Once more into the breach: Task/Conflict

[RosenMcStern]

Clarifications: it is not the examples about Task Resolution that are extreme, it is how the method appears to be applied in the examples given that sounds extreme to me. I know task-based rulesets that would not behave as Ron described the "standard" Task Resolution response to such situations ("your roll whenever you fire a bow").

[Morgan Allen]

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

If by 'interesting result' one meant, e.g, 'time lost under a deadline' or other inconvenient fictional side-effects, then yeah, I can get behind that.  I suggest that the mental block people have with criteria with this, particularly if they're simulationist in inclination, would be that the phrasing suggests that the players' moment-to-moment focus of attention spontaneously warps the modelling of probability within the fictional world.  And while it *can* be expressed or implemented that way, I suggest it's not the only method of explaining what's going on.

(Note: Whether good or bad, I imagine you could only call PC-death 'uninteresting' if the players were wholly indifferent to their PCs' survival one way or another.)

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.

Alright Ron, after due consideration here's how I see it.  I go to look at the page on Conflict Resolution, and I see a long explanation of the concept with several examples for the purposes of clarification as to how and why you would/should use it, but without any particular mention of problematic execution or associated risks.  Then I look up the page on Task Resolution, with much of the text devoted to:

Known issues and problems
...In general, this combination is less and less used in more modern role-playing games, supplanted by Conflict Resolution and Fortune-in-the-middle.

I realise this is very much a work in progress, but regardless of your intent, the overall impression I get from the wiki is that you are, in effect, advocating for CR and see very little point to using TR.  Now, maybe that's not your intent.  Maybe you have participated in fun, functional groups that used TR to great effect, and you know first-hand that there are circumstances which make it much easier to work with, or maybe there are potential drawbacks to using CR which offset it's relative advantages.

Well, in the case that there are Pros to TR and/or Cons to CR, perhaps the wiki should be updated to reflect that.  If, on the other hand, you are genuinely drawing a blank on the subject, because you haven't found 'functional versions' of one, then there's little point to claiming 'fair and balanced' coverage, and you might as well just... advocate.  *spreads hands*  Either way is fine with me.

There are other points I might quibble with- in particular, I wonder if the problems you list with Task Resolution aren't more symptomatic of, e.g, funky modelling of probability distributions- but if this doesn't interest you, I'll be happy to drop the subject.  However, given that Paolo has pointed it out, I do find the following passages difficult to reconcile-

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.

Are Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution incompatible?

No. Many games present both, for different cases. Even D&D, from the first editions, had a Conflict Resolution Combat System associated to abilities used with Task Resolution.

Are Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution the only possible choices?

No. They only list two possible "triggers" for the use of a fortune mechanic (when the character try to do something, as a task, or when the character is in a conflict)

Anyhoo, moving on-

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.

Yeah, I'm pretty much in agreement here.  The problem is that a strict and literal interpretation of the D&D diplomacy skill lends itself to two fairly absurd situations, depending on whether or not you omit the 'retries don't work' clause:

1.  Allow re-rolls for diplomacy, thus allowing high-charisma characters to badger people into doing whatever they want, as long as they keep trying.
2.  Don't allow re-rolls for diplomacy, therefore turning affected NPCs into reflexive automatons, incapable of revising their opinions and goals.

And yes, I would agree that conflict resolution is probably the solution to this dilemma, because capital-C "Conflicts" tend to be marked or punctuated by events that signify changes in circumstances relevant to the characters' decision-making.  (i.e, because a goal or sub-goal of theirs has just been attained or frustrated, wound up at odds with another goal or sub-goal, etc.)  And these shifts mark where an involved character might be susceptible to fresh persuasion- because the circumstances have changed, and they now have to make a new decision.  "I want you to reconsider your position, because Important Thing X has happened and Important Thing Y has happened and now we ought to do A and B in response."

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.

Just to clarify:  I'm not claiming to be some weathered grognard with extensive first-hand experience of all of these modes of play.  Half of my opinions are based on second-hand, anecdotal testimony from forum discussions here and elsewhere, or relatively brief exposure to con games and demos.  And I can accept that this distinction between Task/Conflict *does* exist as an overall philosophy of play.  I'm just not certain that the phrasing currently being used to differentiate them on the wiki will really clear up confusion for anyone curious on the subject.

[Moreno R.]

Ron should be fighting against a deadline at this moment, so don't be surprised if he will not be able to reply for a few days.

I am replying about the part that talks about something I wrote. I wrote the first "fleshed out" pages both for conflict resolution and task resolution (after the first stubs taken from the glossary). The task Resolution page is still the one I wrote at the beginning of July, but little survive of what I wrote on the Conflict Resolution page, that Ron rewrote almost completely.

So, if these is a difference between the two pages, it's because one (the task resolution one) reflect what I think, the other reflect what Ron thinks.

(I hope that this thread will be able to reconcile the two visions in a coherent wiki...)

So...

Known issues and problems
...In general, this combination is less and less used in more modern role-playing games, supplanted by Conflict Resolution and Fortune-in-the-middle.

I realise this is very much a work in progress, but regardless of your intent, the overall impression I get from the wiki is that you are, in effect, advocating for CR and see very little point to using TR.

I wrote that part, and yes, I consider conflict resolution vastly superior for almost anything (even if I can't exclude that task resolution would be better for some kind of purpose, I still have not encountered one of that kind not tied to simple conservatorism and habits). But I didn't let that opinion spill on the wiki page this time: that one is simply an historical observation.  For a lot of years, in the 80's and 90's, almost 100% of the games were about task resolution, it was so ingrained that it was "the way you play a rpg".  Seeing that at this time there are literally hundreds of new games using conflict resolution, with more and more being published, it would be difficult to negate that, in objective, measurable terms, the percentage of games using conflict resolution greatly increased from that old 0%, and so the percentage of task resolution games decreased.

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.

Are Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution incompatible?

No. Many games present both, for different cases. Even D&D, from the first editions, had a Conflict Resolution Combat System associated to abilities used with Task Resolution.

Are Task Resolution and Conflict Resolution the only possible choices?

No. They only list two possible "triggers" for the use of a fortune mechanic (when the character try to do something, as a task, or when the character is in a conflict)

I was talking about entire games. There is nothing that force someone to use task resolution (or conflict resolution) in every single aspect of a game (AD&D for example didn't)

I suspect that Ron was talking about the specific single resolution of a single situation, that can be with task resolution or conflict resolution, but not both.

There is really no incompatibility at all in these two positions, seeing that they talk about different things. I am saying that in a sack you can have both apples and oranges, Ron is saying that an apple is not an orange.

About resolutions that are not task or conflict: I was thinking about things like the roll in Bacchanal (where you "resolve" a situation before it happen, without even knowing if there will be a conflict, and with no relation to any task whatsoever), the choice of love/pity in Kagematsu (this one is an interesting example: I would love to talk about Kagematsu in another thread, when Ron will have more free time), the roll at the beginning of a session of a Hardholder in Apocalypse World, for example.

[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.

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?)

I missed this reply.  I am going to use 'roll dice' as shorthand for "use the games conflict resolution mechanics to resolve a situation", OK?

So I didnt mean that issues or conflict or confrontation or challenging situations cant/shouldnt occur if you dont roll dice.  You can resolve stuff without rolling dice!  You can have the zombies get in easilly if the players dont board the windows.  You can have the zombies stuck outside hammering on the boards if they do - choices have consequences, regardless of dice rolling.

What Im saying is you need to look hard at the situation and pick your 'battles' to roll dice for.  A conflict between the players boarding the windows before (potential) zombies get there may or may not be appropriate to focus on by rolling dice, or it may be approprite at one time and not another.  It depends.  Theres nothign worse than grinding through a bunch of shit in a game that nobody actually gives a flying fuck about.

Like Ron says, conflicts (of interset) is one criterion of rolling the dice, but it doesnt follow that you should roll dice for every conflict of interst that may arise.

[Morgan Allen]

I wrote that part, and yes, I consider conflict resolution vastly superior for almost anything (even if I can't exclude that task resolution would be better for some kind of purpose, I still have not encountered one of that kind not tied to simple conservatorism and habits). But I didn't let that opinion spill on the wiki page this time: that one is simply an historical observation.  For a lot of years, in the 80's and 90's, almost 100% of the games were about task resolution, it was so ingrained that it was "the way you play a rpg".  Seeing that at this time there are literally hundreds of new games using conflict resolution, with more and more being published, it would be difficult to negate that, in objective, measurable terms, the percentage of games using conflict resolution greatly increased from that old 0%, and so the percentage of task resolution games decreased.

I'm not disputing the historical accuracy of this statement.  All I'm saying is, if you and other Forge regulars are genuinely at a loss to describe how all-TR-all-the-time might functionally be employed, then there's no particular need to make some show of defending it or pretending it's equally valid.  If, on the other hand, it really is an integral part of certain styles of play, then perhaps you should outline and describe those.

Based on my own limited observations, FWIW, I'm fully of the opinion that gratuitous task-resolution could die in a fire to no great loss to anyone.  But I am interested in where the all-TR-all-the-time philosophy comes from, because I have this tickling, back-of-my-mind suspicion that it's somehow related to a couple of priorities- the idea of enforcing an impartial standard of causality, of a fictional world that keeps turning on it's own axis, that the PCs are not the centre of the universe even if they are an integral part of it- that I am kinda sympathetic to.  I can't prove that's the case, but if it were it might lend some clues to the kind of game design that would scratch that particular itch in a more... efficient fashion.  So... that's why I'm curious about whether these groups share any other common characteristics or agenda.

I was talking about entire games. There is nothing that force someone to use task resolution (or conflict resolution) in every single aspect of a game (AD&D for example didn't)

I suspect that Ron was talking about the specific single resolution of a single situation, that can be with task resolution or conflict resolution, but not both.

There is really no incompatibility at all in these two positions, seeing that they talk about different things. I am saying that in a sack you can have both apples and oranges, Ron is saying that an apple is not an orange.

*spreads hands*  ...Again, all I am saying is that the phrasing currently employed by the wiki is, IMHO, likely to engender confusion and could stand some cleanup or clarification in that regard.  It's all well and fine and good to explain this to me, but you need to explain it there as well.

I missed this reply.  I am going to use 'roll dice' as shorthand for "use the games conflict resolution mechanics to resolve a situation", OK?

So I didnt mean that issues or conflict or confrontation or challenging situations cant/shouldnt occur if you dont roll dice.  You can resolve stuff without rolling dice!  You can have the zombies get in easilly if the players dont board the windows.  You can have the zombies stuck outside hammering on the boards if they do - choices have consequences, regardless of dice rolling.

What Im saying is you need to look hard at the situation and pick your 'battles' to roll dice for.  A conflict between the players boarding the windows before (potential) zombies get there may or may not be appropriate to focus on by rolling dice, or it may be approprite at one time and not another.  It depends.  Theres nothign worse than grinding through a bunch of shit in a game that nobody actually gives a flying fuck about.

Again, I don't think we ultimately disagree on this point.  I am simply suggesting that, in a group which functionally employs Conflict Resolution, then if you look carefully at when the players are interested, it is because the fictional circumstances entail significant uncertainty about outcomes relevant to their characters.

I just feel that the alternative emphasis- that the players' real-world moment-to-moment shifting of interest is what should shape the fiction, or saying "it's not about character priorities, it's about player priorities"- can lead to exactly the kind of problems with "stakes negotiation" that Ron was talking about earlier- "endlessly negotiating about what a given roll will resolve."  I have this vague recollection of a thread on Story Games (found it) where he elaborated on this sort of thing:

GM: The demon-guy is going to burn the book with your mother's secret letters in it!
Player in PTA, playing Buffy (by whatever name): That demon has gone too far this time. I kick his ass!
GM: If I win, then your mother falls in love with him!
Player: Oh yeah? If I win, then his dick shrivels up!

It's the same chesting (not "chest-beating," a listening-error made by some people that evening, but rather butting and shoving with chests) as in the previous example - but positioned before the roll, not after.

It can go on to pretty absurd extremes, with people really expanding the scope ("if I win, the school burns down!!" "If I win, you're really a man in disguise!"), but it's not that absurdity I'm talking about, but the basic structural problem.

People who say, "But we have fun! This works! You're just inveighing against something you don't like, as usual, Edwards!" are using exactly the same argument that used to be applied to the older version. "It worked for us!" Why? Because they enjoy chesting with one another, and have little to no interest in whether the demon-guy burns the book or whether he gets his ass kicked. All in-game conflicts are present only for the opportunity to chest. Any minute now, they'll say "you just have to find the right group" to support their point, which is no argument at all.

The problem I see within this example is that there's no particularly plausible connection between whether you succeed/fail at kicking a demon's ass and "your mother falls in love", etc.  The real player (or GM) might want this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with fictional causality.  It's biting off too much, because the conversation is focused on the wrong thing- real-people priorities, instead of fictional events.

Now, sure, you need to be able to sit down at the table with people who are likewise committed to that kind of integrity-of-fiction, and yes, that is a reflection of real-people priorities.  Yes, players can modify the fiction and instigate conflict either through character-actions or structured metagame.  But having established that social contract, I feel that character-relevant conflicts incipient within the imagined world should have the players pricking their antennae, rather than moment-to-moment real-people priorities dictating what does or does not count as a 'conflict'.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey guys,

There are maybe too many topics competing at once in this thread.

I think the one called How is Task Resolution described in the Wiki? is pretty much done. Morgan, thanks for your points, which should serve as the guide for refining the entry.

Another one is Why are Task and Conflict being dichotomized so severely?, which is fine, but way, way too abstract and I already see too many problematic claims and assumptions throughout. Alessandro, this seems to be your issue, so I am flatly saying it requires an actual-play based thread in either Your Stuff or My Stuff (depending on the game). In fact, I spy a golden opportunity for you to tell us about your experiences with HeroQuest, because that resolution system is ideal for discussing these issues.

Yet another is Why ever use Task Resolution? and that too really needs to get turfed to new thread in another forum, based on real play. Stef, this one seems like yours. I think if you wanted to start with merely a description of resolution as typically occurred in some game of your experience, it could serve to work through the issues you're raising here.

At present, people talking about one of these tend to get replies that are more relevant to another ... or perhaps, continue to get replies because the responder isn't seeing their preferred question being addressed. And that'll go on forever without much benefit.

I'm not closing this thread, but I think the daughter threads should get started, and then we'll see whether this one should be put to bed.

Best, Ron

[Morgan Allen]

Cheers, Ron.  Assuming it's not subsumed under one of the topics you've mentioned, I'd also be interested by the topic of conflict-recognition and how it relates to mediating, e.g, diplomacy rolls and the like.  I'll leave it there otherwise.

Morgan

[RosenMcStern]

Your Italian spelling is improving Ron. You managed to spell Alessandro's name without any typos. Too bad that Alessandro does not play HeroQuest :) So I suppose you were addressing my question. I will open a new thread as soon as I can put together a couple of concrete examples.

[Ron Edwards]

Paolo: that is a grossly inconsiderate post. People make mistakes. You spotted a chance to showcase my mistake socially and you took it, in a particularly nasty way which began with a false compliment. Scoring points like this is adolescent and basically rotten. Although it is ordinary behavior in most internet venues, it's not permitted here; I will not permit even the slightest hint to infect this website. Please do not pester me with emails about it, either.

Vincent: disable the smileys, please. I hate them; all they do is provide a window for people to be assholes.

Paolo, please start the thread you mentioned.

I think this thread really needs to close after all.

Best, Ron

[RosenMcStern]

Please note that I am not very pleased by being (indirectly) called "adolescent", "rotten" and "asshole". Nor is the reference to "pestering with email" any more polite, IMO. Consider this as a formal disagreement with your moderation rules, which I am now expressing in public because you have just complained about me doing it - properly - by private messages in the past. I will, nevertheless, adhere to the rules for as long as I will stay here.

From now on, all my posts on this board will be absolutely and totally smiley-free and aseptic, in an attempt at avoiding other social messages that you consider inappropriate to pass through. I politely ask you to be equally aseptic when you address me.

I will post the aforementioned thread soon.

[Ron Edwards]

I know this game. It's called "bait the moderator." It does not work on me.

You continue to miss the crucial point that standards at other sites, or even what you might think of as the internet as a whole, do not apply here. There is no "proper" aside from what I say it is. What pleases you or fails to please you about any aspect of this site, and how I moderate it, carries no interest or weight.

You have posted to a closed thread. The following moderation now applies.

1. The thread you began in Your Stuff is closed to posting until one week has passed (to the minute) from your opening post.

2. You are not to post at this website at all until that same deadline.

3. Your latest posts in current threads are valid and others may reply to them normally.

Best, Ron