Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution

[Simon Kamber]

Would it be a breach of social contract in your games for the GM to say "Uh... you can research all you want, but you're not going to find a public expose of mutant transvestite mistresses on this guy"?

That depends quite a bit on what game we're playing. The games where it wouldn't are the games I'd classify as using implicit CR. (actually, I think implicit CR is a better description than B.T.L. CR)

Simon,

Actually, I don't think your example is Task Resolution at all.  I think the Social Contract of the people at the table is simply Conflict Resolution using the skill at Safe Cracking to handle it.

Yep. That's sorta what I was trying to say. My point is, that safe is one of the most often used examples of task resolution when in fact for many groups it is not.

I was about to use the safe example in the discussion on the other board when I realized that, well, how would the example explain anything at all if such a situation is actually conflict resolution, if only implicit.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that identifying task resolution isn't as simple as it appears. Just because your roll refers to the task, it doesn't mean that you're really doing task resolution. And I'd also claim that most of the examples we use to describe task resolution are in many social contracts actually implicit conflict resolution.

As far as I can see from the discussion going on at the danish forum, this very gap makes half the people in the discussion unable to understand the examples we're trying to use, because the task resolution example is, in the social contracts they're used to, actually conflict resolution. And I think we should be wary of that difference when we're trying to explain what conflict and task resolution is.

If you agree with that, we can go from there and try to define the difference. I haven't replied to the rest of the posts in this thread because it seems that's what they're trying to do, and I'd like to make sure we're on the same page first.

[Andrew Cooper]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that identifying task resolution isn't as simple as it appears. Just because your roll refers to the task, it doesn't mean that you're really doing task resolution. And I'd also claim that most of the examples we use to describe task resolution are in many social contracts actually implicit conflict resolution.

Okay, I see what you are saying now and I agree with that.  Just because the Players are habitually referring to a task doesn't mean that's what they are actually doing.  If we look at the results of their play over time we might just discover that their actual resolution mechanic is Conflict Resolution... it's just hidden behind skill and task terminology.  I gotcha.  I do this in D&D all the time.  Mostly because my players are used to Task Resolution.  Instead of talking terminology with them, I just changed the meaning of the rolls behind the scenes.

[John Kim]

Characters don't know anything.  The character may have been told by an NPC that there is dirt in the safe.  The character may have witnessed and NPC putting something in the safe that he thought was the dirt he was looking for.  But until he actually opens the safe and looks...the character can never KNOW that the dirt is in the safe.

There is always the opportunity for the dirt NOT to be there even if the character (i.e. the player thinking for the character) was sure it would be.  This could be simply because the player drew incorrect conclusions about scenes that were played.

So its absolutely what the PLAYER knows (which will generally always be OOC) that matters here.

Hold on.  By your definition here, the player never knows anything from any in-character action.  i.e. Suppose I play in a traditional game where I say what actions I am doing, then get back in-character answers to what I see and understand in-character.  By your standard, then by definition I as a player know nothing even after years of play because there is always a chance that some piece of in-character information was wrong.  

I don't think that's a reasonable view.  In my mind, the issue here is the reliability of the information -- regardless of IC or OOC.  For example, you cite that the player could draw incorrect conclusions from in-character information.  It could just as easily be that the player draws incorrect conclusions from out-of-character information.  

Its entirely what the player knows that matters.  If the GM tells the player directly (not in character hints and inuendoes and clues) that "If you make this roll you will get the dirt"..then the player KNOWS absolutely 100% that if he makes the roll his character will get the dirt...as noted above, it may be in the safe as the character thought, or it may not be, but somehow someway he'll get the dirt.  That's absolutely known in advance in Conflict Resolution (baring an agregious breach of trust on the part of the GM).

You're drawing a line here that unless there is a 100% guarantee then everything else is meaningless.  That doesn't seem useful to me.  In practice, 99.9% versus 100% isn't an important distinction.  

That is, if the player can and does act with confidence in reliable in-character information, then it seems the same to me as acting on out-of-character assurances.  Either way, it's true that the GM could break trust and change things.  But that's only relevant to the degree that it actually happens.  In other words, unless the players are regularly deceived by illusions or similar deceptions, then your objections seem mostly pedantic.  

Now, there is an open question about how a game design can be enforced to minimize such deceptions.  But that's different than how we should consider Actual Play.

[Simon Kamber]

Guys. Could I get you to split that discussion into another thread? I've lost track of which parts of your post are actually a reply to what I'm saying and which parts have trailed off into another discussion. I've tried reading through it, but I've got a feeling that half of you are talking about something completely different.

So, if you're taking part in the main discussion on the thread, could you rephrase your arguments so I can pick things up and put it into the context. If you aren't, please start another thread on the matter.



EDIT: Ok, I've read through your discussion for the third time, and I think I get what you're discussing. And as far as I can see, you've completely and utterly missed my point.

I'm not talking about those proto-CR conflicts where the players know there's dirt in the safe. I'm talking about groups where the players go through the usual motions of entering the office and so on. They haven't said it, but they're looking for dirt. And then one of the players declare "I try to open the safe". The GM tells him to roll his open-safes skill. I propose that with that information, it is impossible to tell if it's task resolution or implicit conflict resolution.

If the method is actually task resolution, the GM can declare that there was no dirt there. It doesn't matter one whit if it's his own whim, his notes or the pre-written result.

If the method is implicit conflict resolution, which will often be the case, then the GM will break the social contract by declaring that there is no dirt in the safe. If there never was dirt, he wouldn't have allowed the roll in the first place. It's conflict resolution, but up to the point where the GM narrates the roll's results, it's completely indistinguishable from TR.

And the problematic issue in this:

A) Our examples, like the safe, are formed so that rolling to open the safe is task resolution. In fact, the safe is the most used example of task resolution.

B) It's my impression that the majority of the Conflict Resolution players out there utilize Implicit conflict resolution.

And these lead to:

C) These players, when encountering our examples, go "gee, we're using task resolution". And going from that you can try to explain conflict resolution as much as you want and they'll still be going "what's the difference again?". It's a discussion just like that that made me start this thread.

[Callan S.]

If the method is actually task resolution, the GM can declare that there was no dirt there. It doesn't matter one whit if it's his own whim, his notes or the pre-written result.

There seems to be a social pressure to make the safe result more significant, though.

When you have one roll, and significant player investment in "it all rides on this roll!" I think you get drift toward conflict resolution.

[Simon Kamber]

If the method is actually task resolution, the GM can declare that there was no dirt there. It doesn't matter one whit if it's his own whim, his notes or the pre-written result.

There seems to be a social pressure to make the safe result more significant, though.

When you have one roll, and significant player investment in "it all rides on this roll!" I think you get drift toward conflict resolution.

Yep, and that's exactly when it becomes implicit conflict resolution.

[Yokiboy]

I think one thing people get hung up on too much is the actual safe itself. In Conflict Resolution the focus is on the dirt, not the safe. In CR the safe is just color, it could be part of the narrative following a successful resolution of the conflict, but doesn't have to be.

The only time the safe would become a part of CR is if a specific skill is used thereby defining what task is performed (most CR-systems aren't so nitpicky).

Here's what I see as a typical in-game example.

CR: I want to find dirt on the bad guy. Lemme see... I think I'll use my safecracking skill, he would probably keep the dirt in his office safe. Let's frame the scene to me standing in his office late at night.

TR: Having successfully broken into the bad guy's office, I now want to crack his safe using my safecracking skill. Oh I hope he keeps his dirt in there...

What really defines CR is that conflict only happens when you have opposing forces clashing! For me the CR "safe example" comes down to a conflict roll by the character trying to find the dirt, and opposed by the bad guy. In TR the determination of the bad guy wanting to keep his dirt out of prying eyes usually only enters into the equation by how good a lock he got on his safe.

[edit] To bring my post more on topic, I am trying to adapt the TR system of TROS to CR, and documented my ideas in Holken just last night. You find the specific rant here. It is easy to fall into the TR-to-CR drift, thinking you're doing CR, when in fact it's TR that step-by-step brings you closer to resolving a conflict. We've gotten much better at CR however, and love it!

TTFN,

Yoki

[Simon Kamber]

What really defines CR is that conflict only happens when you have opposing forces clashing! For me the CR "safe example" comes down to a conflict roll by the character trying to find the dirt, and opposed by the bad guy. In TR the determination of the bad guy wanting to keep his dirt out of prying eyes usually only enters into the equation by how good a lock he got on his safe.

If you don't mind me asking, how does that connect to the implicit CR thing? Are you telling me that you don't think it's there?

To me, it sounds like you're trying to explain to me what CR and TR is. I'm perfectly well aware of what it is. In fact, I'm postulating that examples just like yours confuse people who are used to implicit CR because they'll be saying "Now I want to crack his safe using my safecracking skill" and they will still be doing CR.

[Yokiboy]

Hello Simon,

No, I don't think it's there. Resolving conflicts implicitly is not CR IMO, even if it happens to resolve one [man theory talk can turn strange]. I did try to point out how explicit CR is, by stating that the safe is never what's in focus, but the dirt is, and specifically how the bad guy opposes the protagonist's attempts at finding it, not the difficulty of the safe's combination lock.

TR can of course be drifted towards CR, but in reality I think you're either stuck with TR, or eventually find that CR is all you have left. You can't accomplish CR using TR.

So in short, I don't think you can have implicit CR.

TTFN,

Yoki

[Simon Kamber]

Hello Simon,

No, I don't think it's there. Resolving conflicts implicitly is not CR IMO, even if it happens to resolve one [man theory talk can turn strange]. I did try to point out how explicit CR is, by stating that the safe is never what's in focus, but the dirt is, and specifically how the bad guy opposes the protagonist's attempts at finding it, not the difficulty of the safe's combination lock.

But if the outcome is the same, what's the difference really? We could define CR and TR like you do, but if we include implicit CR under TR, the distinction falls apart.

Because as I see it, there's really no important actual-play difference between implicit CR and CR. Whether you roll for getting the dirt or roll for opening the safe to get the dirt isn't really that important as I see it. As long as both rolls are, in the end, about you getting the dirt.

As for accomplishing CR using TR, I think it's more a matter of "talking" TR when in reality, you are using CR. Most of the (admittedly sparse) diplomacy rolls I've made in D&D games have worked like this.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

But if the outcome is the same, what's the difference really? We could define CR and TR like you do, but if we include implicit CR under TR, the distinction falls apart.

I'm gonna back Simon up on this.  There is no difference in Implicit and Excplicit Conflict Resolution when looking at the end result.  Yoki, I think you're getting hung up on labels.  It's entirely possible for a rules book to call something Task Resolution but in actuallity it runs as Conflict Resolution.  Why?  Because of term familiarity.  Rightly or wrongly, CR is often associated with large scale scene resolution.  TR is associated with small scale multi-rolls.

If a conflict is resolved, it's conflict resolution.  If a task is simply completed, it's task resolution.  There's a lot more CR out than people believe IMHO.

Peace,

-Troy

[TonyLB]

Ah... cool.  I finally get why I've been so uneasy about the "implicit CR" label.  It's a relief to actually know why I disagree, as opposed to just having an unsettled feeling in my stomach.

CR vs. TR is about process, not outcome.  All systems resolve conflicts.  The question is how.  CR does it through dealing with the conflict explicitly, and TR does it indirectly by "doing stuff" and having consensus or (more often) GM fiat decide how it implicitly applies to the conflict.

The power of CR is that it's explicit.  In fact, I will refer folks to my actual play thread of months ago labelled (applicably enough) [Capes] The power of explicit conflicts.

[Valamir]

Bingo Tony.

Its ALL about the process...the mindset of the players...HOW the decisions of when to roll, what to roll, and what to roll for are arrived at.  Are you thinking in terms of resolving conflict when you make those decisions, or are you thinking in terms of tasks?  You might get something that mechanically looks like CR by accident, but if you were thinking in the syntax of TR it isn't CR no matter how coincidentally it looks like it.

Some systems are designed from the ground up to facilitate a CR process...others have a square peg in a round hole problem...but its the process not the system that determines which it is.

[Simon Kamber]

CR vs. TR is about process, not outcome.  All systems resolve conflicts.  The question is how.  CR does it through dealing with the conflict explicitly, and TR does it indirectly by "doing stuff" and having consensus or (more often) GM fiat decide how it implicitly applies to the conflict.

Hmm. I still think that there's a bit in the TR that messes up the lines.  If you remove the "GM fiat" and assume that implicitly, "concensus" is defined by the social contract before the conflict even begins, I don't think it fits in the TR pattern anymore.

I.E. in the case of the safe. If one player says "I try to open the safe" and everyone immidiate thinks "he's trying to get the dirt", then isn't that as good as "I try to get the dirt"? I agree that it isn't as "powerful" or "pure", but as far as I can see, it's exactly the same thing.

It might sound impossible that everyone interprets "I try to open the safe" as "I try to get the dirt". But think again. I think most of us can think back on places where exactly that thing happened.

Its ALL about the process...the mindset of the players...HOW the decisions of when to roll, what to roll, and what to roll for are arrived at. Are you thinking in terms of resolving conflict when you make those decisions, or are you thinking in terms of tasks? You might get something that mechanically looks like CR by accident, but if you were thinking in the syntax of TR it isn't CR no matter how coincidentally it looks like it.

Yeah. But are they? They'll say they're thinking in the words of TR, but what's really in focus is that they're up to finding the dirt. If you tell them to say "I want to find dirt", they'll go "but that's what I've been doing all along".


Oh, and to the link Tony provided. I agree that explicit CR can do a lot of things that implicit CR can't. Most notably, it works without intricate aspects of the social contract backing it up. But that doesn't mean implicit CR doesn't exist.

[TonyLB]

I.E. in the case of the safe. If one player says "I try to open the safe" and everyone immidiate thinks "he's trying to get the dirt", then isn't that as good as "I try to get the dirt"?

I never said it wasn't "as good as" CR.  It sounds like it would foster equally enjoyable play, maybe even better play.  But it's not CR.