In Ron's essay "Narrativism: Story Now", under heading "System - 'it does matter' all over again", Ron talks about task vs. conflict resolution.

In Narrativism: Story Now, Ron Edwards wrote: I submit that trying to resolve conflicts by hoping that the accumulated successful tasks will turn out to be about what you want, is an unreliable and unsatisfying way to role-play when developing Narrativist protagonism.

In Narrativism: Story Now, Ron Edwards wrote: Fortune-in-the-Middle as the basis for resolving conflict facilitates Narrativist play in a number of ways.

* It preserves the desired image of player-characters specific to the moment. Given a failed roll, they don't have to look like incompetent goofs; conversely, if you want your guy to suffer the effects of cruel fate, or just not be good enough, you can do that too.
* It permits tension to be managed from conflict to conflict and from scene to scene. So a "roll to hit" in Scene A is the same as in Scene B in terms of whether the target takes damage, but it's not the same in terms of the acting character's motions, intentions, and experience of the action.
* It retains the key role of constraint on in-game events. The dice (or whatever) are collaborators, acting as a springboard for what happens in tandem with the real-people statements.

I understand it this way:

- Task resolution resolves an action.
- Conflict resolution resolves something that was at stake.

If your game revolves around individual challenges, task resolution is great. But if you have thematic goals, you might spend a lot of time resolving tasks without ever resolving what's thematically at stake. That's unsatisfying and unreliable from a thematic standpoint.

Manifestation example that I read on Vincent's blog: You are trying to get dirt on someone by searching through their office. Task resolution: pick safe, search safe, pick drawer, search drawer. None of this might be fruitfuil; there might be no dirt in those places to start with. You've just wasted a lot of time, from the thematic standpoint. Conflict resolution: Use the mechanism to determine the actual goal. Do I or do I not find dirt ? There, done. Now on to the next stake.

If you use conflict resolution, the main difference is that each resolution counts. Something's at stake, something that matters.

At least that's my understanding.

Sorry to necromance this thread, but since I had a discussion on this issue in the TROS Forum, I'd like to raise some arguments here, and see what others think.

xenopulse wrote: I understand it this way:

- Task resolution resolves an action.
- Conflict resolution resolves something that was at stake.

If your game revolves around individual challenges, task resolution is great. But if you have thematic goals, you might spend a lot of time resolving tasks without ever resolving what's thematically at stake. That's unsatisfying and unreliable from a thematic standpoint.

Manifestation example that I read on Vincent's blog: You are trying to get dirt on someone by searching through their office. Task resolution: pick safe, search safe, pick drawer, search drawer. None of this might be fruitfuil; there might be no dirt in those places to start with. You've just wasted a lot of time, from the thematic standpoint. Conflict resolution: Use the mechanism to determine the actual goal. Do I or do I not find dirt ? There, done. Now on to the next stake.

If you use conflict resolution, the main difference is that each resolution counts. Something's at stake, something that matters.

At least that's my understanding.

Joachim,

I think your analysis is correct in that you are using Fortune-in-the-Middle. Compare this description of yours to Ron's description of FitM in the essay:

Daredevil wrote: For the first one, even if the modifiers come from well recognized places, the interpretation of the final result is still somewhat up in the air. Count all the relevant modifiers, then resolve and narrate the result to fit your character. The clumsy troll trips on a twig, his bash missing the target. The deft elf's sword cuts are unable to penetrate the armor.

Ron Edwards, Story Now wrote: Usually, instead of the typical description that you "swing and miss," because the "swing" was assumed to be in action before the dice could be rolled at all, the narration now can be anything from "the guy holds you off from striking range with the spearpoint" to "your swing is dead-on but you slip a bit." Or it could be a plain vanilla miss because the guy's better than you. The point is that the narration of what happens "reaches back" to the initation of the action, not just the action's final micro-second.

WhiteRat wrote:
Task Resolution asks: "Are you fast enough to strike first? Do you hit him with your sword? Do you dodge his blows?" And all the while I'm tapping my foot and thinking, "I don't care about all these details! The interesting stuff happens after. If I beat him I have to decide whether to spare his life, or if he beats me I have to decide whether to plead for my life! Why aren't we getting straight to that stuff?"

Conflict Resolution, on the other hand, can cut straight to the Narrative heart of the matter. Every roll swells with the promise of imminent Premise.

I see what you're saying. But the difference between a task resolution system and a conflict resolution system lies in how you frame the tasks/conflicts, and what the potential outcomes are--not just how detailed the resolution is.

So usually, in a Nar setting, a fight is *about* something. Using Dogs in the Vineyard as an example, fights are not just about "Do I beat him," but "Can I keep him from going off and shooting the shopkeeper."

Also, in the previous example, if the conflict stake is, "Do I get dirt on the bad guy," and I succeed, then that's what happens.

If I think "I want to get dirt on the bad guy, maybe something's in the safe," and I crack the safe, there's no guarantee that I've achieved anything meaningful at all. The safe might be empty, or not hold any dirt.

With conflict resolution, the idea is that you resolve the issue that actually matters. With task resolution, you might waste rolls and time doing certain tasks, as prescribed by the system, and in the end those tasks never had the chance to get you what you wanted in the first place. Now the DM could help you along, but the system won't help in and of itself.

Compare and contrast that with Trollbabe, or Primetime Adventures, and you'll see a very noticeable difference that's not just one of scope of tasks. It's a whole different approach on how to handle input into the game, and whether to articulate and resolve *why* you are doing what you're doing.

The kernel of the question is whether task resolution works equally well for narrativism? Let me try...

The issue at hand in conflict resolution is the why, while with task resolution it's the how - this is clear. Now, consider: which question carries the premise? There are literary devices where the premise certainly is in the task, but in those cases there is invariably a conflict embedded in there (namely, do I succeed in this task; if this question is not implicit, there is no premise in the task). On the other hand, there certainly are conflicts that are not tied to any particular task. Examples:

Task without premise meaning:
- a random fight, just because these parts are dangerous, you know
This has nothing to do with premise.

Task with premise meaning:
- a fight with my sworn enemy - will my virtue best him?
This is just as premise-relevant as any conflict, but that's because it's identical with the conflict in question:

Conflict with premise meaning:
- a fight with my sworn enemy - will my virtue best him?
See? It's the same as above. The task becomes premise-relevant by the virtue of the embedded conflict, not on it's own.

Conflict without a defined task:
- It's claimed that his evil is mightier than my good! Is it?
Now, this is a fine conflict. But where's the task? There isn't any! It's the same exact conflict as above, worded a little differently, but the implicit task of battling has dissappeared!

The point: tasks (what the protagonist does) and conflicts (why he does it) exist in a narrative regardless of the mechanics. Conflicts are more natural currency for narrativist play, because premise occurs on the level of conflicts. Individual tasks are ultimately incidental to this. Every case of addressing premise is ultimately up to a given conflict, defined or not. If a task or a string of tasks can be defined to solve the conflict, then task resolution limps by.

Now, I mentioned above that there are tasks with premise meaning, very much so. Example: in the anime series Smiling Shenshi we have a swordsman who refuses to take up a gun, because he feels this diminishes the responsibility the killer takes for his act. In this kind of case the character makes a task meaningful premise-wise, the task becomes the arena for conflict. Every time this guy ends up in a fight the question is asked - can he hold onto his ideals? Can he best the odds with only his sword? It's pretty trivial to construct a task example that is very clearly premise-significant.

But, the point: the task becomes premise-significant only because it embodies the conflict, not because of any virtue of it's own. There is no premise-meaningful task that doesn't become so through a conflict. Premise itself signifies a question of meaning, while conflict is a judgement of choice. These are ultimately as duck unto water.

So, in conclusion: conflict resolution is better suited for narrativism because conflicts are the subject matter therein. Of course task resolution can be applied judiciously, but the odds are that a good nar game will have some way of controlling and manipulating the conflict level as well. Task resolution is an unreliable tool for this, just as Ron says.

Regardless, nothing stops people from trying ;) I myself designed deliberately a nar game with task resolution in The Fall of Atlantis and Dawn of Human History last year in IGC. In that game tasks were infused with varying premise-relevant conflicts at different points of the game, so the choice of task action was really very much about premise, and it was very difficult to set up tasks with no premise meaning. But this kind of design requires careful forethought, and it's still a very open question whether there's any point to it.

Joachim Buchert wrote: For the first one, even if the modifiers come from well recognized places, the interpretation of the final result is still somewhat up in the air. Count all the relevant modifiers, then resolve and narrate the result to fit your character. The clumsy troll trips on a twig, his bash missing the target. The deft elf's sword cuts are unable to penetrate the armor. Neither character's inherent concept is hurt by the result. Likewise for the second point, I just don't see a difference between the two systems (regarding this point) at all. The third one, isn't that more like a description of a game system's function in general?

I'm trying to understand this topic to see if "my way" would become better by adopting different resolution methods. If there is some uncertainty and unsatisfaction that I'm being blind to, I'd like to know about it! Right now I'm thinking that I'm probably using fortune-in-the-end mechanics kinda more like fortune-in-middle ones are intended to be used. Maybe it's a fix to avoid dysfunctional play. However, I think the fix isn't clunky at all.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: The kernel of the question is whether task resolution works equally well for narrativism? Let me try...

The issue at hand in conflict resolution is the why, while with task resolution it's the how - this is clear. Now, consider: which question carries the premise? There are literary devices where the premise certainly is in the task, but in those cases there is invariably a conflict embedded in there (namely, do I succeed in this task; if this question is not implicit, there is no premise in the task).

On the other hand, there certainly are conflicts that are not tied to any particular task. Examples:

Task without premise meaning:
- a random fight, just because these parts are dangerous, you know
This has nothing to do with premise.

Task with premise meaning:
- a fight with my sworn enemy - will my virtue best him?
This is just as premise-relevant as any conflict, but that's because it's identical with the conflict in question:

Conflict with premise meaning:
- a fight with my sworn enemy - will my virtue best him?
See? It's the same as above. The task becomes premise-relevant by the virtue of the embedded conflict, not on it's own.

Conflict without a defined task:
- It's claimed that his evil is mightier than my good! Is it?
Now, this is a fine conflict. But where's the task? There isn't any! It's the same exact conflict as above, worded a little differently, but the implicit task of battling has dissappeared!

The point: tasks (what the protagonist does) and conflicts (why he does it) exist in a narrative regardless of the mechanics. Conflicts are more natural currency for narrativist play, because premise occurs on the level of conflicts. Individual tasks are ultimately incidental to this. Every case of addressing premise is ultimately up to a given conflict, defined or not. If a task or a string of tasks can be defined to solve the conflict, then task resolution limps by.

So, in conclusion: conflict resolution is better suited for narrativism because conflicts are the subject matter therein. Of course task resolution can be applied judiciously, but the odds are that a good nar game will have some way of controlling and manipulating the conflict level as well. Task resolution is an unreliable tool for this, just as Ron says.

Well, yeah. The same game can, and probably does, have systems for both conflict and task resolution. Take Dust Devils: the best poker hand decides the conflict, but the highest card chooses the narrator, who then calls any tasks in the conflict. The game has both conflict and task resolution, they're just tied closely together.

Of course a narrative needs to know how the tasks go. It's just that generally any given task won't be nearly as important as the key conflicts. This is self-evident, because of what I said earlier: a task garners literary meaning only in relation to a premise it addresses, and by addressing premise it becomes a conflict. This is why many modern narrativist games relegate task resolution into a secondary role, where the narrator just decides on it. It has some value, but it's incidental. For most conflicts we don't really care about the task details.

And I still am not convinced it is something inherent to task resolution, rather than the way it is handled in most systems. If you condense conflicts into tasks critical for their resolution, then task resolution is handling the conflict level. I maintain that the amount of useful information for the resolution of your conflict is similar, no matter which way you handle it, the difference being when and which information it is.

Eero Tuovinen wrote:
Of course a narrative needs to know how the tasks go. It's just that generally any given task won't be nearly as important as the key conflicts. This is self-evident, because of what I said earlier: a task garners literary meaning only in relation to a premise it addresses, and by addressing premise it becomes a conflict. This is why many modern narrativist games relegate task resolution into a secondary role, where the narrator just decides on it. It has some value, but it's incidental. For most conflicts we don't really care about the task details.

Here's the point, again: what you have here is eminently possible, but what you've done is just ensuring that the task resolution becomes conflict resolution. By "condensing conflicts into tasks" you're just doing a trick wherein the task stands in for the conflict. This is conflict resolution, insofar that it's the conflict that's being resolved. It's incidental that there's a task in there as well.

On the other hand, there's a real danger of the conflict being handled in sub-optimal way then... the conflict could be resolved based on some completely incidental feature of the task, like surprise attack, say. Doesn't strike me as a powerful thematic statement: "Ha, my superpowers gained through child molestation are better than your yoga, because I got the drop on you!"

That's the weakness of task resolution nar-wise: the task will, by the virtue of being a task, include all manner of rules about proper task resolution. Like the typical combat game, with it's initiative, shield bonuses, combat speed, weapon selection and whatever else. Any and all of these can potentially carry premise, but they might also become hazards that clinch the task regardless of the premise-thing at hand.

Like, we play Riddle of Steel and it's my Love SA against your Revenge SA, powerful stuff. If one of us lacks the SA, the other will likely win. But it might also be that some nar-wise inconsequential tactical trick will win the task, and the conflict, for one of us. That's a whole different ball-game, and won't necessarily be a good thing. "Love triumphs against evil because it has better shield tricks?!?" Task resolution can be uncontrolled and meaningless conflict-wise.

But then you could as well call that system conflict resolution, because that's what it does. It's like claiming that anybody can play musical instruments, they don't need to be musicians to do it, they just have to practice, learn and care about music... but if they do, then they are musicians!

Hello,

I think you and I are going to have to agree-to-disagree, Oliver, or to put it better - if we understand one another's differing outlooks, then our discussions of things like actual play and so on will benefit, because we won't surprise each other with odd-appearing statements.

My point of view: multiple task resolutions do not inherently sum to conflict resolution.

Your point of view: they do.

My point of view: for such a sum to occur, the people at the table must make a cognitive shift at the "equals sign" step which constitutes conflict resolution.

Your point of view: they don't have to make such a shift.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything with this post. My only hope is that I've stated your position fairly and that you can state mine ... again, so that any discussions in Indie Design or wherever else can actually become constructive.

Best,
Ron

OK, Irmo, it seems that we disagree pretty severely. What's more, the communication doesn't seem to be working for some reason. I'll nitpick a couple of matters in case they'd help you get some perspective on my opinion, but any more than that would be just repeating my arguments. For clarification, I don't think that you really got my point, but that's certainly my shortcoming. As Ron says, we'll just have to agree to disagree for now.

Irmo wrote:
Not really. ANY way to use task resolution will eventually lead to resolution of conflicts in one way or the other. My point is that you do not need a series of them. However, this does MORE than simple binary conflict resolution, it gives you an idea about the "how".

A)Tunnel vision on combat is not a very good basis for argumentation, since conflicts can equally well involve fast-talking someone etc., for which most systems have one-roll resolution
B)There's one-roll combat resolution alternatives for many a system.

Rather than being completely arbitrary, your narration of the how now is centered on the task resolution result. Might not be appealing to some not to have full dramatic license, but it most certainly doesn't hinder narration. It gives it a framework.

Again, I disagree. Because resolving your conflict in this fashion will give you more information than standard conflict resolution and leaves less to your arbitrariness.

First, thanks for the excellent discussion. If I didn't understand the difference between TR and CR before, I sure do now. Wow.

Thing is that rather than reducing arbitrariness, it increases it, since not just one aspect of the consequences of the roll, but all but one are completely arbitrarily chosen. True, it's the one you care most about, but if that's the case, isn't leaving just that one to a die roll sort of a cop-out?

paulkdad wrote:
Please be patient with me while I throw out an example that contradicts this. It looks like task resolution, but it's really conflict resolution: Let's say that your PC just met up with an old foe who had humiliated him many times in the past. So there is the drive not just to defeat said foe, but to completely humiliate him. For the player's satisfaction, you just might use a blow-by-blow method of conflict resolution. Why? Because every bloody nose and every cracked rib is a piece of that conflict. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. In fact, it would be terribly unsatisfying to resolve something like this with one roll and one description, because humiliation is a cumulative effect.

But it would also be a mistake to simply call this "task resolution in disguise", because the conflict isn't the actual fight, it's the act of humiliating your foe. So, instead of rolling "to hit", you're rolling "to humiliate (or hurt)". And don't forget that conflicts are always two-sided: In this example, it's "Do I humiliate him or does he humiliate me--once again!?" In which case, every humiliation you endure brings you closer and closer to a disastrous outcome (thus increasing the stake in future conflicts).

The confusion arises because sometimes the question of "do I succeed?" can be seen from either point of view. In the above example, it might be a very fine line between hitting your opponent and hurting or humiliating him. In which case, it's kind of like the "is it a wave or a particle?" discussion. But I hope this example makes it clear that the number of rolls doesn't have anything to do with it.

Thanks for your patience.

Irmo wrote: In essence, it's boiling down conflict resolution to a single, make-or-break task, and resolving that task. While it gives you less interpretive scope, that also translates to less arbitrariness, and it gives you a clear idea as to where the problem was.

paulkdad wrote:
OK, arbitrariness. When you "boil down" the conflict into that one task, you're doing something equally arbitrary. Sure, you can state precisely where the character failed, but ultimately you're falling back on your distillation of the conflict. How is that process less arbitrary? Perhaps it gives the illusion of being "system-based" because the character might be using a particular skill against a set DC, but every decision that went into making that the "make or break" task was arbitrary. Even deciding how many rolls to use is an arbitrary decision, as Eero already pointed out.

If you're saying that you can attach a stake to a well-chosen task and narrate the results in a way that minimizes the whiff factor, and that by doing this you can use task resolution without sacrificing narrative flow, then aren't you just slapping a "task resolution" label on conflict resolution? Just because I paint a sculpture doesn't turn it into a painting.

I don't know Irmo. Seems to me you're playing pretty fast and loose with the definition of Task Resolution here.

Do you perhaps have some extreme notion of what conflict resolution is that you don't recognize that what you're doing above is pretty much text book Conflict Resolution.

The only difference is that you're trying to apply Conflict Resolution principles to a Task Resolution system and on the basis of "best efforts" illustrating how you can have some success with that. That's nothing more than how a dedicated CR guy if forced to DM D&D might draw upon his CR fu to force the D&D Task Resolution to deliver something as close to CR as he can get...more or less forcing a dog to quack like a duck.

If you're good at it you can get a reasonable approximation of a good quack. Or you can just use a system designed to be a duck from the beginning.

But that's NOT using Task Resolution the way it was designed. That's using it in a way it wasn't designed and isn't particularly adept at. i.e. a clear case of Drift.

Valamir wrote: I don't know Irmo. Seems to me you're playing pretty fast and loose with the definition of Task Resolution here.

Here are some useful threads:
Task vs. Conflict and Scene vs. Action?
But is it REALLY conflict resolution?

Best,
Ron

timfire wrote:

Valamir wrote: I don't know Irmo. Seems to me you're playing pretty fast and loose with the definition of Task Resolution here.

Yeah, I thought I would bring up Vincent's (lumpley) definition of Task/ Conflict Resolution.

Vincent argures that the difference between the two is a matter of what's at stake. In Conflict resolution, some goal of the player/character is at stake in the conflict. In Task resolution, the task itself is at stake. How you succeed is besides the point. If you use individual tasks to acheive a player/character goal, then you've just crossed over into Conflict resolution.

Hello,

John, do not use my definitions as clubs. That was a rather nasty flash of "graduate-itis." Yes, it was started up a few posts ago, but now's the time for it to stop.

I suggest that folks refer to my previous post about the presence or absence of a specific cognitive shift during play, when constructing conflict resolution out of a group of task resolutions.

Paul (paulkdad), Alan, and others have presented their articulations of their agreement with me, that such a shift does occur. Oliver (Irmo) and you, Johh, have presented your articulations of the other point of view.

There is no room to convince someone who holds one of these POVs to "convert" to the other simply by continuing to articulate them. Waving around the definitions in whatever formulation will not help. At best it's just more articulation; at worse it is a way to play the "you're wrongggg" game.

If one or more peole who share one POV understand the other, and vice other, then that's all that I can see for us to accomplish here.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote:
John, do not use my definitions as clubs. That was a rather nasty flash of "graduate-itis." Yes, it was started up a few posts ago, but now's the time for it to stop.

If one or more peole who share one POV understand the other, and vice other, then that's all that I can see for us to accomplish here.

timfire wrote:
Vincent argures that the difference between the two is a matter of what's at stake. In Conflict resolution, some goal of the player/character is at stake in the conflict. In Task resolution, the task itself is at stake. How you succeed is besides the point. If you use individual tasks to acheive a player/character goal, then you've just crossed over into Conflict resolution.

The only sensible definition that I can see is to check what result flows out of what: Do I resolve the task, and from that decide how the conflict, if any, has come out, or do I resolve the outcome of the conflict and from that decide how it came to be. It allows clear distinctions, and the definition has a clear and obvious connection to the term.

The only sensible definition that I can see is to check what result flows out of what: Do I resolve the task, and from that decide how the conflict, if any, has come out, or do I resolve the outcome of the conflict and from that decide how it came to be. It allows clear distinctions, and the definition has a clear and obvious connection to the term.

Daredevil wrote:

In Narrativism: Story Now, Ron Edwards wrote: I submit that trying to resolve conflicts by hoping that the accumulated successful tasks will turn out to be about what you want, is an unreliable and unsatisfying way to role-play when developing Narrativist protagonism.

I've been thinking about this and trying to understand the reasoning for this claim. Specifically, I'm wondering how does the "unreliable and unsatisfying way" manifest itself in play.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: tasks (what the protagonist does) and conflicts (why he does it) exist in a narrative regardless of the mechanics.

Chris,

With respect, you're thrashing around pretty far away from anything we're discussing in this thread. You might want to check out those threads I referenced above.

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote:
I'm not sure who you're argueing against Irmo, or where your sense of spongy definitions comes from. To my knowledge this is (in very condensed form and with all caveats due to simplifications) pretty much what everyone I know means when they talk about Conflict vs. Task resolution.

Where it gets muddy is when you start crossing over from one to another like you were doing in your examples of "keeping goals in mind when you select what tasks to roll".

The normal course for Task Resolution is to allow the current situation as it exists at this moment in time to detemine what Task Resolution is called for. It doesn't look ahead to see what the player's ultimate goal for his character is. If a character is sneaking into a persons room the GM will call for a sneaking Test <insert your game equivalent here>. It doesn't matter whether the player is sneaking into the room in order to leave a surprise gift and a rose in order to make the person feel happy, or if the player is sneaking into the room in order to leave a bomb in order to kill the other person. That ultimate goal is immaterial to the task at hand which is sneaking into the room and therefor requires a sneak roll.

Now if you as a GM start casting your eyes ahead..."keeping the conflict in mind" and use that to start picking and choosing which of several possible Task Resolutions to use and which not to...based on that sense of the overall conflict...then you are NOT using "Task Resolution" you are using text book Conflict Resolution sensibilities to try to adapt the Task Resolution system to better focus on resolving conflicts.

But that really depends on what you're actually doing when you say "keeping the conflict in mind". If you're still calling for the Sneak past the guard, pick the lock on the door, activate the bomb, and hide the bomb series of Task Rolls...then you aren't "keeping the conflict in mind" in a Conflict Resolution sense, and you aren't accomplishing the sorts of things that Conflict Resolution accomplishes from a Narrativist play perspective.

Because, after you've managed to get the planets aligned so that your A+B+C is firing on all cylinders...the vagaries of Task Resolution can simply derail one of those elements. It may "make sense" for that to have happened. It may have "followed logically" for that to have happened. One may be able to observe "sure that was a reasonable outcome"...BUT if it breaks the A+B+C relationship...you've just shot a hole in Nar Play. Vince gives several examples of this in the thread of how different outcomes wind up completely scuppering your ability to address premise.

Since whether or not to make a Task Resolution roll is decided based on current conditions as they exist right now...with total disregard for what impact success or failure might have on the A+B+C relationship...using Task Resolution makes Nar play difficult because you're constantly running into situations where a roll winds up making addressing the premise at that time impossible.

Now for Conflict Resolution...forget all the stuff about number of rolls or scale of the resolution. Conflict Resolution is NOT about boiling down and entire scene into a single roll. People are constantly being reminded not to confuse Conflict Resolution with Scene Resolution for just this reason.

Conflict resolution CAN be done on a scene level, but that's not a definitive trait. Vincent constantly recommends thinking smaller with Dogs in the Vineyard or Otherkind resolution. Scale does not Conflict Resolution make.

Can a given Task Resolution roll wind up preserving, transforming, or replacing as well? Sure. Not every Task Roll break Nar play by any means. But since Task Rolls are called for irregardless of their impact on A+B+C is it also possible that using Task Resolution might result in a situation where "fail this roll and A+B+C is broken". Of course. THAT'S why Task Resolution is seen as a hindrance.

So how does this tie in with the quote at the top?

The only sensible definition that I can see is to check what result flows out of what: Do I resolve the task, and from that decide how the conflict, if any, has come out, or do I resolve the outcome of the conflict and from that decide how it came to be. It allows clear distinctions, and the definition has a clear and obvious connection to the term.

Simple: If you resolve the Task and from that decide how the conflict has come out you very much may have broken the A+B+C relationship.

If you first define the conflict in a manner that you know going in can't break the A+B+C relationship no matter how it resolves...you can then resolve the conflict without fear of derailing Nar. Since resolving a conflicting situation requires that many intermediate actions got completed, you can then define those intermediate actions (i.e. "how it came to be") by any number of different methods. Which can be just as logical and causality based as Task Resolution and thus not violate any of those sensibilities.

Irmo, I could go line by line and respond to each of your points. If you REALLY want me to I will. But I'm not sure how fruitful that will be.

The claim on the table is not that Task Resolution is bad or that Task Resolution is inferior, or that Conflict Resolution is the greatest. The claim is that Task Resolution does not facilitate Narrativist play as well as Conflict Resolution does.

To understand why that is a true claim, you have to first understand the goals and priorities of Narrativist play. In reading your posts...i'm not convinced that you do. Would I be wrong? Do you consider yourself to be knowledgable enough about Nar play and what it looks like with actual play experience to be able to judge which sort of resolution supports addressing premise better...or are you primarily speculating based on what you've read from the essays?

Valamir wrote: Since whether or not to make a Task Resolution roll is decided based on current conditions as they exist right now...with total disregard for what impact success or failure might have on the A+B+C relationship...using Task Resolution makes Nar play difficult because you're constantly running into situations where a roll winds up making addressing the premise at that time impossible.

Valamir wrote: The normal course for Task Resolution is to allow the current situation as it exists at this moment in time to detemine what Task Resolution is called for. It doesn't look ahead to see what the player's ultimate goal for his character is. If a character is sneaking into a persons room the GM will call for a sneaking Test <insert your game equivalent here>. It doesn't matter whether the player is sneaking into the room in order to leave a surprise gift and a rose in order to make the person feel happy, or if the player is sneaking into the room in order to leave a bomb in order to kill the other person. That ultimate goal is immaterial to the task at hand which is sneaking into the room and therefor requires a sneak roll.

Now if you as a GM start casting your eyes ahead..."keeping the conflict in mind" and use that to start picking and choosing which of several possible Task Resolutions to use and which not to...based on that sense of the overall conflict...then you are NOT using "Task Resolution" you are using text book Conflict Resolution sensibilities to try to adapt the Task Resolution system to better focus on resolving conflicts.

I see the argument now. Let me summarize the main points:


• Task resolution, when done well, is not arbitrary.
• Conflict resolution, when done poorly, is arbitrary.


Fine. I'll go along with that. It's not much of a comparison, but I won't disagree with the conclusion. But the next point:


• It is possible to do task resolution while keeping the conflicts in mind, and this does not change the fact that it is task resolution.
• It is not possible to do conflict resolution while keeping the tasks in mind, because doing so would change it into task resolution.


Sorry. I'm not going along with that one. I stated the perceived double standard as clearly as possible, and I hope it makes sense.

Irmo wrote: What seems to me looking through the different threads is that there IS no clear meaning to them. The definitions have at all times been spongy and frayed at the fringes.

paulkdad wrote:


• It is possible to do task resolution while keeping the conflicts in mind, and this does not change the fact that it is task resolution.
• It is not possible to do conflict resolution while keeping the tasks in mind, because doing so would change it into task resolution.


Sorry. I'm not going along with that one. I stated the perceived double standard as clearly as possible, and I hope it makes sense.

So, if our understandings differ, we need to discard the entire concept? No.

I've read what you've said, and I thank you for the discussion. I've learned a lot about CR and TR by participating in it. But at this point all I see is an attempt to "rescue" task resolution, and personally I don't see it threatened in any way.

Hey, Irmo: I'm all for good fun, but you seem to be taking the discussion as an argument, and taking the argument very personally to boot. Consider:
1) it's possible that you are right and folks here have been deluded about task vs. conflict resolution. Wouldn't it be great if you could point it out? Why get mad about it? And how will getting all snarky help in convincing us of our errors?
2) this shouldn't be an argument to begin with, and in no case should you be trying to win it. I know, because I'm not arguing, I'm discussing. So arguing back is like hitting an unarmed man, and it's not virtuous at all. So lay back, will you?
3) getting mad over Ralph is like kicking Jehovah's Witnesses on the street. Satisfying, perhaps, but ultimately demonstrating a lack of perspective. Don't you have better things to do?

Irmo wrote:
If we can't come to a common understanding of a theoretical concept, then it has failed in its task. Because that's what they exist for.

Eero wrote: People who can come to agreement might still find an use for it.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: Hey, Irmo: I'm all for good fun, but you seem to be taking the discussion as an argument, and taking the argument very personally to boot. Consider:
1) it's possible that you are right and folks here have been deluded about task vs. conflict resolution. Wouldn't it be great if you could point it out? Why get mad about it? And how will getting all snarky help in convincing us of our errors?

2) this shouldn't be an argument to begin with, and in no case should you be trying to win it. I know, because I'm not arguing, I'm discussing. So arguing back is like hitting an unarmed man, and it's not virtuous at all. So lay back, will you?

Between us, that is. People who can come to agreement might still find an use for it.

Come back to it later with an essay, actual play report or a game design, perhaps. Marshal arguments that point out your position in a way that cannot be ignored. That's much more sensible than trying to argue the matter here, now. (As arguing isn't clearly convincing anybody.)

paulkdad wrote:

Eero wrote: People who can come to agreement might still find an use for it.

Well said. For my part, I view RPGs as an art form, not a science. And it certainly is true that definitions in the arts can look like "quasi-religious mumbo jumbo" compared to definitions in the sciences.

John Kim wrote:
If you want to talk about examples of where a particular result threatens to tear apart A+B+C, then I'd be interested -- because I have found it to be exceedingly rare in my games.

WhiteRat wrote: The premise I want to address is that this tension is self-destructive: it will destroy our Sept from the inside. To address this Premise, using Task Resolution, I secretly prepared a way to return from the dead -- and then I goaded my rival into attacking and killing me.

WhiteRat wrote: If I am discovered before the Sept is ready -- if I fail at task B -- then C is undermined. If the Sept has no time to reflect on my death, my return just looks like a cheap trick. If the pain of what they have become doesn't have time to set in to their bones, my attempt to address Premise fires a blank.

I suppose if the GM were sympathetic to my attempt to address my Premise, he might waive B entirely or interpret a failure in a nonthreatening way. But that doesn't change the fact that B exists only because we use task resolution, and B is also an unnecessary potential point of failure.

paulkdad wrote: So, if our understandings differ, we need to discard the entire concept? No. I've read what you've said, and I thank you for the discussion. I've learned a lot about CR and TR by participating in it. But at this point all I see is an attempt to "rescue" task resolution, and personally I don't see it threatened in any way.

Sorry guys, but I'm changing my mind here (to some degree). I'm also dumping the issue of "arbitrariness" because I think it is strictly a GNS concern* and is not central to the idea of using TR to address Narrativist Premise. Whiterat presented an excellent example, and while there is only so much that you can infer from anecdotal evidence, in my opinion it scores points for Irmo and John.

Whiterat wrote: The premise I want to address is that this tension is self-destructive: it will destroy our Sept from the inside. To address this Premise, using Task Resolution, I secretly prepared a way to return from the dead -- and then I goaded my rival into attacking and killing me ... To completely address the Premise, I will reveal myself as being alive after they've had time to think. I'll ask the Sept if this is really the kind of community they want to be.

Narrativist Premises vary regarding their origins: character-driven Premise vs. setting-driven Premise, for instance. They also vary a great deal in terms of unpredictable "shifts" of events during play. The key to Narrativist Premises is that they are moral or ethical questions that engage the players' interest. The "answer" to this Premise (Theme) is produced via play and the decisions of the participants, not by pre-planning.[my emphasis]

Paul you're confusing yourself. Whiterat's example while well intentioned is NOT in anyway an illustration of either narrativist play nor why Conflict Resolution is beneficial.

Conflict Resolution is not prefered because it generates a Linear Outcome. Far from it. Any sort of linear outcome is completely anti Nar and Conflict Resolution is specifically designed to not permit it by making "what's at stake" determined randomly.

Also don't allow yourself to be confused by the careless way certain posters have started using A+B+C as if that were a linear track. I linked to Vincent's Blog so that people could actually read it. A+B+C is simply a short hand notation for Issue + Character + Situation. Not Event #1, Event #2, Event #3.

This is what it boils down to:

Current State: A+B+C. Thematically charged situation.
Conflict Resolution: Conflict may be resolved 1 way, it may be resolved another way. No matter which way its resolved it either preserves, resolves, or leads to another Thematically charged situation. It does this because "what's at stake" was defined so that no matter which way the dice fall premise is addressed.


Contrast this to:



Current State: A+B+C. Thematically charged situation.
Task Resolution: No effort is made to make sure that the results of the resolution preserve, resolve, or lead to another Thematically charged situation. Task Resolution is concerned only with identifying a particular action at a point in time that is deemed difficult enough to not be automatic and require a task roll. The result of that roll MAY preserve, MAY resolve, or MAY lead to another Thematically charged situation. But, since the roll was not engineered with that purpose in mind, it also may not.

Task Resolution MAY wind up eliminating the Issue (A). e.g. the Issue is whether the captain will choose to return to port to save his wounded friend in violation of his orders or risk his friend's life while completeing his mission and pursuing the enemy ship. The friend is seriously wounded. The logic and causality of Task Resolution demand he make a "health check" or "saving throw" or whatever. The friend dies. No more issue. The captain now doesn't have any choice to make.

Task Resolution MAY wind up eliminating the Character (B). The issue is to confront ones brother about his evil ways and give him one more shot at redemption. In a fight with a guard the hero dies before ever approaching his brother or confronting him. No more character. The issue doesn't get resolved (yes he's redeemed, no he isn't) because it never even happens. The involved parties simply die before they find out.

Task Resolution MAY wind up eliminating the Situation (C). Returning to the Captains choice issue. The captain must choose between his friend and his mission and the situation is that the enemy ship is about to escape. The rules of the game call for a "sailing check" or the like whenever a ship is trying to escape. The GM abides by that rule and certainly by the logic of causality the situation warrants it. The enemy ship fails the check and suffers a mandated critical hit. It loses a mast, gets thrown in irons and is now helpless. Boom, no more thematically charged moment. The captain no longer has to choose between getting his friend to port or pursuing the enemy for an extended period during which his friend will almost certainly die. Because the Task Resolution system just rendered the enemy ship helpless. The captain can sink or capture that ship with minimal delay and still get his friend to port in time to save his life. The whole premise of pitting Friendship vs. Duty has just been shot to hell


Now from a SIM perspective...none of those outcomes are particularly bad. They are all logical, they are all reasonable, they don't in anyway violate the dream. If the potential thematic issue just shriveled up and blew away...so what...Sim play views thematic issues as a nice bonus when they happen but not the primary point of play.

From a Nar perspective those outcomes just crapped all over the entire purpose of why those players were sitting around the table playing that game at that time. It MAY not have happened like that. The friend may have survived his health saving throw thereby preserving the issue. The hero may have survived the guard and gone on to confront his brother. The enemy ship may have escaped again leaving the captain to choose between friendship or duty. But there's no guarentee of that. Using Task Resolution for Nar play leaves you perpetually in danger of having the wrong die roll at the wrong time dismantle the entire purpose of the game.

Conflict Resolution doesn't work like that In Conflict Resolution you set the stakes specifically to capture the key issue "What's at Stake is do I capture the enemy ship in time to save my friends life" If you manage to resolve that to the positive than you accomplished both yes...but you also addressed the premise. The captain chose Duty over Friendship.

If the stakes were resolved to the negative there are a couple of possible outcomes. Different CR systems will deal with them in a different way, some like PTA or Dust Devils will leave it entirely open to narration as to how the stakes were lost. Others like DitV will fill in the nature of the loss through the various raise and see steps.


I submit that this is probably the closest thing to a Nar litmus test you're going to find. If you can imagine yourself in one of the above examples, and not minding that the premise just got dismantled because the roll that was made was perfectly reasonable and appropriate and you'd have been more upset if the GM had skipped or fudged it...than you probably aren't playing Nar.

Does that make the critical difference between the two any clearer.

Paul: I for one am just a little bit frustated by this conversation, because it seems to me that my arguments are just not being considered in any way. Perhaps I'm just so stupid that I'm talking besides the point, but in that case I'd like it if somebody explained that to me. It does, however, seem to me that my take on the matter should be sufficient to answer the questions bandied here. At least, I don't garner any illumination from what others are writing.

In the interest of clarity, what about if I restate my points in simple and straightforward form, without any reasoning or trying to slot the issue into the discussion so far? I think I'll do that, perhaps it helps somewhat.

Eero talks about conflict vs. task resolution

So-called "conflict resolution" and "task resolution" are illusions, insofar as discrete game systems are concerned. There is no true conflict or task resolutions, or if there is, they are so vanishingly rare that it doesn't matter for our purposes. Instead, what systems do have is the quality of "resolving tasks" and the quality of "resolving conflicts". The thing is, all rpg systems have these qualities, and thus all rpgs have both "conflict" and "task resolution".

How is that possible? Remember, "system" for our purposes is the means we use to introduce stuff to the SIS. (Check those terms from the Glossary, if they're not familiar! You won't understand this otherwise!) Any method of resolving both tasks and conflicts is part of system. Now, do we all accept that in narrativist play, both conflicts and tasks exist? If they do, what happens to them? I mean, if there are conflicts and tasks, what needs to happen for play to go on? That's right, the tasks and conflicts have to get resolved. Play won't progress if both tasks and conflicts are not resolved. (Or rather, narrativist play won't. You could have play in which no conflicts are resolved, but that won't allow addressing Premise.)

Assuming that we have narrativist play, we can also assume that tasks and conflicts are both getting resolved. How does it then happen in practice? I direct you back to what I wrote earlier: there are three conceivable approachs a given game design could take to narrative conflict resolution.
1) having a conflict resolution system, but being rules-light about task resolution (Dust Devils, PTA, Fastlane, most modern formalistic nar games)
2) having a task resolution, ensuring that the tasks carry conflict significance (Sorcerer, TRoS)
3) having both task and conflict resolution side by side (Dogs in the Vineyard)

As you can see, there are various ways of doing this. However, before we talk more about them ways, I'll have to define 'conflict' and 'task' somehow, so you understand what I'm talking about:
Conflict: a decision-point in a narrative where the different ways the story could go carry thematic meaning. In nar terms, the conflict is a vector for a Premise, and resolving it answers the premise.
Task: events of a story, in general.

Now, many people seem to define these terms in different ways, so you might not agree with me. Significantly, they are definitions based on the narrative qualities of play, and not on system matters at all. I think that the above definitions are similar to those fine definitions in their narrow bands of consideration, and are furthermore the only logical (meaning, true) way to define the distinction in general. Neither conflict or task hold any meaning for rpg theory unless they're successfully differentiated and the meaning of conflict vis-a-vis narrativist play explained.

Understanding those definitions is crucial. Note that they hold for traditional narratives as well, if you wish to use them. The key property of those definitions is that while tasks happen because of SIS congruity ("realism", in other words), conflicts are caused by the artist (players) perceiving premise-weight in a task. That premise-weight is our problem, and the reason for the need to differentiate between task and conflict resolution: to create a good story (that is, to play satisfying narrativism), you need to be able to create and resolve those conflicts. A story is good if it has good conflicts, it's that simple. Conflict resolution rules, as they are called, allow us to introduce and resolve conflicts, and thus create a good story. Without conflict resolution rules there is no guarantee that conflicts even happen, much less that they get resolved.

Short sidetrack: I'm saying above that conflicts are just tasks with Premise-weight attached. This means that "winning the fight" or "impressing the lady" or whatever are always only tasks, and become conflicts only when they have that meaning. Like, "winning the fight to end the war" or "impressing the lady to love her and leave her" are conflicts. This is probably clear to you all, but I emphasize it anyway: the distinction between conflict and task is not about f***ing scale or stakes or anything at all, it's about story meaning only. Every task can potentially carry conflicts, and no task is always a conflict task. (Hmm... protagonist suicide is a conflict in almost all cases...)

Now, back to practice. As the keen mind should already understand, the above definitions mean that resolving tasks and conflicts are separate issues. They are not totally meaningless for each other, because conflicts are ultimately resolved (that is, brought to SIS) through narration of task resolution, but neither are they connected in any strong sense. A game could have a little bit of conflict resolution rules and a whole bunch of task resolution, or vice versa. It's a matter of degree, not of classifying games into two categories of method. This I will now prove through exactingly detailed examples:

Primetime Adventures

How does PTA resolve tasks and conflicts? First, most tasks are resolved through simple narration, the player just says how he wants the task to resolve. He can resolve success, or he can resolve failure. only when other players disagree is any more complex system used. Still, that also is a task resolution system, even when it's about as simple as could be.

PTA assumes that players will never disagree about a task unless success in the task predicates success in an accompanying conflict. In other words, characters always succeed in tasks, unless there's a conflict in there. The point about PTA task resolution is this: when a conflict is recognized, task and conflict resolutions are combined:
The task resolution part: before anybody knows what's going to happen, the players can opt to use edges, which represent task resources of the character. This corresponds with "choosing the appropriate skill" in traditional task resolution systems. The player chooses if he wants to use edges, and is responsible for only using them when he could conseive a task narration where the edge is used.
The conflict resolution part: all the rest of the PTA conflict prosedure concerns itself with the conflict: it's recognized, the stakes under conflict are defined, and so on. The conflict is resolved, the player with the most successes wins. The player with the highest die narrates, which becomes important soon.
The task resolution part second: task resolution proper happens only when the conflict winner is already chosen. What's more, the task resolution is handled through a method very common in formalistic nar games: the narrator chosen by the conflict resolution has free hand in deciding whether any given task in the situation succeeds. This is task resolution. Some games have only "GM decides" task resolution, and it's still task resolution. It's task resolution in PTA, too, even when the main attention is turned to the conflict winner.

PTA has a Drama-based task resolution system, insofar as a given narrator decided any task based on it's merits. On the other hand, the conflict resolution system is Fortune-based. The two are affected by each other, if in no other way then in the fact that tasks in conflicts are resolved in a little different way than tasks outside of conflicts (different narrator). Point: PTA has relatively lots of rules for conflict resolution, and few rules for task resolution. Regardless, both get resolved.

Sorcerer

(Let me note that IMO Sorcerer is extremely complicated and unique among narrativist games, so I'll probably hash this analysis.)

In Sorcerer task resolution is paramount mechanically. Everything you'll ever resolve in Sorcerer is tasks. (Humanity rolls are uncertain about this, due to different interpretations of what the rolls mean.) Look at what you're doing in that game: it's very much about whether the character succeeds in a given task or not, and about the tools he uses (Stamina vs. Cover, for instance). How are conflicts resolved, then?

Sorcerer has a play structure and emphasis on situation that tends to create conflicts. For example, the demon relationships are full of conflicts, and the GM is instructed to create more conflicts (each Bang is a conflict by the above definition). This makes it extremely likely that the task resolutions also resolve conflicts. What's more, the GM is instructed to encourage conflict resolution through not preplanning adventures and driving play towards tasks with significant stakes. Functional Sorcerer play very much interprets these GM responsibilities as rules to follow, because otherwise the rules are comparatively easy to bend towards other priorities from nar (as has been proven by Sorcerer's fame as a difficult game to play correctly).

So Sorcerer is a nar-faciliating game due to the way it invests task resolution with conflict resolution. The system does double duty in this regard. The very same task resolution system is used whether there's a conflict there or not (temporary bonuses might differ in practice, though). Point: Sorcerer has lots of rules for task resolution, and little rules for conflict resolution. Specifically, it's conflit resolution rules are the kind that people are not used to following (disguised as GM advice). So you could say that Sorcerer uses task resolution. Still conflicts get resolved.

Dogs in the Vineyard

(I already wrote about Dogs, but because it's the only example of concurrent task and conflict resolution I can think of, I'll include it again. Probably there are lots of these, starting with friggin' Amber or something, but I can't care enough to think about it right now.)

In DiV there are two different ways of resolving tasks:
1) any character task succeeds, unless another player wants to contest the success. This is the rule called "Say yes or roll the dice".
2) If a task is contested, a conflict is tructured out of it. Like in PTA, it's assumed that nobody wants to contest unless there's a conflict. During conflict, a player may narrate any task success for his character, assuming that
a) he raises during it, or reverses/blocks/takes the blow, and the task is compatible with the requirements of the rules action in question.
b) the other player won't reverse or block, if it was a raise.

As you can see, the second task resolution method is rather more intricate. What's more, during conflict those same actions that are used to resolve task resolution are used to resolve the conflict itself. The two systems are separate, but connected, and used concurrently. What's more, there are multiple levels of task and conflict resolution going in a very intricate manner. For example, damage: tasks may cause damage, the amount depending on narration, but damage may also hold conflict meaning, even for a conflict completely disassociated with this one. It's frequently difficult to really distinguish between task and conflict resolution in DiV, but ultimately the two are different, and the connections are all crafted by the designer, not grown in any natural manner.

--

Before returning to theory, let's also check out traditional solutions. This is important, because the above games (even Sorcerer) strive to resolve conflicts in above-the-board manner, with the players negotiating with some degree of No Myth thinking. However, there are radically different methods of conflict resolution in traditional games, games that are typically called "task resolution systems".

Firsty, one typical way of conflict resolution is to try to disarm conflict beforehand. (To understand this, it's imperative that you remember what conflict we're talking about here.) D&D does this to a great degree: the prime directive for the GM is to build a functionally cooperating party and to encourage out-of-game negotiation of any disagreements about story stuff (will we sell out to the evil overlord, for instance). This is intentional disarming of conflict.

Another important point is controlling player ability to initiate conflict. This is done on the social level pretty frequently (meaning, the GM decides what adventure comes next), but games have rules for it, too... at least they should... criminy, it seems I can't think of any examples. Wonder why is that? Anyway, the main way of controlling ability to initiate conflict is the ability to control scene framing and adventure choice. Pretty impossible to make a bid for the overlordship of the city when the adventure of the day concerns looting orc caves.

If conflict happens, and it does because some games want it, a typical approach is for the GM to resolve the conflicts through illusionistic technique. WW games are like this, pretty much. (A pre-resolved conflict, by the by, means preresolved premise, and thus theme. That's why these games can be characterized as theme-focused sim, in case you didn't know.) Such "illusionistic techniques" mean mainly control of task initiation (I demonstrated this earlier in the thread) in it's different forms, really. Stake definition plays a part, too. All of these games leave defining stakes for the GM, and he is instructed to do it only after he knows the results, which pretty much means that the conflicts always go the GM's way.

The point of the above paragraphs is to note that these games have conflict resolution rules, too. They're just pretty undefined, and predicated on the role of the GM. This is natural for a game that doesn't strive to give players conflict control. The only point here was to drive home the idea that all games have conflict resolution systems, in one way or another.

--

At this point, let's go back to the theoretical question. We have demonstrated that separating rpg systems into conflict and task resolution classes is a faulty and inexact practice. On the other hand, it should also be clear that tasks and conflicts can be usefully differentiated, and furthermore that the two use very independent means of resolution. These are prime points of understanding in themselves, and should help in laying this thread to rest.

However, more angles: even if we agree that there's no point in talking about solely task or conflict resolving systems, it's still true that we can talk about system leaning in this regard. We could say that a system uses "conflict resolution" if the central means of resolving conflicts is mechanical (or even if such a mechanical option was available to the players). We could say that a system uses "task resolution" otherwise. That's fine with me, I can live with that.

But when we have cleared up what a conflict resolution system actually is, the original question of the thread remains: why, exactly, conflict resolution supports narrativism? Keen minds have already deduced the answer, but let's lay it out anyway:

To faciliate addressing Premise (the definition of a narrativist game), the game has to make sure that
1) conflicts (premise-answering points of narrative) are formed and
2) conflicts are resolved.
This is because of how Premise is defined: if you read Ron's essay about it, you'll note that Premise itself is defined as a question that hypothetically comes to being on some symbolical level when fictional situations are considered. (I'll assume here that nobody doubts the existence of Premise and narrativism itself, so we get somewhere today.) To be exact, Premise is the question that is being answered by the events of the narrative. Now, to have the answer, you need degrees of freedom in the narrative. There has to be points of the story where it could go the other way, because any other kind of point isn't an answer to the Premise. Point: this is how we defined conflict to begin with. Conflict resolution is addressing Premise, and addressing Premise is conflict resolution, because conflicts are simply points at which Premise is addressed. Not necessarily the same Premise all the time, but still some Premise.

Now, in the view of the above, it's quite reasonable to claim that I'm full of shit about addressing Premise, because actually Premise is frequently addressed outside conflict resolution. Most examples of addressing Premise come from outside conflict resolution situations, when you think about it. "Will I kill him?" is a typical Premise-situation you could expect to see, and in almost any system there won't be conflict resolution here. What gives?

The answer to the conundrum is that actually, conflict is being resolved. The great majority of rpg conflicts are internal, and the great majority of rpg rules systems resolve those conflicts through free player choice (MLwM is a strong exception). Only external conflicts are usually resolved mechanically. However, this doesn't affect the nature of the conflict, or nature of Premise-answering. It just illustrates what we already know, that rpgs are a different type of narrative art from the classical type. Internal and external conflicts are different, and are dealt differently, because of notions designers have about Character. It might be that rewarding roleplaying in the main requires player autonomy over character, but that's not our topic today.

OK, now we have our answer: reliable conflict resolution is necessary for narrativist play because narrativist play is conflict resolution. Anything that diminishes the reliability of conflict resolution in a game is anti-nar.

The Point

My point to all of you: "Task resolution can be just as good for narrativism as conflict resolution" is IMO not even a sensible claim, considering what those terms mean. What you can demonstrate is that task resolution can be used to resolve conflicts. This only means that your system has a conflict resolution that uses task resolution as a method. Sorcerer does it, it's nothing weird or unexpected. Whether such a system is better than another kind of conflict resolution (like, say, PTA) is a complex design question, and not about theory at all: it depends on what your specific goals are in the design, and the specific forms of task and conflict resolution you're considering.

There's little I have to add to Ralph's and Eero's impressive analyses, except for the following:

Look carefully at PtA as an example of conflict resolution. Even if you resolve a task with the rolls, the rolls are not based on the difficulty of the task, the circumstances, or any other causal relations--the rolls are based mainly on screen presence (importance of the character for the current episode) and fan mail (feedback mechanism from other players). With screen presence ranging from 1-3, the edge, which might be coinsidered a skill as Eero wrote, might only have as little as 25% influence; add fan mail dice, and the skill relevance diminishes significantly.

Compare and contrast this with regular task resolution games. In D&D, the rolls are based on skill and difficulty mechanisms that model something. They are not influenced by how important the character is, how much interest the player has in that conflict, the feedback other players give, or the character's stake (contrary to TRoS' spiritual attributes).

So, while Eero is right that all games somehow address tasks and conflicts, there is a fundamental difference that I see between the basic design approach to task or conflict resolution regarding the facilitation of Nar play, which is what we're talking about, after all.

Mechanics that model a resolution system on causality/realism or challenge/play balance support Nar play less than those that model it on player and character involvement. The first two are usually focused on resolving tasks. The latter is usually focused on resolving conflicts. Not a 100% corelation (see Eero's points on Sorcerer), but close.

(edited for typo correction)

paulkdad wrote: While I wouldn't want to create a commandment (Thou Shalt Not Pre-Plan!), this excerpt would suggest that Nar Premise does not demand a predetermined outcome.

Valamir wrote: Task Resolution MAY wind up eliminating the Situation (C). Returning to the Captains choice issue. The captain must choose between his friend and his mission and the situation is that the enemy ship is about to escape. The rules of the game call for a "sailing check" or the like whenever a ship is trying to escape. The GM abides by that rule and certainly by the logic of causality the situation warrants it. The enemy ship fails the check and suffers a mandated critical hit. It loses a mast, gets thrown in irons and is now helpless. Boom, no more thematically charged moment. The captain no longer has to choose between getting his friend to port or pursuing the enemy for an extended period during which his friend will almost certainly die.

Valamir wrote: Task Resolution MAY wind up eliminating the Character (B). The issue is to confront ones brother about his evil ways and give him one more shot at redemption. In a fight with a guard the hero dies before ever approaching his brother or confronting him. No more character. The issue doesn't get resolved (yes he's redeemed, no he isn't) because it never even happens. The involved parties simply die before they find out.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: Paul: I for one am just a little bit frustated by this conversation, because it seems to me that my arguments are just not being considered in any way.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: My point to all of you: "Task resolution can be just as good for narrativism as conflict resolution" is IMO not even a sensible claim, considering what those terms mean. What you can demonstrate is that task resolution can be used to resolve conflicts. This only means that your system has a conflict resolution that uses task resolution as a method. Sorcerer does it, it's nothing weird or unexpected. Whether such a system is better than another kind of conflict resolution (like, say, PTA) is a complex design question, and not about theory at all: it depends on what your specific goals are in the design, and the specific forms of task and conflict resolution you're considering.

xenopulse wrote: So, while Eero is right that all games somehow address tasks and conflicts, there is a fundamental difference that I see between the basic design approach to task or conflict resolution regarding the facilitation of Nar play, which is what we're talking about, after all.

Mechanics that model a resolution system on causality/realism or challenge/play balance support Nar play less than those that model it on player and character involvement. The first two are usually focused on resolving tasks. The latter is usually focused on resolving conflicts. Not a 100% corelation (see Eero's points on Sorcerer), but close.

John Kim wrote: Eero, as I see it, the problem is that you've introduced yet another set of definitions into an increasingly crowded field. Also, I'm not sure how I should take your arguments, since I can't tell what you're arguing for. As far as I can see, you've punted on the conclusion which most people are arguing. You state that the choice for Narrativist games -- i.e. between (1) resolving-conflict-through-task and (2) resolving-conflict-through-conflict -- is a complex question that you don't address.

That does it. I am absolutely disgusted by the incredible lack of consideration and the post-stuffing going on here.

It has nothing to do with disagreements and who's right or wrong. It has everything to do with showing another person that you have read and understood what he has posted. That's fundamental to this forum. It's explicit in the sticky.

There is no merit to trying to win arguments in this forum. It's not a place for that.

At the very least, threads like this one keep me from answering honest and interesting inquires like poor Dan's, who's been patiently waiting for weeks.

This thread is closed.

[EDIT] Sorry, Ron, I cross-posted with you here.