Using Task Reso to get Conflict Reso

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Doug, you wrote,

If no-one is actively opposing the character, does that mean that no roll is made because whether the character succeeds or fails is irrelevant except in terms of furthering the "vision of the character"?

Yup. To stick with Sorcerer again, the rules are explicit about this. However, these very rules are usually ignored by first-time readers who then bother me with crap questions like "how good is Cover 5" and similar.

More generally, you might be surprised how often Conflict can be identified; it's just that gamers are so used to Task that they can't see it.

Housewife cooks eggs. Task, not Conflict, right? Wait a minute ... this housewife is the supervillain's wife. Is there not an ongoing conflict between her and the supervillain, regarding his great and o'erweening pride vs. his hopes for a son? And her desire for a nice normal suburban life?

Wow, those eggs just became a big deal, didn't they. I say, resolve the relevant game-mechanics between the villain and his wife. Even if he's not even present in the room. And if the game includes a cooking skill and an interaction skill ... and a way for one roll's result to feed the next roll ... well then, all set.

(That's how you get Conflict Resolution out of a Task Resolution system, by the way. Just like that. And no, it's not the "role-playing between the rolls" either.)

Little rant: Whoever wrote the examples in HeroQuest should be spanked with a Babeester Gor broadaxe. They have Mr. Puma trying to avoid a merchant by leaping into a tree ... and his player rolls against the tree. So then they have this bizarre and tacked-on logic about how to figure out how tough the tree is.

Fucking goddamn Task thinking, screwing up the perfect FitM Conflict-Res system, rendering the rules incomprehensible to either end of the resolution-preference spectrum. I told them that before they wrote the book, too.

Mr. Puma rolls against the merchant. If the tree's features are so damn important, then modify the roll (that's a lot less arbitrary than making up the tree whole cloth).

And if no roll is made, then whether the character succeeds or fails is decided by narration, and specifically, by whoever has authority to narrate the success or failure of the action? (Emphasis there because authority won't automatically lie with the character's player or the GM.)

Depends on the game. In Sorcerer, the text says the GM. In The Pool, who knows? (Inter-roll narration is unconstructed in The Pool.) In practice, in all games, it's a matter of consensus and open dialogue, more open than most people realize or remember.

Troy, you're still struggling, and I think this is only going to get resolved for you through actual play. I've seen people try to do Sorcerer or HeroQuest or many similar games from your current perspective, and they flounder. They just don't know "when to roll" or "against what."

Check out my eggs example. The wife rolls "against" her husband, period. That's the conflict. If the game includes no cooking skill (perhaps having no traditional skill rolls, like My Life With Master or Trollbabe), that's it. If it does, then that skill is treated as if it were wife-vs.-husband, or perhaps combined with a wife-vs.-husband roll of some kind.

Best,
Ron

[paulkdad]

[EDIT]cross-posted with Ron, potentially making all that follows pointless. Curses! %$*&@#

- if we roll for clearing obstacles, with degree of success indicating how well we clear each one, and maybe with a "run" roll too ... and whoever ends up doing best wins the race - that's Task Resolution. Winning the race is an epiphenomenon of clearing the hurdles best and fastest.

Thanks for the examples, Ron. It helps clarify this whole TR/CR issue. Since that seems to be solved, let me redirect this back to Troy's question of developing a system that uses TR but ends up with CR.

I like your "epiphenomenon" description, and that's what I was getting by looking at it as an obstacle course. It makes me think that most of the systems I played ten to twenty years ago did it exactly like this. Roll task... roll task... roll task... (continue as needed) Cool! You did it! Game over.

In those older games, we made the cognitive shift whenever the GM was forced to choose between killing the party and giving us a break. Basically, decisions were made that kept us on the course, still running, still jumping over things, until we reached the end.

And if you're thinking about using TR to get CR, I think scale does matter. Because when you're using task rolls to get that epiphenomenon of success every roll is just one more chance to fail. Again, it's like the obstacle course; if every time you trip over a hurdle you risk twisting your ankle (i.e., losing the conflict), there is a big difference between two hurdles and twenty.

So what if there was also a conflict resolution mechanic in the game? Wouldn't that just make all the task resolutions look pointless? As a player, if I know I can roll to resolve a conflict, why roll just to complete a task? Or, to duplicate the example of the cellar door: Let's say you've got two characters in the same game, securing two different doors. One of them has some "handyman" skill and uses it to deftly pound some nails. The other character spends some currency (or whatever) and uses his Stamina vs. the Stamina of the creature/conflict (as in Ron's example) and succeeds in pounding some nails. Isn't the character who used TR to solve the problem going to ask, "What the hell did I put points into handyman for? Or any skill, for that matter?"

Troy, you probably thought of all of this before you even posted your question, so I'm sorry if this is old news. But let me add one note that probably isn't. If your players are using task resolution 90% of the time in your game, they are going to come to value task resolution. I think of it like this: time spent pursuing something = value assigned to the pursuit. So, not only is switching to conflict resolution once in a while likely to be confusing, in my opinion it's likely to be frustrating. But that's just my take on it.

[Doug Ruff]

Thanks, Ron - and thanks especially for the HeroQuest rant: when I read the HQ rules on conflict resolution I found it hard to get my head around arbitrary trait assignment, and this makes more sense. Although I like the idea that in HeroQuest, the tree could be a "spirit tree" with it's own agenda! (But in this case, the tree is capable of providing active opposition.)

Depends on the game. In Sorcerer, the text says the GM. In The Pool, who knows? (Inter-roll narration is unconstructed in The Pool.) In practice, in all games, it's a matter of consensus and open dialogue, more open than most people realize or remember.

Actually, this is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking about, you've expressed it far better. Authority won't automatically lie with the player or GM, because that's something that has to be decided within the system. And some systems don't provide rules support for this.

Maybe I'm making an overly big deal out of this, but this seems important; if a game relies on conflict resolution, then a lot of the action can actually be resolved without resolution, therefore the rules should support the players in deciding who has the authority to narrate when there is no resolution mechanic in force (ie your "inter-roll" narration).

[Valamir]

Maybe I'm making an overly big deal out of this, but this seems important; if a game relies on conflict resolution, then a lot of the action can actually be resolved without resolution, therefore the rules should support the players in deciding who has the authority to narrate when there is no resolution mechanic in force (ie your "inter-roll" narration).

Not overly, it IS a big deal.  Its pretty much 100% of what the rules for Universalis do for precisely that reason.

Very explicit about who says what and when outside of conflicts (Complications).  Very explicit about when something becomes a conflict (Complication) and who gets to decide that.  And very explicit about who says what and when inside conflicts.

IMO.  The more explicit you get about those things.  The less you need a GM to arbitrate and make interpretations.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Troy, you're still struggling, and I think this is only going to get resolved for you through actual play. I've seen people try to do Sorcerer or HeroQuest or many similar games from your current perspective, and they flounder. They just don't know "when to roll" or "against what."

Thanks, Ron.  You're probably right.  Sometimes you just gotta get out there and do it, you know?

So what if there was also a conflict resolution mechanic in the game? Wouldn't that just make all the task resolutions look pointless? As a player, if I know I can roll to resolve a conflict, why roll just to complete a task? Or, to duplicate the example of the cellar door: Let's say you've got two characters in the same game, securing two different doors. One of them has some "handyman" skill and uses it to deftly pound some nails. The other character spends some currency (or whatever) and uses his Stamina vs. the Stamina of the creature/conflict (as in Ron's example) and succeeds in pounding some nails. Isn't the character who used TR to solve the problem going to ask, "What the hell did I put points into handyman for? Or any skill, for that matter?"

That's an interesting point, Paul.  It's something I'll have to think about.  It might just depend on situation or how often the currency refreshes, but I can see where you are coming from.

Peace,

-Troy

[M. J. Young]

Paul seems to be wrestling with the idea of a game in which you can combine task resolution and conflict resolution in the same game.

The problem, to my mind, is that these two approaches don't fit in the same game. They're very much opposed to each other.

Let's look at the idea of someone nailing closed the cellar door. Thus far, all of the examples have focused on someone doing so while being pursued, to prevent someone from coming through.

Let's get rid of the pursuit. Task resolution in essence says we're going to check whether you can nail closed the door, and how well or how quickly you can do that. In this case, why are we nailing the door closed? Well, maybe it's been flapping in the breeze and keeping us up at night, so we want to put one nail in it to stop that; or maybe we're afraid that some neighborhood kid is going to stumble into our basement and get hurt, so we want to prevent that. In those cases, we're not really going to go to great lengths--one or two nails will do the job more than adequately. Oh, but maybe we're nailing it closed because we want to keep out some unidentified something that is going to attempt to force its way in.

Doing this by task resolution gives us the advantage (in such cases in which it is an advantage) that we don't have to know the assailant in order to resolve the task. What we're doing is rolling the dice (or whatever) to determine how secure the basement door has been made by this effort to nail it shut. From that we get a value of some sort (even if it's only some subjective notion of how difficult it would be to open the door), and later when that nebulous something becomes a specific something, it rolls a task resolution check against that value to get the door open.

What if I'm in a conflict resolution system, and I want to nail the door shut against some nebulous something that might in the future attempt to force its way in? At this moment, it's not an issue--I say I nailed the door shut, and the door is nailed shut. That's the end of it. If the wind blows, or some kid comes along and pulls on it, it stays shut, because that's pretty normal stuff. Later, at some point in the future when that nebulous something becomes a specific something trying to get into my basement, I say, "You'll remember that three weeks ago I nailed that door shut." Right, so the door is nailed shut--and that is at least part of my contribution to the conflict. Now when the thing is attempting to get in, he isn't rolling against the door--the door is nothing. He is rolling against my effort to keep him out. The nails in the door are (or may be) a modifier in that effort, and I may in fact be sound asleep in bed; the nails may or may not hold even if I succeed (e.g., the assailant breaks the door and is injured or killed in the process, or he breaks through the outer door but is stymied by the inner door, or as he breaks the door the noise awakens me, and I rush to the window with a shotgun).

Thus in a conflict resolution system, nailing the door shut as a task is completely irrelevant to anything other than that we now all imagine the door held closed by some number of nails. No roll is needed to nail the door shut. Even if I nail it shut while being pursued, my roll is not telling me whether or not I got the door nailed shut, but whether or not I kept the pursuer out. "You nail the door shut, but your adversary smashes through the door and starts ripping pieces of it away" and "You grab the hammer and nails, and grip the handle of the door, but the enemy starts pulling against it, so you use all your weight to hold it closed until he gives up and looks for another way in" are both possible results (for failure and success, respectively) in a conflict resolution system. The nails in the door are in essence an offered explanation for how you might have succeeded in winning the conflict, not a task that is resolved.

I've had several interruptions during the writing of this post; I hope it's coherent and helpful.

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hi M.J.,

Totally coherent and helpful, as I see it. Your discussion of the "roll later when it matters" for the cellar door is exactly how Contain rolls work in Sorcerer.

The player doesn't roll when the Contain is made. He or she rolls if and when it is challenged.

Best,
Ron

[Alephnul]

Okay, Troy started this thread with a quote from Ron saying that Task resolution could sum to conflict resolution under appropriate circumstances. Now MJ says that task resolution and conflict resolution are fundamentally opposed and non-combinable and Ron agrees.

Ron, were you agreeing with the non-combinable claim, or with the fundamentally opposed claim, or simply with MJ's description of task vs. conflict resolution?

Personally, I agree with MJ's description of conflict resolution, but also believe that task resolution, when appropriately handled, can sum to conflict resolution.

Here is how I see task resolution summing to conflict resolution under appropriate circumstances:

Let's say I have my character nail the basement door shut. It's nailed shut, but we don't need to worry about how well until it comes up in play (if its obviously important, then we can resolve it now, and record the results for later).

Later on, a conflict arises. Something is trying to get into the house. My character doesn't want that something to get into the house. I point out that I nailed the door shut, and the GM (or whoever controls the something) agrees that it will have to overcome my nailed shut door to be able to get in. We resolve how well I nailed it shut (or check our prior resolution). We use some mechanic to determine if it overcomes the nailed shut door. If the mechanic determines that it will be able to overcome the door (or alternatively before the task is resolved), I have the opportunity to state other methods I am going to try to keep it out (or I agree that the nailed shut door is the only thing that could keep it from getting in). If it succeeds in overcoming the door, then we either use task resolution to determine the results of the other things I try, or we agree that it got in. If it fails in getting through the door (or before we resolve tasks), the GM (or whoever controls the something) can suggest other ways that it tries to get in, and we can resolve those tasks.

What makes this task resolution summing to conflict resolution is that the conflict  (does the something get in/am I able to keep the something out) remains the focus of the resolutions, and it is clear at any given point how the task being resolved relates to the resolution of the conflict. If we have agreed that the one roll against the door determines whether or not it gets in, then we have agreed that once the task is resolved, the conflict resolves based on that one task. If we have agreed that there are other tasks I can interpose to try to keep it out even if it wins the door opening task (or if we have agreed that the something also has other tasks it can try if it loses the door task), then the conflict won't be resolved until both sides have run out of tasks. We may choose to leave this open ended, so I can keep throwing up obstacles as long as I can think of them, and I don't have to have thought of them before hand, or we may choose not to make it open ended. What can't happen if task resolution is summing to conflict resolution is that we resolve all of the agreed upon tasks, and then the conflict resolves in the opposite direction. If this is a possibility, then we are in straight task resolution, with all its problems.

The explicit (or even strong implicit) link between the individual task being resolved and the stated conflict is what allows task resolution to sum to conflict resolution.

The difference between pure task resolution and task resolution that sums to conflict resolution is the framing of the tasks. If the tasks are a conflict broken down into explicit task pieces, then the task resolution will sum to conflict resolution. If the tasks are not necessarily the complete set of pieces of a conflict, then resolving all the tasks doesn't necessarily resolve the conflict. Any time that you can succeed at all the tasks and fail at the conflict the task resolution is failing to sum to conflict resolution.

Ideally, each individual task should be able to be restated in terms based on the conflict.

"Do I keep it out by my nailed shut door?" "No."
"Do I keep it out by throwing myself bodily against the door?" "NO."
"Do I keep it out by knocking over the bookshelves, so they fall against the door?" "Yes!"

Does that make sense as a description of task resolution mechanics summing ot conflict resolution?