More on Task Resolution to facilitate Narrativism

[John Kim]

OK, so this is split from http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14602">Conflict vs Task Resolution to facilitate Narrativism.  That topic was closed, but I think there were still a lot of issues and good points to discuss.  There's been a bit of time to cool down and/or reflect, so I'd like to try again to focus in on specifically Task Resolution in a Narrativist game.  Towards the end of that, we were discussing specific ways that Task Resolution interfered with Narrativism.  I would prefer that there be examples from actual play, as I feel that is likely to be most productive.  (I discussed resolution methods in the Actual Play thread, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9367">Spirit Tests in Vinland.  However, really I'd like to discuss examples where Task Resolution is ostensibly interfering with Narrativism.)  

This is of personal interest to me because I generally use and prefer Task Resolution.  Given the statements that Task Resolution is opposed to Narrativism, I'm left with a couple logical possibilities: (1) my self-assessment is false -- what I am doing is not Task Resolution; (2) the statement is false -- Task Resolution is not opposed to Narrativism; (3) I am not generally interested in Narrativism; or (4) my techniques actually impede my intended style of play without my realizing it.  I'm fine with any of #1, #2, or #3.  However, I would have a problem with #4 and it would take some convincing to show otherwise.  

The specific suggestion from Valamir was that Task Resolution allowed in results which prevent the address of premise.  

Task Resolution MAY wind up eliminating the Situation (C).  Returning to the Captains choice issue.  The captain must choose between his friend and his mission and the situation is that the enemy ship is about to escape.  The rules of the game call for a "sailing check" or the like whenever a ship is trying to escape.  The GM abides by that rule and certainly by the logic of causality the situation warrants it.  The enemy ship fails the check and suffers a mandated critical hit.  It loses a mast, gets thrown in irons and is now helpless.  Boom, no more thematically charged moment.  The captain no longer has to choose between getting his friend to port or pursuing the enemy for an extended period during which his friend will almost certainly die.

I suspect some trouble here comes from the fact that this is a movie reference (to Master & Commander) rather than a true game example.  The apparent failure of Task Resolution here is that it does not produce a specific situation.  Namely, the friend has to be gravely wounded enough to require land to survive but not so far gone as that recovery is impossible; and furthermore the enemy ship has to be just barely out of reach -- possible to catch but only if many days are taken in the chase.  However, it isn't clear to me how this would happen in-game.  Assuming we are using Conflict Resolution, what is the point in the game where this situation is guaranteed?  It seems to me that most randomized resolution systems of either sort could fail to produce this.  For example, if this were using The Pool, then the captain's player might roll for the conflict with the enemy ship, succeed, and choose a Monologue of Victory which also results in a crippled ship.  In that case, you again have lost that specific thematically-charged moment.  

Now, the idea that die rolls allow non-dramatic results is a very old one to me.  In my mind, the principle of using random die rolls is that while some thematically-charged moments are passed by, other ones are presented which you may not have considered.

[TonyLB]

Is this a question of Task vs. Conflict resolution?  Or of "positioning"?  Vincent described positioning as "a rule that lets you say, with the weight of the rules behind it, 'this thing right here? I really care how it turns out.' "  It's mechanisms like drama points, or fallout dice.  I'm really grooving on that definition, so maybe I'm seeing it where it doesn't apply.

But assume that the rules (Task or Conflict) are such that you will very, very likely fail in catching the ship or saving your friend in the absence of positioning.  If you don't position you'll fail on both, in fact.  You have to show that it's very important, to get some sort of bonus, before you'll succeed at either task.

Further, assume that your resources to position on issues are limited.  You only have enough Squeegee points (at this moment) to position on one issue or the other.

There's your choice, right?  And it doesn't even matter if freak dice luck lets you save the friend and then find the ship later, because you made the choice in the moment you did the positioning.

I see the "Chase or Heal" distinction as one addressed by positioning.  The claim that a roll that lets you catch the ship has no effect on whether you can heal the man looks like it's saying "The positioning mechanism was unnecessary to the issue."  Does that really have anything to do with whether it's Conflict- or Task- based?

[Valamir]

John, you got hung up on this in our PM conversation too.  

My examples were not about how that situation came to be.  Assume that situation came to be organically by whatever combination of actual play events you like...maybe it spontaneously came about by the random-typing-monkey's method...maybe someone used a whole lot of author stance to get there...maybe some one burned a bunch of meta game resource points...who cares.  For the purpose of the example it was (and is) entirely irrelevant how that situation came to exist.

What is relevant for the example is that the situation DOES exist and is thematically charged with the potential to address premise (and note, the premise example I used is not necessarily the only one present in the scene...one could find other premises to address also...like "Should a gentleman allow his enemy to save face in defeat".

So given that the situation exists, how does the situation get resolved, and what resolution principle is more likely to allow it to be resolved in a premise addressing fashion.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

John, I'm gonna call it like I see it, in full knowledge that I may be wrong.

I think you guys play Ouija Board Narrativist. That means you focus very, very strongly on in-game development of all aspects of Premise, with little if any acknowledgment of personal agendas.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, Premise does arise and the situations get resolved in thematic ways, but there seems to be this kind of self-induced fog that prevents anyone actually from talking about it ... an intense focus (which is to say, verbalized attention) on Exploration which equates, for instance, "character" with "thematic potential" without ever openly pointing at the latter.

All of which is pure Narrativism without any kind of need for talking about Sim, as I use the term. But also poison for discussing Narrativism, because people who play in this fashion would rather be disemboweled than admit they (the people) actually produced the story.

Why not? Easy answer: Experiences with railroading and carefully flensing their group of Typhoid Marys, and keeping their own play from restricting one another's ability to address Premise (create theme, "authorship," whatever you want to call it). All use of "story" and "plot," to such role-players, or "personal goals," just raises the hideous spectre of the Force-wielding GM.

"Story-play? We never do that. Our stories 'just' arise from the characters. We 'just' play it like we see it. Of course we get themes; characters and situations are thematic, aren't they?"

Again, I could be wrong! But your play-traditions come straight out of my own history as well, with a strong emphasis on tweaking the Hero System into certain forms, or finding ways for BRP to focus on situational conflict rather than on details of weapons-clashes. I've seen a lot of folks whose sentiments echo yours but whose play is brutally Narrativist when observed.

What's almost funny about all this is that Sorcerer plays similarly, without any special mods procedurally - but just takes the hood off. You don't have to do anything differently, but you can see it happen up through Social Contract ... which is why Ouija Boarders don't like Sorcerer much. To them, it's like the Visible Man - ewww!

But that's why you don't really like My Life With Master or other "get to it" Narrativist things, either, because it fixes Situation right up front. It seems like railroading to you to have any Explorative element nailed down before play. I think this is a pretty damaged, defensive outlook, but that's the only judgment I'll bring to this post, so you'll know where I'm coming from. And since that approach does not lead to dysfunctional play (as far as I can tell from your accounts), then basically, I have nothing to get bent out of shape about anyway.

So what does all this have to do with Task Resolution? I'll tell you.

1. Conflict Resolution of some kind is necessary for Narrativist play.

2. Cumulative Task Resolution may result in Conflict Resolution, but only with a specific cognitive, social shift at specific times, such that everyone understands it at the time.

In a group who has been playing together using a mainly Task-based system for a long time, who are closely attuned to one another's cues and preferences, such a shift is practically invisible ... and when they are dedicated never to admitting any personal "interference" into the imagined events of play (even when they blatantly use System which does it, like Whimsy Cards), they won't even notice the shift - it's what they came to do, after all, so no reflection or self-observation is ever made.

So here you are with this bug up your ass, and it looks like this:
We use Task Resolution. We get themes all the time. Forge-people say Task Resolution is No Good for getting theme. We are therefore being accused of lousy themes (no Narrativism). Since we get themes, someone must be wrong about this.

Well, screw that. How long have you been here? How much longer must I and others endure this crap? John, lose the bug and admit that you and your group achieve Conflict Resolution in a self-induced fog of denial.

Does that mean you "play wrong" or should use, for instance, some kind of one-roll summary as in My Life With Master? No, it doesn't. You have nothing to protect. Keep enjoying the Task-heavy matrix which, for you guys, eventually produces Conflict and keep enjoying your group-idiosyncratic shift which lets everyone know that these Task rolls, in this scene, are thematically special.

But quit with this noise about Task Resolution in any form must mean "no Narrativism." No one said that. No one says it now.

Your posts about all this are defensive, unnecessary, and gum up any possible discussion of the diversity of play. It feeds fuel to semi-trollish argumentation. It's why many of your points resemble weird little fixations on some minor aspect of a discussion, blown up into hugely verbal, yet always circling exchanges.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

Tony, it's a great point about positioning, but as you say, I don't see how it has to do with Task Resolution vs Conflict Resolution.  The point isn't this specific example, but rather the principle of whether and how Task Resolution interferes with Narrativism.  

So given that the situation exists, how does the situation get resolved, and what resolution principle is more likely to allow it to be resolved in a premise addressing fashion.

Fair enough.  Let's start with the situation already established.  So the enemy ship is just out of reach, and the friend is gravely but not irreparably wounded.  The captain has to decide between chasing the enemy ship (and thus risking his friend) or returning to land (and thus losing the enemy).  So now the captain has to decide.  This would typically be handled by diceless player decision.  But either way the decision, it is thematically significant.  

Now, given Task Resolution, it could be that the captain tries to return to land, and the friend dies anyway.  To me, that seems fine -- it is still powerfully thematic.  Similarly, it could be that the captain decides to chase the opposing ship, catches it, and the friend survives anyway.  I'd say that's also fine thematically.  The friend recovers to hear about what the captain decided, and is alive to tell the captain what he thinks about the decision to risk his life.  

Are there other possibilities here I'm missing?  

1. Conflict Resolution of some kind is necessary for Narrativist play.

2. Cumulative Task Resolution may result in Conflict Resolution, but only with a specific cognitive, social shift at specific times, such that everyone understands it at the time.

In a group who has been playing together using a mainly Task-based system for a long time, who are closely attuned to one another's cues and preferences, such a shift is practically invisible ...

John, lose the bug and admit that you and your group achieve Conflict Resolution in a self-induced fog of denial.

Look, I'm really not attached to any one label.  I'd like to push the Ouija board stuff out onto another thread, though, and keep this focused on Task Resolution.  So you're suggesting here is my possibility #1 -- what I'm doing is really Conflict Resolution.  Really, that's fine.  So let's assume that what I'm doing is Conflict Resolution.  

If so, then I'd like to refocus the thread a little.  I'm going to suggest the term Conflict-Resolution-through-Tasks for rolling for individual tasks which is nevertheless Conflict Resolution.  So how can I distinguish this procedurally from Task Resolution?  You state that there is a possibly invisible cognitive shift which happens at some point.  But given that it is nearly invisible, how do I distinguish it?  Or how would an outside observer distinguish it?  

But quit with this noise about Task Resolution in any form must mean "no Narrativism." No one said that. No one says it now.

Hold on.  Let's clarify our terminology.  There were a bunch of people in the prior thread who said that Task Resolution was harmful to Narrativism (xenopulse, WhiteRat, Eero).  Now, as I understand it, your proposed resolution is that sometimes rolling for individual tasks is actually Conflict Resolution (in my terms, specifically Conflict-Resolution-through-Tasks).  That seems fine to me, but needs some clarification to distinguish it.

[Ron Edwards]

Whew - John, thanks for cutting me some slack on the emotionality.

I think that I've been taking a fairly "charitable reading" approach toward Eero, Whiterat, etc ... which means, to paraphrase them, that an unreserved and unmodified adherence to Task Resolution will disrupt Narrativist play. I'd tend to agree with that.

I think that whatever we call it, we can construct or imagine an approach to resolution in which lots of little tasks are resolved on a very can-he-do-it, physical-modeling or genre-modeling way ... but then this play is also operating on a larger-scale, conflict-basis with judgments and decisions on that level too.

There's certainly an unpleasant version, in which the GM (for instance) lets anything and everything happen on the basis of tasks (hitting the villain, dodging successfully, etc, etc) but pretty much has the outcome of the encounter taped from the start and adjusts the beginning and the end of the scene accordingly.

So let's posit the pleasant version - in which the group enjoys and embraces the uncertainty and vicissitudes of the success/fail process of all the little task rolls ... but also utilizes some method (verbal or otherwise) of reinforcing instances of thematic weight, the difference between set-up and climax and "rests," and so on. And this method is communal rather than centralized in one person; the people are listening and responding to one another both for pacing and for emotional (thematic) commitment.

Again, I think Sorcerer play lends itself very well to this kind of appproach, partly because the task-resolution grades very well into conflict-resolution due to the IIEE system (all FitM), but mainly because the reward system operates wholly on that larger scale. So that larger scale tends to be explicit - listen dude, I say as GM, you wrote that Kicker, not me.

Perhaps a little charitable reading is called for all 'round. Bear in mind that Eero and the others were dealing with very provocative posting by Oliver, and so their relatively flat take-it-or-leave-it responses are themselves vulnerable to uncharitable responses ... and I think yours definitely paints the issue into unnecessary black-and-white terms. "Who started it" doesn't really seem worth going into now.

Again, thanks. I hope this post brings me back to Earth a bit.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

I think that I've been taking a fairly "charitable reading" approach toward Eero, Whiterat, etc ... which means, to paraphrase them, that an unreserved and unmodified adherence to Task Resolution will disrupt Narrativist play. I'd tend to agree with that.

So let's posit the pleasant version - in which the group enjoys and embraces the uncertainty and vicissitudes of the success/fail process of all the little task rolls ... but also utilizes some method (verbal or otherwise) of reinforcing instances of thematic weight, the difference between set-up and climax and "rests," and so on. And this method is communal rather than centralized in one person; the people are listening and responding to one another both for pacing and for emotional (thematic) commitment.

Maybe an example would help here?  How would I reinforce an instance of thematic weight?  And is such reinforcing opposed to Task Resolution? Task Resolution is a procedure for resolving in-game events.  So is the reinforcing you're talking about mean fudging (i.e. change a roll so that things to a climax now), or simply labeling (i.e. point to a roll and communicate that it indicates a climactic moment)?  When you say "unreserved and unmodified" use disrupts, that suggests that modification of the procedure is necessary.  If I'm modifying Task Resolution, what am I modifying it from and to?  (I can't really comment on Sorcerer much -- I've read it but haven't played it yet, so I'd prefer to use other examples.)  

For example, would you call Hero Points a "modification"?  They are used by players to indicate particularly important results (though lucky rolls can also be important), and as such communicate metagame content.  

Perhaps a little charitable reading is called for all 'round. Bear in mind that Eero and the others were dealing with very provocative posting by Oliver

Let's not push it, okay.  I'll have some feedback in another thread.

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Examples? Lots. I'll break them into three categories which aren't really exclusive, just all off the top of my head.

1. Purely social, as you suggest, pointing to a roll or upcoming roll and saying "This is it!" or whatever.

2. Organizational toward the SIS, probably in terms of Director Stance and Scene Framing, making sure that the important components of a given conflict are present when it appears that certain oppositional characters are headed toward a confrontation. For example.

"Oh, and Betty the farmgirl's there too!" suggests someone, received by "Yeah!"

In my experience, no one tends to remember that they do this. Note that the rolls are not going to be fudged; what matters is that the components are present, not that they turn out a certain way. More on that in a minute.

3. Resource-based, as with Hero Points or EXPs being spent to modify rolls or whatever. Any such "metagame mechanic" as Stephan O'Sullivan called it will do.

I really want to emphasize that in the groups I'm familiar with who play like this, this is very much a matter of anyone suggesting or utilizing these tools, with a very strong social contract that no one gets rushed into rolling or whatever. Pushy GMing in particular "Goblin attacks go! Too slow! He hits you!" is totally out of line.

I also suggest that fudging is directly opposed to any of the listed methods and represents a fairly debased form of input into the SIS from a Narrativist point of view, being far more conducive to Force than to the kind of open and social "oh boy is this important" message that I'm talking about.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

1. Purely social, as you suggest, pointing to a roll or upcoming roll and saying "This is it!" or whatever.

2. Organizational toward the SIS, probably in terms of Director Stance and Scene Framing, making sure that the important components of a given conflict are present when it appears that certain oppositional characters are headed toward a confrontation.
...
3. Resource-based, as with Hero Points or EXPs being spent to modify rolls or whatever. Any such "metagame mechanic" as Stephan O'Sullivan called it will do.

OK, but if these are in place, do you feel there any reason to consider Task Resolution inferior to Conflict Resolution for Narrativism?  As far as I can see, none of these modify the nature of Task Resolution.  (i.e. Task Resolution with Hero Points is not Conflict Resolution, it is still just Task Resolution.)

[Ron Edwards]

Arrrghhhh!

John, all of these are Task Res modified into Conflict Res in some fashion.

What won't work well for Narrativism is unconstructed, non-contextual adherence to Task Resolution. Which none of these are. But which is common among RPG designs/texts.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

John, all of these are Task Res modified into Conflict Res in some fashion.

What won't work well for Narrativism is unconstructed, non-contextual adherence to Task Resolution. Which none of these are. But which is common among RPG designs/texts.

I don't understand.  Resource-spending mechanics (your #3) have been around for ages and have become basically standard since 1990 or so (Hero Points, Karma, Willpower, Possibility Points, etc.).  D&D is the exception, but even other D20 games (like D20 Modern, Conan, and Blue Rose) have added in resource-spending mechanics.  So are you saying that these are pure Task Resolution?  That they are hybrid Task/Conflict Resolution, perhaps?  

And #1 isn't part of the resolution mechanics at all, that I can see.  So it seems strange to me that you would call Task Resolution + social comments as some new, non-Task Resolution.

[Ron Edwards]

I don't think this typed medium is ever going to suit communication between us.

For example, your point about resource-spending strikes me as a total red herring. I can't imagine how it matters how long a particular approach has been around. I didn't say a word about how "new" they were or what games they were or weren't in ... just that unmodified Task Resolution (relative to Conflict) is common. And it is.

(As a sideline, every damn time I generalize about "common game" issues, you seem to think I'm talking about the Hero System. What's up with that?)

So I don't have much of an answer for you. My answer was above, and you are not understanding it. There eventually has to come a point where I say, "I guess you don't," at least not in terms of how I can explain it. When the dialogue hits the point where everything you're saying sounds Martian to me - i.e., I'm not dodging by denying you a valid objection - then someone else has to step in.

H'm. Or maybe I'm really thinking of three threads at once. Over in RPG Theory, in one of these Task/Conflict threads, I wrote a bunch of stuff about eggs and a supervillain's wife. And so my answer here is colored by what I feel like "I just said" there. (bad things, feelings, at least of this kind)

Can you check that out and come on back here? A bit to ask, I know. I'd really rather not write off the discussion at the "well you're not going to get it from me, I guess" point.

Best,
Ron

[John Kim]

For example, your point about resource-spending strikes me as a total red herring. I can't imagine how it matters how long a particular approach has been around. I didn't say a word about how "new" they were or what games they were or weren't in ... just that unmodified Task Resolution (relative to Conflict) is common. And it is.

(As a sideline, every damn time I generalize about "common game" issues, you seem to think I'm talking about the Hero System. What's up with that?)

Sideline first -- I didn't mention the Hero System at all in the last post.  Maybe you misinterpreted "Hero Points" to mean something from the Hero System?  I was thinking of James Bond 007, but the term has since been used by many other games.  

Can we at least establish the basics?  I asked a simple question -- regardless of how common they are, are you agreeing that having resource spending mechanics means that the system is no longer pure Task Resolution?  Thus it would be to some degree hybrid Task/Conflict Resolution.

[lumpley]

I've said this on my blog, and maybe it's true, and maybe it'll be helpful here: conflict resolution started out as a GMing style. However much we recognize and formalize it into our game designs, it remains fully possible as nothing more formal than a GMing style.

So when people are like, "my group's been playing it that way all along!" my answer's "yep, I'm just designing my games so that other groups have to play it that way too."

-Vincent

[Lee Short]

My examples were not about how that situation came to be.  Assume that situation came to be organically by whatever combination of actual play events you like...maybe it spontaneously came about by the random-typing-monkey's method...maybe someone used a whole lot of author stance to get there...maybe some one burned a bunch of meta game resource points...who cares.  For the purpose of the example it was (and is) entirely irrelevant how that situation came to exist.

What is relevant for the example is that the situation DOES exist and is thematically charged with the potential to address premise (and note, the premise example I used is not necessarily the only one present in the scene...one could find other premises to address also...like "Should a gentleman allow his enemy to save face in defeat".

So given that the situation exists, how does the situation get resolved, and what resolution principle is more likely to allow it to be resolved in a premise addressing fashion.

Ralph, I think you're reading too much into John's phrasing "The apparent failure of Task Resolution here is that it does not produce a specific situation."  What I think he really means here is not that a specific situation is not produced, but rather that the premise inherent in the situation is not resolved.  

Historically, John has been clear that his play style is to not force a resolution of the premise inherent in any particular micro-situation, but to create a meta-situation so filled with premise-laden material that some premise will be addressed, even if any particular premise may or may not be addressed.  Thus, we have premise by serendipity, or undirected premise, in John;s play -- in this model, it is perfectly acceptable if events turn out so that the captain is not forced to choose between his friend and his mission -- this premise was not addressed, but there will certainly be another one along in just a minute.  Contrast this with premise by design, or directed premise, where this premise will be addressed, because we want it to.  

The difference here is the focus on this premise.  It's very important to premise by design, but completely irrelevant to premise by serendipity.  But Ron has been absolutely clear that both of these are narrativist premise.