references, it's more like an iaijutsu duel...

QuoteTraveller,

It's not, but only because of the death spiral.

QuoteIn the Labyrinth,

Not familiar again.

QuoteRunequest/CoC/BRP,

Alas, some versions of it are very susceptible to this - see the note on D&D...

QuotePendragon,

Very susceptible to this, especially with some players believing that doing anything but rolling your combat skill is unknightly.

QuoteStar Wars D6,

Agreed.

Quoteor Honor+Intrigue.*

* H+I does include specific maneuvers for a lot of things that are abstracted or left as a judgment call in other RPGs, such as gaining, maintaining, and countering positional advantage (offensive or defensive), disarming an opponent, intimidating an opponent, and aimed attacks to hit specific locations or to avoid armor.

That's one of the systems that are not susceptible to slugfests, purely because the different combat options make it obvious you're not supposed to be just stabbing and parrying. Or at least, if slugfests happen, it's because the players wanted that.

QuoteCertain players may default to that style of combat, but that is no more indicative of a rules failing than is playing chess by focusing almost solely on eliminating your opponent's pieces.

Not quite. The rules of chess allow taking positional advantage because of the interactions inherent to the rules.
"Playing backgammon without working your opponent's nerves" is closer to a good comparison.

QuoteThe notion that a player saying "I want to use my spear to try to keep him at bay" would result in the GM saying, "You can't do that, all you can do is try to do damage and pray that he falls down first" doesn't strike me as a problem with the rules as much as a problem with the GM.

Depends. We know the player's intent, but what's the GM's intent? In other words, why did he say that?
If he just think this doesn't work in a real fight, it's not a problem with the rules, sure.
But if he says that just because the rules don't have an option for what the player doesn't want to accomplish? It is part a problem with the rules, part a problem with the GM, in my book.

QuoteNow if the player never says anything other than, "I jab him with my spear." That isn't the fault of the rules or the GM.

Why doesn't he do that?
If he doesn't care to, you're right.
If he just doesn't think it's allowed, because it's not in the rules, or believes it would be a problem for the GM to adjudicate it because it's not in the rules, that's still partially on the rules.

QuoteMany systems use situational bonuses and penalties to more abstractly model things in combat that aren't jabbing for damage.

True...but you'd be surprised how many people have only ever played one system that didn't spell that out, and thus think everything but jabbing for damage is against the rules.

QuoteI'm unable to think of a system that completely ignores position, morale, etc.

I am quite able to think of a system that never mentions them, but that's besides the point;).

Quote from: AsenRG;905387Not familiar, but from what I know of passing references, it's more like an iaijutsu duel...

Yes. And if you "fan" your gun you get three "cuts" with a single draw.

QuoteIt's not, but only because of the death spiral.

In part it’s that. In large part it is because you don’t use level-based, ablative hit points and there isn’t any attack/parry stalemate.

QuoteNot familiar again.

RPG that came out of Melee and Wizard and was, more or less, the precursor to GURPS.

QuoteAlas, some versions of it are very susceptible to this - see the note on D&D...

Runequest can if you don’t use magic for anything (other than Protection) and if you don’t use quality of success to break the “I attack” – “But I parry your attack!” stalemate that can occur with higher level opponents.

QuoteVery susceptible to this, especially with some players believing that doing anything but rolling your combat skill is unknightly.

Due to roll under black jack method of matching opposed attacks that Pendragon uses, someone typically hits at least every other round and most of the time damage is done. And since hit points are not level-based, ablative hit points (and since healing takes a whole season) combat usually doesn’t become a slug-fest.

QuoteNot quite. The rules of chess allow taking positional advantage because of the interactions inherent to the rules.

But if the player’s strategy is too simplistic to grasp positional advantage and to play for checkmate (or a draw) then the game can degenerate into a contest of elimination of pieces until the number of pieces on the board have decreased so that the situation is simple enough for the player(s) to figure out how to win i.e. checkmate.

QuoteDepends. We know the player's intent, but what's the GM's intent? In other words, why did he say that?

Since this is a hypothetical situation and since I am on an Internet forum, I will leap to the conclusion the GM said this because he is moron. (Unless there is some good situational reason why no other actions are possible.)

QuoteIf he just doesn't think it's allowed, because it's not in the rules, or believes it would be a problem for the GM to adjudicate it because it's not in the rules, that's still partially on the rules.

I’m assuming adults who know that the rules of an RPG require human judgment and interpretation which makes them significantly different than the purely mechanistic rules of a game of chess.

QuoteTrue...but you'd be surprised how many people have only ever played one system that didn't spell that out, and thus think everything but jabbing for damage is against the rules.

Not so much surprised as disappointed.

QuoteI am quite able to think of a system that never mentions them, but that's besides the point;).

Now you got my point of view.

Quote from: AsenRG;905387Depends. Models tend to be pretty good at what they model - the problem is when all you have is a model that accounts for X and Y, but you want to make it account for the variable Z, and it predictably can't do that:).

In anything of substantial complexity--not just the real world, but your typical RPG would qualify--you don't know what variables you need to account for. Hence why the modeling mindset fails.

QuoteFrom my PoV, that's what they are;).

Which doesn't contradict what I said. RPGs CAN be built to model. They just don't have to be.

QuoteErr, it's not the same jab.

Yes. That's what I said. Very good. Gold star for you.

QuoteThen it's funny how you reached the exact same result as "ready action" achieves.

That's more your pretense than fact. You never once acknowledged or touched on my use of the morale-type check for the orc. See. The question of the orc's behavior is what was essential to the intent of the act. And as I made clear, it's the thing I was resolving. You just side-stepped the meat of the thing and instead had some kind of spastic nerd moment when you saw something I said similar to something you read somewhere once. Was the morale check a variable not accounted for in the sacred "ready action" model after all?

Quote from: JesterRaiin;904398There are far too many RPG designers who make it their goal to redefine the wheel, so it's only expected to see them describing different (perhaps slightly similar) events and aspects with same words and expressions, without making sure whether they are properly defined and what the definition is. Quite often it either means something different than they assume, or there's no definition at all, what doesn't stop them from using it, like "everyone knows what it is".

Therefore, it is common for players and GMs alike, each with a slightly different background and experience in RPGs to argue over shit, without realizing that what they defend/attack/propagate is poorly defined stuff they've read in some sourcebook written by apparent meth addict thinking his subjective opinion is enough to dictate how things are in reality.

Happens all the time. :cool:

Anyway, in real life the difference between conflict and task would be similar to the one between a square and a rectangle - each square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square, hence all conflicts involve/consist of tasks, but not each task involves/consists of a conflict. In case of former one might claim that certain conflicts simply exist, with all involved parties/people not lifting a finger to solve them, and therefore there are no tasks, AND in case of latter one might argue by evoking highly esoteric and philosophical constructs along the lines of "the task to satiate one's hunger is an emptiness-based conflict happening in the microcosm of his body", but way I see it, everyone who uses similar line of defense should consider visiting nearest mental asylum, like everyone who thinks that once-in-a-lifetime, very specific scenarios prove a thing. I'm not talking about applying for the position of any staff member, of course.

So let me see if I understand your analogy, and I want to stress this is an honest attempt at trying to figure this conversation out:  If a Square is a Rectangle (Fact) but not all Rectangles are Squares (also Fact), then what your effectively saying is that one of these Resolutions is part of a greater whole?  So, let's assume that in this case Task is the Square, and Conflict is the Rectangle, then Task Resolution can be part of the Conflict Resolution, but not all Conflicts can be resolved by Tasks?

I'm not sure I'm getting it, sorry.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;905433So let me see if I understand your analogy, and I want to stress this is an honest attempt at trying to figure this conversation out:  If a Square is a Rectangle (Fact) but not all Rectangles are Squares (also Fact), then what your effectively saying is that one of these Resolutions is part of a greater whole?  So, let's assume that in this case Task is the Square, and Conflict is the Rectangle, then Task Resolution can be part of the Conflict Resolution, but not all Conflicts can be resolved by Tasks?

I'm not sure I'm getting it, sorry.

It's just that you haven't grasped the right angle...

Quote from: Bren;905439It's just that you haven't grasped the right angle...

...I'll just show myself out.

C'mon, I'm not that obtuse...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;905433So let me see if I understand your analogy, and I want to stress this is an honest attempt at trying to figure this conversation out:  If a Square is a Rectangle (Fact) but not all Rectangles are Squares (also Fact), then what your effectively saying is that one of these Resolutions is part of a greater whole?  So, let's assume that in this case Task is the Square, and Conflict is the Rectangle, then Task Resolution can be part of the Conflict Resolution, but not all Conflicts can be resolved by Tasks?

I'm not sure I'm getting it, sorry.

He's saying that all conflicts involve tasks but not all tasks provide conflicts. Then he spends time on two provisos, handling cases he himself cites that kind of prove him wrong.

He babbles a lot about people coming from different experiences not being able to understand one another. From what I've seen in this thread, people concerned with conflict resolution are concerned mainly with the intent of the action. That's one point on which there is zero confusion, unless he's bringing it. I also don't think there's confusion that what is meant by "intent" is "intended result" as opposed to "intended action." It's thus synonymous with "ends", while the "task" is synonymous with "means."

All actions consist of means and ends. You can't argue against that without engaging in a performative contradiction, because the argument itself is an example of engaging in means towards ends. So the means-ends anatomy of an action is presumed true simply because anything else is absurd.

This means the better analogy is the one I've used in this thread; task is like breathing, conflict is like blood circulation (or vice versa if you prefer). You can linguistically talk about the two like they're two separate things. But theories that follow from such analysis are either talking about things that just don't exist, or they've killed the patient. In reality, they are inseparable. Thus the distinction between resolution types is non-existent. Unless you're sneaking in some other baggage. Like narrative control. This is an example of where differences in definitions HAS reared its head, not only in this thread but virtually every time the topic is discussed. But if you're sneaking in other baggage, then distinction has everything to do with that baggage (such as narrative control) and zip to do with whether intentions are being honored in resolution. So the terminology itself (task vs conflict resolutions) is either talking about something that doesn't exist or else a gross misnomer.

Now this is the argument I've been putting forth the entire time. Let's say you don't want to buy that. Fine. Let's entertain the idea that conflict resolution is a real thing, really concerned with intents and not baggage. Well, again, the idea behind it is to avoid cases where a task can be resolved but not a conflict. Like if you crack a safe with the intention of finding evidence, succeed in cracking the safe only to find the evidence is not there (I call this a "rain dance"--we know no matter how good you do it, it doesn't actually cause rain).

Well, if conflict resolution allegedly eliminates an entire class of possibilities that do exist under so-called task resolution, then that means task resolution can do at least one thing conflict resolution can't do, while at the same time it can also resolve conflicts (we know it's just as possible under task resolution that the evidence WAS in the case). This would seem to indicate he's got his squares and rectangles backwards. Task resolution is the rectangle. It comes in all sorts of dimensions. It's only a very special assortment of them, the square--those cases when the conflict is also resolved, that you have conflict resolution.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;905433So let me see if I understand your analogy, and I want to stress this is an honest attempt at trying to figure this conversation out:  If a Square is a Rectangle (Fact) but not all Rectangles are Squares (also Fact), then what your effectively saying is that one of these Resolutions is part of a greater whole?  So, let's assume that in this case Task is the Square, and Conflict is the Rectangle, then Task Resolution can be part of the Conflict Resolution, but not all Conflicts can be resolved by Tasks?

I'm not sure I'm getting it, sorry.

1. Every conflict produces a series of tasks - you need do things to handle it (solve, constrain, extinguish, find a common ground, evolve, etc, etc).
2. Not every task involves a conflict - the process of making a coffee consists of series of tasks and there's no conflict involved.

There are exceptions, as observed earlier. In case of above examples:

1. Someone did you wrong, and it begets a conflict, but you don't do a thing about it (the reasons for that are irrelevant), so there are no tasks involved (although one might argue that "not doing a thing" is also a task and from certain perspective, it is).
2. The possibility for you to get your cup of coffee is somehow limited by other people - your boss halts you on your way to the cafeteria and orders you to go back and do something, there are too many people in cafeteria, there's a long waiting line, there's no coffee... These are different kinds of conflict.

...but "in general" - Conflict = tasks, while task doesn't immediately involve a conflict.

Quote from: Lunamancer;905446He babbles a lot

Ah, Millennials and their Twitter-molded attention span...

#SimpleMindsMatter