[Vocab] Task versus Conflict

[John Kim]

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.

I question the validity of the example here.  I mean, come on!!  Rolling Cooking skill to see if a PC cooks a meal that the player doesn't care about?  That doesn't seem representative of rolling in any game in my experience.  

Also, I would differentiate between "not caring" and player intent.  There are often times when I am equally excited if my character succeeds or fails.  In fact, I would say that is the standard case.  That doesn't mean that I don't care -- it means that I am equally pleased.  Personally, if something is really against my player intent, I would prefer that it not happen at all, rather than leaving it up to a die roll.  

From your definition, it sounds like Conflict Resolution is things like Soap's mechanic of opposed narration.  Whereas something like My Life With Master is Task Resolution -- i.e.  in MLWM, there is no difference in the roll based on what the player wants.  If a PC is doing violence to an NPC, there is a known roll that applies regardless of whether the player wants to succeed or fail.  But it's rather hard to tell from your examples.

[Warren]

This is my first post on the Forge, and I'm fairly new to this, but I thought I would throw my two penneth in:

I think conflict resolution requires the "why", or more specifically, it requires the player have an objective that is resisted by something to overcome. If it's just rolling "against the universe", as in most Sim play (as I understand it) you would end up with Task resolution. So therefore, in the cooking example above, I think that it is impossible to determine if case 3 is a conflict or not until you find out why. I think the why does matter.

"I want Adam to do really well at cooking this meal."
"Why?"

a) "Dunno". This is case 1; Bob doesn't care, so any rolls made would be under Task Resolution; this would be a automatic success in most Conflict Resolution systems, as there is no conflict there.

b) "Because I want to relax my guests enough to find out secret X." This is case 2; Bob's objectives are going to be resisted by the guests reluctance to give away secrets. Clearly, as stated above, Conflict Resolution.

c) "Because I want to impress this girl I'm cooking for." This could be Conflict, it would depend on if the girl was trying not to be impressed by Adam's cooking. If she was happy to be impressed, then I would say that there was no conflict, and as such, it would be resolved with Task Resolution or just taken as "OK, she's impressed."

d) "Because I want to drop some enough poison in it to kill X, but not enough so he can tell." Again, another clear conflict, this time resisted by the perception of X.

I would say the objective the player has is required to define a Conflict (and even then it may not be, as in example c, above). If there is no player-declared reason for doing a certain action, then I would say it has to be a Task.

[Andrew Morris]

John, I hear what you are saying. I agree with your statement about being equally excited about either outcome. You're happy to let the dice (or whatever) decide. That's cool, and was actually the situation I meant to convey in the example.

I don't know Soap, so I can't comment on it. MLwM is a tough one...I've played it, but I don't own it. If I recall correctly, the rolls are to determine...what? Player success or character success? For example, if I (the player) want my character to beat up a villager in order to steal his coat, does the roll tell me A) whether I got the coat (by means of violence), or B) whether my violence was successful (i.e. that the villager was beaten) and I probably got the coat as a logical result, unless, for example, the GM steps and has something else happen?

If it's A (as I believe it is), then that would be conflict resolution (by my standards), whereas B would be task.

The fact that the roll in MLwM is the same no matter what the player wants makes no difference. If the roll is adjudicating whether the character succeeds in an in-game action, that's task. If the roll is adjudicating whether the player's goal comes about, that's conflict.

I'll have to consider the rest of your post and digest it.

Warren, welcome to the Forge! As to the idea that active resistance makes for conflict resolution -- I don't think so. Swinging a sword at someone's face is likely to meet with active resistance, be it doding or parrying. That, in and of itself, doesn't make it conflict resolution. I'd say you'd have to go back to what the roll determines.

[Adam Cerling]

Andrew, I think you hit the nail on the head with this:

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.

Speaking in terms of character success versus player success is an inferior way of expressing the above idea, I think, even though I get your gist. To me, the above is much more clear.

[John Kim]

I don't know Soap, so I can't comment on it. MLwM is a tough one...I've played it, but I don't own it. If I recall correctly, the rolls are to determine...what? Player success or character success? For example, if I (the player) want my character to beat up a villager in order to steal his coat, does the roll tell me A) whether I got the coat (by means of violence), or B) whether my violence was successful (i.e. that the villager was beaten) and I probably got the coat as a logical result, unless, for example, the GM steps and has something else happen?

If it's A (as I believe it is), then that would be conflict resolution (by my standards), whereas B would be task.

The fact that the roll in MLwM is the same no matter what the player wants makes no difference. If the roll is adjudicating whether the character succeeds in an in-game action, that's task. If the roll is adjudicating whether the player's goal comes about, that's conflict.

But MLWM doesn't necessarily involve the player stating an out-of-character goal.  So how can it be adjudicating whether the player's goal comes about?  I agree that of your two examples, that A fits MLWM better than B.  But that's a character goal as well as a player goal.  i.e. The character wants to get the coat, and you the player want the character to get the coat.  

If you're distinguishing between player goal and character goal, the differentiating case is if the player wants something different than what the character wants.  In my playing of MLWM, there were a number of times where the PCs carried out the Master's orders -- and the players didn't want the minion to succeed.  i.e. Like when Therese tried to help kill Felix's Aunt Beatrice.  When the roll failed, Therese's player Cynthia said "Whew!" or somesuch.  She wanted her character to fail.

[Andrew Morris]

Ahh, yes...wanting your charcter to fail...that's...weird. I do remember experiencing that myself when playing MLwM. I'm not certain what to do with it, but I think that it doesn't make any difference.

For this case, I think it's just an unusual situation that reverses the fortune mechanic in a conflict resolution system. The mechanic is still resolving the player's goal ("effect"), it just switches the conditions that constitute "success."

This is one of the reasons why I don't think  "importance" is that useful in making the division between task and conflict resolution. While I think this might map closely to the two resolution methods, I don't think it is defining. I'd like to look at many examples before stating that flat-out, though.

When character and player goals ("cause and effect" might be better) overlap, you need to look closely at the mechanic, rather than any other considerations, to determine whether it's task or conflict.

What do you think about the cause and effect model that Adam points out as being more intuitive?

[Callan S.]

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.

Heya, thanks for the read.

Before we get to the examples, I want to look at players intention/characters intention statement. I can't look past how the character doesn't exist and has no intentions. I can only see player intent and where you see character intent, I see less player intent (significantly less).

Just taking that further (though the above is open to debate), if a player has very little intent in his use of a mechanic, that mechanic isn't serving his needs. If your just rolling your cook skill to get it over and done with to see what the character ends up doing, the design has failed to forfil your needs. This is a design that forfils the needs of users who are thrilled by cooking rolls (simulationists come to mind). This is a bit of an extension here, but I don't see task resolution, but instead if a player has little intent when using a rule it's a failure to meet the needs of that user.

[Warren]

Warren, welcome to the Forge! As to the idea that active resistance makes for conflict resolution -- I don't think so. Swinging a sword at someone's face is likely to meet with active resistance, be it doding or parrying. That, in and of itself, doesn't make it conflict resolution. I'd say you'd have to go back to what the roll determines.

Hi Andrew, and thanks. But I'm not too sure that that "Swinging a sword at someone's face" is always going to be Task Resolution. I would have thought if my (player) objective for the swing is to "blind the Orc" then it would be a Conflict (albeit a small-scale one). Isn't this what Vincent was talking about in  "Conflict Resolution in D&D-style combat".

That being said, I think we are in agreement. I would say that "conflict resolution requires an upfront determination of what the objective of the roll is, (the 'why?') and another player's (or the GM's) resistance to that objective." I guess that is just a long-winded way of saying "what the roll determines."

[Andrew Morris]

Callan, I think you're right. I'm trying to identify the precise wording that conveys my ideas, and I'm failing. So...what's problematic terminology? "Importance," "intent," and "caring," to start with. "Goal" might or might not be useful. I'll try to cut those terms out of my explanations, and instead focus on "cause" and "effect," which serve to explain my viewpoint as well, and seem to be clearer.

Warren, I agree. "Swinging a sword at someone's face" would not always be task resolution. Nor would it always be conflict resolution. I'm just pointing out that I don't think that whether or not the in-game act is resisted can be used to identify task or conflict resolution.

Now, when you turn "swinging a sword at someone's face" into "blinding an orc," you're changing the contest entirely. The first states cause, the second states effect. This shows the difference between task and conflict, I believe.

[Warren]

I agree Andrew, but I never said that the sole identifier for Conflict Resolution was that an action was to be resisted. However, I do think it is a requirement, otherwise there is no conflict, and it doesn't advance play in any meaningful way. But you also need the objective (desired effect) to be stated up front as well. I just think that asking "Why?" would be a good way of getting Task-focused players to voice their desired effects, and thus use Conflict Resolution.

"I swing my sword at the Orc."
"Why?"
"I want to blind him so Bob can dash past without being spotted."

This turns a simple Task into a Conflict, as the desired effect has now been stated up-front. But the required resistance is there (the Orc obviously doesn't want to be blinded). If the exchange went:

"I swing my sword at the security camera."
"Why?"
"I want to smash it so Bob can dash past without being spotted."

Is this still a conflict? The effect has been stated (stop Bob from being spotted). The camera can't meaningfully resist an attack, so I would say it happens automatically, and therefore does not require formal resolution.

[Andrew Morris]

Okay, I hear what you are saying. I don't agree that active resistance is a requirement of conflict resolution, but I do think that active opposition is more likely than not in conflict resolution. I just don't see it as the defining quality, which is, I realize, somewhat at odds with the definition of conflict resolution in the Provisional Glossary.

Conflict resolution
   A Technique in which the mechanisms of play focus on conflicts of interest, rather than on the component tasks within that conflict. When using this Technique, inanimate objects are conceived to have "interests" at odds with the character, if necessary. Contrast with Task resolution.

Task resolution
   A Technique in which the Resolution mechanisms of play focus on within-game cause, in linear in-game time, in terms of whether the acting character is competent to perform a task. Contrast with Conflict resolution.

While I'm not really diverging from these definitions by much, I think it's more accurate to talk of adjudicating cause and effect (or even character and player interests) than cause and "conflicts of interest." More intuitive, as well.

Let's work with your second example. I'd say this would likely be conflict resolution, provided that the resolution mechanic is adjudicating whether or not Bob dashes past without being spotted. If the resolution mechanic is adjudicating whether or not Bob smashes the security camera, then I'd say it's task resolution. Note that the conflict resolution might also lead to Bob having smashed the camera, and also that the task resolution might also lead to Bob dashing past without being spotted, but not necessarily.

As to it "happening automatically," I don't think that has anything to do with task vs. conflict -- it's just a feature of the system. If it's established that such actions don't require a roll, then they are assumed to happen. Take Capes, for example. If I say a character builds a spaceship, and no one wants to make it into a confilct -- boom, we've got a spaceship.

[Warren]

Yes, I'd agree with that I think. I guess I was getting confused because I thought that the "automatic success if nobody resists" feature was an inherent property of Conflict Resolution systems.

[Alan]

Yes, I'd agree with that I think. I guess I was getting confused because I thought that the "automatic success if nobody resists" feature was an inherent property of Conflict Resolution systems.

The question is, who is "nobody""  A fictional element or a player?

Also, the word "resist" is a bit restricted.  It implies that a player doesn't like the idea of a particular outcome.  Sometimes it is only the game system that "resists."  This ups the stakes for the players who care about the event being resolved.

FREX in Trollbabe, conflict is only resolved when a player or GM asks for it.  Otherwise, the GM has final say on the progress of events.  In the absence of a conflict roll, the GM can choose to have an action succeed or fail as he sees fit, within the guideline that all Trollbabes are skilled and compitent heroes.  Sometimes a player will call for a conflict because he resists the direction the GM is taking things -- and sometimes the player calls for conflict roll just to add zest (and some new facts) to the game, in which case the roll itself provides resistance.  Another, but I won't say final, reason for calling a conflict roll is just for the player to indicate that something is important to them.

[Andrew Morris]

Alan, I don't think it matters who "nobody" is. Active resistance can be from a player, GM, a fictional element in the game, etc., and it doesn't change the type of resolution being used. Can you identify why you think this would be important, or show an example that demonstrates what you mean?

Also, the frequency or reason for calling for a contest is irrelevant to determining whether that contest is adjudicated by task or conflict resolution mechanics. As I've said about other aspects that people are attempting to use to define task vs. conflict, this might or might not correlate to one or the other (task or conflict), but it is not useful for definitive purposes. However you want to phrase it, the difference between task and conflict seems to be what element of the contest is determined by the resolution system.

Here's a chart to highlight what I'm talking about:

Code Select Expand

                 Task              Conflict
                 ----              --------

Adjudicates:      Cause             Effect

Related to:       Character         Player
                 In-game logic     Meta-game concerns

Does this sound reasonable?

[Alan]

Alan, I don't think it matters who "nobody" is. Active resistance can be from a player, GM, a fictional element in the game, etc., and it doesn't change the type of resolution being used. Can you identify why you think this would be important, or show an example that demonstrates what you mean?

Sorry I wasn't clear.

For Conflict resolution, only player "resistance" matters.  As I tried to show in the Trollbabe example, the resistance of fictional elements need have no effect unless a player is invested in it.  In contrast, but strict application of task resolution rules, the opposition of fictional elements can be important whether the player cares about them or not.

EDIT: You know what?  I'm withdrawing the above.  It just occured to me that, because I've only played conflict resolution in narrativist games, I might be mistaking the "Player desires" focus of narrativism with the resolution system.  I'll have to think about that.  

What would conflict resolution look like in a simulationist-supporting game?  

Is Tunnels and Trolls an example of conflict resolution in gamist play?