Hi.

Boy, there are a lot of threads about Task Resolution vs. Conflict resolution. Gee whiz.

I think a lot of these are stumbling over the meanings of the terms, because they are really poorly named terms. I'd like to take a chance to review what they actually mean. I'm not saying anything new here.

Conflict Resolution is any resolution where the results of the roll have a meaningful impact on the situation at hand. If you are assured that the resolution has a meaning in terms of the game, at all, then that is conflict resolution.

Task Resolution is any resolution where the results of the roll can have meaning or not, at the discretion of one or more of the players, often the GM.

That's it. That's the whole difference.

Are we all on the same page about this?

yrs--
--Ben

Uhm summary:

When we are talking about Task versus Conflict resolution, we are talking about "Resolution which does not have meaningful stakes" versus" "Resolution with does." If everyone talking about using Task resolution for anything would go back and replace it with "Resolution without meaningful stakes" in their head, it might make things simpler.

yrs--
--Ben

Where do you fit systems with reroll mechanisms?

For example, Verge has an initial roll (dice pool vs. dice pool) then a series of rerolls purchased with character trait resources (burn a box of a trait to reroll some of the dice). Generally, both the players and the GM are rerolling, but the conflict isn't considered resolved till the last set of rerolls. The player gets to decide when to stop spending-and-rerolling.

In my mind, this is still a conflict resolution system. But in the examples of play I wrote today, I found myself doing a bit of task resolution between rerolls. It's as if the conflict was then subdivided into tasks.

The neat thing is that narration occurred along the way, but because the conflict wasn't resolved, you couldn't narrate the conclusion (what's at stake). You could dance around it, but that's about it.

Umm, Ben, while I certainly understand what you're trying to say, I doubt people who don't already understand the distinction would. "Meaning" is also real squishy word, and can be twisted to mean several things. It also implies (whether you meant it or not) that Task resolution is somehow inferior to Conflict resolution.

Task Resolution is when the dice (or whatever) decide the success of an action, independant of of a meta-game goal.

Conflict Resolution is when the dice decide whether a character/player's interest is realized, most often in contrast with another character/player's opposing interest.

I'm not really sure that's a very useful general description Ben.

I mean *I* know what you mean...but every old school GM in the world knows not to roll the dice for crossing the street or eating without choking. So in their mind they're already only rolling dice if there's "meaningful stakes"

Its the fact that they're having difficulty conceptualizing even framing a situation in terms of "what's at stake" that's at the root of those threads.


The difference as I see it is this:

Conflict Resolution: "What's at Stake? Ok, lets roll for THAT."

Task Resolution: "What's at Stake? What action do I have to take to achieve that? Ok, lets roll for THAT."

I like Ralph's construction. I'd only add that under Task resolution, the "What's at Stake" portion can sometimes be UNSTATED - that is, we are expected to infer the Stake from the task, rather than actually state the Stake.

Gordon

It might be useful, in order to keep from equating Conflict Resolution with Scene Resolution, to keep in mind that the "Let's roll that" does not necessarily have to be just one roll. It is in Primetime Adventures; in Dogs in the Vineyard, it is one roll initially, though with the possibility of adding more (Escalation); and finally, in HeroQuest extended contests, you most likely roll several times with different descriptions of what you're doing, but all the rolls are directly tied to the resolution of the conflict.

Ben Lehman wrote: Conflict Resolution is any resolution where the results of the roll have a meaningful impact on the situation at hand. If you are assured that the resolution has a meaning in terms of the game, at all, then that is conflict resolution.

Task Resolution is any resolution where the results of the roll can have meaning or not, at the discretion of one or more of the players, often the GM.

Valamir wrote: Conflict Resolution: "What's at Stake? Ok, lets roll for THAT."

Task Resolution: "What's at Stake? What action do I have to take to achieve that? Ok, lets roll for THAT."

Adam -- do the mechanics of the game resolve a conflict? If so -- conflict resolution! That you happen to have done some tasks on the way to conflict resolution doesn't really matter for classification purposes. Check out Dogs or Sorcerer.

Everyone else -- I think that the problem here is that you are trying to frame Task Resolution as a thing that you might actually want to do in your play at some point. This isn't GNS. Task resolution isn't necessarily a equal or useful method to approach a game with. For instance, Ralph:

What's at Stake? What action do I have to take to achieve that? Ok, lets roll for THAT.

John, you're making this far more complicated than it needs to be. There are a zillion different ways to do Conflict Resolution just as there are a zillion different ways to do Task Resolution. Some might have you declare actions before, some after, some during, some all three, some never. There is no such thing as *A* Conflict Resolution system.

Examples may well not help you because what's true in one example isn't going to be true in another because each one works differently. Its the mindset that distinguishes one from another.

Read what you quoted of mine again (with Gordon's addendum in mind) and try to actually conceptualize what it means. Imagine yourself as a player in a scene. Your character has a goal in that scene. Now imagine yourself making some rolls. Are you rolling to see whether your character achieves their goal DIRECTLY? Or are you rolling to see if the character succeeds at a task that you hope will get you closer to your goal?

Lets take a simple exercise. Your character wants to get to the top of a cliff. That's his goal. Ok Goal: get to the top of this cliff. Getting to the top of a cliff is not a Conflict. If you stop there and say "ok, make a climbing check" you aren't doing Conflict resolution.

So take it to the next step, why does he need to climb THIS cliff right NOW? Whatever that reason is, is the source of the conflict...the cliff isn't the conflict. The cliff is just a manifestation of difficult. It could be a cliff, it could be a raging river, it could be a canyon, it could be a wall, it could be an impenetrable forest, it could be a waterless wasteland....who cares. It is only important because it stands between your character and something that's important to your character. THAT'S the conflict.

Ok, now that you have the source of the conflict, take it to the final step. What are the consequences of failure? What is the reward for success? Identify those and you you've now got the Stakes of the conflict. If the only thing you can come up with is "what's at stake is does he make it to the top of the cliff or not" then you're still thinking in terms of Task Resolution.


We'll try a couple of examples.

1) Character's world has turned upside down and he's depressed. As an avid rock climber he's gone to a cliff he's never been able to climb before to prove to himself he's not a loser. The conflict is not with the cliff, the conflict is with himself. What's at stake is "if he makes to the top his self worth will be restored. If he fails his confidence will be shattered". Framed this way one can see all kinds of relavant modifiers that have nothing to do with the angle of the slope, whether or not the rocks are wet, or the quality of his climbing gear. The difficulty of the roll has little to do with the difficulty of the cliff and his ability as a rock climber is almost an after thought. This is pure man against self...there is no question that if he can master himself he'll master the cliff. That's the conflict. That's what the roll should be about.

2) Character needs to warn a village of an impending attack, the enemy has a head start but there's a short cut if only the character can scale the cliffs. What's the source of conflict. The ENEMY is the source of conflict. If it wasn't for the enemy the character wouldn't need to climb the cliff...the enemy is why he needs to climb THIS cliff right NOW. So the conflict isn't whether or not the character can climb the cliff. The conflict is whether or not the character can warn the village. The cliff is just a source of difficulty. So what's at stake is whether the villagers have enough time to flee or are massacred by the enemy because the character arrives to late (or whatever). This is a roll pitting the characters climbing ability vs what? The difficulty of the cliff. Hell no. Lame. Its against the enemy Leader of course. That's where the conflict is. So what should the enemy leader roll...riding maybe? Or Command to keep his troops in line and moving forward...whatever seems appropriate. Its not a question of who wins, the character or the cliff. The cliff is just scenery. Its a question of who wins, the character or the enemy leader. Modifiers that the character could call upon might include a hatred of the enemy, a love for someone in the village, a vow to protect the innocent. You mean to say that "Vow to protect the innocent" might give me a bonus on my climbing check? Hell yes, why? Because once you frame the situation as a conflict and realize what's really at stake it becomes obvious what the driving factors of the scene really are.


Do you see how that is WAY WAY different from "you need to make a climbing check, its -20 for the slippery rocks and +10 for the rope" and then if you get to the top you can continue on with whatever you were doing and if not you'll have to go around?

I don't think I can possibly explain it any clearer than that.

Valamir wrote: So take it to the next step, why does he need to climb THIS cliff right NOW? Whatever that reason is, is the source of the conflict...the cliff isn't the conflict. The cliff is just a manifestation of difficult. It could be a cliff, it could be a raging river, it could be a canyon, it could be a wall, it could be an impenetrable forest, it could be a waterless wasteland....who cares. It is only important because it stands between your character and something that's important to your character. THAT'S the conflict.

Valamir wrote: Do you see how that is WAY WAY different from "you need to make a climbing check, its -20 for the slippery rocks and +10 for the rope" and then if you get to the top you can continue on with whatever you were doing and if not you'll have to go around?

Uh, yeah, Ralph? Let's get terminology straight here.

My definition of conflict resolution is pretty much straight from anyway. Namely

Conflict Resolution versus Task Resolution
Practical Conflict Resolution Advice
Description, Prescription (in the comments)
Conflict Resolution in D&D

And a couple of other threads that I can't dig up (Vincent, if you're reading this, you've lost a bunch of comments in your archives! Is there any way to get those back?)

I think you and John are both looking way too much at what goes into a deciding resolution event, which is fine and an interesting thing to look at, but has zip to do with stakes resolution verus non stakes resolution.

Let me pull out an old, hoary example:

I want to get dirt on the supervillain. I pick his safe.

If we resolve "do you get dirt on the supervillain?" straightaway, it's resolution w/ meaningful stakes. aka conflict resolution

If we resolve "do you pick the safe" and that has nothing to do with whether or not I get dirt on the supervillain at all (there could be dirt in the safe or not), that's resolution w/o meaningful stakes. aka task resolution.

If we resolve "do you pick the safe" and it is understood that this resolution has to do with me getting dirt on the supervillain, then it is resolution w/ meaningful stakes, based on our understanding. aka conflict resolution.

Whether or not I get a "hate the supervillain" bonus to the roll, or whether it is based purely on "investigation" or "lock-picking" or whether we just flip a coin is totally beside the point.

yrs--
--Ben

Ben, I think you're (to put it bluntly) mistaking your interpretation of Task Resolution and its usefulness for the general one. Task Resolution is probably not real useful in any game you like to play, but it is for some other people, especially in Sim-heavy games, where it reinforces the validity of the the world and how it behaves to have Task Resolution succeed but Conflict Resolution fail, etc.

The reason I say this is because in that case, the Task Resolution ('Do I open the safe?') may be meaningful to the players by virtue of being an accurate representation of what's going on, and demonstrating certain things about their characters.

OK, so if this is a Vocab-check thread, we should probably put what's currently in the Forge Glossary on the table. Here's what's there right now:

Task resolution
A Technique in which the Resolution mechanisms of play focus on within-game cause, in linear in-game time, in terms of whether the acting character is competent to perform a task. Contrast with Conflict resolution.

Conflict resolution
A Technique in which the mechanisms of play focus on conflicts of interest, rather than on the component tasks within that conflict. When using this Technique, inanimate objects are conceived to have "interests" at odds with the character, if necessary. Contrast with Task resolution.

It's not a friendly start to this responce, but the word 'meaningful' is a point of debate itself, rather than a concrete fact from which to have further debates.

How about the following instead:
Conflict: Statistically significant resource expenditure
Task: Statisically minor resource expenditure

For example, if you have 100 HP and a certain mechanic might have you use up 80 HP, that's a significant resource on the line.

If instead the mechanic puts only 2 HP on the line, it's a task.


This of course purely uses the mechanical level to evaluate task and conflict, rather than any exploration level. This may seem a little rough to some.
"Well, what about if I have a character who can kill two hundred soldiers while only risking 2 HP on one roll!? C'mon! Two hundred soldiers in one roll! That HAS to be conflict resolution!"

I flatly disagree. If you design a game where PC's have 100 HP, but risk only 2 HP to kill 200 soldiers, then this game isn't about killing 200 soldiers. It's about killing about 10,000 soldiers...why else would you give PC's 100 HP? To be used, of course! And to kill 10,000 your going to have to use this mechanic around 50 times. Having to use it so often makes it task resolution, not conflict resolution. The mechanic has to be used so often, each use is resolving very little.

Take whatever number is statistically significant in your game (you know, if you run out of it you loose or you suffer negative social feedback or whatever). If a mechanic has to be used over and over again before this number is really effected, its task resolution.

I guess an exception might be where the designer gives each PC 100 HP, but designs play so they are supposed to just piddle about with 2 HP stakes. Then the designer might consider those as conflict resolutions. But who cares what the designer thinks, when the end user see's 100 HP and tries to go to town using the resource given, only inching along toward any resolution there.

I think a lot of you guys are all mixed up. See my comments about eggs in Using Task Reso to get Conflict Reso.

Ben, I dunno where you got this "meaningful" jazz; it seems like a drastic case of synecdoche to me. Jay recently told me he wanted to work against a general dismissive tone against Sim at the Forge, and I told him he was being too defensive. Please don't prove me wrong.

Don't forget that Vincent (who you are using as your model, apparently) can get away with calling Sim "stupid play" at Anyway, because it's his blog about his aesthetic standards. The Forge doesn't allow for that kind of judgmental focus.

Best,
Ron

OK, that helps, I think. I'll note that this is quite different from what Ben is talking about. Just to clarify -- Ben explicitly says that D&D combat is Conflict Resolution by his definition. It seems to me that from your description, D&D combat is not Conflict Resolution. (Could you confirm that, by the way?)

The key distinction that I see is that in your description, resolution depends on the stated reason why the character is doing the action. So depending on how I answer why my character is climbing the cliff, the results will vary. So, for example, suppose my PC is a callous showoff. He doesn't care about the villagers, but another PC bets him that he can't make it to the village before the enemy horsemen. Now the conflict might be against the other PC, to try to win the bet. Right?

Also, this may be yet another topic, but you interpret conflict with importance. i.e. The cliff is irrelevant, but the enemy leader is important. That seems like a stylistic choice to me. To my mind, the enemy is often a MacGuffin (to steal a term from Hitchcock) -- i.e. a vital goal to the character but relatively unimportant to the nature of the work. As I look at this, though, this should really go into another thread.

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: I'll note that this is quite different from what Ben is talking about. Just to clarify -- Ben explicitly says that D&D combat is Conflict Resolution by his definition. It seems to me that from your description, D&D combat is not Conflict Resolution. (Could you confirm that, by the way?)

Honestly, I'm not really sure what Ben is talking about. The thread may be labeled "Vocab" as a desire to nail down some definitional statements, but I consider this thread to be far more about musings and exporing possibilities. Because, really, Ben's so far out in the weeds I'm having trouble even seeing him.

I'm not sure what he means by suggesting D&D combat is conflict resolution. Perhaps he's refering to some nostalgic rememberance of little white book past. It certainly doesn't match any D&D experience I've every had.

Valamir wrote: What Ben is trying to do (it seems to me) is lay claim to any and all resolution entities and label them Conflict Resolution when they address meaningful outcomes and label them "Task Resolution" with the definition of "rolls that aren't about anything meaningful". A sentiment I couldn't disagree with more and one I don't think is supported by the majority of Conflict vs. Task discussions out there.

Valamir wrote: With all due respect to Ben, I think this line of reasoning is just seriously muddying up what is actually a very straight forward concept. Conflict vs. Task Resolution is all about how you frame what is actually being determined by a given resolution. You're either resolving individual tasks and then building them up into resolving the conflict. Or your resolving the conflict and then filling in the details of the tasks. Its really that simple.

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: The key distinction that I see is that in your description, resolution depends on the stated reason why the character is doing the action. So depending on how I answer why my character is climbing the cliff, the results will vary. So, for example, suppose my PC is a callous showoff. He doesn't care about the villagers, but another PC bets him that he can't make it to the village before the enemy horsemen. Now the conflict might be against the other PC, to try to win the bet. Right?

Absolutely. Or any of a number of other similiar permutations.

On my blog, for what it's worth, I've held that D&D combat is conflict resolution when and only when the reason you're fighting is to kill your opponent. Otherwise, it's task resolution with some irrelevant bookkeeping about hit points attached.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: On my blog, for what it's worth, I've held that D&D combat is conflict resolution when and only when the reason you're fighting is to kill your opponent. Otherwise, it's task resolution with some irrelevant bookkeeping about hit points attached.

-Vincent

Oh, man, that helps me realize once again what I understand the difference between Conflict and Task resolution to be:

Conflict Resolution is the means by which players assent to stakes. It's the Lumpley Principle in action. Conflict resolution is an agreement among players -- "We all agree. If X happens, then Y results. Got it everyone?"

Whereas Task Resolution simply says "X happens." It does not tie result Y to X. Sure, Y may happen a lot in play, but it's because a player (the GM, typically) can say, "Well, Z happens, regardless." And, doing so ain't busting the rules, as written or agreed upon by the group.

Historically, RPG texts have not been clear on this (or, indeed, clear that it's *not* up to the group, but to the GM).

In my memory and understanding, too few texts state, "If X happens, Y results, even if the GM and his blessed story don't like it, so there!"

We're seeing this kind of language creep into texts. YAY!

(And, yes, this is my long-winded restating of Vincent's definition of Conflict Resolution, in which he emphasizes GM fiat as the defining feature of Task Resolution.)

John I think we're getting largely on the same page, but I'll make a couple of additional comments.

John Kim wrote:

Valamir wrote:
Conflict vs. Task Resolution is all about how you frame what is actually being determined by a given resolution. You're either resolving individual tasks and then building them up into resolving the conflict. Or your resolving the conflict and then filling in the details of the tasks. Its really that simple.

Dude. This is circular -- i.e. "Conflict Resolution is resolving conflicts". You're just shifting out the definition to your own internalized vision of what "conflict" is and what "task" is. But it doesn't define them usefully to someone who doesn't already know what you're talking about.

I also think that your conception of this depends on a fairly arbitrary matter of level of conflict. Let's take your example of a character trying to climb a cliff to get to a village to warn them about the incoming enemy. You interpreted this as rolling against the enemy leader's Ride score. But that's also just a step in the overall conflict of defending his people, right? He could warn the village, but it could be that the village is destroyed despite his warning. So we could alternately roll against the higher level conflict of protecting the village. But even if that village is safe, the enemy might destroy a neighboring village instead. So we could alternately roll against the general protection of the country. etc.

John Kim wrote:

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote:
The key distinction that I see is that in your description, resolution depends on the stated reason why the character is doing the action. So depending on how I answer why my character is climbing the cliff, the results will vary. So, for example, suppose my PC is a callous showoff. He doesn't care about the villagers, but another PC bets him that he can't make it to the village before the enemy horsemen. Now the conflict might be against the other PC, to try to win the bet. Right?

Absolutely. Or any of a number of other similiar permutations.

OK, I'd like to suggest that this is a pretty good definition -- that Conflict Definition makes the chances and/or results depend on the motivation why a character is doing an action; while Task Resolution only depends on what actions are performed.

This eliminates the issue of scale -- which several people (including Ron) have suggested is irrelevant. So Conflict Resolution isn't necessarily Scene Resolution -- which your prior definition implies. Plus you can have Conflict Resolution at a much finer scale.

Heya,

You can blow up the scale on conflict resolution as large as you want. General protection of the country side...to the overall war...to underlying generational shifts in population demographics...to the never ending war between the gods.

You can also go the other direction and focus in on progressively smaller scale conflicts to the extent you can identify them.

That's your job as a player in the game to determine at what scale the conflict becomes most interesting to the player. Most often this would have something to do with the scale that the characters operate on. If the PC in question is the messenger sent to warn the village the scale I used may well be ideal. If the PC, however, is the king who sent the messenger to warn the village, then his conflict may well involve the defense of the general country side...and the successes of the messenger may well roll up into that conflict.

Valamir wrote: But a Conflict is by definition assembled from tasks. So in an abstract sense Conflicts always act at a scale larger than the underlying tasks used to describe them.

The key phrase there Andrew is "used to describe them".

Any given conflict will be, by definition, at a larger scale than the individual tasks used to describe that conflict.

I suppose to be completely pedantic one should include "same or larger scale" to account for 1 task conflicts.

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: OK, I'd like to suggest that this is a pretty good definition -- that Conflict Definition makes the chances and/or results depend on the motivation why a character is doing an action; while Task Resolution only depends on what actions are performed.

Hmmm...I'd definitely agree that's a helpful way of looking at it...I'm not 100% certain its definitional...have to think more on that one.

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: This eliminates the issue of scale -- which several people (including Ron) have suggested is irrelevant. So Conflict Resolution isn't necessarily Scene Resolution -- which your prior definition implies. Plus you can have Conflict Resolution at a much finer scale.

I intended no implication about scale as I hope my comments above cleared up.

But a Conflict is by definition assembled from tasks. So in an abstract sense Conflicts always act at a scale larger than the underlying tasks used to describe them.

Now whether the underlying task is a single sword swing, or an entire season of battle field campaigning is another thing entirely.

Valamir wrote: Any given conflict will be, by definition, at a larger scale than the individual tasks used to describe that conflict.

I don't follow this. If the level of conflicts can vary, can't there be many conflicts within a day-long battle? i.e. My character charge forwards with the head of her troops. I want to break through the enemy lines to establish a foothold. I roll a conflict with the sergeant commanding that line, with my reason being to gain that foothold. I break through. Meanwhile, Jim's PC is trying to take the hill overlooking the field to get a good view. He tries to sneak, with his goal being to get a good view of the battle without being seen.

Contrast this with resolving the entire battle through a mass combat system which resolve it in a single round (like the one in GURPS or Pendragon). Would you agree that the mass combat system is Task Resolution? And yet it is at a higher scale than the conflicts above.

Let's consider another case: My PC is in a bar, and he's talking to a guy whom he thinks has information about the cult which has been operating nearby. We have a conflict -- do I get him to tell what he knows? I succeed, and he tells me what he knows -- which leads me to a club across town where someone who used to be in the cult is hiding. I go and then I try to find that guy. Here's another conflict: I'm trying to find him, he doesn't want to be found. I roll against him.

On the other hand, what if I just roll Gather Information for the whole evening to find out how much I learn about the cult? Would that be Task Resolution?

John Kim wrote: Let's consider another case: My PC is in a bar, and he's talking to a guy whom he thinks has information about the cult which has been operating nearby. We have a conflict -- do I get him to tell what he knows? I succeed, and he tells me what he knows -- which leads me to a club across town where someone who used to be in the cult is hiding. I go and then I try to find that guy. Here's another conflict: I'm trying to find him, he doesn't want to be found. I roll against him.

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: I don't follow this. If the level of conflicts can vary, can't there be many conflicts within a day-long battle?

Ummm. Right. I'm not sure what you're not following. That's exactly correct.

Walt Freitag wrote:

John Kim wrote: Let's consider another case: My PC is in a bar, and he's talking to a guy whom he thinks has information about the cult which has been operating nearby. We have a conflict -- do I get him to tell what he knows? I succeed, and he tells me what he knows -- which leads me to a club across town where someone who used to be in the cult is hiding. I go and then I try to find that guy. Here's another conflict: I'm trying to find him, he doesn't want to be found. I roll against him.

That's task resolution. If the first roll had succeeded at resolving the conflict, then why did you have to go to another bar and do it all over again? It didn't, because you were resolving whether or not you get the NPCs information about the cult, not whether or not you actually learned whatever it was you wanted to know about the cult (such as, where it meets, or who the members are). The latter was the conflict; but the roll only resolved the former (succeed/fail at getting the guy to tell).

Walt Freitag wrote: To illustrate this, let me rewrite the warn-the-village example. Instead of showing the two starting from the same situation and leading to different results, I'll show them starting from slightly different scales of character action and leading to the same results:

Task resolution: You're standing at the signal fire that, if lit, will warn the village of the approaching marauders. You've climbed the Cliffs of Insanity to get there in time, but can you light the pyre, dampened by the recent rain, in time? You roll against your Wilderness Survival skill (which lighting a fire under difficult conditions is clearly an aspect of). You succeed! The pyre blazes. You trust that the villagers, who always keep a sharp lookout, will see it in time. You later find out that indeed they did, and they hail you as a hero.

Conflict resolution: Marauders are heading for the village. Just barely able to stay ahead of the mounted horde yourself, you have little hope of being able to save the village. Your only advantage is that this is your home territory, and you know every detail of the landscape. There must be a way! You say, "I want to roll my local topo knowledge against the enemy horde's Hordiness." GM: "Okay, what are you looking for?" You: "Of course! The old signal pyre on top of Mesa Vertigo! If only I can reach it in time!" GM: "You can try, but to reach it you'd have to climb the Cliffs of Insanity. Success means saving the village, but failure will mean plummeting to your doom. Do you accept those stakes?" You agree and roll, and succeed! GM: "You climb the cliffs and light the fire. The village is saved."

In the conflict resolution example, the stakes being decided (saving the village vs. doom) are larger-scale than the character actions eventually narrated (climbing a cliff and lighting a fire). Actually lighting the is never even in doubt and never rolled for; it's too small-scale to bother with. In the task resolution, only the lighting of the fire is actually resolved by the resolution system.

Ron Edwards wrote: I think a lot of you guys are all mixed up. See my comments about eggs in Using Task Reso to get Conflict Reso.

John, I think you're a little confused yet and I hope this helps straighten it out.

When you transform this....

Walt Freitag wrote:
Task resolution: You're standing at the signal fire that, if lit, will warn the village of the approaching marauders. You've climbed the Cliffs of Insanity to get there in time, but can you light the pyre, dampened by the recent rain, in time? You roll against your Wilderness Survival skill (which lighting a fire under difficult conditions is clearly an aspect of). You succeed! The pyre blazes. You trust that the villagers, who always keep a sharp lookout, will see it in time. You later find out that indeed they did, and they hail you as a hero.

John Kim wrote:
Task resolution: Marauders are heading for the village. Just barely able to stay ahead of the mounted horde yourself, you have little hope of being able to save the village. Your only advantage is that this is your home territory, and you know every detail of the landscape. You: "I the player don't know what the home territory is, but my character does and she'll do her best to signal the village." GM: "OK, and we don't want to take forever on this anyhow. Let's make this a roll on your Wilderness skill, difficulty 15." Player: (rolls) "Success by 5" GM: "OK, they've been alerted. Say you've signalled them from an old signal pyre on top of a mesa."

Valamir wrote: I'll also point out that this is why I've said previously that one CAN coopt a system designed for task resolution and try to employ it in a conflict resolution fashion. I'm sure you can see how, once having framed a conflict pretty explicitly in this manner, you could then through very selective and judicious choosing of what task rolls to call for, what to skip, what modifiers to allow, what modifiers to ignore, etc. etc. make rolls that would appear to be fairly typical Task Resolution. "

Caldis wrote: The big difference I see is that in Walt's example attention is focused on getting the tasks resolved correctly. Are the proper steps required to achieve that goal being taken. Your example is focused on the conflict, does the village get alerted, we dont need to worry about the steps that make up the task. Choice of scale in this regard is being guided by CA.

Caldis wrote: The other thing to look at in this example is the ramifications of failure. If task resolution results in failure the conflict is still unresolved, other options can be attempted, a new plan can be formulated. In conflict resolution if the stakes are the village being warned in time and failure comes up then the village is not warned in time and we have to deal with the ramifications of that result.

Does any of this make sense or am I just blowing smoke out of my ass?

John,

I going to toss in yet another random person's (my own) interpretation of task and conflict. Whether this is just one more person not understanding, or whether this turns out to be useful, I'm finding these discussions (of task and conflict) to be weirdly fascinating, so I thought I'd see if what I've been thinking reading them is useful to anyone else.

On the question of scale, I think that the similarity between task and conflict is this:

Anything can be described as task or conflict at any scale. A single sword blow can be treated as a conflict, or it can be treated as a task. Saving the kingdom can be treated as a task, or it can be treated as a conflict.

Any task can be described as a serious of conflicts, and any task can be described as a series of conflicts.

Whether a particular action is a task or a conflict depends on how we are relating to the thing being done, not on the thing itself.

In order to resolve the conflict between my attempt to warn the village and the raiders attempt to reach the village before it is warned, we can resolve all sorts of tasks (do I climb the cliffs, can I find the signal hill, can I light the signal fire, whatever). In order to decide the task of lighting the fire, we could break the task down into 1) the conflict between my desire to serve the king, and my desire to see my clan enemies in the village be slaughtered in their beds, and 2) my need versus my lack of skill. If my hatred wins out, then the result of the conflict means I fail the task, and if my need loses out to my lack of skill, then I fail the task (is “my need versus my skill” really a conflict? I think it depends entirely on context. If my character is someone who constantly pushes himself into positions where he is trying to overcome his lack of skill, then possibly. If I think my character’s need overrides my lack of skill, and you disagree, then obviously this is a conflict).

Part of the problem in talking about this is that well formed examples make it very difficult to distinguish between task and conflict. If task resolution is directly serving the purpose of conflict resolution, then there is no clear difference between the two (this point is disputed, but I am firmly on the side that task resolution for the purpose of resolving conflicts is a form of conflict resolution). The issue with task resolution is that it doesn't necessarily lead to conflict resolution. Actually, even that isn't the issue. The issue is that a focus on task resolution can lead to a focus on boring conflicts. This ties in with what Vincent said about AD&D being conflict resolution to the extent that the conflict is over killing things.

If we treat the mechanical act of scaling the cliff as the focus of play and then the lighting of the fire as the focus of play, then we can loose track of how these parts relate to the larger and more interesting issue of whether or not I warn the village, and we don't actually have any guarantee that resolving the individual tasks will relate to the conflict. However, if we either explicitly focus on these actions as part of achieving the goal of warning the village (task resolution that sums to conflict resolution) or if we explicitly resolve the conflict (conflict resolution), then we are not going to lose our focus on the interesting part (and we are also being explicit about what we think is the interesting part, which makes it easier for each of us to evaluate whether or not this is actually interesting).

In the same way that this says nothing about scale, it also says nothing about what we find interesting. If we decide that the series of conflicts involved in trekking through the wilderness is what interests us, then nothing prevents us from dealing in greater detail with the trek. However, by doing so in a conflict oriented system, we are acknowledging that what we are interested in is this part, rather than thinking that somehow the individual bits and pieces of something interesting will naturally sum to something interesting.

I think the strong arguments for conflict resolution over task resolution comes from the strong emphasis here on system design. It isn’t difficult for people to use task resolution to achieve conflict resolution - from what you have described, you do it all the time, and I’m pretty sure I do too (I play more or less freeform, so it’s harder to judge without mechanics). However, it is much, much harder to get other people to achieve conflict resolution if you give them task resolution rules than if you give them conflict resolution rules. Also, I think the feeling is that if you are trying to get people to resolve conflicts in play, why not simply give them conflict resolution rules, instead of giving them task rules and then trying to get them to use them to resolve conflicts.

Does that make sense?

After making that last post, still trying to think through "What is conflict, what is task," I think I've realized that I agree with Ben's original statement in this thread (even if everyone else thinks he's totally out in the weeds). Conflict resolution is focused on what matters to the players. Task resolution focuses on actions, which may or may not end up mattering to the players (almost always, the task resolution matters to the characters, but not necessarily in ways the players care about). The assumption in task resolution based play is that the success or failure of the tasks will build to the success or failure of the conflicts that are of interest.

What matters and what is of interest is directly related to creative agenda, so saying that conflict based resolution is about what matters is in no way favouring one CA over another. This relates directly to Vincent's claim that AD&D is conflict resolution based if the focus of the game is on killing monsters, but it is task based with no formal mechanics for building to conflict based if the game is based around a different focus (say, saving the princess). The AD&D mechanics provide tight support for working toward the goal of killing the monster, so if that is your primary conflict, then the rules are conflict based. If, however, your primary conflict doesn't directly involve killing monsters, then there are no formal mechanics to support the transition from the task of killing monsters to whatever the conflict is (even if the conflict is finer grained than the task of killing monsters, so this really isn't a scale issue: if my goal is to have my character look cool while killing monsters, AD&D doesn't provide support for mechanically resolving whether I accomplish that goal).

If me having my character try to kill the orc is about "The orc wants to live, my character wants it to die," then that is conflict. If my character trying to kill the orc is about "Three more orcs to go, then I can stop the priests from sacrificing the princess," then my character killing the orc is a task that is a presumed to be a step in a conflict. If my character fighting the orc is about "I need my character to kill this orc before John's character kills his orc, or I'll look like a fool," then my character killing the orc is a task, of which the interesting conflict is a part (I can fail in my conflict, while eventually succeeding in the task of killing the orc). Likewise, if what I care about is that my character wants to kill his orc before John's character kills another orc, then killing the orc is a task, of which the conflict is only a part. The shift in focus (and the changing answer to the question, "Is this task resolution or conflict resolution?") comes from what I care about as a player, not what the game focuses on, not the scale of the focus, and not even what the character cares about. If my character wants to kill his orc first, but my character's rivalry with John's character is already well established, and neither John nor I are particularly interested in the tiny shift this will represent in their rivalry, then evaluating which of our characters kills an orc first is merely a task, and not a meaningful conflict.

I was trying to describe all of these discussions to my housemates, and trying to explain the distinction between task and conflict, and Ben's distinction was the only one that seemed to work, or that held any water with my housemates. It is also the only one that fits with "Any interaction can be either a task or a conflict, depending on how you look at it."

So now I've either pointed out how Ben isn't quite so far off in the weeds, or I've merely joined him there (or perhaps I'm just wandering in my own patch of weeds, and Ben will look up from his patch and say "What's that nut doing way over there?"

--Charles

John Kim wrote: Well, folding up several steps into a single step is the definition of scale. A larger-scale roll is always going to specify less about the individual steps taken. So, for example, GURPS Mass Combat is larger-scale. It doesn't worry about the individual blows and maneuvers taken to win the battle. We can see the same thing all the time in traditional systems. i.e. Rather than specifying how I build a shelter, start a fire, set traps for animals, and so forth, I just roll my Survival skill for the week. If I succeed, then all of the individual steps are assumed.

Is the key difference here that task resolution addresses character success (which may or may not be success for the player), while conflict resolution addresses player success (which may or may not be success for the character)?

Andrew: yes.

Best,
Ron

Wuh?

That seems a terrible way to define this, basing it on the success of a person who doesn't exist (a player character). All rolls address player success! All!

The difference between rolling for every attack in assaulting a castle, or just rolling once to see if you assault it correctly (or incorrectly, if that is your goal), is how much resources you stake on just one use of mechanics.

Just because you piddle about with hundreds of attack rolls with low stakes, doesn't mean somehow its the PC who's success was effected. Yeah, narrativists might be bored with piddling about with these attacks...that doesn't mean your not effected by them as a player and really somehow the non existant PC is the only one effected. It just means you don't care about them.

Callan,

Yes, task resolution may determine the successful insertion of a character action into the SiS. In a sense this is a success for the player. However, aside from adding a "fact" to the imaginary world, Task resolution (in itself) achieves nothing for the player. On the other hand, Conflict resolution both inserts a fact and achieves a player intent. So you can see that Task resolution furthers exploration, but conflict resolution furthers both exploration and player agenda.

Sure, task resolution _can_ further player agenda in some situations, but it is not required to do so.


RESOURCES

Might I point out that the Extended Conflict Resolution system in Heroquest is resource based, allowing small point expenditures on detailed action? Same thing with The Shadow of Yesterday.

Hi Alan,

I just don't agree, this seems to be defining task as the rolling you do to just add color.

Really that seems to me to be the old urge of ignoring some rules as presented and just treating some as fluff, not to get excited about and not to attach some intent to.

Piddling about with lots of little attacks, if coded into a game, are what your supposed to get excited about. It's supposed to become the means to your intent as a player and what furthers your agenda, because it should supposedly support your agenda. What you'd prefer to drift a game away from, doesn't make a definition of anything except what you don't like and/or don't care about. If your wont be letting this system matter to you, don't try to define 'task' as what your indifferent to.

From the perspective of playing under each CA, what's vital to one is just color to another. Just color and doesn't advance a players intent. For yourself, Andrew and Ron, it seems to be evaluated from a narrativists perspective. What about it being judged on something agenda neutral instead?

Okay, trying again with less gusto on my part, open to anyone.

In Rons egg example, the player decides cooking the domestic meal is very important and will determine a lot. So the task roll determines a conflict.

Okay, so what happens latter when the player decides something else is important? Does this cooking mechanic go away? Does its effect on the game go away?

Here we were assuming the skill here is designed with a low resource stake in mind. But for clarities sake, what if we amp up the stake involved. Say that it's designed into the system that if she fails the cooking roll she grabs some rat poison and cooks that in, and everybody dies after eating it. It's an absurd example, but I want to change the resource at stake to a very high one.

So what happens here when the player decides something other than the cooking, is important here? But they still have to do a cooking roll, because the system says so, before they get to that?

So far that roll has been classed as a task roll. But look at it now, the player wants to focus on something else as important but oops, he fails the cooking roll and everybody is dead!

I see that as conflict resolution, because it's resolved something about some very big resources. And the players intent or agenda, didn't matter at all as to whether this was a conflict or a task. The only way the players intent could matter is if they drift the game, ignoring that rediculous rat poison rule, or skipping the cooking roll entirely. Currently I'm seeing task and conflict being defined as what the user wants to drift toward, to make important in the game. But under this definition, they'll have to be doing what Herb does in the system does matter essay.

Callan, I'm not sure I'm the best person to address this, but I'll give it a shot. First, forget about "importance," because it just gets in the way. What matters is whether the resolution addresses the player's or character's intentions. I'll toss out some examples:

1. Adam (the character) is cooking a meal. It doesn't matter whether the results of failure are making a bad impression, food poisoning, or mixing in rat poison and killing everone who eats it. Bob (the player) doesn't particularly care whether Adam fails or succeeds. Bob makes a roll for Adam's Cooking skill to determine whether or not Adam successfully cooks the meal.

2. Adam is cooking a meal. The results determine whether or not he can relax his guests enough to find out a particular secret. This is something that Bob is trying to accomplish. He rolls using his Cooking skill to determine whether or not Bob successfully finds out the information. If the roll is successful, Adam may or may not succeed in cooking the meal well, but he will find out the secret that Bob was interested in.

3. Adam is cooking a meal. Bob really wants Adam to succeed (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter). Bob makes a roll for Adam's Cooking skill to determine whether or not Adam successfully cooks the meal.

The first and second examples are pretty clearly task and conflict resolution, respectively. It's the third one that is less clear. In my mind, this is still task resolution, not conflict resolution. The defining factor is whether the resolution determines character success (task) or player success (conflict). The fact that winning the task is important to the player (in the third example) is irrelevant.

Andrew Morris wrote: The defining factor is whether the resolution determines character success (task) or player success (conflict). The fact that winning the task is important to the player (in the third example) is irrelevant.

Matt, it's that third example that highlights the key dispute here, I think. Now, don't read my statement as "impotance" being a non-issue in general, just better left out of defining whether task or conflict resolution is being used, because it tends to confuse things, rather than make them clear. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm no expert, and I'm wrong far more often than I'd like to be, but I'm standing by my statement, and I'll explain why.

If Bob is rolling to determine the success of Adam's attempt to cook a meal, then it's task resolution. Bam. Nice and easy. Bob might have a high or low personal investment in whether or not his character succeeds in this, and it doesn't matter. If Bob is rolling to succeed or fail in something that the real-life player is attempting to bring about, and is using a Cooking skill (or whatever) to explain how that happens in game, then it's conflict. Also nice and easy.

When the two overlap, that's where it's easy for concern with "importance" to get in the way. Say Bob wants Adam to cook the best meal so that he can win a cooking competition. Both the player and the character are shooting at the same goal. In this case, the likely result of task resolution and the result of conflict resolution target the same in-game effect. Does this make task resolution into conflict resolution, or vice versa? Perhaps, but I'd be inclined to think not. Taking this cooking competition example further, we'd have to look at the mechanics in use to determine whether it's task or conflict. If the only way for Bob to bring about his goal (Adam winning the cooking competition) is by using his Cooking skill (or Pastry Chef, or something along those lines) and that winning the competition would be a likely inference, then I'd say it's likely still task. If, on the other hand, Bob could achieve his goal of winning the competition while failing to cook well, then it's probably conflict.

Another way to state all this is to say that task resolves whether the cause succeeds or fails, while conflict resolves whether the effect succeeds or fails.

If you have A (cause) and B (effect), task resolution determines whether or not A happens, and B may be inferred to happen. This might not always be the case (GM fiat, for example). In conflict resolution, whether or not B happens is the concern that is resolved, and A may be inferred to happen. Again, this might not always be the case. (e.g. Adam won the contest because his main rival got food poisoning and withdrew, not because Adam cooked the best meal).

Does that make things clearer?

Andrew Morris wrote: Callan, I'm not sure I'm the best person to address this, but I'll give it a shot. First, forget about "importance," because it just gets in the way. What matters is whether the resolution addresses the player's or character's intentions. I'll toss out some examples:

1. Adam (the character) is cooking a meal. It doesn't matter whether the results of failure are making a bad impression, food poisoning, or mixing in rat poison and killing everone who eats it. Bob (the player) doesn't particularly care whether Adam fails or succeeds. Bob makes a roll for Adam's Cooking skill to determine whether or not Adam successfully cooks the meal.

This is my first post on the Forge, and I'm fairly new to this, but I thought I would throw my two penneth in:

I think conflict resolution requires the "why", or more specifically, it requires the player have an objective that is resisted by something to overcome. If it's just rolling "against the universe", as in most Sim play (as I understand it) you would end up with Task resolution. So therefore, in the cooking example above, I think that it is impossible to determine if case 3 is a conflict or not until you find out why. I think the why does matter.

"I want Adam to do really well at cooking this meal."
"Why?"

a) "Dunno". This is case 1; Bob doesn't care, so any rolls made would be under Task Resolution; this would be a automatic success in most Conflict Resolution systems, as there is no conflict there.

b) "Because I want to relax my guests enough to find out secret X." This is case 2; Bob's objectives are going to be resisted by the guests reluctance to give away secrets. Clearly, as stated above, Conflict Resolution.

c) "Because I want to impress this girl I'm cooking for." This could be Conflict, it would depend on if the girl was trying not to be impressed by Adam's cooking. If she was happy to be impressed, then I would say that there was no conflict, and as such, it would be resolved with Task Resolution or just taken as "OK, she's impressed."

d) "Because I want to drop some enough poison in it to kill X, but not enough so he can tell." Again, another clear conflict, this time resisted by the perception of X.

I would say the objective the player has is required to define a Conflict (and even then it may not be, as in example c, above). If there is no player-declared reason for doing a certain action, then I would say it has to be a Task.

John, I hear what you are saying. I agree with your statement about being equally excited about either outcome. You're happy to let the dice (or whatever) decide. That's cool, and was actually the situation I meant to convey in the example.

I don't know Soap, so I can't comment on it. MLwM is a tough one...I've played it, but I don't own it. If I recall correctly, the rolls are to determine...what? Player success or character success? For example, if I (the player) want my character to beat up a villager in order to steal his coat, does the roll tell me A) whether I got the coat (by means of violence), or B) whether my violence was successful (i.e. that the villager was beaten) and I probably got the coat as a logical result, unless, for example, the GM steps and has something else happen?

If it's A (as I believe it is), then that would be conflict resolution (by my standards), whereas B would be task.

The fact that the roll in MLwM is the same no matter what the player wants makes no difference. If the roll is adjudicating whether the character succeeds in an in-game action, that's task. If the roll is adjudicating whether the player's goal comes about, that's conflict.

I'll have to consider the rest of your post and digest it.

Warren, welcome to the Forge! As to the idea that active resistance makes for conflict resolution -- I don't think so. Swinging a sword at someone's face is likely to meet with active resistance, be it doding or parrying. That, in and of itself, doesn't make it conflict resolution. I'd say you'd have to go back to what the roll determines.

Andrew, I think you hit the nail on the head with this:

Andrew Morris wrote: Another way to state all this is to say that task resolves whether the cause succeeds or fails, while conflict resolves whether the effect succeeds or fails.

Andrew Morris wrote: I don't know Soap, so I can't comment on it. MLwM is a tough one...I've played it, but I don't own it. If I recall correctly, the rolls are to determine...what? Player success or character success? For example, if I (the player) want my character to beat up a villager in order to steal his coat, does the roll tell me A) whether I got the coat (by means of violence), or B) whether my violence was successful (i.e. that the villager was beaten) and I probably got the coat as a logical result, unless, for example, the GM steps and has something else happen?

If it's A (as I believe it is), then that would be conflict resolution (by my standards), whereas B would be task.

The fact that the roll in MLwM is the same no matter what the player wants makes no difference. If the roll is adjudicating whether the character succeeds in an in-game action, that's task. If the roll is adjudicating whether the player's goal comes about, that's conflict.

Ahh, yes...wanting your charcter to fail...that's...weird. I do remember experiencing that myself when playing MLwM. I'm not certain what to do with it, but I think that it doesn't make any difference.

For this case, I think it's just an unusual situation that reverses the fortune mechanic in a conflict resolution system. The mechanic is still resolving the player's goal ("effect"), it just switches the conditions that constitute "success."

This is one of the reasons why I don't think "importance" is that useful in making the division between task and conflict resolution. While I think this might map closely to the two resolution methods, I don't think it is defining. I'd like to look at many examples before stating that flat-out, though.

When character and player goals ("cause and effect" might be better) overlap, you need to look closely at the mechanic, rather than any other considerations, to determine whether it's task or conflict.

What do you think about the cause and effect model that Adam points out as being more intuitive?

Andrew Morris wrote: Callan, I'm not sure I'm the best person to address this, but I'll give it a shot. First, forget about "importance," because it just gets in the way. What matters is whether the resolution addresses the player's or character's intentions.

Andrew Morris wrote: Warren, welcome to the Forge! As to the idea that active resistance makes for conflict resolution -- I don't think so. Swinging a sword at someone's face is likely to meet with active resistance, be it doding or parrying. That, in and of itself, doesn't make it conflict resolution. I'd say you'd have to go back to what the roll determines.

Callan, I think you're right. I'm trying to identify the precise wording that conveys my ideas, and I'm failing. So...what's problematic terminology? "Importance," "intent," and "caring," to start with. "Goal" might or might not be useful. I'll try to cut those terms out of my explanations, and instead focus on "cause" and "effect," which serve to explain my viewpoint as well, and seem to be clearer.

Warren, I agree. "Swinging a sword at someone's face" would not always be task resolution. Nor would it always be conflict resolution. I'm just pointing out that I don't think that whether or not the in-game act is resisted can be used to identify task or conflict resolution.

Now, when you turn "swinging a sword at someone's face" into "blinding an orc," you're changing the contest entirely. The first states cause, the second states effect. This shows the difference between task and conflict, I believe.

I agree Andrew, but I never said that the sole identifier for Conflict Resolution was that an action was to be resisted. However, I do think it is a requirement, otherwise there is no conflict, and it doesn't advance play in any meaningful way. But you also need the objective (desired effect) to be stated up front as well. I just think that asking "Why?" would be a good way of getting Task-focused players to voice their desired effects, and thus use Conflict Resolution.

"I swing my sword at the Orc."
"Why?"
"I want to blind him so Bob can dash past without being spotted."

This turns a simple Task into a Conflict, as the desired effect has now been stated up-front. But the required resistance is there (the Orc obviously doesn't want to be blinded). If the exchange went:

"I swing my sword at the security camera."
"Why?"
"I want to smash it so Bob can dash past without being spotted."

Is this still a conflict? The effect has been stated (stop Bob from being spotted). The camera can't meaningfully resist an attack, so I would say it happens automatically, and therefore does not require formal resolution.

Okay, I hear what you are saying. I don't agree that active resistance is a requirement of conflict resolution, but I do think that active opposition is more likely than not in conflict resolution. I just don't see it as the defining quality, which is, I realize, somewhat at odds with the definition of conflict resolution in the Provisional Glossary.

The Provisional Glossary wrote: Conflict resolution
A Technique in which the mechanisms of play focus on conflicts of interest, rather than on the component tasks within that conflict. When using this Technique, inanimate objects are conceived to have "interests" at odds with the character, if necessary. Contrast with Task resolution.

Task resolution
A Technique in which the Resolution mechanisms of play focus on within-game cause, in linear in-game time, in terms of whether the acting character is competent to perform a task. Contrast with Conflict resolution.

Yes, I'd agree with that I think. I guess I was getting confused because I thought that the "automatic success if nobody resists" feature was an inherent property of Conflict Resolution systems.

Warren wrote: Yes, I'd agree with that I think. I guess I was getting confused because I thought that the "automatic success if nobody resists" feature was an inherent property of Conflict Resolution systems.

Alan, I don't think it matters who "nobody" is. Active resistance can be from a player, GM, a fictional element in the game, etc., and it doesn't change the type of resolution being used. Can you identify why you think this would be important, or show an example that demonstrates what you mean?

Also, the frequency or reason for calling for a contest is irrelevant to determining whether that contest is adjudicated by task or conflict resolution mechanics. As I've said about other aspects that people are attempting to use to define task vs. conflict, this might or might not correlate to one or the other (task or conflict), but it is not useful for definitive purposes. However you want to phrase it, the difference between task and conflict seems to be what element of the contest is determined by the resolution system.

Here's a chart to highlight what I'm talking about:

[code] Task Conflict
---- --------

Adjudicates: Cause Effect

Related to: Character Player
In-game logic Meta-game concerns[/code]

Does this sound reasonable?

Andrew Morris wrote: Alan, I don't think it matters who "nobody" is. Active resistance can be from a player, GM, a fictional element in the game, etc., and it doesn't change the type of resolution being used. Can you identify why you think this would be important, or show an example that demonstrates what you mean?

I think we might be agreeing, but maybe not. Let me check:

Alan wrote: For Conflict resolution, only player "resistance" matters. As I tried to show in the Trollbabe example, the resistance of fictional elements need have no effect unless a player is invested in it.

Alan wrote: In contrast, but strict application of task resolution rules, the opposition of fictional elements can be important whether the player cares about them or not.

I have skimmed many of the posts on this thread from the past week, so can only hope I'm not duplicating something that's been said; but I think I can put some clarity to this task versus conflict distinction. I'm going to offer an example which is on the same scale either way, and I'm going to use the "warning the village" example.

"Bob, the raiders are heading for the village. What are you going to do?"

"There's a mesa nearby on top of which is an old signal tower. I'm going to climb the mesa and light the signal fire, and hope that they see it in time to prepare the defenses."

"O.K., the climb is a difficulty six, and lighting the long-neglected pyre will be a difficulty three, so altogether you have to roll at least a 16 to do this. Roll the dice."

(Dice roll; 18 is rolled.)

"That's a success. You climbed the mesa and got the fire lit in plenty of time.

"Bob, the raiders are heading for the village. What are you going to do?"

"I'm going to find a way to warn the village."

"You're in conflict with the general of the army, whose determination is 14; yours is 9. You need at least a 16 to succeed. Roll the dice."

(Dice roll; 18 is rolled.)

"You succeeded in warning the village; how did you do it?"

"I remembered that there was an old signal fire atop this mesa, so I climbed the cliff face and got it burning. They saw the fire, and prepared themselves for battle."

I think part of the problem with sorting out tasks and conflicts is that sometimes the same roll resolves both.

If an orc blocks your path and you want to get past him, you have a conflict.

There are many ways you can resolve this conflict, including retreat (which requires no rolls, although you might want to test courage or somesuch in HQ), talking (which in AD&D required no rolls but would do in HQ) or fighting (in AD&D would require several rolls, in HQ 1 roll in the conflict were deemed minor or several if deemed major).

It's rather difficult to disentangle which of these rolls relate to task and conflict, but it seems to me that the task is the chosen method of conflict resolution. It might take more than one roll to resolve the task. In AD&D, the combat might last several rounds, or you could do it in one if the dice are good. Once the task is resolved, the combat in this case, you can see what this means in terms of resolving the conflict. AD&D has no explicit conflict resolution mechanism.

In MLwM for example, you roll directly to resolve the conflict. You can do this before, during or after some narration and you can interpret the roll in anyway that reflects the result. There is no direct task resolution. You might chose to interpret things so that you are resolving a conflict by rolling for the outcome of a task but that's not what the rules ask you to do (but you can if you like).

M. J. Young wrote: If that roll is fundamentally about who hits whom, how much damage is done, the abstraction of the mechanics of the fight, it is task resolution. If the roll is fundamentally about who wins, the details being incidental both to the probabilities and the story, it is conflict resolution.

GB Steve wrote: I think part of the problem with sorting out tasks and conflicts is that sometimes the same roll resolves both.

If an orc blocks your path and you want to get past him, you have a conflict.

There are many ways you can resolve this conflict, including retreat (which requires no rolls, although you might want to test courage or somesuch in HQ), talking (which in AD&D required no rolls but would do in HQ) or fighting (in AD&D would require several rolls, in HQ 1 roll in the conflict were deemed minor or several if deemed major).

M. J. Young wrote: The task resolution system focuses entirely on the difficulty of doing specific tasks which cumulatively bring about desired outcomes. We determined what to roll by considering what the character had to do to succeed, and deriving the chance that he would succeed at those specific undertakings.

The conflict resolution system focuses on the significance of the events at hand and the degree to which the outcome matters to the adversaries. In this case, what we are comparing really is the determination of the general to reach the village before it is warned versus the determination of the character to warn them. Each is trying to beat the other (even if unaware of the other's efforts specifically). We roll to see which of them beats the other. Once we know that, we retroactively determine how that could possibly have happened.

John Kim wrote: The key distinction that I see is that in your description, resolution depends on the stated reason why the character is doing the action. So depending on how I answer why my character is climbing the cliff, the results will vary. So, for example, suppose my PC is a callous showoff. He doesn't care about the villagers, but another PC bets him that he can't make it to the village before the enemy horsemen. Now the conflict might be against the other PC, to try to win the bet. Right?

Andrew Morris wrote: If an orc blocks your path and you want to get past him, you might have a conflict, or you might have a task. It depends on what's being resolved. If the resolution mechanics determines the success or failure of your attempts to get past the orc (cause), then it's task resolution. If the resolution mechanics determine whether or not you get past the orc (effect), it's conflict. In the former, success would imply that you get past, just as in the latter, success would imply that your efforts (retreating, talking, fighting, whatever) were successful.

Steve, you say that "somtimes the same roll resolves both." I can't picture this system in my mind. Can you provide an example of this?

[quote:"M.J."]The task resolution system focuses entirely on the difficulty of doing specific tasks which cumulatively bring about desired outcomes. We determined what to roll by considering what the character had to do to succeed, and deriving the chance that he would succeed at those specific undertakings.

The problem with the application of task resolution, however, is that this part--determined what to roll by considering what the character had to do to succeed--is often absent. My GM will not tell me what I have to do to address a particular conflict. He asks me, "What does your character do?" I have to think of a task. He doesn't tell me whether that will, if successful, bring me in any way closer to resolving a conflict I have in mind. It could be a waste of time, even if I succeed. I crack the safe--but there's nothing of value in it. My task succeeded, but the action was a waste with regards to the conflict.

Now, that's a way of play that many old school people think is the right way to go. I think it stinks and wastes my time. But if we had a conflict resolution system in place, that just would not happen.

I'm not saying that CR is superior; just that it doesn't have that particular pitfall. Therefore, TR *can* address conflicts step by step, but it often also just handles tasks that are not conducive to resolving conflicts at all.

John, I don't believe either of these example show a resolution mechanic that resolves both cause and effect. Let's break them down:

John Kim wrote: For example, I want to damage a monster. I roll the dice. If I hit, I roll damage -- it's hit points are reduced below zero. The monster dies. That has resolved both cause (I hit) and effect (the monster dies).

John Kim wrote: I want to get past the orc. I use the Tumble skill, which calls for a roll at DC 25 to succeed. I roll and succeed. The rules for the skill say that I get past the orc. Again this has resolved both the cause (I tumbled successfully) and the effect (I got past the orc).

xenopulse wrote: He doesn't tell me whether that will, if successful, bring me in any way closer to resolving a conflict I have in mind. It could be a waste of time, even if I succeed.

Andrew Morris wrote:

John Kim wrote: For example, I want to damage a monster. I roll the dice. If I hit, I roll damage -- it's hit points are reduced below zero. The monster dies. That has resolved both cause (I hit) and effect (the monster dies).

In this example, we'll take your stated cause (hitting the monster) and effect (the monster dies). What is resolved by rolling the dice? Whether or not the monster is hit. Now, the fact that the monster's HP are reduced below zero is a different concern. The GM could state that the monster has a magic item or ability that reduces the damage, or increases the monster's HP, and the monster would still be alive.

Andrew Morris wrote:

John Kim wrote: I want to get past the orc. I use the Tumble skill, which calls for a roll at DC 25 to succeed. I roll and succeed. The rules for the skill say that I get past the orc. Again this has resolved both the cause (I tumbled successfully) and the effect (I got past the orc).

Now, I'm making a bit of an assumption here, but I'm betting the rules don't say that a Tumble skill roll at DC25 means that you get past an orc. They say that you successfully perform a Tumbling maneuver.

John, it doesn't have to be a matter of the GM "cheating." There might simply be other factors the player does not know about which mean that winning the task does not result in the expected outcome. Also, the fact that the "rules" state that a monster dies when reduced below zero HP does not make that part of the resolution mechanic, any more than the fact that vampires in V:tM lose 1 blood point per night is part of the combat system, even though it might inter-relate or affect it.

As to the orc example -- ahh, well, my lack of experience with d20 and D&D is showing. You make a good point that the rules pertaining to the Tumbling Skill specifically mention moving through enemy-occupied territory. That's probably the strongest case I've seen for task overlapping with conflict. But (and please check my understanding of D&D rules), there could be another orc hiding in the bushes who tosses a net over the character, not as an "attack of opportunity," but as their regular attack. Again, other factors can prevent the expected outcome, which would not be the case in conflict resolution.

Andrew Morris wrote: John, it doesn't have to be a matter of the GM "cheating." There might simply be other factors the player does not know about which mean that winning the task does not result in the expected outcome. Also, the fact that the "rules" state that a monster dies when reduced below zero HP does not make that part of the resolution mechanic, any more than the fact that vampires in V:tM lose 1 blood point per night is part of the combat system, even though it might inter-relate or affect it.

Andrew Morris wrote: As to the orc example -- ahh, well, my lack of experience with d20 and D&D is showing. You make a good point that the rules pertaining to the Tumbling Skill specifically mention moving through enemy-occupied territory. That's probably the strongest case I've seen for task overlapping with conflict. But (and please check my understanding of D&D rules), there could be another orc hiding in the bushes who tosses a net over the character, not as an "attack of opportunity," but as their regular attack. Again, other factors can prevent the expected outcome, which would not be the case in conflict resolution.

Right, I agree that player knowledge doesn't change the resolution mechanic. I'm not arguing that. However, these cases serve to highlight the fact that task resolution might not result in the expected outcome. In turn, that goes to show that task resolution is about the cause, not the effect. The effect can be expected, and it might come to pass nine times out of ten, but that doesn't change the fact that cause is what is being adjudicated by the resolution mechanic itself. Sure, the system might or might not have rules that relate to this, but that doesn't change the resolution mechanic any more than player expectation does.

John Kim wrote: This seems to hint more at player knowledge as an issue. If you're not talking about GM cheating, I don't see what being in the bushes has to do with it. Is an orc with a net in the bushes any different than an orc with a net standing beside his fellow orc?

John Kim wrote: So we make the Tumble roll and the net to-hit roll to resolve this. How is this different? We have to make two different rolls, but the combination of the two still resolves the desired effect -- i.e. does the character make it past the orc?

John,

Would you agree that with task resolution, there's the possiblity for tasks that are not conducive to resolving any conflicts?

Let's look at the "get dirt on this guy" example. That's the conflict right there--do I or don't I get dirt on this guy? In a TR system, I have to try and find something that addresses the conflict via trial and error, by first cracking the safe (which is empty), then searching the desk (which doesn't have anything in it), then hacking into his computer (which doesn't contain any useful information), then maybe finally deciphering the encrypted document in the filing cabinet. Or maybe there never was any dirt in the GM's plans, and so no matter how many things I come up with, I'm screwed.

Now, you could make a slim case of saying that each of these tasks eliminates the options, thereby contributing to resolving the conflict--if there's a right task to find. The problem is that here, the player has to come up with the right answer. If s/he doesn't, they lose the conflict. Not because of their player skills or their bad luck with dice, but because they did not pick the right task to address the conflict.

This is *exactly* how the majority of my RP experiences with TR systems have played out. Trial and error, often leading to frustration. Even resulting in some adventures that were never solved because we players never found just the right things to do.

Some TR systems try to mitigate this with soft rules, such as "roll only when it's important." But that still doesn't take the weight off me to find the right thing where I am allowed to roll.

Now, with a CR system, you approach it the other way. First, you state what conflict you are addressing. "I want to find dirt on this guy." Then you either quickly agree on a way to do that and roll, or you roll and simply narrate how you did it ("You win--you found useful files in his drawer and now have dirt on him"). You *can* do this with a TR system, but then you've really drifted it into CR territory.

Okay, here's an important point that's been missing from this discussion.

In all kinds of typical functional play, conflicts get resolved.

So every "system" in the all-inclusive Lumpley-Principle sense of "system" must be, in some sense, a conflict resolution "system."

Hence, examples of play using task resolution in which we see conflicts get resolved are easy to come by. "It can't be task resolution if we see players using it to resolve a conflict" is a false conclusion.

A task resolution system can resolve conflicts, but with one or both of two drawbacks: the conflicts are limited to certain specific types, and/or it can never be guaranteed that a conflict will reach resolution unless additional (usually informal) measures beyond the resolution system itself are taken to link tasks with conflicts.

A resolution system that's designed to resolve tasks related to inflicting damage on orcs will, therefore, be just fine at resolving conflicts that are conceived and framed so as to be resolvable by inflicting damage on orcs. And scenario designers will put a great deal of effort into inventing conflicts that fit that description.

However, such a system won't work as well for other kinds of conflicts. If a player decides his character wants revenge on the evil orc lord who killed his father, no amount of orc-bashing task resolution is guaranteed to lead to any progress toward resolving that conflict. If a player successfully uses his interrogate-orc skill a hundred times to find out where the orc lord is, the result can be, a hundred times, that the orc being interrogated doesn't know. The GM doesn't have to be cheating to bring this about, just uninterested. If the GM has decided only that the orc lord is far away out of the picture somewhere, then naturally none of the local NPC orcs would have any reason to know where he is. Or perhaps the GM has seeded information about the orc lord all over the place, but due to bad luck the player-character keeps interrogating just the wrong NPCs or rolling failures on the interrogate-orc skill at just the wrong times, so no progress is made. If that GM were less scrupulously impartial and wanted to see the conflict advanced toward resolution, he might be tempted to do a little clue-moving or No-Myth Technique.

Which reveals clue-moving and No Myth as some of those "additional (usually informal) methods for linking tasks to conflicts" I mentioned above.

Another one is stakes-setting. Which is the technique of making a predictive "if-then" statement an established fact in the SIS. Such as, "If you can capture an orc of Colonel rank or higher, he'll know where the orc lord is." Or, "If you manage to light the signal fire, the village will be warned." Or, "If you drop the One Ring into the Crack of Doom, Sauron will be destroyed forever." Such statements usually come under the guise of reasonable advance prediction of cause and effect in the SIS. Often, they're revealed "in-character" by NPCs, but sometimes a GM will just state them outright, as in, "Okay, I'll let X happen if your character can accomplish Y successfully." They have equal authority either way, at the social level, because they're really metagame contracts that link tasks to conflicts. (Can you imagine: "Oops, Gandalf was wrong. Dropping the One Ring into the Crack of Doom didn't have any effect. Must have been some misinformation that Sauron spread for self-preservation. Sorry, Frodo.")

Another way to link tasks and conflicts, more formal but more limited in scope, is with rules that extend the resolution system by specifying precise effects of successes at various tasks. The rule John cites concerning use of acrobatics skill to get past an enemy is a good example. For my hunting-the-orc-lord example, a relevant rule might be "Any time an orc is captured, there's a 2% chance that the orc is secretly a member of Orc Intelligence. Such orcs have a great deal of knowledge about all orc affairs. If a successful interrogate roll is made on such an orc -- that roll being made at -6, due to the resistance training Orc Intelligence members receive -- then the interrogator can get true answers to any questions that are at all related to orc affairs. But only five such questions may be asked and answered before the orc dies from the stress."

The inclusion of such rules doesn't turn a task resolution system into a conflict resolution system, because the range of conflicts they can cover must still remain limited, even if the number of rules becomes very large. By contrast, a true conflict resolution system can address any conflict that a player can describe, subject to limitation only by the scope of the conflict and not by its nature.

- Walt

Excellent post, Walt.

I think alot of the round and round on this stems from experienced Task Resolution GMs who are so used to using some of the techniques you indicate (in particular the If-Then technique) that they don't even realize that this is an extra layer they themselves are bringing to the system that has the effect of making it function somewhat more like a Conflict Resolution system.

xenopulse wrote: Would you agree that with task resolution, there's the possiblity for tasks that are not conducive to resolving any conflicts?

Let's look at the "get dirt on this guy" example. That's the conflict right there--do I or don't I get dirt on this guy? In a TR system, I have to try and find something that addresses the conflict via trial and error, by first cracking the safe (which is empty), then searching the desk (which doesn't have anything in it), then hacking into his computer (which doesn't contain any useful information), then maybe finally deciphering the encrypted document in the filing cabinet. Or maybe there never was any dirt in the GM's plans, and so no matter how many things I come up with, I'm screwed.

xenopulse wrote: The problem is that here, the player has to come up with the right answer. If s/he doesn't, they lose the conflict. Not because of their player skills or their bad luck with dice, but because they did not pick the right task to address the conflict.

This is *exactly* how the majority of my RP experiences with TR systems have played out. Trial and error, often leading to frustration. Even resulting in some adventures that were never solved because we players never found just the right things to do.

John,

I just think that it is not a problem directly with Task Resolution. I think it's a matter of picking the right scale for your resolution relative to the goals.

For example, in D&D3, the "Gather Information" skill folds an entire evening's worth of questioning into a single roll.

For Orx, I wrote that Conflicts are the "Why"...it's the point at which you ask yourself, either as player or character, "Why the hell am I doing this?"

Trying to kill a goblin? Task or conflict?

Take a D&D combat against a goblin...when you roll to hit, you aren't rolling to resolve the situation. You're rolling to see if you hit. But WHY are you trying to hit the goblin? What's your immediate goal in being involved with this goblin? Getting past him? Killing him? Scaring him off? That's your conflict.

Tasks are actions. Conflicts are what gets resolved when actions are performed.

Hiding in the shadows? What are you hiding from? Or rather, why are you hiding? Suppose you successfully hide from the orcs, only to be spotted by the ogre? Have you attained your goal in hiding in the first place?

Getting the picture?

One of the main differences between task and conflict is whether or not the stakes of the situation are under the control of you via what you roll. Cracking a safe is only a conflict if what you're looking for in the safe is actually in the safe, or if you find it outside the safe despite your interaction with the safe, and finding it/not finding it is all resolved under the same roll.

Roll to crack the safe, and don't find the stuff either because it isn't in the safe or you can't get into the safe? Task.

I hope that was helpful.

Raven, that makes more sense than any single post or thread on this issue to date. I oughta split it out and make it a sticky or something.

Best,
Ron

xenopulse wrote: The thing I am trying to point out is that you don't have this issue with CR, no matter what the scale. You always declare the conflict, and resolve it. Sure, you can have small scale and large scale conflicts, but the fact that you're addressing conflicts at all times is what makes it different from TR.

"I want to find dirt on this guy."

"How do you expect to do that?"

"I'm going to break into his office, search his desk, computer, safe, and whatever else is there, looking for dirt."

"O.K., you have to defeat the security system on the office, break into the safe, overcome the security on the computer, probably break the lock on the desk...."

"No, I want to pick that lock; it should be easy to do, and I don't want to leave any trace that I was there."

"Ah, O.K., not leaving a trace is going to be a penalty on your chance of success, and we've got the difficulty of those other tasks, but if you can roll 19 you can do it all."

"I rolled 19, just."

"You succeed in breaking into his office and going through all his things."

Referee checks notes.

"Unfortunately, there's no dirt on this guy; he's clean as a whistle, as far as you can tell."

"I want to find some dirt on this guy."

"O.K., this guy is really clean, there might not be anything to find; and he keeps his secrets well. You'd have to roll a 20 to get anything like that on him."

"I rolled 19. Oh well."

"You broke into his office, opened his safe, searched his files, his desk, his computer--there just doesn't seem to be anything to find."

M.J.,

You're assuming that if it is conflict resolution the player gets to define the scale.

Task resolution addresses the difficulty of doing specific tasks. Conflict resolution addresses the challenge of defeating an opponent.