Ok. Quicky thread. I just read the glossary definitions in an attempt to settle my confusion. I'm assuming that tasks are understood to be conflict components.

My understanding at present is that resolution which chapters (i.e. uses rounds) and is measured by in-game time is task-based; resolution of the whole issue over an unfixed measure of time is conflict-based.

Do the following systems feature conflict or task resolution?



• 1st ed. AD&D
• Story Engine
• TROS
• Sorcerer
• BW



(Since I'm familiar with the above list, explanations in their terms will reach me.)

Task resolution uses in-game time, so any system that says something like, "Each round is about two seconds; long enough for a quick swing of the sword," resolves by task, right? Well, maybe I'm missing the boat, but by that standard, as I understand it, the only system in the list that uses conflict resolution is Story Engine. Is that correct?

I've always felt one of the most cogent discussions of the difference between the two was Vincent's (about halfway down the page.) And by that standard Sorcerer can be played either way. I tend to conflict resolution for most rolls, but Sorcerer's complex conflict, i.e. combat, tends to go into task mode during my play and I know Ron has stated that he views overall combat to be conflict resolution. Its not something I've yet been able to wrap my head around. Though the second part of Vincent's entry seems to address that (I need to read that more often!)

Trevis

I've actually played all these games. Here's how I treat them:

Task Resolution


• 1st ed. AD&D
• TROS
• BW



Conflict Resolution


• Story Engine
• Sorcerer



Task resolution asks "does the character achieve a result?" Conflict resolution asks "does the character achieve a goal?"

Even in complex conflict, Sorcerer uses conflict resolution, it just breaks the conflict into smaller bits. Both TROS and Burning Wheel tend to define any dice roll in terms of task resolution - however, in both, their skill systems can be drifted to conflict resolution. My experience GMing TROS says this enhances the game. I can't speak to BW on that.

I found this post of Ron's explained it very clearly indeed.

The way I have always looked at it:

Task resolution: Something might happen, and it might not happen. Resolve to see if it happens.

Conflict resolution: There are two equally desirable things that can happen. Resolve to determine which one.

This is neither necessary nor sufficient, but I find it distinctive.

Boy, has this been done before.

I even remember reading the first two pages of Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution at the time of its posting. I also appreciate the link to Vincent's (Lumpley's) take on the issue.

There are a number of elements of resolution I see being mentioned. I think this is one of those "say it your own way and understand it" kind of things. Anyway, here's what I notice:


• Focus - is function or purpose resolved.
• Options - how is variety in approach supported.
• Scale - what is the correlation between contest and (1) in-game time and (2) portion of setting.
• Chaptering - how is a contest divided.
• Grouping - how is contest participation sequenced or aggregated.
• Effect - how does resolution condition successive contests.



I think focus alone determines whether resolution is based on some task or a conflict. Accepting that, it's easy to see how the distinction can be lost amid the many, independent settings that are possible.

I think task is an implementation and conflict is a specification.

These are some approaches to the hypothetical play target, "learn the enemy's plans."

Conflict


• Employ an informant.
• Reconnoiter their position.
• Spy on the general's war meeting.



Task


• Offer an enemy guard mercy in victory and wealth for service.
• Bring to bear knowledge of the countryside.
• Sneak up to the backside of the general's tent; hide and listen intently.



Beginning with task, conflict answers the question, "Why would you do that?" and beginning from conflict, task answers the question, "So, how'd you do it?" You could just as easily have said "I threaten to kill the guard's captive child," "I use my trained falcon to survey from the air and guide me to them" or "I club an officer, don his helm and attend."

bcook1971 wrote: Scale - what is the correlation between contest and (1) in-game time and (2) portion of setting.

Oops! Double-post.

Vincent actually has two off-site notes about this very issue. Both were very helpful for me in informing and (more importantly) correcting the design of ORX as it related to this. Those are Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution and Practical Conflict Resolution Advice.

Here's some of what I put into ORX based on those two articles, which I hope helps you out some as well:

The Stakes are decided by the player according to what the orc is ultimately attempting to accomplish, and whatever obstacles the gamemaster has described in the Scene. The key to understanding this is the difference between tasks and conflicts.

In many role-playing games, rolls are made to determine the results of a task. The task itself is at stake: do you sneak past the slumbering ogre? Do you pick the lock on the chest? Do you stab the ugly little goblin with your spear? The Stakes (or “what’s at stake”) are whether you sneak past the ogre, pick the lock, or stab the goblin.

Stakes, however, deal with the reasons for undertaking the task in the first place, the goal the task is performed in service to. So, when a player rolls, the roll is really asking: Do you sneak past the ogre to get into the cave it is guarding? Do you pick the lock on the chest to get the prince’s heirloom? Do you stab the goblin in order to drive him away?

To understand “what’s at stake” just ask yourself what the orc is trying to accomplish, regardless of the task he might perform to get there. So, in the examples above, what’s at stake is whether or not you get into the cave, whether you get the heirloom, or whether you drive off the goblin.

I think what you're identifying as Scale is my Grouping. Dynamic Scale does not preclude resolution with a Focus on conflict.

For example, the sappers have brought down a large section of the keep wall. The king's men pour in to engage the rebel garrison. It's 200 against 80; that's the grossest level of Grouping. Chaptering would be, ok, Jesus, do we want to play out each sword swing or should we abstract to considerations of inner defense structures and morale? Scale would be, do we want fixed amounts of time for each chapter? If so, how long? Or should we just assume it takes as long as it takes? Also, do we want to define contests by approaches that target a list of sub-locations? (e.g. The inner keep, those asshole crossbowmen firing from the barbican towers, the many knights battling the charge in the courtyard, etc.)

And they start to overlap. Scale and Grouping complexes (a.k.a. framed scenes) may reflect various Options. And I feel the question of Focus leaning towards conflict as abstraction increases; though theoretically, either case should be possible.

** ** **

As I reflect on my reluctance towards Story Engine's resolution system, I realize I wanted to Chapter a bit. Maybe not to the Scale of a fixed round, but enough to stamp some highlights into the SIS. And I didn't like how Grouping was fixed at A vs. B, where traits were additive to a side.

(I don't know how others feel about this lexicon. It's helping me express what before I could only sense.)

[EDIT: Cross-posted to greyorm.]