Other resolutions

[Moreno R.]

I wrote in the thread about task/conflict resolution:

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.

Given that:
1) Task Resolution: you use it when someone try to do something that isn't impossible or certain, it says if he do it or not, plus eventually other information about the results he gets
2) Conflict resolution: you use it when there is a conflict in the fiction, it say "who win" (in a very general way), plus eventually other information about how and the effects

The "plus other informations" part is there to account for the variability of resolution rules in game systems, but seeing that it's not what define the kind of resolution, I will drop it in the following part of this post, to increase clarity.

We have rolls (or other kind of resolutions) not tied to task or conflict? Plenty.

This thread is to look at other categories.

For example, "timed" resolutions:

- at the start of the session: resolutions that you use at the start of the session, to set the starting conditions (the hard-holder roll at the start of every session in Apocalypse World)

- at the beginning of a scene: resolution that you use at the start of a scene, that say how the scene will "go", regardeless of tasks and conflicts: like the rolls in bacchanal.

- At the end of a scene, like the decisions that happen in Kagematsu and Bliss Stage.

I am proposing this as a third category: task resolutions, conflict resolutions, timed resolutions. (I am not particularly fond of "timed", probably there are much better names for that).

As a category, it could be subdivided into "scene" resolutions, "session" resolutions, and maybe even "game" resolutions (the roll to determine who is the murderer at the end of "A taste for murder")

Thoughts?

[rgrassi]

Moreno, you probably know what a "Constraint" is in Levity.
Could it be considered as "other resolution"?
Constraint is "something that must be considered true/false in the fiction".
Constraint may be submitted at any time (if the playing configuration allows it) and so may vary in scope.
Acceptance of the submitted constraint is processed accordin to the playing configuration (by authority of one player [not necessarily the 'master'], by negotiation, by roll, by vote, ...]

[RosenMcStern]

I think I agree with the general concept expressed by Moreno. Although it may take months of thought to refine it to a point where it is a systematic representation of how reaolution systems actually work in practice.

A question: all this is "food for thought". A lot of high quality food for thought. Is it supposed to be here? I mean, this forum is supposed to nail down the best phrasing for concepts already discussed on the Forge. The proposals Moreno put forward are good, but they are totally new. Should they go somewhere else, perhaps?

In any case, be it here or there, I am going to follow the debate. With plenty of interest.

[davide.losito]

Are you sure the "moment" in which the dice are rolled does tell the difference in a resolution technique?
As far as logic goes, if you use a technique to resolve a clash of intentions between/among characters... it is still a "conflict", even if you roll the day before the conflict actually occurs in the fiction.

Or are you talking about techniques that assign narration authorities? So it's not "resolution", but it's "assignment"?

[RosenMcStern]

Davide's comment is correct. "Timed" resolution may overlap with conflict or task resolution.

Maybe it should be considered a totally different axis on which to place resolution mechanics.

[Moreno R.]

Are you sure the "moment" in which the dice are rolled does tell the difference in a resolution technique?
As far as logic goes, if you use a technique to resolve a clash of intentions between/among characters... it is still a "conflict", even if you roll the day before the conflict actually occurs in the fiction.

The kind of "resolution" I am talking about "happen" independently from the presence of any task or conflict.

For example, the rolls in bacchanal.  You roll at the beginning of your scene. Period. The roll "resolve" some questions about the scene, that are NOT "who win" or "can you do it?". The questions are for example "will you leave the scene?" (something that you should be able to do by your own will and no conflict) , "will some god wander here in this scene?", "there will be more sex or decadence in this scene?", things like these. That can't be mistaken for conflicts, the difference is very clear.

What you are talking about is "fortune in the middle", the real-world time you roll. If you roll to see if you will win a conflict in the next (fictional) year, leaving other decision and narrations to decide exactly what happen, you are simply rolling "before in real at-the-table time" (fortune in the middle) what is a roll that you do BECAUSE of a conflict (conflict resolution). No conflict, no rolls. It's not a "timed" resolution.

The difference is really clear and evident: the roll is tied to a conflict? Or it happen without any conflict whatsoever, anyway, in any case, at that exact moment in the game?

A game where you can see very easily this difference in every single time you play it is "A taste for Murder".  The game has both kinds of rolls.
- There are rolls to see the weather. They are "scene" timed rolls. There is no conflict or task associated to "it's raining or not?"
- There are rolls to force another character to do what your character want. There always one, and only one, every scene, but they are still conflict resolution rolls: both players rolls, one win , the other lose, the character is convinced or not.
- There are rolls to force another character to confess something. There always one, and only one, every scene, but they are still conflict resolution rolls: both players rolls, one win , the other lose, the character confess or not.
- And there is the last roll, and this is the interesting bit: at the end of the game, after all the conflict resolution rolls, there are two last suspects. The investigator is talking to all the characters, reunited in the same room. At the end of his talk, the investigator point the finger and accuse the real murderer.  At that point of the game, the two last suspects rolls to see who was the murderer. All along, From the beginning of the game. It's not a conflict: there is nobody to convince and nothing to confess, the investigator already know everything. It's a "game" timed roll, done at that precise moment that happen in every game of "a taste of murder", that retroactively "decide" who was playing the murderer all along. With no conflict or task involved.

(there is a conflict - it's a opposed roll after all - but it's between the players, with no correspondent in the fiction. And when we talk about conflict resolution, we always talk about a conflict in the fiction)

[davide.losito]

Ok, I understand.
Than it is not "resolving". There is nothing to "resolve". Those rolls are simply assigning authority over something in the fiction.
There is no "resolution" involved when using those techniques.

Or at least, this is how I see it.

[RosenMcStern]

One point for Davide.

I think you need IIEE somewhere to call a roll "Resolution".

Moreno, can you think of an example that is connected to time and not Task or Conflict where IIEE can be detected? I would say "the Winter phase rolls in Pendragon or Fables of Camelot", but I am not sure that these can be called "resolution", either.

Stil, my character in Fables of Camelot was killed by a wound complication roll during the winter phase when we played at EtrusCon. I would definitely call anything that kills you "resolution". Still it is not Conflict Resolution (I had won the conflict that caused the wound). Is it Task Resolution (survive the wound)?

GURPS has something similar: you roll for bleeding after a combat, and again this can kill a character. We could call this "task" system-wise because it works exactly like the TR mechanics of GURPS, but I would rather call it Consequence.

[Moreno R.]

Ok, I understand.
Than it is not "resolving". There is nothing to "resolve". Those rolls are simply assigning authority over something in the fiction.

Uh? Where?

Look at the examples: the final roll in A Taste for Murders doesn't assign any authority: it simply says "the murderer is this one". It's a more complicated way of flipping a coin.

The roll in Bacchanal doesn't give or take authority from anyone, either: in any case, the narrator of the scene is the same real person, with the same authority.

Where did you got the impression that these were conch-shell-like "rolls to see who narrate" or something like that? Did you ever play these games?

There is no "resolution" involved when using those techniques.

This depend on what you are calling "resolution".

If you require a conflict to resolve, it's obvious that only conflict resolution is a resolution. This is circular logic.

I suggest that "what you resolve" is variable with the kind of resolution. In a conflict, you resolve "who win" (at least, and maybe more than that), or more precisely, how the conflict ends. In Task resolution, you "resolve" the doubt about your character's capacity to do that task. All there are crux points in the fiction, moments where "saying what your character do" is not enough, you have to apply rules that "resolve" that situation.

In A Taste for Murder, the resolution is about "who is the murderer". Is something fictional that you can't "simply say". Exactly as in Sorcerer you can't simply say "I win, I banish that demon" without rolling.  Same thing.

In Bacchanal, the roll resolve a lot of things at once, but it's the same: fictional things that you have to resolve using game mechanics.

I think that in rpgs, mechanics can "resolve" a lot more that fights and tasks. And they already do.

[davide.losito]

I don't consider a "conflict" a mere and banal resolution of "who did win?".
There's a lot more, a lot deeper vision and a lot more about a conflict, for which "who did get his objective?" is not a direct synonym of "winning".

Furthermore, you can "resolve" a conflict ( = a clash of interests among characters in the fiction) even with mechanics that has nothing to do with "winning".
The fact that a character achieves an objective in the fiction has nothing to do with the fact that the player "wins" a contested roll.
Also the fact that two or more characters are struggling against each other to achieve one single contested object, or the fact that two or more characters are straggling for surviving... has nothing to do with the fact the players "win" anything.

A "conflict" or a "task" is identify by something that happens in the fiction, while "resolution" is a mechanic (ephemera/technique) in the hands of the players to help them resolve the conflict outcome... to these techniques you may or may not add further ephemera that assign specific narration authorities over that outcome, or over the description of the conflict itself, and so on.

You can easily invert the consecutive structure, so you may have a "standard":
1. something happens in the fiction - CONFLICT -> 2. Roll -> 3. Narrate according to the roll.

But you may have
1. Roll -> 2. something happens in the fiction - CONFLICT -> 3. Narrate according to the roll.

These are exemples of "resolution".


Now, if you use a technique to assign narrative authorities on fiction elements which are NOT conflictual knots among characters... well, as far as I see it, you are not resolving anything.
You're just assigning narrations with a randomized engine that gives you (for example) a variety of adversities or a variety of complications that occur later in the fiction... maybe even inside a resolution.

But again, I insist (and than I get out of the thread cause I think I told anything I could), you are not "resolving", you are "assigning" or... I don't know... use whatever verb you prefer, but it doesn't look "to resolve" at all to me.

Or, also... are these rolls giving you elements that may complicate a conflict that may happens later on? Are they assigning players authorities and narrations element that the players uses when they want?
I mean, that God that may walk by in this scene... when does walk by? Who decides it?
If the players decide it, and they may strategically have that fact happen when they feel it's best for them, this is a conflict with fortune in the beginning.
It's like taking your hands in Magic and waiting the best moment before playing an interruption. But you already KNOW you have that option at hand.

[Moreno R.]

Sorry for the multi-quote, but there were some points that are, in my opinion, really separate from the issue, and had to be answered separately.

I don't consider a "conflict" a mere and banal resolution of "who did win?".

Neither do I. It's for this reason that I used scare quotes around "win".

I think that for this thread, we should take for granted that we both know what conflict resolution is, without having to "prove" it by explaining it all over again to each other.  The fact that I didn't waste time in explaining it again should not be used to score "points": or we will not be able to discuss anything, having to explain the Big Model again and again every thread.

The fact that a character achieves an objective in the fiction has nothing to do with the fact that the player "wins" a contested roll.
Also the fact that two or more characters are struggling against each other to achieve one single contested object, or the fact that two or more characters are straggling for surviving... has nothing to do with the fact the players "win" anything.

About the first part...  wasn't this my point? That the fact that, for example, the final roll in A Taste For Murder is a contested roll, doesn't make it conflict resolution, because there is no conflict at all in the fiction?

About the second... I would suggest that treating "who will get that object" or "who will survive" as conflicts with "winner" and "losers" is the initial preliminar procedure of conflict resolution. Even if the specific rules of the specific game don't tell in that specific situation at the end "you win" or "you lose", if you can't consider that question ("who will get the object") as a conflict, as something that you can win or lose... you are left with task resolution or with throwing a coin (or with having the GM decide)

Returning to the first part, you didn't reply to my question about your familiarity with Bacchanal and A taste of Murder. I am not trying to score cheap "points", I am trying to understand if my examples are helping to clarify the issue, or if they are muddying it because I am using unfamiliar games. In that case it would be better if I change my examples now, using games you are familiar with, than having to do so after posting a lot of other useless examples.

A "conflict" or a "task" is identify by something that happens in the fiction, while "resolution" is a mechanic (ephemera/technique) in the hands of the players to help them resolve the conflict outcome... to these techniques you may or may not add further ephemera that assign specific narration authorities over that outcome, or over the description of the conflict itself, and so on.

You can easily invert the consecutive structure, so you may have a "standard":
1. something happens in the fiction - CONFLICT -> 2. Roll -> 3. Narrate according to the roll.

But you may have
1. Roll -> 2. something happens in the fiction - CONFLICT -> 3. Narrate according to the roll.

These are exemples of "resolution".

Exactly.  I agree with this... with a caveat.

Look at what you wrote: "to help them resolve the conflict outcome..."

As I said in my last post, this is circular logic: you start assuming that you resolve a conflict (or a task), and then it's obvious that you have to have a conflict (or a task) to resolve.

Let's look at what happen with my two examples (see how important is that you are familiar with the games I am using as examples?)

I am referring to the second case above: "1. Roll -> 2. something happens in the fiction - CONFLICT (sic) -> 3. Narrate according to the roll.". (Without assuming that there has to be a conflict, obviously.)

A Taste for murder:
1. Roll -> 2. something happens in the fiction: the identity of the murderer is finally established, retroactively. It was him/her all along, even if the player did not know it -> 3. The player who play Inspector Chapel narrate how the inspector "discovered" the proofs (for example, saying "we discovered the murder weapon under a tile in your bedroom, with your fingerprints on it")

Bacchanal:
1. Roll -> 2. something happens in the fiction: what? It depends on the results of the roll. Maybe a crime. Maybe an increase in debauchery. Maybe you meet Venus that take you to your lover. Maybe you leave the location, maybe not -> 3. Narrate according to the roll.

But again, I insist (and than I get out of the thread cause I think I told anything I could), you are not "resolving", you are "assigning" or... I don't know... use whatever verb you prefer, but it doesn't look "to resolve" at all to me.

Look at the two examples above: the follow exactly (apart from your insistence that THERE HAS TO BE A CONFLICT) your description of what a "resolution" is.

"Assigning" is more like what happen in a conch-shell game: "who will narrate the next bit?". There is nothing of the sort in both games.

Or, also... are these rolls giving you elements that may complicate a conflict that may happens later on?

Nope. The "A taste for murder" one is the very last roll of the game. The game ends right there.

Are they assigning players authorities and narrations element that the players uses when they want?

I don't understand this question.

If I am to assume that that your talking about a "who narrate" authority, then no, there absolutely no change in "who narrate" in both examples. But even if there was...  what's your point? Dust Devils, Primetime Adventures and Trollbabe have not "resolution" rolls because they assign "who narrate" authorities?

If I am to assume that you are talking about a "what you can narrate" authority...  is not this the effect of every single roll in every single game? Why roll if there is absolutely no change, no matter the result, in what you can say?

The example you use below doesn't help me a lot understanding your objection:

I mean, that God that may walk by in this scene... when does walk by? Who decides it?
If the players decide it, and they may strategically have that fact happen when they feel it's best for them, this is a conflict with fortune in the beginning.
It's like taking your hands in Magic and waiting the best moment before playing an interruption. But you already KNOW you have that option at hand.

This is not how Bacchanal play.  You don't "wait" for the occasion to "strategically" have a god enter the scene.

---------
As the Thread Opener, I have a request:  that ANYBODY who reply after this post, tell me if they have played these two games, and how many times (not the exact number: "once" or "sometimes" or "a lot" are good enough). And if they are not familiar with them (not having played them), they have to give me a choice of some different games (at least three, I don't know every game in the world) that they know, and where there are "timed" resolutions (as I described them), to use as real-play examples in talking with them.

In other words: I want this to be an actual play - based thread.