[Vocab] Task versus Conflict

[Callan S.]

I think a lot of you guys are all mixed up. See my comments about eggs in Using Task Reso to get Conflict Reso.

Was I mixed up too? You egg example is where the player is defining something as THE big resource, since it's so important to his character. Then he uses a mechanic once to resolve that. That'd be the same as my HP example, where the guy has 100 HP and on one roll/mechanics use, risks a huge chunk or even all of it to kill 10,000 men, instead of risking 2 HP at a time to kill just 200 men at a time.

Whatever is THE resource of importance, if you use a mechanic once to put a significant chunk/all of that resource to get something done, it's conflict resolution. Looking at it now, conflict resolution isn't about what you get done, but about your potentially spending a high percentage of important resources on just one use of mechanics.

[Caldis]

John, I think you're a little confused yet and I hope this helps straighten it out.

When you transform this....

Task resolution: You're standing at the signal fire that, if lit, will warn the village of the approaching marauders. You've climbed the Cliffs of Insanity to get there in time, but can you light the pyre, dampened by the recent rain, in time? You roll against your Wilderness Survival skill (which lighting a fire under difficult conditions is clearly an aspect of). You succeed! The pyre blazes. You trust that the villagers, who always keep a sharp lookout, will see it in time. You later find out that indeed they did, and they hail you as a hero.

Into this.....

Task resolution: Marauders are heading for the village.  Just barely able to stay ahead of the mounted horde yourself, you have little hope of being able to save the village.  Your only advantage is that this is your home territory, and you know every detail of the landscape.  You: "I the player don't know what the home territory is, but my character does and she'll do her best to signal the village."  GM: "OK, and we don't want to take forever on this anyhow.  Let's make this a roll on your Wilderness skill, difficulty 15."  Player: (rolls) "Success by 5"  GM: "OK, they've been alerted.  Say you've signalled them from an old signal pyre on top of a mesa."

What you are really doing is this....

I'll also point out that this is why I've said previously that one CAN coopt a system designed for task resolution and try to employ it in a conflict resolution fashion. I'm sure you can see how, once having framed a conflict pretty explicitly in this manner, you could then through very selective and judicious choosing of what task rolls to call for, what to skip, what modifiers to allow, what modifiers to ignore, etc. etc. make rolls that would appear to be fairly typical Task Resolution. "

The big difference I see is that in Walt's example attention is focused on getting the tasks resolved correctly.  Are the proper steps required to achieve that goal being taken.  Your example is focused on the conflict, does the village get alerted, we dont need to worry about the steps that make up the task. Choice of scale in this regard is being guided by CA.

The other thing to look at in this example is the ramifications of failure.  If task resolution results in failure the conflict is still unresolved, other options can be attempted, a new plan can be formulated.  In conflict resolution if the stakes are the village being warned in time and failure comes up then the village is not warned in time and we have to deal with the ramifications of that result.

Does any of this make sense or am I just blowing smoke out of my ass?

[John Kim]

The big difference I see is that in Walt's example attention is focused on getting the tasks resolved correctly.  Are the proper steps required to achieve that goal being taken.  Your example is focused on the conflict, does the village get alerted, we dont need to worry about the steps that make up the task. Choice of scale in this regard is being guided by CA.

Well, folding up several steps into a single step is the definition of scale.  A larger-scale roll is always going to specify less about the individual steps taken.  So, for example, GURPS Mass Combat is larger-scale.  It doesn't worry about the individual blows and maneuvers taken to win the battle.  We can see the same thing all the time in traditional systems.  i.e. Rather than specifying how I build a shelter, start a fire, set traps for animals, and so forth, I just roll my Survival skill for the week.  If I succeed, then all of the individual steps are assumed.  

The other thing to look at in this example is the ramifications of failure.  If task resolution results in failure the conflict is still unresolved, other options can be attempted, a new plan can be formulated.  In conflict resolution if the stakes are the village being warned in time and failure comes up then the village is not warned in time and we have to deal with the ramifications of that result.

Does any of this make sense or am I just blowing smoke out of my ass?

I would say that again, that's just scale.  Systems can make resolution into an extended action (i.e. roll many times) or into a simple action (i.e. roll once).  Alternately (for example), D&D3 expresses this instead as whether a reroll is allowed.  Allowed rerolls mean potentially many rolls; no rerolls means single roll.  In crunchy systems, the scale is usually fixed by the rules.  In less crunchy systems, the scale is usually up for grabs.

[Alephnul]

John,

I going to toss in yet another random person's (my own) interpretation of task and conflict. Whether this is just one more person not understanding, or whether this turns out to be useful, I'm finding these discussions (of task and conflict) to be weirdly fascinating, so I thought I'd see if what I've been thinking reading them is useful to anyone else.

On the question of scale, I think that the similarity between task and conflict is this:

Anything can be described as task or conflict at any scale. A single sword blow can be treated as a conflict, or it can be treated as a task. Saving the kingdom can be treated as a task, or it can be treated as a conflict.

Any task can be described as a serious of conflicts, and any task can be described as a series of conflicts.

Whether a particular action is a task or a conflict depends on how we are relating to the thing being done, not on the thing itself.

In order to resolve the conflict between my attempt to warn the village and the raiders attempt to reach the village before it is warned, we can resolve all sorts of tasks (do I climb the cliffs, can I find the signal hill, can I light the signal fire, whatever). In order to decide the task of lighting the fire, we could break the task down into 1) the conflict between my desire to serve the king, and my desire to see my clan enemies in the village be slaughtered in their beds, and 2) my need versus my lack of skill. If my hatred wins out, then the result of the conflict means I fail the task, and if my need loses out to my lack of skill, then I fail the task (is "my need versus my skill" really a conflict? I think it depends entirely on context. If my character is someone who constantly pushes himself into positions where he is trying to overcome his lack of skill, then possibly. If I think my character's need overrides my lack of skill, and you disagree, then obviously this is a conflict).

Part of the problem in talking about this is that well formed examples make it very difficult to distinguish between task and conflict. If task resolution is directly serving the purpose of conflict resolution, then there is no clear difference between the two (this point is disputed, but I am firmly on the side that task resolution for the purpose of resolving conflicts is a form of conflict resolution). The issue with task resolution is that it doesn't necessarily lead to conflict resolution. Actually, even that isn't the issue. The issue is that a focus on task resolution can lead to a focus on boring conflicts. This ties in with what Vincent said about AD&D being conflict resolution to the extent that the conflict is over killing things.

If we treat the mechanical act of scaling the cliff as the focus of play and then the lighting of the fire as the focus of play, then we can loose track of how these parts relate to the larger and more interesting issue of whether or not I warn the village, and we don't actually have any guarantee that resolving the individual tasks will relate to the conflict. However, if we either explicitly focus on these actions as part of achieving the goal of warning the village (task resolution that sums to conflict resolution) or if we explicitly resolve the conflict (conflict resolution), then we are not going to lose our focus on the interesting part (and we are also being explicit about what we think is the interesting part, which makes it easier for each of us to evaluate whether or not this is actually interesting).

In the same way that this says nothing about scale, it also says nothing about what we find interesting. If we decide that the series of conflicts involved in trekking through the wilderness is what interests us, then nothing prevents us from dealing in greater detail with the trek. However, by doing so in a conflict oriented system, we are acknowledging that what we are interested in is this part, rather than thinking that somehow the individual bits and pieces of something interesting will naturally sum to something interesting.

I think the strong arguments for conflict resolution over task resolution comes from the strong emphasis here on system design. It isn't difficult for people to use task resolution to achieve conflict resolution - from what you have described, you do it all the time, and I'm pretty sure I do too (I play more or less freeform, so it's harder to judge without mechanics). However, it is much, much harder to get other people to achieve conflict resolution if you give them task resolution rules than if you give them conflict resolution rules. Also, I think the feeling is that if you are trying to get people to resolve conflicts in play, why not simply give them conflict resolution rules, instead of giving them task rules and then trying to get them to use them to resolve conflicts.

Does that make sense?

[Alephnul]

After making that last post, still trying to think through "What is conflict, what is task," I think I've realized that I agree with Ben's original statement in this thread (even if everyone else thinks he's totally out in the weeds). Conflict resolution is focused on what matters to the players. Task resolution focuses on actions, which may or may not end up mattering to the players (almost always, the task resolution matters to the characters, but not necessarily in ways the players care about). The assumption in task resolution based play is that the success or failure of the tasks will build to the success or failure of the conflicts that are of interest.

What matters and what is of interest is directly related to creative agenda, so saying that  conflict based resolution is about what matters is in no way favouring one CA over another. This relates directly to Vincent's claim that AD&D is conflict resolution based if the focus of the game is on killing monsters, but it is task based with no formal mechanics for building to conflict based if the game is based around a different focus (say, saving the princess). The AD&D mechanics provide tight support for working toward the goal of killing the monster, so if that is your primary conflict, then the rules are conflict based. If, however, your primary conflict doesn't directly involve killing monsters, then there are no formal mechanics to support the transition from the task of killing monsters to whatever the conflict is (even if the conflict is finer grained than the task of killing monsters, so this really isn't a scale issue: if my goal is to have my character look cool while killing monsters, AD&D doesn't provide support for mechanically resolving whether I accomplish that goal).

If me having my character try to kill the orc is about "The orc wants to live, my character wants it to die," then that is conflict. If my character trying to kill the orc is about "Three more orcs to go, then I can stop the priests from sacrificing the princess," then my character killing the orc is a task that is a presumed to be a step in a conflict. If my character fighting the orc is about "I need my character to kill this orc before John's character kills his orc, or I'll look like a fool," then my character killing the orc is a task, of which the interesting conflict is a part (I can fail in my conflict, while eventually succeeding in the task of killing the orc). Likewise, if what I care about is that my character wants to kill his orc before John's character kills another orc, then killing the orc is a task, of which the conflict is only a part. The shift in focus (and the changing answer to the question, "Is this task resolution or conflict resolution?") comes from what I care about as a player, not what the game focuses on, not the scale of the focus, and not even what the character cares about. If my character wants to kill his orc first, but my character's rivalry with John's character is already well established, and neither John nor I are particularly interested in the tiny shift this will represent in their rivalry, then evaluating which of our characters kills an orc first is merely a task, and not a meaningful conflict.

I was trying to describe all of these discussions to my housemates, and trying to explain the distinction between task and conflict, and Ben's distinction was the only one that seemed to work, or that held any water with my housemates. It is also the only one that fits with "Any interaction can be either a task or a conflict, depending on how you look at it."

So now I've either pointed out how Ben isn't quite so far off in the weeds, or I've merely joined him there (or perhaps I'm just wandering in my own patch of weeds, and Ben will look up from his patch and say "What's that nut doing way over there?"

--Charles

[Caldis]

Well, folding up several steps into a single step is the definition of scale.  A larger-scale roll is always going to specify less about the individual steps taken.  So, for example, GURPS Mass Combat is larger-scale.  It doesn't worry about the individual blows and maneuvers taken to win the battle.  We can see the same thing all the time in traditional systems.  i.e. Rather than specifying how I build a shelter, start a fire, set traps for animals, and so forth, I just roll my Survival skill for the week.  If I succeed, then all of the individual steps are assumed.

Yeah you are correct in that I wandered off into discussing a symptom rather than the disease (that's an anology not a value judgement on task resolution).  Let's try that task resolution example again.

Task resolution: Marauders are heading for the village. Just barely able to stay ahead of the mounted horde yourself, you have little hope of being able to save the village. Your only advantage is that this is your home territory, and you know every detail of the landscape. You: "My character does her best to signal the village." GM: "OK, let's consult the map.  Hmm there are very few places where that would be easily doable, and this is a pretty remote area, it's also raining and dark.  Let's set the difficulty at 27." You:"Damn, rolled a 25 I failed by 2.  Do I get anything for being so close?" GM:"You do manage to remember the old signal pyre on top of the mesa, but to get to it you'll have to climb the cliffs of insanity." You:"Good thing I brought all that rope, and my magic boots of climbing."

Contrast that with any of the conflict resolution examples and the clear difference is the factors being considered.  You called it intentions John, but I think that was a bit off, maybe motivations is what's important in conflict resolution.  One can intend to beat someone in a sword fight but it's what's motivating him to risk his life in battle that's important under conflict resolution.  In task resolution it's all about the 'physics' of the task.

[Andrew Morris]

Is the key difference here that task resolution addresses character success (which may or may not be success for the player), while conflict resolution addresses player success (which may or may not be success for the character)?

[Ron Edwards]

Andrew: yes.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

Wuh?

That seems a terrible way to define this, basing it on the success of a person who doesn't exist (a player character). All rolls address player success! All!

The difference between rolling for every attack in assaulting a castle, or just rolling once to see if you assault it correctly (or incorrectly, if that is your goal), is how much resources you stake on just one use of mechanics.

Just because you piddle about with hundreds of attack rolls with low stakes, doesn't mean somehow its the PC who's success was effected. Yeah, narrativists might be bored with piddling about with these attacks...that doesn't mean your not effected by them as a player and really somehow the non existant PC is the only one effected. It just means you don't care about them.

[Alan]

Callan,

Yes, task resolution may determine the successful insertion of a character action into the SiS.  In a sense this is a success for the player.  However, aside from adding a "fact" to the imaginary world, Task resolution (in itself) achieves nothing for the player.  On the other hand, Conflict resolution both inserts a fact and achieves a player intent.  So you can see that Task resolution furthers exploration, but conflict resolution furthers both exploration and player agenda.

Sure, task resolution _can_ further player agenda in some situations, but it is not required to do so.  


RESOURCES

Might I point out that the Extended Conflict Resolution system in Heroquest is resource based, allowing small point expenditures on detailed action?  Same thing with The Shadow of Yesterday.

[Callan S.]

Hi Alan,

I just don't agree, this seems to be defining task as the rolling you do to just add color.

Really that seems to me to be the old urge of ignoring some rules as presented and just treating some as fluff, not to get excited about and not to attach some intent to.

Piddling about with lots of little attacks, if coded into a game, are what your supposed to get excited about. It's supposed to become the means to your intent as a player and what furthers your agenda, because it should supposedly support your agenda. What you'd prefer to drift a game away from, doesn't make a definition of anything except what you don't like and/or don't care about. If your wont be letting this system matter to you, don't try to define 'task' as what your indifferent to.

From the perspective of playing under each CA, what's vital to one is just color to another. Just color and doesn't advance a players intent. For yourself, Andrew and Ron, it seems to be evaluated from a narrativists perspective. What about it being judged on something agenda neutral instead?

[Callan S.]

Okay, trying again with less gusto on my part, open to anyone.

In Rons egg example, the player decides cooking the domestic meal is very important and will determine a lot. So the task roll determines a conflict.

Okay, so what happens latter when the player decides something else is important? Does this cooking mechanic go away? Does its effect on the game go away?

Here we were assuming the skill here is designed with a low resource stake in mind. But for clarities sake, what if we amp up the stake involved. Say that it's designed into the system that if she fails the cooking roll she grabs some rat poison and cooks that in, and everybody dies after eating it. It's an absurd example, but I want to change the resource at stake to a very high one.

So what happens here when the player decides something other than the cooking, is important here? But they still have to do a cooking roll, because the system says so, before they get to that?

So far that roll has been classed as a task roll. But look at it now, the player wants to focus on something else as important but oops, he fails the cooking roll and everybody is dead!

I see that as conflict resolution, because it's resolved something about some very big resources. And the players intent or agenda, didn't matter at all as to whether this was a conflict or a task. The only way the players intent could matter is if they drift the game, ignoring that rediculous rat poison rule, or skipping the cooking roll entirely. Currently I'm seeing task and conflict being defined as what the user wants to drift toward, to make important in the game. But under this definition, they'll have to be doing what Herb does in the system does matter essay.

[Andrew Morris]

Callan, I'm not sure I'm the best person to address this, but I'll give it a shot. First, forget about "importance," because it just gets in the way. What matters is whether the resolution addresses the player's or character's intentions. I'll toss out some examples:

1. Adam (the character) is cooking a meal. It doesn't matter whether the results of failure are making a bad impression, food poisoning, or mixing in rat poison and killing everone who eats it. Bob (the player) doesn't particularly care whether Adam fails or succeeds. Bob makes a roll for Adam's Cooking skill to determine whether or not Adam successfully cooks the meal.

2. Adam is cooking a meal. The results determine whether or not he can relax his guests enough to find out a particular secret. This is something that Bob is trying to accomplish. He rolls using his Cooking skill to determine whether or not Bob successfully finds out the information. If the roll is successful, Adam may or may not succeed in cooking the meal well, but he will find out the secret that Bob was interested in.

3. Adam is cooking a meal. Bob really wants Adam to succeed (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter). Bob makes a roll for Adam's Cooking skill to determine whether or not Adam successfully cooks the meal.

The first and second examples are pretty clearly task and conflict resolution, respectively. It's the third one that is less clear. In my mind, this is still task resolution, not conflict resolution. The defining factor is whether the resolution determines character success (task) or player success (conflict). The fact that winning the task is important to the player (in the third example) is irrelevant.

[Matt Snyder]

The defining factor is whether the resolution determines character success (task) or player success (conflict). The fact that winning the task is important to the player (in the third example) is irrelevant.

Wow, Andrew, you really had me excited up until this quoted bit here.

If Conflict Resolution addresses player success, then how could it not matter what the player wants? What the player wants seems to be the defining issue for conflict resolution. Seems to me it matters!

If it doesn't matter, why are we rolling? What's at stake? What's the cost of failure? Why does Bob want Adam to successfully cook the meal? All this stuff matters, one way or the other, to determine whether this is "conflict" or "task."

Given that something matters to Bob, #3 is Conflict Resolution.

[Andrew Morris]

Matt, it's that third example that highlights the key dispute here, I think. Now, don't read my statement as "impotance" being a non-issue in general, just better left out of defining whether task or conflict resolution is being used, because it tends to confuse things, rather than make them clear. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm no expert, and I'm wrong far more often than I'd like to be, but I'm standing by my statement, and I'll explain why.

If Bob is rolling to determine the success of Adam's attempt to cook a meal, then it's task resolution. Bam. Nice and easy. Bob might have a high or low personal investment in whether or not his character succeeds in this, and it doesn't matter. If Bob is rolling to succeed or fail in something that the real-life player is attempting to bring about, and is using a Cooking skill (or whatever) to explain how that happens in game, then it's conflict. Also nice and easy.

When the two overlap, that's where it's easy for concern with "importance" to get in the way. Say Bob wants Adam to cook the best meal so that he can win a cooking competition. Both the player and the character are shooting at the same goal. In this case, the likely result of task resolution and the result of conflict resolution target the same in-game effect. Does this make task resolution into conflict resolution, or vice versa? Perhaps, but I'd be inclined to think not. Taking this cooking competition example further, we'd have to look at the mechanics in use to determine whether it's task or conflict. If the only way for Bob to bring about his goal (Adam winning the cooking competition) is by using his Cooking skill (or Pastry Chef, or something along those lines) and that winning the competition would be a likely inference, then I'd say it's likely still task. If, on the other hand, Bob could achieve his goal of winning the competition while failing to cook well, then it's probably conflict.

Another way to state all this is to say that task resolves whether the cause succeeds or fails, while conflict resolves whether the effect succeeds or fails.

If you have A (cause) and B (effect), task resolution determines whether or not A happens, and B may be inferred to happen. This might not always be the case (GM fiat, for example). In conflict resolution, whether or not B happens is the concern that is resolved, and A may be inferred to happen. Again, this might not always be the case. (e.g. Adam won the contest because his main rival got food poisoning and withdrew, not because Adam cooked the best meal).

Does that make things clearer?