Once more into the breach: Task/Conflict

[Morgan Allen]

Hey Ron.  Since you're bringing up task vs. conflict resolution, it occured to me that- well, maybe I'm missing out on some subtext here, but to me it seems some part of the distinction here is redundant or misplaced.  (Emphasis mine-)

(1)  Always, forever, no matter what, you must roll or apply a given game mechanic of any kind to see whether the character cuts the pole successfully. Or perhaps this "always" exists in vague range of difficulty as judged by the GM, but still, inside that range, the mechanic must be applied.

(2)  You consider whether cutting this pole is opposed by any other character or character-equivalent. Does any current action or pre-established action (even in the GM's notes) act as an opponent to this action? Does the timing of this action play a relevant part in some other circumstances in play? If yes, then you apply the relevant mechanic. If no, then you don't, and the character simply cuts the pole.

A.  If there is nothing opposing the character's intended action, then the estimated difficulty for a task-resolution mechanic ought, logically, to be 'this is trivial'.  I mean, there is literally "nothing stopping you"- so wouldn't that fall outside the judged 'range of difficulty' where a resolution-mechanic is even required?
B.  If there is no particular time-pressure involved in completing the task (because nothing else of interest is really on the line, time-wise,) and there is even a slim chance of the task succeeding on a moment-to-moment basis (or whatever the time-scale of resolution is,) then logically the character can simply attempt the task over and over until they succeed.  Their success is really a foregone conclusion, which is another way of saying that the difficulty associated with completing the task is, ultimately, 'this is trivial'.  In other words, this is just a disguised form of (A), and there should, again, be no need to roll.
C.  I'm assuming here, partly on the basis of various RPG texts that seem to employ conflict resolution, that 'character-equivalent opposition' would cover things like 'cliffs that need climbing', or 'wind resistance' or 'an unruly mob'.  In other words, that that problematic aspects of the environment can count as obstacles here, and that's as true of task resolution as it is of conflict-recognition.

Which really just leaves your final clause/requirement, which is that 'the action play a relevant part in some other circumstances in play'.  I agree that's an important and non-trivial distinction, (and perhaps historically, though I can't say with assurance myself, it may be fair to observe that groups which failed to 'get' that criterion also tended to be remiss in inferring the others.)  It just seems to me that large chunks of your definition of "conflict resolution" are actually implied by taking "task resolution" and thinking it through to it's logical conclusions, and perhaps attention would be better spent on explaining what constitutes "conflict" in the first place.


The first example that would spring to mind for me was a zombie-survival game I took part in (over a year ago at this point).  Me and the other players were having our characters busily boarding up an abandoned grocery depot, trying to see if could tack planks over the windows, erect barricades, etc., and I pointed out to the GM "we can just keep rolling for success- why not assume we succeed?"  To which he replied, in my view quite correctly- "Ah, but the question is whether you can board the place up before the zombies arrive", and then stated that we only had 10 minutes (i.e, a handful of rolls) remaining to get the job finished (i.e, get all the enumerated entry points blocked up.)  That's when the task took on a real urgency, for me at least.

I hope you'll agree that's a reasonable example of conflict-resolution in action, but from my perspective, it 'emerged' from simply taking the implications of task resolution and extrapolating them to the point where the need for applying said mechanics was brought into question, and hence had to be clarified.

What might be more interesting here is that precise problem of 'clarification'- if a given group is committed to Illusionism, for example, then the GM might not be able to specify the 'window of crisis' that's actually relevant to the conflict at hand without inadvertantly leaking OOC information to the players.  e.g, if our GM had been committed to strictly-IC information in the above example, and had determined that the zombie horde had actually wandered away someplace else entirely different from our hideout, then he would still have been obliged to have us roll for every boarded window and impromptu barricade, or risk tipping us off to the fact that our PCs weren't actually threatened.

If you can't actually tell your players at the time which of their characters' actions will really matter and which won't, while trying to sustain belief in an omnipresent-but-vaguely-defined-ambient-threat, I'd venture you'll wind up having to roll for every conceivable humdrum task the PCs might want to accomplish, however irrelevant it actually is- (i.e, as a hypothetical, whether a given PC can successfully take a dump in less than a minute- based on the player's belief in the off-chance that it might matter.)  Off the top of my head, this kind of setup seems to be a prime candidate for generating copious Murk (or rather the latter of the dysfunctional solutions to it you mentioned.)

[Morgan Allen]

It's occurred to me my last post is probably veering a little off-topic from the present thread.  I sometimes get struck by relatively isolated passages in a given thread that leap out at me as incongruous, but I'm not trying to actively derail the conversation or nitpick for nitpick's sake.  (Anyways, if a split is in order, well and good.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Morgue! Good call, so it's split into this thread.

I'll be on it, in a kind of "hold your ticket with your number on it" way.

Best, Ron

[stefoid]

Is this about "task vs conflict" resolution, or is it about "when should you test something = when should you roll dice"?

My answer to the second question is when the character is attempting something under pressure, and the stakes are high.

pressure = opposed action, time pressure, physical or mental pressure (wounded or scared etc...) or simply not proficient at the task at hand

high stakes = significant consequences rest on the result

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Morgan,

That's a beautiful answer for you, and I know it well because it was my answer too. Of course you didn't bother with tasks unless they were relevant to a conflict. To do otherwise would be silly!

Except that my "silly" is another group's hard and fast "the right way to play," and the GM points sternly to the rules which say something like, "When the character attempts to shoot his bow, roll the dice." Period. And to them, my criterion is obviously "metagame," which to them is degenerate play. They would be perfectly competent to point out how much you "gave away" or "did wrong" every time you glossed over tasks that were not relevant to conflicts, calling it "fiat" and (based on their experience) associating it with railroading, favoritism, and similar things.

Task resolution is a real, beating-heart criterion of play for many. They aren't giving it up. They aren't going to adopt a conflict-centric mode of play no matter what you say. Explaining what you're doing isn't going to make a difference. My task here isn't to advocate for one over the other but to understand the difference and to find functional versions of each.

Best, Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Stephan, *

It's about task vs. conflict, but that is best understood as a criterion for "when you should roll the dice." (insert whatever specific resolution method you want, of which dice is one example)

To take this to a more general level just for a second, Murky play means among other things that you don't know whether or when to employ a given resolution mechanic, or people say that you must but the criteria seem inconsistent, arbitrary, or a tool of a specific player's control over events.

So let's dive closer: right at the moment when someone talks as if "Roll your Diplomacy" were a perfectly rational and understood thing to do at that time in play. I say talks as if because, no, in the vast majority of role-playing I have done or seen, it's not a rational and understood act. It's done only because a guy at the table says you do it, and if you pay attention, you find there are lots of times when you don't, even though the fictional circumstances appear to be the same.

I mean, really - without any reliance on jargon like "the stakes" or any fallback on boilerplate phrasing like "under stress," could you write instructions as to why players of D&D 3.5 do not roll Diplomacy or something similar every fucking time their characters speak? If so, then get out there and write a new rulebook because every author for that game title, and the vast majority of game authors historically, have demonstrated that they could not do it. Again: I do not accept that the usual phrasings actually work. People read them and try to apply them, but in the absence of meaning, the applications end up being either good or bad house-rules and nothing more.

I submit that my distinction between Task and Conflict is at least a good start to nailing down working criteria for when to use any such methods. Obviously it's difficult because unlike certain other principles I've discussed (especially SIS), it begins with a fundamental and incompatible dichotomy. If your criteria are for Task, then you can't be doing Conflict Resolution (even if you happen to resolve conflicts via all those tasks) and if your criteria are for Conflict, then you can't be doing Task Resolution (even if competence at tasks factors heavily in succeeding or failing in the conflict).

Why? Because if you're doing Task resolution, then each and every task/act is its own thing, to be assessed in its moment according to in-fiction circumstances. Even if "the task" is the whole fight among many different characters at once, because scale is not the issue. The issue is whether the stated/known action gets done. Neither is context the issue: if it's about pounding nails into the door really fast, then that's what this roll is about, whether or not a ravenous ghoul is about to crash into that door.

But if you're doing Conflict resolution, then what matters is the point at issue, what the Hero Wars rules called "stakes." ** Someone wants something. Someone or something is in the way, either directly or indirectly, and either orthogonally or in opposition. And the mechanics in question are going to be applied only toward the purpose of getting through that particular problem. Even if the units of resolution are very fine-grained, measured in microseconds, because scale is not the issue.

I hope you can see how this relates to Morgan's issue: he's played for years doing Conflict resolution even though the mechanics in question seem to be about tasks. But because he doesn't use the mechanics unless a genuine conflict is at hand, and because he plays through tasks until and because a conflict is getting resolved, then that's conflict resolution. It's about the fictional criteria for starting the rules-use in question, and about criteria for why and how you finish using them.

The reason people have trouble with all of this is that, characteristically of our hobby, everyone is dealing with the other variables flapping about like bats in their minds: scale, obviously; time/retroactive issues about the order of events; negotiatory mechanics of various sorts ... But the problem may be even greater, considering the explosion of design details right at the time that I was trying to talk to people about this distinction, it's no wonder that people think Conflict resolution means "Play like Polaris," and say "But isn't Dogs in the Vineyard resolution about Tasks, because I roll to see whether my bullet hits?"

Best, Ron

* Please correct my spelling of your name if I messed it up.

** Which I'm realizing, and remembering, is actually where that term comes from. We'd all forgotten that ... Also, please note my careful definition, which has nothing to do with the misbegotten bullshit people call "stakes," which is to say, endlessly negotiating about what a given roll will resolve.

[stefoid]

Hi Ron, Im happy with Stef - Stefoid is my consistant internet handle.  If you see it somewhere else, thats me.  Steven Mathers is my real name.

My point is that other than a criterion for when you roll the dice, task vs conflict is irrelevant at the table, and since its also something that 1000 roleplayers have 1000 different views of, maybe its better to concentrate on the goal - when to roll dice (or whatever) -- and work backwards?

For me anyway, task vs conflict isnt a distinction I find important at the table.  I think about the context of a character action, but not whether that means I am implicitly thinking about resolving the conflict. 

FWIW, as 1 of 1000 roleplayers, heres my opinion of task vs conflict resolution, which makes sense to me.  I think about it as a system thing - I figure that if the resolution mechanic resolves if a character gets their intention, then the system is performing conflict resolution, but if the mechanic relies on player interpretation to resolve if a character gets their intention, then the system is performing task resolution.

example:  character intention is to stop the nazi from hitting the switch

If the system says , roll your 'nazi stopping skill' and if you succeed, you have stopped him hitting the switch, then its using conflict resolution
If the system says, roll to hit the nazi, and if you succeed, the GM/player decides if you have done enough damage to stop him from hitting the switch, then its using task resolution.

So its not the scope of resolution thats important, but whether or not there is human interpretation required.  Im mindful of that distinction as an aid in making mechanics more than anything.  Its more player empowering for the mechanic to guarantee the character gets what they want if the resolution is favourable. 

Hi Stephan, *

It's about task vs. conflict, but that is best understood as a criterion for "when you should roll the dice." (insert whatever specific resolution method you want, of which dice is one example)

To take this to a more general level just for a second, Murky play means among other things that you don't know whether or when to employ a given resolution mechanic, or people say that you must but the criteria seem inconsistent, arbitrary, or a tool of a specific player's control over events.

So let's dive closer: right at the moment when someone talks as if "Roll your Diplomacy" were a perfectly rational and understood thing to do at that time in play. I say talks as if because, no, in the vast majority of role-playing I have done or seen, it's not a rational and understood act. It's done only because a guy at the table says you do it, and if you pay attention, you find there are lots of times when you don't, even though the fictional circumstances appear to be the same.

I mean, really - without any reliance on jargon like "the stakes" or any fallback on boilerplate phrasing like "under stress," could you write instructions as to why players of D&D 3.5 do not roll Diplomacy or something similar every fucking time their characters speak? If so, then get out there and write a new rulebook because every author for that game title, and the vast majority of game authors historically, have demonstrated that they could not do it. Again: I do not accept that the usual phrasings actually work. People read them and try to apply them, but in the absence of meaning, the applications end up being either good or bad house-rules and nothing more.

I submit that my distinction between Task and Conflict is at least a good start to nailing down working criteria for when to use any such methods. Obviously it's difficult because unlike certain other principles I've discussed (especially SIS), it begins with a fundamental and incompatible dichotomy. If your criteria are for Task, then you can't be doing Conflict Resolution (even if you happen to resolve conflicts via all those tasks) and if your criteria are for Conflict, then you can't be doing Task Resolution (even if competence at tasks factors heavily in succeeding or failing in the conflict).

Why? Because if you're doing Task resolution, then each and every task/act is its own thing, to be assessed in its moment according to in-fiction circumstances. Even if "the task" is the whole fight among many different characters at once, because scale is not the issue. The issue is whether the stated/known action gets done. Neither is context the issue: if it's about pounding nails into the door really fast, then that's what this roll is about, whether or not a ravenous ghoul is about to crash into that door.

But if you're doing Conflict resolution, then what matters is the point at issue, what the Hero Wars rules called "stakes." ** Someone wants something. Someone or something is in the way, either directly or indirectly, and either orthogonally or in opposition. And the mechanics in question are going to be applied only toward the purpose of getting through that particular problem. Even if the units of resolution are very fine-grained, measured in microseconds, because scale is not the issue.

I hope you can see how this relates to Morgan's issue: he's played for years doing Conflict resolution even though the mechanics in question seem to be about tasks. But because he doesn't use the mechanics unless a genuine conflict is at hand, and because he plays through tasks until and because a conflict is getting resolved, then that's conflict resolution. It's about the fictional criteria for starting the rules-use in question, and about criteria for why and how you finish using them.

The reason people have trouble with all of this is that, characteristically of our hobby, everyone is dealing with the other variables flapping about like bats in their minds: scale, obviously; time/retroactive issues about the order of events; negotiatory mechanics of various sorts ... But the problem may be even greater, considering the explosion of design details right at the time that I was trying to talk to people about this distinction, it's no wonder that people think Conflict resolution means "Play like Polaris," and say "But isn't Dogs in the Vineyard resolution about Tasks, because I roll to see whether my bullet hits?"

Best, Ron

* Please correct my spelling of your name if I messed it up.

** Which I'm realizing, and remembering, is actually where that term comes from. We'd all forgotten that ... Also, please note my careful definition, which has nothing to do with the misbegotten bullshit people call "stakes," which is to say, endlessly negotiating about what a given roll will resolve.

[Morgan Allen]

@ Steven-

My personal inclination, for whatever it's worth, would be to say that, in and of itself, in some idealised-newtonian-physics sense, whether 'the stakes are high' is not going to, e.g, make bullets less or more likely to hit trees.  However, whether you have plenty of time to accomplish that bullet-in-tree-insertion probably will affect your ultimate likelihood of success (quite possibly to the point where it's trivial,) and whether the stakes are high could well affect whether the character inclines to persue or persist in that goal in the first place.

I think this may have something to do with how conflict resolution is often expressed- as you yourself have- in terms of resolving conflicts of interest for the characters.  It's not necessarily because the world's physics specifically molds itself around the axis of success/failure with respect to the player's intent (though it can, if you take BW's Artha as an example,) but because character interests/goals determine whether or not a character will persist in trying to achieve success at a given task.  (I mean, you could keep stopping every X in-world minutes and asking if the PCs 'want to do something different', but until something substantial changes about the circumstances that prompted their original decision, it's the illusion of choice without any real basis for choosing differently.  (Which I've seen happen, BTW.)  This is probably why conflict-centric systems emphasise boiling down the whole affair to as few rolls as possible, settling the matter, and moving on to the next scene.)

But yeah, like Ron says- I don't think this is specifically about whether 1 roll is used or 10 or a hundred.  I personally don't mind making a half-dozen rolls to establish, e.g, whether I nick the enemy's clavicle in mortal combat, as long as I know why I'm rolling in the first place- what led up to the encounter, why my character would give a fuck, and what happens if I win/lose.


@ Ron-

I'm still kind of processing the above remarks, and I'll probably come back later in the week with some more elaborated response once I've had a chance to masticate them thoroughly, but for now I'll just try to throw out a few preliminary responses and queries.

*  I'm not saying that conflict resolution is superior or better per se, just that, in many circumstances, I don't really see the functional distinction.  (For example, how would you characterise the 'Take 10' and 'Take 20' rules in 3E D&D, which basically allows you automatic success on tasks that don't involve significant time-pressure?)  And in the circumstances where this is a distinction... I'm just having trouble understanding why players might regularly and willingly have their PCs putter around doing stuff that- by definition- can't make the faintest difference to anything.

*  Just to clarify, I'm assuming that things like 'distance from the tree' could be considered a relevant form of 'opposition' when deciding whether you can fire an arrow/bullet into the thing?  I mean, if I as a hypothetical GM found a player asking whether they can do this, and couldn't see any obvious reason why it would matter, my inclination would be to look a bit askance at the player and say "Okay... is there some particular reason why your character would do this?"  I mean, if they pushed, I'd probably let them go ahead and roll, but again, the 'why' here mystifies me.

*  When you say that these groups are resistant to conflict-resolution as a form of 'GM fiat' or 'metagame', are you saying that these groups are resistant to the idea of fixed plotlines?  Or do they have some other common characteristics or correlated concerns that you can make out?  Is there any merit to the connection with illusionist play?

*  Speaking personally, I consider myself pretty sensitive to things like blurring the distinction between IC and OOC information, and what constitutes 'metagame' in the classical sense, and both subtle and overt forms of Force techniques (which I actually consider to be prime examples of the former in action.)  I also think, however, that people have a tendency to identify 'metagame' in terms of superficial attributes like 'OOC discussion of fictional events', whereas my personal definition is both laxer and some respects and stricter in others (specifically, "factors with no clear correlate in the fiction nonetheless impacting resolution of fictional events."  This is a very thorny thicket, though, so I'll probably save my perspective on the topic for another time.)

[Morgan Allen]

And in the circumstances where this is a distinction... I'm just having trouble understanding why players might regularly and willingly have their PCs putter around doing stuff that- by definition- can't make the faintest difference to anything.

This may have come across as faintly condescending, so I'd just like to qualify as follows: (1) I am genuinely curious on this point, and (2) as outlined in the OP, I can *kinda* understand why this might be practiced if the players were restricted solely to IC information.  (I actually have a couple of speculations as to the 'why' here, but all of them seem tough to reconcile with complaints about railroading or metagame or GM fiat- e.g, if it's supportive of functional illusionism, then wouldn't the players be loosely aware that they are, on some level, being railroaded anyway?  Or is this representative of a variety of complaints coming from entirely different groups with entirely different creative agendas?)

[stefoid]

So with the zombies, OOC info etc...  Instead of asking what type of resolution do I apply, concentrate on when do I apply it?  Then maybe the angst resolves itself.

Well, the PCs are boarding up windows unaware that zombies are descending on the house.   Do we need to apply conflict resolution mechanics at all this point?   Do any of the players actually care?  I guess if they did, they would say so - "man, we better get this house secure before any zombies find us".  that signals a potenial conflict res worth playing out to me.

But if nobody cares, what is the point of focussing the game on boarding up windows at all?  Just narrate soemthign appropriate to the situation and get on with it. 

I think the point I am making is that if you take your cues from what matters to the players/their characetrs at any given time, the nature of the reoslution mechanic to use comes naturally from that.  If someone at the table seems to want to make a big deal about something that is best resolved using task resolution, then use task res at that time. 

[stefoid]

I am hijacking this a bit, but I just thought of it and its funny - imagine emplying a conflict res mechanic of any kind as the dramatic music aprt of a movie.  Maybe action music, or suspense music or emotional music.  A lot of simmy type games I have played, that music is playing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.  Im just going to climb this tree -dah-dah-DAH!!!  Now Im going to baord these windows "ooo-eee-OOO"  Its tedius and numbing.  If you concentrate on when to roll, then you will know why you are rolling and the resolution mechanic should be obvious, and you dont have to listen to that fucking music all the time.

[Morgan Allen]

So with the zombies, OOC info etc...  Instead of asking what type of resolution do I apply, concentrate on when do I apply it?  Then maybe the angst resolves itself.

Well, the PCs are boarding up windows unaware that zombies are descending on the house.   Do we need to apply conflict resolution mechanics at all this point?   Do any of the players actually care?  I guess if they did, they would say so - "man, we better get this house secure before any zombies find us".  that signals a potenial conflict res worth playing out to me.

But if nobody cares, what is the point of focussing the game on boarding up windows at all?  Just narrate soemthign appropriate to the situation and get on with it. 

I think the point I am making is that if you take your cues from what matters to the players/their characetrs at any given time, the nature of the reoslution mechanic to use comes naturally from that.  If someone at the table seems to want to make a big deal about something that is best resolved using task resolution, then use task res at that time.

Well, while I agree that looking at players' engagement as a sign of when to roll dice is probably helpful, in my opinion it may be a confusion of cause and effect.  I mean, ideally, the players are interested and engaged because they recognise the inherent dangers/tension/risks of the situation, and want to be able to resolve the outcome well.

But if, for example, our group had given every sign that 'No, I reckon the zombies will amble off elsewhere, why should we bother with barricades?', then I would say our GM would be fully entitled to give us a meaningful glare, and proceed to have our compound, at some point or another, assaulted by zombies, whether we cared about it or not.  And that said zombies would be substantially harder to fend off or escape from due to a lack of barricades.  I mean, sometimes, the 'situation-appropriate narration' is 'zombies eat your brains.  The end.'

But that strikes me as a breakdown on the social contract level more than anything else (if your players aren't prepared to pay attention to fixing up barricades, what on earth on they doing playing this game?)

[Morgan Allen]

I am hijacking this a bit, but I just thought of it and its funny - imagine emplying a conflict res mechanic of any kind as the dramatic music aprt of a movie.  Maybe action music, or suspense music or emotional music.  A lot of simmy type games I have played, that music is playing ALL THE FUCKING TIME.  Im just going to climb this tree -dah-dah-DAH!!!  Now Im going to baord these windows "ooo-eee-OOO"  Its tedius and numbing.  If you concentrate on when to roll, then you will know why you are rolling and the resolution mechanic should be obvious, and you dont have to listen to that fucking music all the time.

Interestingly though, in the Sims series you have the option to 'fast forward' past the time it takes for a given character to finish up an otherwise tedious, time-consuming task, which I think is sort of related to the question of stakes/time-pressure.


I mean, in a situation where a player wants their PC to put a bullet in a tree, and there's no time pressure or significant side-effects to failure, I'm inclined to assume that the character keeps shooting until they hit.  Not that they never miss when trying, or suddenly develop preternaturally uncanny aim.  Just that- unless their 'miss ratio' is somehow relevant to the character or situation, I dunno, maybe he's trying to impress the miller's daughter- then I'm taking their *eventual* success as a given, so we can move on to some more interesting scene.

By contrast, in your example of trying to prevent the nazi from hitting the switch, the point is that you've already identified the 'crux' of the scene- whether or not the nazi hits the (self-destruct?!) switch- and whether you settle that directly, through one agglomerated roll, or indirectly by-
* rolling to hit,
* rolling for the nazi's dodge attempt,
* rolling for damage,
* having the nazi roll vs. fortitude to see if they wince and lose their next action,
* then performing a rush tackle with your athletics skill vs. the nazi's strength to knock him away from the switch,
* etc...
Is beside the point.  The point is that in both examples, the purpose of your rolling is to settle the real crisis of the scene- whether or not the nazi hits the switch.  Which I think is what Ron is expressing as 'conflict resolution'.

In contrast to that, if, having established that the nazi does not hit the switch, you now want to tie him up and gag him, and the GM/players insist that you must roll vs. your 'tie knots' skill as many times as it takes to actually succeed in tying him up, then that's task resolution.  Whereas, if you assume that, because the fortress has been cleared of other threats, tying a knot only takes a minute, and he's not going to wake up for hours, that your eventual success at tying him up is essentially guaranteed, so that you can skip over the actual rolling... then, again, you have conflict resolution.  (Or rather, the recognition of a lack of serious conflict.)

[stefoid]

Right on, you will get more bang for your buck focussing on why you are applying a resolution mechanic at all as opposed to the nature of those mechanics.  And as it turns out the overwhelming majority of situations where it is a good idea to use resolution mechaics will be obvious conflicts of interest rather than tasks, and so be better suited to conflict res mechancis. 

[RosenMcStern]

I did not want to post in this section when I subscribed to these forums, but there are a couple of points that are rather relevant, and that either I did not understand very well or else sound incorrect to me. As I am discussing these topics elsewhere, and the correct interpretation of what is written in the wiki is relevant to the discussion there, I could use some clarifications.

Let us examine the explanation about Conflict Resolution. Ron made a statement that claims to encompass all RPG rulesets now available.

The difference is enormous. It is not trivial, and there is no spectrum between these approaches to play and to rules. This is a binary and real distinction that applies to any role-playing rules ever written and played.

I am not really sold about this. All the examples you have provided about Task Resolution are rather extreme (rolling dice to see if you can cut a pole, hit a tree trunk with a pistol etc.). There is a wide spectrum of alternatives within both task resolution and conflict resolution, with plenty of different implementations of both approaches. Why do you deny that this can also constitute a "spectrum" between the two extremes? Can you speculate further, and show why a progressive transition, in design or in play, from task to conflict or vice versa is impossible?

And now the second point:

My task here isn't to advocate for one over the other but to understand the difference and to find functional versions of each.

Let us throw in a possible trick that could produce functional results for both methods. Suppose that we wish to introduce this simple criterion:

"Would  failure produce an interesting result? If not, the players succeed."

Even though the word "failure" hints at task resolution, this rule (it is by Robin Laws) is in fact supposed to be applied to conflict resolution. However, I see no reason why this should not work with a task resolution mechanics. If the Narrator sees no interesting result could come from failure, no roll or other procedure is called for.

NOTE: in some gaming groups, survival of your character when he or she should have died is not considered an "interesting" result, as it breaks their SoD, so any outcome that could potentially kill a PC is automatically relevant for them.