Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution

[Valamir]

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".

Are they?  Good question.  People often aren't able to articulate what they are actually doing in play.  Look at how many game books are written one way, even though the designer actually plays completely differently.

Personally, I don't trust anyone who hasn't spent a considerable amount of time in critical self evaluation of gaming and the nature of their play to be able to accurately depict what they are really doing.  Look at how difficult it is to get a new game designer in Indie-design to even begin to grok how to answer a simple question like "what do you do in your game".  Let alone a pretty involved question about evaluating Task vs. Conflict resolution.

Those are only simple questions to those of us who've spent many hours thinking about such things.  To most gamers they're utterly baffling.

So...could they really be thinking in terms of Conflict Resolution and a Conflict Resolution process...while all the while swearing up and down that they're doing regular old task resolution...of course.  

What people say they do and what people are actually doing is no easier to determine for CR vs TR than it is for Creative Agendas.

[Simon Kamber]

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.

I get you that far. But could I get you to describe how it's not CR? When the roll resolves exactly the same issue, where is the difference?

What people say they do and what people are actually doing is no easier to determine for CR vs TR than it is for Creative Agendas.

That's true. But most people have grown out of trying to explain Creative Agendas in a simple way. Yet, we're still doing it with resolution systems, and as far as I can see it leads to no small amount of misunderstandings.

[TonyLB]

You have resolved conflict, and so you are engaged in conflict resolution as an activity.  And, by the Lumpley Principle, you are therefore using a conflict resolution system.  You are not, however, using a conflict resolution mechanic.

The mechanic you are using is about resolving tasks.  In the example, the mechanic tells you about cracking safes, possibly going so far as to give safes complexity ratings, and represent the quality of the characters safe-cracking tools.

The way that you are linking this to conflict ("If you crack the safe you get the dirt") is done entirely outside the written mechanic of the rules.

Does that make sense?

[John Kim]

You have resolved conflict, and so you are engaged in conflict resolution as an activity.  And, by the Lumpley Principle, you are therefore using a conflict resolution system.  You are not, however, using a conflict resolution mechanic.

The mechanic you are using is about resolving tasks.  In the example, the mechanic tells you about cracking safes, possibly going so far as to give safes complexity ratings, and represent the quality of the characters safe-cracking tools.

I generally agree that most games do not do this.  

However, I am somewhat concerned over the division of what is in a mechanic -- since this is a fairly fluid line that doesn't necessarily correspond to a functional difference.  For example, Dogs in the Vineyard is clear that there are stakes -- but it is left entirely up in the air as to how stakes are decided.  Nevertheless, stakes-setting is thus a part of the mechanics.  This is common in a number of indie games.  In contrast, a few traditional games give a default answer for how the task is resolved, but then include suggestions for how to handle conflicts and incorporate player ideas as "GM Advice".  While the GM advice in most games is terrible, I don't see a clear line among things like Sorcerer's Bangs, Dogs' stakes-setting, Theatrix's improvisations, and Champions' genre advice.

[TonyLB]

Well, I disagree.  There is a clear, bright, line between Sorceror's Bangs and Dogs' Stakes.  

When you roll in Sorceror (at least per my understanding) you are rolling for whether your Lore (or whatever) allows you to do a specific task (e.g. notice a tell-tale).  Whether that resolves the Bang?  Who can say?  Certainly the mechanics don't insist upon any connection between a Lore roll and a Bang.

Whereas in Dogs, if the other guy runs out of dice, you have won the Stakes.  Period.  The mechanic insists upon it.  If you don't end up winning the Stakes then you have broken the rules.

[John Kim]

Well, I disagree.  There is a clear, bright, line between Sorceror's Bangs and Dogs' Stakes.
...
Whereas in Dogs, if the other guy runs out of dice, you have won the Stakes.  Period.  The mechanic insists upon it.  If you don't end up winning the Stakes then you have broken the rules.

I specified stakes-setting.  It is a clear mechanic in Dogs that if you win you get the stakes, but it is totally unclear what the stakes are -- i.e. how you set them.

[TonyLB]

Okay.  I'm not sure I see how the two things are connected.  There's stake-setting (which you're talking about) and resolution mechanics (which I'm talking about).  Is there an intersection there?  Seems to me that resolution starts only after you've figured out what's at stake.  But maybe that's the root of my confusion.

[John Kim]

Okay.  I'm not sure I see how the two things are connected.  There's stake-setting (which you're talking about) and resolution mechanics (which I'm talking about).  Is there an intersection there?  Seems to me that resolution starts only after you've figured out what's at stake.  But maybe that's the root of my confusion.

When considering what Simon calls "implicit conflict resolution", I think you need to look at the bigger picture to compare apples to apples.  i.e. I have a situation which has a conflict.  How do I proceed from there?  How is the conflict resolved (or not resolved)?  

To take the old safe example, in Dogs in the Vineyard, it could in principle be that the stakes are set as "Do I open the safe?"  I don't think that's what most groups will do, but doing so is mechanically legal.  So I think you need to look a little wider than the pure mechanical resolution.

[TonyLB]

Well then, shouldn't we stop using the terms "conflict resolution" and "task resolution"?  They're referring to purely the mechanical resolution, aren't they?

[John Kim]

Well then, shouldn't we stop using the terms "conflict resolution" and "task resolution"?  They're referring to purely the mechanical resolution, aren't they?

You know, I'd like to have a concrete definition like this.  However, as I ask people, I get differing answers.  Most recently was the thread on http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15680"> Known Cause and Conflict Resolution .  For example, Ralph (aka Valamir) suggested that in order to determine if my case was Conflict Resolution, he had to know about the emotional reactions of the players.  

I don't think there's a way of getting around that Task vs Conflict has to include stakes-setting, though.  If not, then how do you distinguish between the case where the stake is "Do I open the safe?" and "Do I get the dirt?".

In short, I don't really have a good answer -- but I wish there was one.  I had my own idea about what Conflict vs Task meant, but it doesn't seem to reflect most people's opinions, so I don't think it's very relevant.  I'm happy to go with any definition that is clear.

[TonyLB]

Tha makes sense.  I wasn't being anywhere near that fancy.  I was just going off 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.

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.

So that explains, I think, why I didn't see Stakes-setting as particularly relevant.  

Even if the stake is "Do I open the safe?", if the structure of the rules is "Opening a safe is a conflict, here's what the safe can bring in on its side of the conflict, here's what the other guy brings in on his side, combine and resolve" then you're in CR.  If the structure of the rules is "Opening a safe is a task, here's how difficult a task it is given the tools and conditions, here's the effectiveness of the character doing it, combine and resolve" then you're in TR.  Same result, different process.

But maybe that just means that I'm not talking about the same thing as you, and therefore I should get out of the way so that you can talk to the people who are using the term CR to cover a broader variety of things.

[M. J. Young]

I'm tossing in with Simon on this; there does seem to be a genuine case of conflict resolution by social contract masquerading as task resolution. In the safecracking case, it may well be that the die roll technically determines whether Gary managed to open the safe; but if everyone at the table believes that this will result in some unspecified "dirt" being found about a specified person, then the social contract has converted this task to a conflict: the die roll which ostensibly determines whether the safe is opened effectively determines whether the characters get the dirt they seek.

In such a setting, if the referee announced that the safe was empty, there might be a pause followed by efforts to find the secret compartment in the safe, and there might be a gentlemanly acceptance of this new information--but the players will think the referee cheated, because opening the safe was supposed to be the task that resolved the conflict. Either they got the dirt by opening the safe, or they didn't get the dirt because they failed to open the safe. Opening the safe but not getting the dirt was not, in the social contract, a possibility; therefore, the roll to open the safe was conflict resolution disguised in a single task.

--M. J. Young