I haven't read or played carry but this is what the author says about it:

https://hamsterprophet.wordpress.com/2006/08/27/invert-not-revert/

QuoteSo I had an awesome revelation while writing up my carry demo materials. So, how stakes resolution works in the game is that all of the player involved set their stakes if they win the conflict. If the players have a conflict with each other, it's easy, they either win their stakes or the other guy wins his stakes. The GM can throw extra counterstakes into this, if he wants. Now, if the conflict is against the GM, he sets counterstakes for if the players lose. The GM never sets positive stakes for NPCs, just negative stakes for PCs.

Now, the easy and logical thing to do is just reverse the positive stakes, right? So the player goes "If I win, I diffuse the bomb and we make it to the checkpoint." Reversing this would be the GM saying "If you lose, the bomb goes off and you don't make it to the checkpoint."

Blah. How lame is that?

Now, whats awesome is when you invert the stakes. "If you lose, you diffuse the bomb, so everything thinks that you guys are home free – until you get captured by the VC patrol thats been trailing you."

I tend to look at it as pretty simply:

Situation:  You and Bob are fighting on top of a cliff.

Goal:  You want to knock Bob on the ground to pin him.

Task Resolution:  "I want to charge Bob".  You then roll to find out what happens, which on a success could mean he gets knocked down (your goal) or even knocked off the cliff (not what you want).

Conflict Resolution:  "I want to knock Bob on the ground by charging him."  You then roll to find out if you succeed and get what you want, or if something else happens that's not what you want (either failing to knock him down or knocking him down the cliff) if you fail/crit fail.

A lot of the other stuff that's been talked about gets conflated in with these, but I see this as the core of it.

Quote from: robiswrong;882965I tend to look at it as pretty simply:

Situation:  You and Bob are fighting on top of a cliff.

Goal:  You want to knock Bob on the ground to pin him.

Task Resolution:  "I want to charge Bob".  You then roll to find out what happens, which on a success could mean he gets knocked down (your goal) or even knocked off the cliff (not what you want).

Conflict Resolution:  "I want to knock Bob on the ground by charging him."  You then roll to find out if you succeed and get what you want, or if something else happens that's not what you want (either failing to knock him down or knocking him down the cliff) if you fail/crit fail.

A lot of the other stuff that's been talked about gets conflated in with these, but I see this as the core of it.

Here's where it's not so simple. If I'm playing a "traditional" game and the player just says, "I want to charge Bob" it really isn't clear what the player even means. Go running in at him to strike him with a weapon? Go running in at him to tackle him to the ground? And then once you have him down, what do you intend to do then? In other words, the player typically does need to articulate the goal as part of the action. This is extremely common in "traditional" game mechanics.

People can always contrive examples to illustrate the difference between CR and TR, but the examples consistently fail to stand up to scrutiny. That's because all actions consist of means and ends as a matter of reality. RPG rules don't get to overrule that. It's also true that we sometimes engage in means that have no chance of bringing about the ends. Doing a rain dance has zero chance of making it rain.

That doesn't mean the goal plays no role whatsoever in the task itself. Two pimple-faced teens slapping together fast-food burgers, the goal of the first is just to get through the work day so he can get paid, the goal of the second is to provide the very best customer service possible. Would you expect the results to be the same in each case?

So the contention here is that CRs are 100% about adding a layer of narrative control. Without that, any attempt at articulating a difference between CR and TR involves pigeonholing one or the other or both in a way that's completely at odds with how anyone actually plays.

Quote from: Lunamancer;883025So the contention here is that CRs are 100% about adding a layer of narrative control. Without that, any attempt at articulating a difference between CR and TR involves pigeonholing one or the other or both in a way that's completely at odds with how anyone actually plays.

I contend it is a useless distinction as long you play the campaign as bunch of players describing what their characters do.  Especially if you add in a human referee that adjudicates their actions.

Because of the focus on playing individual characters, the player will develop goals. Goals that require a series of decision and actions by the players to achieve. For campaigns focused on creating a story or narrative this would include out of game metagaming that is related to what the participants feels makes for a good story.

Either way there is no escaping the fact that a RPG campaign is a series of actions in pursuit of various goals. The only way to escape this is to make a completely different game.

Quote from: estar;883027Either way there is no escaping the fact that a RPG campaign is a series of actions in pursuit of various goals. The only way to escape this is to make a completely different game.

Not even then. A series of actions in the pursuit of goals is simply the reality of human action. There's no escaping it at all.

Even if all you're doing is playing chess. You move your pieces towards some goal. And no, the goal isn't defined by the game necessarily. My dad taught me how to play chess. The first time I played, I won. I assume his goal during that game wasn't "to win" as defined by the game.

What distinguishes RPGs is that each pawn is treated as a person who has goals of his own. To subjugate that for the sake of the greater story? You're right. At that point, you're going against the very distinguishing characteristic of the RPG. But you still haven't abandoned the means-ends relationship of everything the players do. The game then becomes about the players, not the characters. How this is supposed to be specialized at making for better stories is beyond me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;882510...
Plus, a series of exchanges to kill someone, or 7 someones, isn't really any different than having to pick 10 locks...

Sounds like they aren't fighting back, and/or the combat system being used is pretty lame.

This whole discussion has been pretty educational for me, a GM of 37+  years who apparently does not have the appropriate vocabulary to discuss games because until last week, I have been hiding under an internet rock.

It is remarkable to me how the industry has become filled with technical jargon. I understand the impulse to create tightly defined vocabulary as there are semantic arguments everywhere throughout these forums: "your immersion is not really immersion" kind of crap.  

However, I am worried about all of this jargon and vocabulary in principal because A) such arbitrary language creates paradigms that don't necessarily reflect reality and B) lots of people aren't privy or interested in this jargon, in which case the technical language serves as a barrier rather than a facilitator of communication.

I much prefer plain English, warts and all.

We could at least partially solve point B above by providing a glossary of "accurate" definitions (if such a glossary exists then I would love to see it).  However, whoever constructs such a glossary has immense (too much) power in defining our thought processes about gaming in general.  

If we have to use someone's specific and invented vocabulary in order to discuss a rules concept and its interaction with playstyle then the PoV of the person or group that crafted the vocabulary will dominate all conversations.  I see this happening all over these forums.  This thread is a perfect example.  CRKrueger was trying to make a point about the interaction of the mechanics of the new 2d20 Conan game with the setting, but he had to create this separate discussion and define terms for 5 pages just to talk about it.  RosenMcStern graciously and patiently spent pages defining terms, and Arminius was good enough to provide commentary and explain how and why these terms came to be, but my main take away was that the original point was left hanging primarily because the invented vocabulary doesn't allow for the original thought to gain verbal traction.

I therefore agree with estar in asking why the distinction between CR and TR is necessary or helpful. CRK's original point about 2d20 mechanics and the Hyborian Age remains valid.  The "official" language served only to make communicating that relatively simple point a lot more difficult, and to provide hair-splitting arguments about language use to people who disagree.

Obviously I have missed some very deep theory discussions somewhere, but the implication throughout this discussion is that Ron Edwards and the Forgites are the final authority on RPG vocabulary, and thus thought processes.  No offense to anyone on this discussion, but to an outsider trying to understand what is going on, the whole thing smacks of thought police trying to push their design agendas by defining RPG design language and forcing others to discuss games on their terms.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883056No offense to anyone on this discussion, but to an outsider trying to understand what is going on, the whole thing smacks of thought police trying to push their design agendas by defining RPG design language and forcing others to discuss games on their terms.

Well, that's pretty much this site's raison d'etre, a response to exactly what you are mentioning, at least as far as how Pundit describes his involvement, but his description would include the word Swine.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883056No offense to anyone on this discussion, but to an outsider trying to understand what is going on, the whole thing smacks of thought police trying to push their design agendas by defining RPG design language and forcing others to discuss games on their terms.

It certainly seems that way as far as the whole CR vs TR thing.

But the bigger picture I see is, any time someone thinks they have some new, "modern" approach to gaming, I cast detect bullshit. We're still using some combination of language and math. There is no advanced technology. And in the roleplaying world, there is also nothing new under the sun.

A long time ago, some GMs used to run D&D in a style that many might consider "CR" nowadays, the dice determining whether or not you achieved what you were trying to accomplish then inserting the appropriate description of how it all got to that point. I mean, where the fuck do you think the idea of "CR" came from anyway?

I've done it for a time. It doesn't require a new set of rules, stats, or a fancy new dice mechanic. I stopped doing it because I've learned it really doesn't live up to all the hype. People whose desires exceed their competence have a tendency to see the grass as always greener elsewhere. But if they would put the same effort into honing their craft as they do cranking out new garbage and then trying to defend it, they'd realize you don't need to reinvent the wheel to get where you're going. You just have to learn how to drive.

Thanks for the kind words, I guess. And also you're welcome to OpaOpaJr.

My main response to recent posts though is that if someone starts using jargon, it clouds discussion even more if it turns out they mean something other than the established definition UNLESS they clearly state their personal definition up front. Maybe that did happen--and if so I personally prefer a response along the lines of "not to sidetrack but that's not the standard definition; still since we all understand each other let's move on".

About this specific topic, I'll just say again that this distinction is far more important to folks who either need to overcome GM railroading, or who want to exercise OOC control over the narrative. If those don't apply to you then absolutely, the IC operation of tasks implicitly includes carrying out a goal and the conscious control-feedback loop that lets you adjust mid-task to "stay on target". I think there are times both in play and in design notes to make this explicit but mostly it boils down to "don't be a jerk". The main issue then is more for GMs who don't want to be jerks but need help making a decision when the existing mechanics and table interaction don't give enough guidance on how to resolve things.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883056I much prefer plain English, warts and all.

We could at least partially solve point B above by providing a glossary of "accurate" definitions (if such a glossary exists then I would love to see it).  However, whoever constructs such a glossary has immense (too much) power in defining our thought processes about gaming in general.

I don't think having a definition for a term is the same as thought control. I can accept someone's definition of a term, and still disagree with them on whether it is fun to play or otherwise. Agreeing on terms is vital to expressing disagreement.

In short, I think well-defined glossaries are a good thing regardless. What sucks more is sloppy definitions when people change what they mean by the term based on whatever the current argument is - or use the same term to mean different things.

Plain English can be better - but sometimes it really does help to have shorthand for common stuff in a specialized field. When I play an RPG, and my GM asks me to roll 2d20 against a target number for my fight against the NPC opponent, it's a lot easier than describing those jargon out to the layman.

I think "conflict resolution" is a troublesome term because it never had a clear, succinct definition - and even among those who were there for the debates on the Forge, they often use the term differently. And resolution mechanics don't all fall into a simple binary of conflict or task. I haven't been following Conan 2d20, so I don't know how those work, but maybe it would be better to talk about those mechanics.

QuoteOriginally Posted by jhkim
I don't think having a definition for a term is the same as thought control. I can accept someone's definition of a term, and still disagree with them on whether it is fun to play or otherwise. Agreeing on terms is vital to expressing disagreement.

I think it depends on the term.  There is no harm in defining terms in common usage (plain English) because they mean what they mean.  You can call a chair a teleporter but that doesn't make it so.  Consensus says it's a "chair."  The fundamental principal of general semantics is that the object is independent of the word and that the word changes perception of the object but not the object itself.  When a word has enough use, then the concept, word and object, for all practical purposes, are indistinguishable.  

The problem comes when we invent terms or create terms that are far out of common experience - such as abstractions about game theory.  Thought and language are semi-dependent. It is possible to have thought without language but it impossible to have language without thought.  In other words, whenever you think in language you cannot help but direct your thoughts into the patterns, paradigms, and images that those words represent.  So if someone creates a vocabulary essentially from scratch to reflect their thoughts about a specific topic that has no words of common usage, gives each term specific definitions, and the expects or insists that others use their words and definitions whenever the topic is discussed - that is thought control, even if it is unintentional, and at the very least it sets artificial parameters about what can and cannot be thought.

I realize what you are saying.  We need to communicate and sometimes that involves splitting hairs, but two people can come to agreement about how discuss their thoughts without scribing new vocabulary in stone as if it is Hammurabi's edict and defining the way everyone should think.

QuoteThanks for the kind words, I guess. And also you're welcome to OpaOpaJr.

Thank you for explaining the origins of this argument.

QuoteAbout this specific topic, I'll just say again that this distinction is far more important to folks who either need to overcome GM railroading, or who want to exercise OOC control over the narrative.

I don't mean to thread-jack (if that's a term) but is there really such a shortage of good GMs out there, and if so, how does handing portions of GM power over to players who are likely less qualified to run the game improve the situation? Theoretically? Excuse my ignorance, I am new at this, a short answer will do.

Quote from: Madprofessor;883076I realize what you are saying.  We need to communicate and sometimes that involves splitting hairs, but two people can come to agreement about how discuss their thoughts without scribing new vocabulary in stone as if it is Hammurabi's edict and defining the way everyone should think.

Yet it is common knowledge that when they agree on the meaning on terms, communication is faster and less vulnerable to misunderstanding.

The whole reason of this thread's existence is that I had perfectly understood what Krueger did not like in Conan 2d20 (and I stress that he is not alone in not liking that kind of mechanics). Yet he conflated the part he dislikes with other stuff that has nothing to do with it. It took five pages to reach the conclusion of "Aaaaah, you meant that. It is not the same thing as this, which is what I do not want in my game." With a well-defined common language, we would have reached the same POV five pages earlier. And the discussion is not futile, because there are points that people legitimately question in that particular game. Their doubts cannot be dismissed as prejudice. Language helps a lot in this process.

A common language helps identify these points earlier in the discussion, and focus on nailing down the facts, rather than discuss the wording.

Quote from: Lunamancer;883031Not even then. A series of actions in the pursuit of goals is simply the reality of human action. There's no escaping it at all.

That definitely a better way to put it.

Quote from: Lunamancer;883031What distinguishes RPGs is that each pawn is treated as a person who has goals of his own. To subjugate that for the sake of the greater story? You're right. At that point, you're going against the very distinguishing characteristic of the RPG. But you still haven't abandoned the means-ends relationship of everything the players do. The game then becomes about the players, not the characters. How this is supposed to be specialized at making for better stories is beyond me.

I always contended that there are better tools for collaborative storytelling than RPGs. I am vaguely aware that there is entire hobby based around writing fiction in a shared environment. Much of it what would be called fan-fiction, there are other niches that are involved in more original works like my own favorite alternate history.

There is one novel series out there, 1632 by Eric Flint, that it driven by a huge collaborative writing team lead by the original author.

And none of the ones I am aware are using RPGs to create stories as a group.