Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

[Callan S.]

So...
Task = tactical
Conflict = strategic

I mean, you can boil it down to that, can't you? Whether your testing the tactic, or testing whether the strategy works.

Of course, testing the strategy involves squishing down the specifics of the tactical.

And once you do this you realise that you can squish down each strategy and instead resolve a greater strategy.

Of course that has to ceiling out. You can't get to the point where your testing such a grand strategy that RP is also being simulated rather than done (not saying that's what's being here, just postulating a ceiling).

Just thinking...

[lumpley]

Seems to me you're all still getting the two variables mixed up.  Check this out: Task Resolution tells you whether you succeed or fail.  Conflict Resolution tells you whether you win or lose.

Player: "I crack the supervillian's safe!"
Task Resolution: do you open the supervillian's safe?
Roll: Failure!
GM: "Nope, the safe's too good.  You can't crack it."

Player: "I crack the supervillian's safe!"
Conflict Resolution: do you find out who is the supervillain's next target?
Roll: Loss!
GM: "Okay, you spin the dials and pop the safe open.  There are a bunch of papers in there, but they don't say who the target is."

Both of these are at the single action scale, but the former's succeed-fail and the latter's win-lose.  You can succeed but lose, fail but win.

In conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it.  It's possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a win anyway.

Whether you roll for each flash of the blade or only for the whole fight is scale, not Task vs. Conflict.  You can Conflict-Resolve the whole fight in one roll or Task-Resolve the whole fight in one roll:

Player: "I fight him!"
Task Resolution: do you win the fight (that is, do you fight him successfully)?
Roll: Success!
GM: "You beat him!  You disarm him and kick his butt!"

Player: "I fight him!"
Conflict Resolution: do you make it to the ship before it sails away?
Roll: Victory!
GM: "You disarm him, kick his butt, and then run down the dock just in time! They let you on board and then pull up the gangplank!"

-Vincent

[Autocrat]

I'm really sorry.... but I've read the post trhough twice now..... and I still don't get it......why does it have to be different?

Win / Lose
Succeed / Fail

  Not alot of difference... infact, I can only see it as being personal and impersonal, yet the mechanics are still the same, and the scale can be as well.

  The only thing that is different is whether its a general check or a specific check.

  the idea of having a fight, running to the docks, then trying to get to the ship.....
3 different things!  The first is combat... you need to beat the opponent... failure results in death etc.  Success means you can move on.... yet time may be important!
The second is the running, so you need to check if you are running fast enough, possibly avoiding obstacles, so a few more checks, much like the combat situation, you need to succeed to win, failure results in overal failure, and time is still important!
The third is leaping for the ship.  This may be a Static thing, or may be altered by the speed at which you achieved the first two things.  You check to see if you make the jump.  Success means you made it, failure means you hit the water!


So you have the big picture, which could be resolved with one check,......
so, do I beat the guy, make it to the docks in time and leap aboard.....result of success = yes, you win!  Failure = No, you lose!
Or you could handle it the three seperate parts, with failure at any point resulting in failure throughout!
Basically, it seems like the difference between a single resolve or an extened resolve!

So, if I have got it wrong, or round the wrong way, or I'm not only holding the wrong end of the stick - but a completely different stick, pease explain it to me in simple english, (apparently its the language I'm meant to be able to speak, yet I think they lied!)

[lumpley]

The fight on the dock example doesn't work, okay.  How's the safe example for you?

The key to the two kinds of resolution is: what's at stake?

In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself.  "I crack the safe!"  "Why?"  "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"  What's at stake is: do you crack the safe?

In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task.  "I crack the safe!"  "Why?"  "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"  What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain?

Win / Lose
Succeed / Fail

Not alot of difference... infact, I can only see it as being personal and impersonal, yet the mechanics are still the same, and the scale can be as well.

Except that, as I said, you can succeed but lose, or fail but win.  Given that we haven't established what's in the safe, can you see where your character might a) fail to open the safe, but still get the dirt on the supervillain, or else b) successfully open the safe, but not get the dirt on the supervillain?

Which is important to the resolution rules: opening the safe, or getting the dirt?  That's how you tell whether it's task resolution or conflict resolution.

-Vincent

[Anthony]

For a while now I've been trying to discuss "alternative" role playing with a few gamers I really suspect would be into it (by alternative I mean less gamist in simulationist clothing, probably with a focus on narrative play, but mostly just getting away from the game style we have right now which frankly no one seems to enjoy that much) for a while now.  I've tried to get people interested in some games, I even got a couple started to the point where characters were made and a first session was played.  But nothing much has been going on.  I suspect a large part of that is because there is another player who is VERY strongly against (most games he plays are in his homebrew system and he has a tendency to lord his authorness of the rules to give him rights over the other players) who is very vocal against any such movement.

I've been trying to get people to read the forge for a while, because I'm really convinced that given

I a copy of this discussion and brought attention to the examples lumpley gave.  I got responses with the email equivalent of lights going off in people's heads.  Thank you thank you thank you.  That was one of the better explanations I've seen here.

[John Kim]

In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself.  "I crack the safe!"  "Why?"  "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"  What's at stake is: do you crack the safe?

In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task.  "I crack the safe!"  "Why?"  "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"  What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain?

While this example works, I'm not sure how broadly these can be distinguished.  i.e. Consider "I punch him" instead, where "why" is "To try to incapacitate him".  There isn't much difference between the methods here.  I think that the safe example works because it is a single-roll resolution of a strategic conflict.  i.e. The overall conflict doesn't involve multiple possibly-different tasks, like fighting and running.  

So I think conflict resolution is inherently more strategic.  It also seems to me to be difficult to include many subtle shifts in intent.  As I cited before, what I like about action-based combat is the moment-to-moment emotional choices.  For example, in the last Buffy game I was in, at first Dot (my PC) was concentrating on killing a vampire she was facing.  But then her friend Max was hit, and she shifted her priority more to protecting Max.  But then Max cast a spell of protection for herself, and Dot was able to concentrate more on slaying.  

The stated intent is crucial for conflict resolution, it seems, and I'm never very comfortable with that.  Within my internal model, people always have multiple reasons for doing things along with some reasons that give them pause -- and they often are trying to accomplish multiple goals.  In the combat as given, Max was actually risking herself more because she wanted to prove herself to Dot because Max is secretly in love with Dot.  Dot returns the affection slightly but only on a very unconscious level.  But Dot shifted from being worried about Max to being confident in Max's abilities during the combat.  Given our mainly actor-stance style, it seems difficult to try to parse all that out during a combat, whereas it seems comparatively easy to roll for each action.

[lumpley]

John?  The safe example is short and easy.  It illustrates the principle.  It does not describe the bounds of the approach.

You want an example of conflict resolution that a) includes many subtle shifts in intent, b) has moment-to-moment emotional choices, where the characters c) have multiple reasons for doing things, d) have some reasons that give them pause, and e) are trying to accomplish multiple goals?

The safe example ain't it.  I am not startled to learn this.

Consider "I punch him" instead, where "why" is "To try to incapacitate him". There isn't much difference between the methods here.

Sure there is.  Imagine, if you will, a mechanic where we roll a bunch of dice to determine whether you incapacitate him, heavily modified by traits on your character sheet and your expenditure of resource, and flip one coin to determine whether your punch lands.  Here are the four possible outcomes: punch lands+incapacitated; punch lands+not incapacitated; punch misses+incapacitated; punch misses+not incapacitated.

Then we have to narrate from "I punch him" to whatever outcome-combination the mechanic returns.

The dice are conflict resolution.  The one coin is task resolution.  The methods, even at that scale and level of detail, are distinct.

The fact that you don't think you'd enjoy conflict resolution hardly invalidates the distinction.

-Vincent

[Valamir]

For example, in the last Buffy game I was in, at first Dot (my PC) was concentrating on killing a vampire she was facing.  But then her friend Max was hit, and she shifted her priority more to protecting Max.  But then Max cast a spell of protection for herself, and Dot was able to concentrate more on slaying.  

Perhaps you need to readjust your thinking of what a conflict mechanic looks like.  I see absolutely no reason why all of this can't easily find its way into a conflict resolution roll.

As I said above:

Conflict resolution mechanics are not simply task resolution mechanics moved to a larger scale (where you correctly note you'd lose the desireable level of resolution). Conflict resolution mechanics must be structured so that all of the tactical fiddling is shifted to the roll itself.

Good examples of this would be Story Engine, Trollbabe, and Universalis where a whole bunch of ==stuff== goes on before the dice even hit the table. Its at the level of this "stuff" where all of things you wouldn't want to miss out on occur.

[John Kim]

You want an example of conflict resolution that a) includes many subtle shifts in intent, b) has moment-to-moment emotional choices, where the characters c) have multiple reasons for doing things, d) have some reasons that give them pause, and e) are trying to accomplish multiple goals?

The safe example ain't it.  

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was.  If you can provide an example, that would be great.  I didn't say that this was impossible, by the way -- just that this sort of case has been relatively easy for me to do using action/task resolution, but (again, to me) it seems difficult using conflict resolution.  

Consider "I punch him" instead, where "why" is "To try to incapacitate him". There isn't much difference between the methods here.

Sure there is.  Imagine, if you will, a mechanic where we roll a bunch of dice to determine whether you incapacitate him, heavily modified by traits on your character sheet and your expenditure of resource, and flip one coin to determine whether your punch lands.  Here are the four possible outcomes: punch lands+incapacitated; punch lands+not incapacitated; punch misses+incapacitated; punch misses+not incapacitated.

Well, I agree there is a difference.  But how much of one?  Three of these are frequent results of traditional combat mechanics.  The unique result to conflict resolution is "punch misses+incapacitated".  Now, this is definitely a difference, but how important is it?  How will my combats be different by including this result (miss but the opponent is incapacitated) in practice?  I'm not sure about the answers here -- in practice for me conflict resolution has always been at a more strategic level.  But my instinct is that the difference seems minor.

[lumpley]

John, what might be more interesting than adding "punch misses+incapacitated," is doing away with "punch misses" entirely as a mechanical outcome.  Just don't flip the coin, as it were.  Punches miss only when the player decides to have the punch miss, as a way (one of many possible) to explain the "not incapacitated" outcome.

-Vincent

[Callan S.]

Seems to me you're all still getting the two variables mixed up.  Check this out: Task Resolution tells you whether you succeed or fail.  Conflict Resolution tells you whether you win or lose.

Player: "I crack the supervillian's safe!"
Task Resolution: do you open the supervillian's safe?
Roll: Failure!
GM: "Nope, the safe's too good.  You can't crack it."

Player: "I crack the supervillian's safe!"
Conflict Resolution: do you find out who is the supervillain's next target?
Roll: Loss!
GM: "Okay, you spin the dials and pop the safe open.  There are a bunch of papers in there, but they don't say who the target is."

Both of these are at the single action scale, but the former's succeed-fail and the latter's win-lose.  You can succeed but lose, fail but win.

*snip*

I'm assuming since your post came after mine, you were replying for me. If so:

There isn't any mix up at all. Opening the safe is a tactic used to forfil the greater strategy of getting dirt on the villain. You can either test the tactic or the strategy.

And of course the idea of all this is to focus dice rolling/system use on what we want our characters to do/strategy, rather than focusing on each little tiny tactic of that strategy. Each tiny tactic isn't really of any interest to us at all, yet we can spend hours resolving them in many games, currently. Zzzzz . So it's all about adressing the players desire directly, rather than indirectly through lots of fiddly components his desire consists of?

So it's about resolving strategy. No mix up at all.

[Matt Wilson]

You know, I think there are probably some D&D players who treat the combat rules a lot like conflict resolution. It all depends on how you interpret what hit points mean.

Use of skills is pretty much "do I make the skill roll or not," but hit points are a little less defined than, say, Arrowflight's wounds. Does a loss of 6 hp mean a small wound, or a glancing blow, or that your luck and intuition spared you completely? Likewise, a "hit" implies that the strike delivers damage. That means a "miss" could also be a glancing blow.

[Jason Lee]

Well, I agree there is a difference.  But how much of one?  Three of these are frequent results of traditional combat mechanics.  The unique result to conflict resolution is "punch misses+incapacitated".  Now, this is definitely a difference, but how important is it?  How will my combats be different by including this result (miss but the opponent is incapacitated) in practice?  I'm not sure about the answers here -- in practice for me conflict resolution has always been at a more strategic level.  But my instinct is that the difference seems minor.

Heya John,

The key difference in my experience is whether you are focusing on preserving the players intent (conflict) or focusing on preserving causality driven tension (task) - if that makes any sense at all.  By going conflict resolution you're making an active effort to preserve the players intent, and hence avoid frustating moments like:

• Player, "I punch him in the head"
(The player's intent is to incapacitate the target, but is not vocalized and resolution is tasked based)
• Roll, Success!
(GM checks the target's sheet and finds the trait 'Cannot be incapacitated with punch in the head')
• GM, "You nail him square in the jaw, and he seems unfazed - no effect"
• Player while making cranky face, "Grrr..."

Of course, task resolution adds that bit of unknown, adds that bit of tension:

• Player, "Holy shit! He's immune to face punchy!  Crap, what now? 'Sock 'em in the kisser' is the only trait I took!"

Give and take, personal preference.

[John Kim]

The key difference in my experience is whether you are focusing on preserving the players intent (conflict) or focusing on preserving causality driven tension (task) - if that makes any sense at all.  By going conflict resolution you're making an active effort to preserve the players intent, and hence avoid frustating moments like:

• Player, "I punch him in the head"
(The player's intent is to incapacitate the target, but is not vocalized and resolution is tasked based)
• Roll, Success!
(GM checks the target's sheet and finds the trait 'Cannot be incapacitated with punch in the head')
• GM, "You nail him square in the jaw, and he seems unfazed - no effect"
• Player while making cranky face, "Grrr..."

Of course, task resolution adds that bit of unknown, adds that bit of tension:
• Player, "Holy shit! He's immune to face punchy!  Crap, what now? 'Sock 'em in the kisser' is the only trait I took!"  

Ahhh!!!  Thanks, that's a great example.  That resonates with me particularly since this almost exactly happened in the last Buffy episode.  My Slayer PC, Dot, staked a vampire through the heart but he turned out to be immune to staking.  Sudden plot twist, and Dot thinks "What the hell?"  So she had to grapple with him, and in the meantime a minion of his hit her friend Max which she felt really bad about.  They eventually destroyed the vamps, and they are now in the process of figuring out why he was immune and what to do about it.  

I liked it, but I agree with you that people's preferences can and will differ.

[Anthony]

My Slayer PC, Dot, staked a vampire through the heart but he turned out to be immune to staking. Sudden plot twist, and Dot thinks "What the hell?" So she had to grapple with him, and in the meantime a minion of his hit her friend Max which she felt really bad about.

Two thoughts about this might be achieved.

1. In your more standard RPG setup, how the player goes about conflict resolution matters.  The player tries to defeat the vampire by staking him through the heart?  Ahha!  The vampire is immune to that kind of thing, take a serious minus to your roll.  Just like if the players attempted to pick the lock of a safe in order to determine what was in it and the story so far had made it pretty clear that this safe was pretty much unpickable.  

2. The vampire started out as generic vampire: stake through the heart, pile of dust, lets go find another one.  Dot does the stakey bit and fails.  Hmm, why did she fail?  I know!  Stakes don't affect this vampire!  The plot comes from the failure beforehand.  Something I really like because I'm obsessed with a game where failure is an interesting option that the players enjoy and work with, not something to be afraid of.

How would this work as a conflict resolution conflict like you described beforehand.  Assume a system that lets you do an extended conflict (somewhat like HeroQuest maybe).  Start with a simple bad guy to dust.  You know, your standard opening scene vamp, just there to say a few interesting words and make the plot happen.  Should be no trouble, but what is this?  Dot and Max lose the first roll, uh-oh, what happened here?  I know!  Mr Vampire is immune to sharp pointy things!  That should be an interesting twist!  Vampire gets an advantage on his next roll (because he won the last round) and turns on Max, knocking her around a bit.  Two failures in a row for the good guys!  Things aren't looking good.  Max goes defensive, trying to turn the tide, success.  Ok, she brought up a shield, the vampire has lost a bit of momentum, time to go in for the kill.  With the tide back on the players side and Dot tries to finish him off... overwhelming success.  No more vampire.