Quote from: Opaopajr;882675Thus the conflict and stakes are inherently player determined because they know best what they want to achieve for their character through their approach. There is no GM filtration of the outcome to the setting because it is all layed out and determined beforehand by player-desires and their interpretations of success. It is a form of authorship by player-side through fixing the stakes as deemed relevant to their course of action/s. The dice (cards, etc.) sound like the arbiter of who wins the temporary tug-of-war of conflict authorship.

True. But the two parts that I underlined are not intrinsic in Conflict Resolution. They happen to be the preferred way for many authors who use Conflict Resolution in their games, but they are not mandatory.

- You need not set the stakes beforehand. The existence of the conflict is triggered by the fact there is "something" you want, but nothing can guarantee you will get it. You might as well end up with an alternate achievement ("the documents were not in the safe, but you found a clue about where they might be").

-Conflict Resolution can be achieved also without giving narrative control to the player. The player character attempts something, throws everything he has in the attempt, and the outcome is that he fails, he succeeds or something in between (suggested by the Narrator). This can be achieved by means of strictly in-character decisions, so no need to invoke authorship. The key point is that once the conflict begins, its exit conditions and outcome are no longer determined by GM fiat but by a precise procedure. Whether this procedure uses associate, in-character mechanics or dissociate, OOC mechanics is up to the system.

Quote from: Arminius;882531BTW, Krueger, if the GM says "If you succeed on 20 lock-pocking rolls, then you accomplish goal X" then that is absolutely an example of mechanical Conflict Resolution.

The bit about the plans being in the safe or not--and AsenG's question of the princess's personality--are also emblematic of Forger concerns due to past illusionistic habits trained by various GMing handbooks (and I'm guessing, heavily reinforced in the White Wolf heyday) as well as a belief that the game world always runs on pure improv with no facts that are established in secret before being revealed. Again the idea that the GM might know in advance that the plans are or are not in the safe isn't on the radar, so the only options are "GM decides == TR == illusionism" and "dice determine who decides == CR == player agency". It leaves out the possibility that you can have can have conflict resolution through a combination of preexisting game-state plus resolution of a task--but obviously you can. It just doesn't compute when people are obsessed with narrative control.

Quote from: Arminius;882649Again, most combat situations are such that the atomic task resolution and rules for time-and-motion can resolve the abstract "conflict".

As such Christopher's example doesn't really hold since the difference between mechanical CR and TR isn't scale or granularity--it's whether the resolution of the conflict or achieving the goal is more or less the result of mechanical procedures.

Things are also often enormously muddied by clashing assumptions about GM motivation and the role of pre-established facts. The Forge theorists generally assumed the GM was trying to exert a lot of control over the sequence of events--guiding a particular storyline or controlling pacing or protecting a favorite NPC--whatever. They also assumed that the GM would freely make things up as long as they didn't contradict stuff that had been revealed/stated to the players.

So in their examples the CR mechanics result in the GM giving up control of the storyline and sharing the ability to make things up.

For the more sandbox/world-based style that's favored around here, those concerns aren't really on the radar so it's better to posit that the GM doesn't have a story in mind and largely works from preestablished fact. Even if something isn't known in advance it can be extrapolated or determined randomly rather than selected to favor a certain storyline.

What I mean is this should be the baseline for examples of CR--but I can't get into that just now.

Excellent points, I can only add that I always presume that CR is being used by a sandbox GM who has preestablished facts about the setting.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;882604In Conflict Resolution based mechanics (as I understand them) you make a single roll to see if the Crime Fighter can clear the room.

Ergo, you don't understand them.

Quote from: Opaopajr;882675I just wanted to thank you as your posts here have done more to disambiguate than the entirety of several topics I've read before on this subject.

Conflict Resolution is about achieving the goal (regardless of directness, frequency, or manner) by nailing down the stakes "outside of possible GM disruption."

Thus the conflict and stakes are inherently player determined because they know best what they want to achieve for their character through their approach. There is no GM filtration of the outcome to the setting because it is all layed out and determined beforehand by player-desires and their interpretations of success. It is a form of authorship by player-side through fixing the stakes as deemed relevant to their course of action/s. The dice (cards, etc.) sound like the arbiter of who wins the temporary tug-of-war of conflict authorship.

True, though I'd point out that the stakes being determined by the player is a bad idea. It should be the result of player and Referee negotiation.


What I don't like about CR is that it removes the surprising results that I, as a player, didn't expect.

Quote from: Phillip;882710How it looks to me:

Task resolution resolves tasks performed by characters.

Conflict resolution resolves conflicts between participants. This conflict is usually no more than one being glad to take a given outcome for granted, whereas another thinks it calls for a roll.

Maybe I don't understand your point, but the only systems I can think of that actually do that are both Task Resolution based.

Quote from: AsenRG;882734Maybe I don't understand your point, but the only systems I can think of that actually do that are both Task Resolution based.

If by "that" you mean settle conflicts between players as opposed to tasks by characters, well, that's both the "say yes or roll" (or "pay a resource or let it be" in some games) principle as commonly applied and the player-goal (treating "how" as ex post facto) resolution that I mentioned after that.

In simplest form I guess it could be no more than an abstract handing off of narrative authority with no particular goal stated beforehand. However, I haven't seen people commonly calling that CR; "narration resolution" or such might be more proper. Clear statement of stakes (usually with some sort of negotiation) seems usually to be very important.

Quote from: Phillip;882788If by "that" you mean settle conflicts between players as opposed to tasks by characters,

Namely conflicts regarding whether an obstacle is worth rolling for, yes.

Quotewell, that's both the "say yes or roll" (or "pay a resource or let it be" in some games) principle

Doesn't resolve it. "Why do I have to pay a resource for something obvious" is a valid line of argument.
OTOH, "I don't need to roll against such difficulties" does resolve such arguments (CORPS, EABA v2 and in a roundabout way, Unknown Armies 2e).

Quoteand the player-goal (treating "how" as ex post facto) resolution that I mentioned after that.

Once you apply a skill against meaningful opposition, "how" is always ex post facto. The use for the skill, here, is to find a way to achieve your goal, or something close enough to it.
The best illustration of that principle that I know is the hit location mechanic in Flashing Blades, BTW.

QuoteIn simplest form I guess it could be no more than an abstract handing off of narrative authority with no particular goal stated beforehand.

Now, that would resolve it, but it's usually, from the examples I'm familiar with, not being used to resolve such OOC conflicts.

As RMcS says, usually but not always. There was a big thread (on storygames I think) years ago where RE and other leading lights disclaimed the idea of "stakes" being equal to CR. Yet it's obvious they've been a popular tool.

I think these days it's become more fashionable (and from my perspective more palatable) to have a "fail forward" rather than a prenegotiated failure result. The GM inflicts appropriate penalty/harm and/or narrates something that indicates the opportunity has irrevocably passed.

Quote from: Arminius;882800There was a big thread (on storygames I think) years ago where RE and other leading lights disclaimed the idea of "stakes" being equal to CR.

Actually, I remember Ron himself caling this popular fashion of pre-defining stakes "crap" or some other not-so-nice name. He really dislikes pre-set results.

So no, "stakes" are not a forge thing. Popular among designers who grew up with Forge theory, yes. Forge-endorsed, absolutely not.

And as a matter of fact, I am also in favour of not having anything pre-defined. It ruins the surprise of discovering what fate has in mind for the heroes

Quote from: RosenMcStern;882806Actually, I remember Ron himself caling this popular fashion of pre-defining stakes "crap" or some other not-so-nice name. He really dislikes pre-set results.

Didn't know the first part, but this is part of the reasons I like Sorcerer;).

Quote from: RosenMcStern;882806Actually, I remember Ron himself caling this popular fashion of pre-defining stakes "crap" or some other not-so-nice name. He really dislikes pre-set results.

So no, "stakes" are not a forge thing. Popular among designers who grew up with Forge theory, yes. Forge-endorsed, absolutely not.

And as a matter of fact, I am also in favour of not having anything pre-defined. It ruins the surprise of discovering what fate has in mind for the heroes

That doesn't fit with what I know. In particular, Ron Edwards wrote Trollbabe shortly into Forge discussion (as opposed to Sorcerer which was designed pre-Forge). And Trollbabe resolution is based around predefined goals which are either gained or lost.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThe person declaring the conflict must specify who is in conflict, about what, and what Action Type is involved – basically pro- viding everybody with a "squaring off" context in which to get involved, knowing who is up against whom, and about what.

• If the declarer of the conflict is the GM, he or she states which trollbabe characters are necessarily involved.
• If the declarer of the conflict is a player, his or her character must be involved, and the declaration should specify what NPCs are involved as well.
• Players of trollbabes who are not involved in the conflict may become involved if they choose.

Characters involved in conflicts must state Goals, which are essentially the desired outcomes for those characters. Goals can actually affect the initiation aof the conflict itself, as follows.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsThe most important element of any conflict is the player-character's Goal. Announced actions are not sufficient; actions are only stated as means to achieve the stated Goal. Here are some points about Goals and their relation to Action Types.

I think it's more helpful to talk about specific resolution mechanics. Cite the resolution mechanics of some games you like or would apply, rather than assuming a binary conflict vs. task.

The specific thing that was common and which was decried in the SG thread was stuff like, "If I win, I get into the palace sight unseen, steal the jewels, and assassinate the king in his bedchamber; if you win, I'm captured, painted blue, and crucified on the city walls."

I seem to recall that Burning Wheel comes very close to saying exactly that.

As for Trollbabe, I wouldn't hold up RE as a paragon of consistency but the parts quoted don't specifically address outcomes, just goals. The rules state that the loser of the conflict narrates the result, and I'm sure there's some language that binds them to narrating the achievement of the other party's goal, but I can easily see a difference between that and pre-narrated "stakes" as they have commonly been deployed.

Quote from: Arminius;882822As for Trollbabe, I wouldn't hold up RE as a paragon of consistency but the parts quoted don't specifically address outcomes, just goals. The rules state that the loser of the conflict narrates the result, and I'm sure there's some language that binds them to narrating the achievement of the other party's goal, but I can easily see a difference between that and pre-narrated "stakes" as they have commonly been deployed.

Exactly. Not that I give a shit about Ron's opinion, but on this specific matter I agree with him. He has clearly expressed dislike for "determining outcome beforehand". Intention, of course, is rather different from outcome.

Can you give a contrasting example of a game that has pre-narrated outcome - as opposed to Trollbabe's goals?

In practice, it seemed to me that in this aspect, The Mountain Witch, Dogs in the Vineyard, and Trollbabe were all pretty similar. You declare what you want (the goal or stakes), and go through resolution and if you succeed, you get it - but the details can vary a lot.

Quote from: AsenRG;882797Namely conflicts regarding whether an obstacle is worth rolling for, yes.


Doesn't resolve it. "Why do I have to pay a resource for something obvious" is a valid line of argument.

Huh? You're off on a weird tangent. There's no argument at all. There's just a rule getting applied.

Quote from: AsenRG;882797Once you apply a skill against meaningful opposition, "how" is always ex post facto.

Not at all. An application of skill IS the process. With carpentry I build a house. First the measuring, then the cutting, then the nailing, and at last the house. It's not, "I want a house. Oh, a lucky toss gives me a house! Now let's rationalize how this house got here."

Quote from: jhkim;882860Can you give a contrasting example of a game that has pre-narrated outcome - as opposed to Trollbabe's goals?

HeroQuest. It has been clarified that if you do not enter combat stating "I want to kill him", then he cannot die.

Also PTA, I think. But I am not so familiar with this system as I am with HQ.

https://www.burningwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Introduction_To_The_Rules#Intent_and_Stakes

QuoteOnce you have crystallized your intent, you and the GM will set the stakes. Burning Wheel is built on risk vs. reward; the more you're willing to risk, the more reward you can earn. The GM explains what happens if the roll succeeds or fails before the dice are rolled. Success always means that the intent you declared succeeds exactly as you described. The player who succeeded describes it just so! Failure is defined by the GM. Failing does not always just mean you do not succeed. The GM may create stakes in which you achieve your intent, but not in the way you wanted. Trying to pick that lock before the guard comes back? If you fail, you might get the door open just as the guard comes around the corner!