Conflict vs Task Resolution to facilitate Narrativism

[Daredevil]

In Ron's essay "Narrativism: Story Now", under heading "System - 'it does matter' all over again", Ron talks about task vs. conflict resolution.

I submit that trying to resolve conflicts by hoping that the accumulated successful tasks will turn out to be about what you want, is an unreliable and unsatisfying way to role-play when developing Narrativist protagonism.

I've been thinking about this and trying to understand the reasoning for this claim. Specifically, I'm wondering how does the "unreliable and unsatisfying way" manifest itself in play.

That whole matter is not discussed at any great length in the essay, except for a review of FITM use. To me, this makes it all like an advertisement for FITM. Personally, while I see FITM as a "nice thing", I fail to see how the following ideas (described as features of FITM) cannot also be applied to fortune-in-the end:

Fortune-in-the-Middle as the basis for resolving conflict facilitates Narrativist play in a number of ways.

* It preserves the desired image of player-characters specific to the moment. Given a failed roll, they don't have to look like incompetent goofs; conversely, if you want your guy to suffer the effects of cruel fate, or just not be good enough, you can do that too.
* It permits tension to be managed from conflict to conflict and from scene to scene. So a "roll to hit" in Scene A is the same as in Scene B in terms of whether the target takes damage, but it's not the same in terms of the acting character's motions, intentions, and experience of the action.
* It retains the key role of constraint on in-game events. The dice (or whatever) are collaborators, acting as a springboard for what happens in tandem with the real-people statements.

For the first one, even if the modifiers come from well recognized places, the interpretation of the final result is still somewhat up in the air. Count all the relevant modifiers, then resolve and narrate the result to fit your character. The clumsy troll trips on a twig, his bash missing the target. The deft elf's sword cuts are unable to penetrate the armor. Neither character's inherent concept is hurt by the result. Likewise for the second point, I just don't see a difference between the two systems (regarding this point) at all. The third one, isn't that more like a description of a game system's function in general?

I'm trying to understand this topic to see if "my way" would become better by adopting different resolution methods. If there is some uncertainty and unsatisfaction that I'm being blind to, I'd like to know about it! Right now I'm thinking that I'm probably using fortune-in-the-end mechanics kinda more like fortune-in-middle ones are intended to be used. Maybe it's a fix to avoid dysfunctional play. However, I think the fix isn't clunky at all.

- Joachim Buchert -

[xenopulse]

I understand it this way:

- Task resolution resolves an action.
- Conflict resolution resolves something that was at stake.

If your game revolves around individual challenges, task resolution is great. But if you have thematic goals, you might spend a lot of time resolving tasks without ever resolving what's thematically at stake. That's unsatisfying and unreliable from a thematic standpoint.

Manifestation example that I read on Vincent's blog: You are trying to get dirt on someone by searching through their office. Task resolution: pick safe, search safe, pick drawer, search drawer. None of this might be fruitfuil; there might be no dirt in those places to start with. You've just wasted a lot of time, from the thematic standpoint. Conflict resolution: Use the mechanism to determine the actual goal. Do I or do I not find dirt ? There, done. Now on to the next stake.

If you use conflict resolution, the main difference is that each resolution counts. Something's at stake, something that matters.

At least that's my understanding.

[Irmo]

Sorry to necromance this thread, but since I had a discussion on this issue in the TROS Forum, I'd like to raise some arguments here, and see what others think.

I understand it this way:

- Task resolution resolves an action.
- Conflict resolution resolves something that was at stake.

If your game revolves around individual challenges, task resolution is great. But if you have thematic goals, you might spend a lot of time resolving tasks without ever resolving what's thematically at stake. That's unsatisfying and unreliable from a thematic standpoint.

Manifestation example that I read on Vincent's blog: You are trying to get dirt on someone by searching through their office. Task resolution: pick safe, search safe, pick drawer, search drawer. None of this might be fruitfuil; there might be no dirt in those places to start with. You've just wasted a lot of time, from the thematic standpoint. Conflict resolution: Use the mechanism to determine the actual goal. Do I or do I not find dirt ? There, done. Now on to the next stake.

If you use conflict resolution, the main difference is that each resolution counts. Something's at stake, something that matters.

At least that's my understanding.

I see an underlying assumption, however, that an accumulation of task resolutions is necessary. I'd like to challenge that view by taking an analogy from sciences: In a multi-step process, the individual steps usually proceed with varying speed. The overall process in its speed thereby is obviously defined by the slowest of all steps -the so-called rate-limiting step.

I'd like to apply this to another example from Vincent's site: The situation of getting past an enemy to catch a ship. Do we really have to make several task rolls to resolve the situation? Not if we make the following assumptions:

It is possible to reach the ship.
The running speed -excluding impairment- is the same with or without the fight.[/list:u]

Then we have the following situation: The fight with the enemy is the rate-limiting step. It is the one thing that makes or breaks whether the ship is reached in time. In order to reach the ship, two things have to happen:


The fight has to be over in short order, say in X rounds/exchanges/whatever -otherwise the buffer time is exhausted
The fight has to be resolved without suffering a)leg injuries b)major injuries of any kind -otherwise we cannot assume similar running speeds [/list:u]

So all we have to do is resolve the fight. Yes, this can take several rolls, as any fight can. But it doesn't have to, and is essentially one task being resolved -taking out the enemy. The multiple rolls are only necessary due to the specific example and only in specific systems. If we had a totally different example -e.g. intimidating a guard to let you pass so you can stop your friend's execution- then depending on the system used, it might only be one roll. The key point is that task resolution does NOT require you to get bogged down in every teensy little bit of detail. It doesn't forbid you in any way to take a look of what the critical steps in a conflict are, and consider the others negligible.

Taking your example, suppose there's nothing regular to pick on the safe, it has a time-lock mechanism. You would resolve the cracking of a safe e.g. by welding and the picking of a drawer lock with the same roll and with the same modifiers. You know whether the character has the info or not. But the time taken, the noise generated, the traces left etc. are all completely arbitrary, since you can interpret even the margin of success in an infinite number of ways. Does a big margin of success mean that information was found at the first place searched? Or that it was found in the safe, after welding it open in a breeze? What could be called the interpretive scope or spectrum allowed by conflict resolution, is it not just a different form of arbitrariness, with the emphasis being on who interprets what on the basis of what data?

My main point, though, is thus that I think while the two are obviously distinct, the distinctions tend to be exaggerated as a matter of habit of handling e.g. task resolution in a specific way. You can equally well use task resolution in a way that something that matters is at stake. In the examples above, if you don't manage to incapacitate the enemy, you don't reach the ship. If you don't manage to make the guard let you pass, your friend will be executed. In essence, it's boiling down conflict resolution to a single, make-or-break task, and resolving that task. While it gives you less interpretive scope, that also translates to less arbitrariness, and it gives you a clear idea as to where the problem was. IF the character looks like a complete fool in it, in more cases than not I think the cause is more to be sought in the way the system resolves tasks than in the fact that it focuses on task resolution (e.g. linear distribution of probabilites from 0 to 100% success, coarse resolution leaving you with 5% blunder probability regardless of expertise etc.)

[Adam Cerling]

Joachim,

I think your analysis is correct in that you are using Fortune-in-the-Middle. Compare this description of yours to Ron's description of FitM in the essay:

For the first one, even if the modifiers come from well recognized places, the interpretation of the final result is still somewhat up in the air. Count all the relevant modifiers, then resolve and narrate the result to fit your character. The clumsy troll trips on a twig, his bash missing the target. The deft elf's sword cuts are unable to penetrate the armor.

Usually, instead of the typical description that you "swing and miss," because the "swing" was assumed to be in action before the dice could be rolled at all, the narration now can be anything from "the guy holds you off from striking range with the spearpoint" to "your swing is dead-on but you slip a bit." Or it could be a plain vanilla miss because the guy's better than you. The point is that the narration of what happens "reaches back" to the initation of the action, not just the action's final micro-second.

However, you are also correct in that Fortune-in-the-Middle is not unique to Conflict Resolution. You can use it with Task Resolution just fine.

To me, the reason that Conflict Resolution facilitates Narrativism while Task resolution does not is because the former keeps the focus on what I care about. The latter puts the focus on actions (upon actions, upon actions) that I don't care about.

Task Resolution asks: "Are you fast enough to strike first? Do you hit him with your sword? Do you dodge his blows?" And all the while I'm tapping my foot and thinking, "I don't care about all these details! The interesting stuff happens after. If I beat him I have to decide whether to spare his life, or if he beats me I have to decide whether to plead for my life! Why aren't we getting straight to that stuff?"

Conflict Resolution, on the other hand, can cut straight to the Narrative heart of the matter. Every roll swells with the promise of imminent Premise.

[Irmo]

Task Resolution asks: "Are you fast enough to strike first? Do you hit him with your sword? Do you dodge his blows?" And all the while I'm tapping my foot and thinking, "I don't care about all these details! The interesting stuff happens after. If I beat him I have to decide whether to spare his life, or if he beats me I have to decide whether to plead for my life! Why aren't we getting straight to that stuff?"

Conflict Resolution, on the other hand, can cut straight to the Narrative heart of the matter. Every roll swells with the promise of imminent Premise.

Question: Does a task resolution system switch to conflict resolution by the sole fact that it introduces one-roll combat resolution? I doubt it. I think just the scope of the task has changed. But it has done PRECISELY what you demand: It got straight to the stuff of who beat whom, without any details in between and its decision time on the issues you raised.

[xenopulse]

I see what you're saying. But the difference between a task resolution system and a conflict resolution system lies in how you frame the tasks/conflicts, and what the potential outcomes are--not just how detailed the resolution is.

So usually, in a Nar setting, a fight is *about* something. Using Dogs in the Vineyard as an example, fights are not just about "Do I beat him," but "Can I keep him from going off and shooting the shopkeeper."

Also, in the previous example, if the conflict stake is, "Do I get dirt on the bad guy," and I succeed, then that's what happens.

If I think "I want to get dirt on the bad guy, maybe something's in the safe," and I crack the safe, there's no guarantee that I've achieved anything meaningful at all. The safe might be empty, or not hold any dirt.

With conflict resolution, the idea is that you resolve the issue that actually matters. With task resolution, you might waste rolls and time doing certain tasks, as prescribed by the system, and in the end those tasks never had the chance to get you what you wanted in the first place. Now the DM could help you along, but the system won't help in and of itself.

Compare and contrast that with Trollbabe, or Primetime Adventures, and you'll see a very noticeable difference that's not just one of scope of tasks. It's a whole different approach on how to handle input into the game, and whether to articulate and resolve *why* you are doing what you're doing.

[Eero Tuovinen]

The kernel of the question is whether task resolution works equally well for narrativism? Let me try...

The issue at hand in conflict resolution is the why, while with task resolution it's the how - this is clear. Now, consider: which question carries the premise? There are literary devices where the premise certainly is in the task, but in those cases there is invariably a conflict embedded in there (namely, do I succeed in this task; if this question is not implicit, there is no premise in the task). On the other hand, there certainly are conflicts that are not tied to any particular task. Examples:

Task without premise meaning:
- a random fight, just because these parts are dangerous, you know
This has nothing to do with premise.

Task with premise meaning:
- a fight with my sworn enemy - will my virtue best him?
This is just as premise-relevant as any conflict, but that's because it's identical with the conflict in question:

Conflict with premise meaning:
- a fight with my sworn enemy - will my virtue best him?
See? It's the same as above. The task becomes premise-relevant by the virtue of the embedded conflict, not on it's own.

Conflict without a defined task:
- It's claimed that his evil is mightier than my good! Is it?
Now, this is a fine conflict. But where's the task? There isn't any! It's the same exact conflict as above, worded a little differently, but the implicit task of battling has dissappeared!

The point: tasks (what the protagonist does) and conflicts (why he does it) exist in a narrative regardless of the mechanics. Conflicts are more natural currency for narrativist play, because premise occurs on the level of conflicts. Individual tasks are ultimately incidental to this. Every case of addressing premise is ultimately up to a given conflict, defined or not. If a task or a string of tasks can be defined to solve the conflict, then task resolution limps by.

Now, I mentioned above that there are tasks with premise meaning, very much so. Example: in the anime series Smiling Shenshi we have a swordsman who refuses to take up a gun, because he feels this diminishes the responsibility the killer takes for his act. In this kind of case the character makes a task meaningful premise-wise, the task becomes the arena for conflict. Every time this guy ends up in a fight the question is asked - can he hold onto his ideals? Can he best the odds with only his sword? It's pretty trivial to construct a task example that is very clearly premise-significant.

But, the point: the task becomes premise-significant only because it embodies the conflict, not because of any virtue of it's own. There is no premise-meaningful task that doesn't become so through a conflict. Premise itself signifies a question of meaning, while conflict is a judgement of choice. These are ultimately as duck unto water.

So, in conclusion: conflict resolution is better suited for narrativism because conflicts are the subject matter therein. Of course task resolution can be applied judiciously, but the odds are that a good nar game will have some way of controlling and manipulating the conflict level as well. Task resolution is an unreliable tool for this, just as Ron says.

Regardless, nothing stops people from trying ;) I myself designed deliberately a nar game with task resolution in The Fall of Atlantis and Dawn of Human History last year in IGC. In that game tasks were infused with varying premise-relevant conflicts at different points of the game, so the choice of task action was really very much about premise, and it was very difficult to set up tasks with no premise meaning. But this kind of design requires careful forethought, and it's still a very open question whether there's any point to it.

[Landon Darkwood]

For the first one, even if the modifiers come from well recognized places, the interpretation of the final result is still somewhat up in the air. Count all the relevant modifiers, then resolve and narrate the result to fit your character. The clumsy troll trips on a twig, his bash missing the target. The deft elf's sword cuts are unable to penetrate the armor. Neither character's inherent concept is hurt by the result. Likewise for the second point, I just don't see a difference between the two systems (regarding this point) at all. The third one, isn't that more like a description of a game system's function in general?

I'm trying to understand this topic to see if "my way" would become better by adopting different resolution methods. If there is some uncertainty and unsatisfaction that I'm being blind to, I'd like to know about it! Right now I'm thinking that I'm probably using fortune-in-the-end mechanics kinda more like fortune-in-middle ones are intended to be used. Maybe it's a fix to avoid dysfunctional play. However, I think the fix isn't clunky at all.

Kicking this back to the original post for a moment... really, I think you're just using FITM, period. An "as per the Provisional Glossary" FATE mechanic would account for all parts of declaration and description before the roll occurs. There is no interpretive freedom, or very little, except in terms of what variables aren't accounted for by declaration or modifiers. I announce that I want to swing my axe at the orc. You bring in all the modifiers and describe. Therefore, if I fail, it means I whiff. I fail to hit the orc with the axe I just swung.

There's no "gimmie" there - you can't go back and say I hit him but the armor was too thick, or that my footing was bad or we were in an awkward position or whatever, or that I didn't get a chance to swing. The action has been described already. Which makes me look like a putz if we're playing in a game where I'm supposed to be this mega-serious epic adventurer type. Or, failing the roll means the action went as stated and didn't do a darn thing to the orc. Which makes me look like even more of a putz. I mean... I'm a hero, darn it, and that's just an orc.

Now, if you didn't describe and account for everything in full like that, and use the outcome of the roll as context to retroactively determine what precisely happens... yeah. That's Fortune in the Middle. I say, "I want to try and hit the orc with my axe," we apply some modifiers, and I blow the roll. You can say, "You know, with your position as awkward as it is, the opportunity just doesn't present itself to take a good, solid swing." Because you're using FITM, you can say that retroactively. We never determined that I definitively swung that axe - just that I was going to try.

In truth, I rarely if ever see anyone stick consistently to FATE mechanics, even if the rules call for it.


-Landon Darkwood

[Irmo]

The kernel of the question is whether task resolution works equally well for narrativism? Let me try...

The issue at hand in conflict resolution is the why, while with task resolution it's the how - this is clear. Now, consider: which question carries the premise? There are literary devices where the premise certainly is in the task, but in those cases there is invariably a conflict embedded in there (namely, do I succeed in this task; if this question is not implicit, there is no premise in the task).

On the other hand, there certainly are conflicts that are not tied to any particular task. Examples:

Task without premise meaning:
- a random fight, just because these parts are dangerous, you know
This has nothing to do with premise.

Task with premise meaning:
- a fight with my sworn enemy - will my virtue best him?
This is just as premise-relevant as any conflict, but that's because it's identical with the conflict in question:

Conflict with premise meaning:
- a fight with my sworn enemy - will my virtue best him?
See? It's the same as above. The task becomes premise-relevant by the virtue of the embedded conflict, not on it's own.

Conflict without a defined task:
- It's claimed that his evil is mightier than my good! Is it?
Now, this is a fine conflict. But where's the task? There isn't any! It's the same exact conflict as above, worded a little differently, but the implicit task of battling has dissappeared!

The point: tasks (what the protagonist does) and conflicts (why he does it) exist in a narrative regardless of the mechanics. Conflicts are more natural currency for narrativist play, because premise occurs on the level of conflicts. Individual tasks are ultimately incidental to this. Every case of addressing premise is ultimately up to a given conflict, defined or not. If a task or a string of tasks can be defined to solve the conflict, then task resolution limps by.

I think this actually illustrates well one of my points. Sure, conflict resolution can solve the last example, task resolution can not solve it as is. BUT in order to actually have a narrative, you have to resolve the how -and be it through arbitrary decision- eventually, otherwise there's no meat to your story. A line of plot points is no story. So the main difference is when and how the how is resolved. If you have a task resolution system that works in a believable fashion (such as one where your results scatter around what can be expected for your level of expertise) and you decide on the how before rolling, then a)the narrative flow isn't really stopped any more than with conflict resolution, and there is no real risk of characters looking like fools -one of the points frequently leveled against task resolution mostly based in the common linear distribution of probabilities.

So, in conclusion: conflict resolution is better suited for narrativism because conflicts are the subject matter therein. Of course task resolution can be applied judiciously, but the odds are that a good nar game will have some way of controlling and manipulating the conflict level as well. Task resolution is an unreliable tool for this, just as Ron says.

And I still am not convinced it is something inherent to task resolution, rather than the way it is handled in most systems. If you condense conflicts into tasks critical for their resolution, then task resolution is handling the conflict level. I maintain that the amount of useful information for the resolution of your conflict is similar, no matter which way you handle it, the difference being when and which information it is.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Well, yeah. The same game can, and probably does, have systems for both conflict and task resolution. Take Dust Devils: the best poker hand decides the conflict, but the highest card chooses the narrator, who then calls any tasks in the conflict. The game has both conflict and task resolution, they're just tied closely together.

Of course a narrative needs to know how the tasks go. It's just that generally any given task won't be nearly as important as the key conflicts. This is self-evident, because of what I said earlier: a task garners literary meaning only in relation to a premise it addresses, and by addressing premise it becomes a conflict. This is why many modern narrativist games relegate task resolution into a secondary role, where the narrator just decides on it. It has some value, but it's incidental. For most conflicts we don't really care about the task details.

And I still am not convinced it is something inherent to task resolution, rather than the way it is handled in most systems. If you condense conflicts into tasks critical for their resolution, then task resolution is handling the conflict level. I maintain that the amount of useful information for the resolution of your conflict is similar, no matter which way you handle it, the difference being when and which information it is.

Here's the point, again: what you have here is eminently possible, but what you've done is just ensuring that the task resolution becomes conflict resolution. By "condensing conflicts into tasks" you're just doing a trick wherein the task stands in for the conflict. This is conflict resolution, insofar that it's the conflict that's being resolved. It's incidental that there's a task in there as well. Not that it's not a good idea - I can well imagine genres and playing styles where it's a real good idea to condense big conflicts into kind of 'breakpoints', where everything rests on this one task. Gives a cinematic "show, don't tell" feel to it, I imagine. On the other hand, there's a real danger of the conflict being handled in sub-optimal way then... the conflict could be resolved based on some completely incidental feature of the task, like surprise attack, say. Doesn't strike me as a powerful thematic statement: "Ha, my superpowers gained through child molestation are better than your yoga, because I got the drop on you!"

That's the weakness of task resolution nar-wise: the task will, by the virtue of being a task, include all manner of rules about proper task resolution. Like the typical combat game, with it's initiative, shield bonuses, combat speed, weapon selection and whatever else. Any and all of these can potentially carry premise, but they might also become hazards that clinch the task regardless of the premise-thing at hand. Like, we play Riddle of Steel and it's my Love SA against your Revenge SA, powerful stuff. If one of us lacks the SA, the other will likely win. But it might also be that some nar-wise inconsequential tactical trick will win the task, and the conflict, for one of us. That's a whole different ball-game, and won't necessarily be a good thing. "Love triumphs against evil because it has better shield tricks?!?" Task resolution can be uncontrolled and meaningless conflict-wise.

So yeah, you could say that task resolution is just as good as conflict resolution for narrativistic gaming, if you're willing to make sure that the task resolution handles conflicts consistently, efficiently and fairly, with perhaps some way to ensure no possibility of premise-empty tasks cropping up. But then you could as well call that system conflict resolution, because that's what it does. It's like claiming that anybody can play musical instruments, they don't need to be musicians to do it, they just have to practice, learn and care about music... but if they do, then they are musicians!

[Irmo]

Of course a narrative needs to know how the tasks go. It's just that generally any given task won't be nearly as important as the key conflicts. This is self-evident, because of what I said earlier: a task garners literary meaning only in relation to a premise it addresses, and by addressing premise it becomes a conflict. This is why many modern narrativist games relegate task resolution into a secondary role, where the narrator just decides on it. It has some value, but it's incidental. For most conflicts we don't really care about the task details.

Thing is that rather than reducing arbitrariness, it increases it, since not just one aspect of the consequences of the roll, but all but one are completely arbitrarily chosen. True, it's the one you care most about, but if that's the case, isn't leaving just that one to a die roll sort of a cop-out? Especially since you ONLY answered it in a binary yes/no fashion, and the true meaning is again left to arbitrary decision-making. To illustrate that, let me use the "getting the dirt on the bad guy" example again. So the die roll tells us we got the info. Does it also tell us we only got it in a fashion that makes it a pyrrhic victory, because we ensured we will never get to use it by the way we got it (e.g. we alerted half the building to our presence?)

In a good story, there's more to conflict than the mere question of who wins. The how IS important. And even when a margin of success can give you an idea how close you were to failure, it is completely up for grabs what that means.

Here's the point, again: what you have here is eminently possible, but what you've done is just ensuring that the task resolution becomes conflict resolution. By "condensing conflicts into tasks" you're just doing a trick wherein the task stands in for the conflict. This is conflict resolution, insofar that it's the conflict that's being resolved. It's incidental that there's a task in there as well.

Not really. ANY way to use task resolution will eventually lead to resolution of conflicts in one way or the other. My point is that you do not need a series of them. However, this does MORE than simple binary conflict resolution, it gives you an idea about the "how".

On the other hand, there's a real danger of the conflict being handled in sub-optimal way then... the conflict could be resolved based on some completely incidental feature of the task, like surprise attack, say. Doesn't strike me as a powerful thematic statement: "Ha, my superpowers gained through child molestation are better than your yoga, because I got the drop on you!"

There are dangers to anything. No matter what method you use, bad handling can screw you up big time. Most of all, when you handle your way of conflict resolution badly, the thematic statement can be equally unsatisfying, totally off, or simply devoid of credibility, because it is completely arbitrary, with all dangers that poses.

That's the weakness of task resolution nar-wise: the task will, by the virtue of being a task, include all manner of rules about proper task resolution. Like the typical combat game, with it's initiative, shield bonuses, combat speed, weapon selection and whatever else. Any and all of these can potentially carry premise, but they might also become hazards that clinch the task regardless of the premise-thing at hand.

A)Tunnel vision on combat is not a very good basis for argumentation, since conflicts can equally well involve fast-talking someone etc., for which most systems have one-roll resolution
B)There's one-roll combat resolution alternatives for many a system.

Like, we play Riddle of Steel and it's my Love SA against your Revenge SA, powerful stuff. If one of us lacks the SA, the other will likely win. But it might also be that some nar-wise inconsequential tactical trick will win the task, and the conflict, for one of us. That's a whole different ball-game, and won't necessarily be a good thing. "Love triumphs against evil because it has better shield tricks?!?" Task resolution can be uncontrolled and meaningless conflict-wise.

Narration can be meaningless, if you don't bother to give it meaning. This is NOT the fault of talk resolution. Substitute "love" in your quote with "justice" and "shield tricks" with "tactics" and thousands and thousands of people throughout history will disagree with you, telling you that the better tactics are nothing but a manifestation of God's support for the righteous. The Lord gave the Just the right idea at the right time. You are denying the very basis of the concept of a trial by combat with your argumentation. The point is that the task resolution system gave you information about the "how". Rather than being completely arbitrary, your narration of the how now is centered on the task resolution result. Might not be appealing to some not to have full dramatic license,  but it most certainly doesn't hinder narration. It gives it a framework.

But then you could as well call that system conflict resolution, because that's what it does. It's like claiming that anybody can play musical instruments, they don't need to be musicians to do it, they just have to practice, learn and care about music... but if they do, then they are musicians!

Again, I disagree. Because resolving your conflict in this fashion will give you more information than standard conflict resolution and leaves less to your arbitrariness.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think you and I are going to have to agree-to-disagree, Oliver, or to put it better - if we understand one another's differing outlooks, then our discussions of things like actual play and so on will benefit, because we won't surprise each other with odd-appearing statements.

My point of view: multiple task resolutions do not inherently sum to conflict resolution.

Your point of view: they do.

My point of view: for such a sum to occur, the people at the table must make a cognitive shift at the "equals sign" step which constitutes conflict resolution.

Your point of view: they don't have to make such a shift.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything with this post. My only hope is that I've stated your position fairly and that you can state mine ... again, so that any discussions in Indie Design or wherever else can actually become constructive.

Best,
Ron

[Eero Tuovinen]

OK, Irmo, it seems that we disagree pretty severely. What's more, the communication doesn't seem to be working for some reason. I'll nitpick a couple of matters in case they'd help you get some perspective on my opinion, but any more than that would be just repeating my arguments. For clarification, I don't think that you really got my point, but that's certainly my shortcoming. As Ron says, we'll just have to agree to disagree for now.

Not really. ANY way to use task resolution will eventually lead to resolution of conflicts in one way or the other. My point is that you do not need a series of them. However, this does MORE than simple binary conflict resolution, it gives you an idea about the "how".

Actually, one of the key reasons I abhor classical task resolution solutions is the effortless way an experienced GM can use them to totally control conflict resolution. Like this:

GM: "OK, to save your daughter, you have to skulk into the enemy camp. You crest the hill and see their camp fires. Roll Sneaking."
Player: <roll roll> "Success."
GM: "You sneak easily past the first ring of guards, and are now really close to their fires. Where is your daughter? Roll Sneaking."
Player: <roll roll> "Success."
GM: "You overhear a conversation and learn her position. Now you'll have to sneak to the tent in the middle of the camp. Roll Sneaking."
Player: <roll roll> "Damn, I missed this one!"
GM: "OK, they spotted you in the middle of their camp. Let's see you get out of this one..."

Is this a familiar phenomenon? Because it's one of the more common illusionistic tools when using task resolution (specifically, when the GM can initiate the tasks nilly-willy). What happened here? It looks innocuous enough, until you realize that the GM is running a pregen adventure where the hero has to get caught by the enemy... he's just inventing more task rolls on the spot, waiting for the player to inevitably miss one. He's using the task roll mechanics to control the conflict, which is of course, "Can I save her?"

This has nothing to do with task scale. The GM could as easily have one roll to depict the brave rescue, another for the chase afterwards, still another for hiding after the chase, and one more because of the big storm that breaks out... as long as the underlying conflict of whether he manages to save his daughter is kept (perhaps artificially) open, the GM is holding all the cards. The only way for the player to genuinely gain anything is for the GM to let the issue lie. Most GMs will do that at some point, conflict resolution or no, but it's haphazard.

The point: there is no guaranteeing that task resolution results in conflict resolution. A task resolution could be meaningless (like, when the character does something just to show how cool he is, and the GM calls for a skill roll), or just for show (like the above string of rolls), or simply besides the point (like when the conflict was about your willingness to kill, but the resolution system only comes up when you try to execute the decision).

A)Tunnel vision on combat is not a very good basis for argumentation, since conflicts can equally well involve fast-talking someone etc., for which most systems have one-roll resolution
B)There's one-roll combat resolution alternatives for many a system.

Frankly, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I'm just using combat examples to keep this simple. Better things to do than inventing illustrious imaginary play.

Similarly, the number of rolls has nothing to do with this. The important thing is what you're going to let affect the resolution. A task resolution by definition (the how question) is primarily about the method. Even with a one-roll task resolution you're likely to get bonuses and penalties to the roll for good or bad tactics. If you don't, I really don't see why it's task resolution instead of conflict resolution.

Rather than being completely arbitrary, your narration of the how now is centered on the task resolution result. Might not be appealing to some not to have full dramatic license,  but it most certainly doesn't hinder narration. It gives it a framework.

That's true. As I've tried to impart, task resolution is not a problem in rpg systems. The problem is not having conflict resolution. I can well imagine three different approachs to functional narrativist systems:
1) having a conflict resolution system, but being vague about task resolution (Dust Devils, PTA, Fastlane, whatever)
2) having a task resolution, ensuring that the tasks carry conflict significance (Sorcerer, TRoS)
3) having both task and conflict resolution side by side (cant' think of any examples... hah, Dogs in the Vineyard!)
See? Task resolution is not the enemy, you just have to ensure that conflicts are resolved, too. Without resolving conflicts you are playing freeform as far as narrativist priorities are concerned. The conflict will be resolved based on tradition, player psychology or other informal negotiation. It might work well or not, but it's not the rules that have any say over it.

Your examples of hypothetical nar-friendly task resolution seem to me to fall mainly in the second category. Of course a task resolution is fine if you structure the tasks in such a way as to get conflict resolution done on the side. Your earlier example about reaching the ship is clear on this: analyze the situation, define the stakes, invest the conflict (do I reach the ship) into the task (do I win this fight in X rounds), and use the task resolution to solve the conflict. Why not, there's weirder conflict resolution systems under the sun.

Again, I disagree. Because resolving your conflict in this fashion will give you more information than standard conflict resolution and leaves less to your arbitrariness.

Man, the world is full of different methods of task and conflict resolution. Some give more information on some things, some don't. We're still very much exploring the possibilities, and I don't even believe that there's any one ultimate solution that's best for all situations. Consider Dust Devils: the players have to choose at the start of the conflict which abilities they use. This is task resolution detail in a sense, because the narrator has to take it into account when narrating the various tasks of the conflict. A player says that he's gonna shoot the son of a bitch, using Hand (dexterity) and Eye (perception), I don't know what that is but task resolution information. If the players didn't also define the conflict stakes ("I win, he dies, you win, he escapes"), the Dust Devils system would be a perfectly round and fine task resolution system.

Or take Dogs in the Vineyard, for another purty western narrativist game: it has a very clear and present task resolution system: a player can call any task the opponent dare not ignore as his Raise in a conflict, and the task succeeds, unless the other player opts to Block with a description of how the task goes awry. This is task resolution! Simple but real. The thing is, the task resolutions are embedded into a 100% conflict resolution system, where the tasks answer the how for the conflict's why. Incidentally, the game has an explicit task resolution system for outside conflicts as well: "Say yes or roll the dice" it's called, and it means that the GM has to allow any task to succeed, unless he's willing to go to a conflict over it. It's simple, but it's still task resolution. Want to climb a fence? Yes, that's fine. Want to shoot some critters? Go ahead! Want to shoot me mom? No way man, that's a conflict situation right there!

Bottom line: conflict and task resolution are not black-and-white categories, but rather methods of manipulating the SIS. What's more, they manipulate it on entirely different levels. So it's foolish to say that task resolution is inherently less arbitrary or something like that.

[paulkdad]

First, thanks for the excellent discussion. If I didn't understand the difference between TR and CR before, I sure do now. Wow.

Thing is that rather than reducing arbitrariness, it increases it, since not just one aspect of the consequences of the roll, but all but one are completely arbitrarily chosen. True, it's the one you care most about, but if that's the case, isn't leaving just that one to a die roll sort of a cop-out?

Please be patient with me while I throw out an example that contradicts this. It looks like task resolution, but it's really conflict resolution: Let's say that your PC just met up with an old foe who had humiliated him many times in the past. So there is the drive not just to defeat said foe, but to completely humiliate him. For the player's satisfaction, you just might use a blow-by-blow method of conflict resolution. Why? Because every bloody nose and every cracked rib is a piece of that conflict. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. In fact, it would be terribly unsatisfying to resolve something like this with one roll and one description, because humiliation is a cumulative effect.

But it would also be a mistake to simply call this "task resolution in disguise", because the conflict isn't the actual fight, it's the act of humiliating your foe. So, instead of rolling "to hit", you're rolling "to humiliate (or hurt)". And don't forget that conflicts are always two-sided: In this example, it's "Do I humiliate him or does he humiliate me--once again!?" In which case, every humiliation you endure brings you closer and closer to a disastrous outcome (thus increasing the stake in future conflicts).

The confusion arises because sometimes the question of "do I succeed?" can be seen from either point of view. In the above example, it might be a very fine line between hitting your opponent and hurting or humiliating him. In which case, it's kind of like the "is it a wave or a particle?" discussion. But I hope this example makes it clear that the number of rolls doesn't have anything to do with it.

Thanks for your patience.

[Irmo]

Please be patient with me while I throw out an example that contradicts this. It looks like task resolution, but it's really conflict resolution: Let's say that your PC just met up with an old foe who had humiliated him many times in the past. So there is the drive not just to defeat said foe, but to completely humiliate him. For the player's satisfaction, you just might use a blow-by-blow method of conflict resolution. Why? Because every bloody nose and every cracked rib is a piece of that conflict. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. In fact, it would be terribly unsatisfying to resolve something like this with one roll and one description, because humiliation is a cumulative effect.

But it would also be a mistake to simply call this "task resolution in disguise", because the conflict isn't the actual fight, it's the act of humiliating your foe. So, instead of rolling "to hit", you're rolling "to humiliate (or hurt)". And don't forget that conflicts are always two-sided: In this example, it's "Do I humiliate him or does he humiliate me--once again!?" In which case, every humiliation you endure brings you closer and closer to a disastrous outcome (thus increasing the stake in future conflicts).

That still doesn't change the fact that it is using tasks to resolve the conflict. You're simply picking the tasks with the conflict in mind. That's sort of my point: Task resolution doesn't prevent you from keeping the conflict in mind, though it harbors the possibility of losing track of it. However, if that happens, it is more a problem of at least partially dysfunctional play, not of the fact that task resolution gives you a freedom of action.

The confusion arises because sometimes the question of "do I succeed?" can be seen from either point of view. In the above example, it might be a very fine line between hitting your opponent and hurting or humiliating him. In which case, it's kind of like the "is it a wave or a particle?" discussion. But I hope this example makes it clear that the number of rolls doesn't have anything to do with it.

Thanks for your patience.

The point in the argument you cited was not one of a number of die rolls, but one of arbitrariness of circumstances. And the only way you eliminated said arbitrariness was precisely by what I said all along: Considering how tasks can be used to bring about a resolution for the conflict. More, what you suggested allows MUCH more than a simple "Do I succeed or does he succeed?" answer. It allows for BOTH opponents to completely humiliate each other until they're both lying in the dirt, unable to continue fighting, stripped of any dignity whatsoever, forced to think hard whether there is any sense to what they were doing. If you simply set the stakes "Win: I humiliate him, lose: he humiliates me" such dramatic purgatories aren't as likely to happen, as far as I can see.