Topic: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Started by: Simon Kamber
Started on: 6/10/2005
Board: RPG Theory
On 6/10/2005 at 12:53pm, Simon Kamber wrote:
Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
We had a discussion on a danish forum about conflict resolution and task resolution (on the what-is-it level). And as part of that, I've thought about something.
In many games that utilize task resolution, you're resolving the conflict at the same time. Let's take the classical example of opening a safe looking for dirt. In task resolution, you roll for opening the safe rather than for the stakes of looking for dirt. But in most cases, you'll be resolving both. In many social contracts, it would be a gross breach of the contract for the GM to declare after a passed roll that "yes, you skillfully open the safe. No, there's nothing in there."
As such, I'd say that in many cases of task resolution the social contract actually hides conflict resolution right between the lines. And this happens to the point where in the examples I was using, I often had to realize that there was no difference. And that's something I think we need to take into account, because the distinction between task resolution and between-the-lines conflict resolution is an important one in a game sense, as far as I can see.
What do you think? Am I making sense, and do you agree?
On 6/10/2005 at 1:18pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
You're making sense, but I'm skeptical.
If you, the GM, have agreed that going and breaking into the safe is a reasonable way to pursue finding dirt on this guy, and that the task roll will determine whether or not that method succeeds, then I can see your point. That agreement, that negotiation prior to the roll is system at work. It's just unformed, implicit, system.
Because, of course, they could also have said "We'll make an Investigate roll to find the newspaper articles detailing all the people this guy has murdered, and leading us to his mutant transvestite mistress." In most systems (barring the skill difference between "safe-cracking" and "library research") you're talking about the same thing from the rules-viewpoint: roll a skill, figure out whether you succeeded.
Would it be a breach of social contract in your games for the GM to say "Uh... you can research all you want, but you're not going to find a public expose of mutant transvestite mistresses on this guy"?
On 6/10/2005 at 1:59pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Simon,
Actually, I don't think your example is Task Resolution at all. I think the Social Contract of the people at the table is simply Conflict Resolution using the skill at Safe Cracking to handle it. If they were using Task Resolution then there wouldn't be anything at all wrong with saying, "You get the safe open but there's no dirt in there." In fact, that statement wouldn't have been strange in any of the D&D games I've played in the past.
On 6/10/2005 at 2:17pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
TonyLB wrote:
Would it be a breach of social contract in your games for the GM to say "Uh... you can research all you want, but you're not going to find a public expose of mutant transvestite mistresses on this guy"?
On a mechanical basis, if the game allows the characters to succeed in rolls but fail anyway then it's clearly Task resolution on a mechanical level. But on a social conteact level, I think most functional games are Conflict Resolution (in the important ways, anyway) for the reasons Simon describes.
Additionally, there is also 'pure exploration' (i.e. I roll to find out what I can about the new city we are visiting). If the players are looking to see if the guy has a transvestite mistress then a successful roll which determines he doesn't is still a success.
If a game includes any rolls that can be used to gather information that may or may not yield a desired result and the player accepts going in that the making of a roll will not resolve explorational-aspects of the game then I think the difference between task and conflict resolution in a functional traditional game is so fine as to often be non-existent.
-Marco
On 6/10/2005 at 2:40pm, Harlequin wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
One further reason why it's Task at that level is that it is strictly up to the GM to determine how much Tasking is enough and what comes out of it. One element of the Social Contract for all Task-resolution systems with functional play is "And the conflict's gotta emerge out of all this, the stakes have to be obtained, in a reasonable amount of effort."
The important thing to remember is that this is perfectly functional. Social contract is real, and if you're putting this part of resolution in there, that's cool.
What it doesn't do is open up the bones of things for everybody, not just the GM, to participate. If you want to do that, it has to become mechanized in some way, because that's exactly what the mechanics do - they mediate multiple contributors. So if you want to support player input into what the safe contains (more generally, into what the stakes are and so forth), bam, you need conflict resolution. Emergent conflict (what you call between the lines) isn't enough.
- Eric
On 6/10/2005 at 2:45pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Gaerik's got it right, Simon.
Your example of the safe IS conflict resolution.
1) Working out with the GM in advance that a successful safe cracking roll will get the sought after dirt is a conflict resolution approach to the problem.
2) If instead you work out with the GM in advance that a successful safe cracking roll will open the safe, and the sought after dirt will or won't be there based on the GM's prepared notes that indicate where it actually is...then this is task resolution.
3) If instead you work out with the GM in advance that a successful safe cracking roll will open the safe, but unbeknownst to you the sought after dirt will or won't be there based on the GM's whim after he sees the result of the roll (based primarily on whether the GM's story line is ready for you to have that information yet or not); and the GM pretends that #2 is the case...then you have a pretty bog standard Illusionist trick that has been used by GM's to railroad players for decades. A situation that isn't possible with conflict resolution because the terms of the conflict are outlined in advance.
On 6/10/2005 at 6:53pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Valamir wrote: 1) Working out with the GM in advance that a successful safe cracking roll will get the sought after dirt is a conflict resolution approach to the problem.
2) If instead you work out with the GM in advance that a successful safe cracking roll will open the safe, and the sought after dirt will or won't be there based on the GM's prepared notes that indicate where it actually is...then this is task resolution.
3) If instead you work out with the GM in advance that a successful safe cracking roll will open the safe, but unbeknownst to you the sought after dirt will or won't be there based on the GM's whim after he sees the result of the roll
You seem to be implying that #1 and #2 are exclusive, but there doesn't seem to be a reason. That is, you can have straight-out cause-and-effect reasoning -- i.e. the dirt is there or is not there based on what is defined in prewritten notes. The GM and player can also agree in advance on the effect of the roll. If the player (either in-character or out-of-character) knows what is in the safe, then he knows what is at stake on the roll.
It seems to me that the question here is: Is this Conflict Resolution (because it matches #1) or Task Resolution (because it matches #2)?
On 6/10/2005 at 7:20pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
John,
Even if the Player knows what's in the safe before hand, if the roll for Safe Cracking is resolving "get dirt" then it is Conflict resolution. If it is just determining whether you opened the safe or not, Task Resolution.
The key thing to me here is that in Task Resolution there may not be any dirt to find no matter what rolls you make or don't make, either because the GM says there isn't or because the pre-gen adventure doesn't have any or whatnot. The character could be successful at Safe Cracking, Computer Hacking, Information Gathering or any of 20 other skill rolls. It wouldn't matter. No dirt to be found.
Conflict Resolution however would mean that if the character was successful on "Find dirt." then there is dirt there. Even if the GM didn't plan it that way. Even if the pre-gen adventure didn't have it there. The conflict was about finding dirt and the character was successful therefore dirt was found.
On 6/10/2005 at 8:24pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Gaerik wrote: Even if the Player knows what's in the safe before hand, if the roll for Safe Cracking is resolving "get dirt" then it is Conflict resolution. If it is just determining whether you opened the safe or not, Task Resolution.
The key thing to me here is that in Task Resolution there may not be any dirt to find no matter what rolls you make or don't make, either because the GM says there isn't or because the pre-gen adventure doesn't have any or whatnot. The character could be successful at Safe Cracking, Computer Hacking, Information Gathering or any of 20 other skill rolls. It wouldn't matter. No dirt to be found.
Um, hello? As far as I can tell, you're just contradicting yourself here. If the player knows that there is dirt in the safe, then there is dirt to be found. That is basic definition. The crap about "Oh, there might not be dirt to be found" is simply wrong. There either is or is not dirt to be found, and either way the player knows it beforehand. Let's go through this point by point. The case to consider here is:
1) The GM decides whether or not there is dirt in there based on what is in the written notes. In this case, there is dirt there.
2) That fact is also known to the player.
3) The player rolls on his safecracking skill to see if he opens the safe.
On 6/10/2005 at 8:44pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
John,
I think we might be talking past each other. Let me take your example and then give one of my own.
John Kim wrote: 1) The GM decides whether or not there is dirt in there based on what is in the written notes. In this case, there is dirt there.
2) That fact is also known to the player.
3) The player rolls on his safecracking skill to see if he opens the safe.
Rolling Task to "open safe".
If the player fails, then the safe isn't open. The dirt's still there but it just means the player didn't open the safe. There might still be dirt in the other guy's desk or on his computer or written in graffiti all over his home. The player just failed to crack the safe.
If the player succeeds then he got the safe open and... that's it. We assume he finds the dirt. Maybe. Maybe not. What if the dirt's in some sort of code or cipher? Now he has to make another roll to see if he recognizes it perhaps? Because the only thing Task Resolution establishes is that he got the safe door open and establishes nothing about the ultimate goal of "finding dirt".
Rolling Conflict to "find dirt"
If the player fails, then he didn't find the dirt. He might have gotten the safe open but missed the dirt in the hurry to get out of the house. He might not have opened the safe. Whatever... the ultimate goal fails either way.
If the player succeeds, then the dirt is found. He might have gotten the safe open and found some dirty papers. He might not have gotten the safe open and then found the dirt on the desk. Whatever... the ultimate goal succeeded.
The issue as it was raised originally, is Conflict Resolution, as described by Simon. It was just being mistaken for Task Resolution because the players involved had (consciously or not) agreed that if the roll succeeded then resulting success would have something to do with getting the safe open since they had used Safe Cracking for the roll.
On 6/10/2005 at 8:51pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
John, your example is just an illustration of a time where there is a happy coincidence between task and conflict resolution.
Knowingly pursueing and using that coincidence...(i.e. revealing OOC information to the players that their characters wouldn't actually know as part of defining what a task roll will or won't accomplish) can certainly be a useful technique for gamers who are attempting to engage in conflict resolution using a system designed for task resolution.
On 6/10/2005 at 9:37pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Valamir wrote: John, your example is just an illustration of a time where there is a happy coincidence between task and conflict resolution.
Knowingly pursueing and using that coincidence...(i.e. revealing OOC information to the players that their characters wouldn't actually know as part of defining what a task roll will or won't accomplish) can certainly be a useful technique for gamers who are attempting to engage in conflict resolution using a system designed for task resolution.
First of all, a clarification. It doesn't matter whether the knowledge is In-Character or Out-Of-Character. While it can be revealed as Out-Of-Character information, my preference is usually In-Character. i.e. In this example, the character knows that there is dirt inside the safe, and thus he tries to break in to get it. In short, the character knows what he is doing. I generally prefer well-informed, competant PCs.
Anyhow, I accept that it is a happy coincidence, but it's not a rare or random circumstance in my experience. It requires two things:
a) The GM bases his decision on defined facts of the gameworld.
b) The player is also well-informed about those facts.
Given these two, then the resolution becomes an open process where the method and stakes are known.
On 6/10/2005 at 10:05pm, ErrathofKosh wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
No one needs to know, IC or OOC, if there is dirt in the safe. The GM doesn't need to know there is dirt in the safe. A conflict resolution results in the character finding dirt or not finding dirt.
Thus, the player states that his character wants to find dirt prior to the conflict, then he decides to use his safecracking skill to resolve the conflict and, if his roll suceeds, he finds dirt. If he fails, he doesn't find dirt. And it doesn't matter if the safe is ever opened. The GM could state "You find some papers on top of the safe that contain dirt." Or in a failure, "You open the safe, but all it contains is a few rolls of $100 bills."
In my examples, the roll determines the existence of what the character is looking for. Of course, this could be run differently, but I think that is the clearest example of Conflict Resolution.
On 6/10/2005 at 10:41pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
ErrathofKosh wrote: No one needs to know, IC or OOC, if there is dirt in the safe. The GM doesn't need to know there is dirt in the safe. A conflict resolution results in the character finding dirt or not finding dirt.
ErrathofKosh wrote: In my examples, the roll determines the existence of what the character is looking for. Of course, this could be run differently, but I think that is the clearest example of Conflict Resolution.
I completely agree that it isn't necessary for anyone to know beforehand whether there is dirt in the safe. There are different ways to resolve things. But the topic is "Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution", which I take to mean we're specifically discussing edge and/or borderline cases.
On 6/11/2005 at 5:50am, Valamir wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
First of all, a clarification. It doesn't matter whether the knowledge is In-Character or Out-Of-Character. While it can be revealed as Out-Of-Character information, my preference is usually In-Character. i.e. In this example, the character knows that there is dirt inside the safe, and thus he tries to break in to get it. In short, the character knows what he is doing. I generally prefer well-informed, competant PCs.
Actually it makes a BIG difference if you're trying to examine borderline cases. Characters don't know anything. The character may have been told by an NPC that there is dirt in the safe. The character may have witnessed and NPC putting something in the safe that he thought was the dirt he was looking for. But until he actually opens the safe and looks...the character can never KNOW that the dirt is in the safe.
There is always the opportunity for the dirt NOT to be there even if the character (i.e. the player thinking for the character) was sure it would be. This could be simply because the player drew incorrect conclusions about scenes that were played. It could be because the player failed a roll and so the character was intentionally misinformed (which the player may or may not know). It could be because the GM messed up the continuity by accident. Or it could be because the GM is knowingly playing a bait and switch game.
I would argue that what the character knows is pretty much completely irrelevant to identifying conflict resolution.
Its entirely what the player knows that matters. If the GM tells the player directly (not in character hints and inuendoes and clues) that "If you make this roll you will get the dirt"..then the player KNOWS absolutely 100% that if he makes the roll his character will get the dirt...as noted above, it may be in the safe as the character thought, or it may not be, but somehow someway he'll get the dirt. That's absolutely known in advance in Conflict Resolution (baring an agregious breach of trust on the part of the GM). The character may have no idea that there is even any dirt to be found. The character may not even be looking for dirt (maybe the character is just there to steal some diamonds).
So its absolutely what the PLAYER knows (which will generally always be OOC) that matters here.
On 6/11/2005 at 11:22am, Simon Kamber wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
TonyLB wrote: Would it be a breach of social contract in your games for the GM to say "Uh... you can research all you want, but you're not going to find a public expose of mutant transvestite mistresses on this guy"?
That depends quite a bit on what game we're playing. The games where it wouldn't are the games I'd classify as using implicit CR. (actually, I think implicit CR is a better description than B.T.L. CR)
Gaerik wrote: Simon,
Actually, I don't think your example is Task Resolution at all. I think the Social Contract of the people at the table is simply Conflict Resolution using the skill at Safe Cracking to handle it.
Yep. That's sorta what I was trying to say. My point is, that safe is one of the most often used examples of task resolution when in fact for many groups it is not.
I was about to use the safe example in the discussion on the other board when I realized that, well, how would the example explain anything at all if such a situation is actually conflict resolution, if only implicit.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that identifying task resolution isn't as simple as it appears. Just because your roll refers to the task, it doesn't mean that you're really doing task resolution. And I'd also claim that most of the examples we use to describe task resolution are in many social contracts actually implicit conflict resolution.
As far as I can see from the discussion going on at the danish forum, this very gap makes half the people in the discussion unable to understand the examples we're trying to use, because the task resolution example is, in the social contracts they're used to, actually conflict resolution. And I think we should be wary of that difference when we're trying to explain what conflict and task resolution is.
If you agree with that, we can go from there and try to define the difference. I haven't replied to the rest of the posts in this thread because it seems that's what they're trying to do, and I'd like to make sure we're on the same page first.
On 6/11/2005 at 3:13pm, Gaerik wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Simon Kamber wrote: I guess what I'm trying to say is that identifying task resolution isn't as simple as it appears. Just because your roll refers to the task, it doesn't mean that you're really doing task resolution. And I'd also claim that most of the examples we use to describe task resolution are in many social contracts actually implicit conflict resolution.
Okay, I see what you are saying now and I agree with that. Just because the Players are habitually referring to a task doesn't mean that's what they are actually doing. If we look at the results of their play over time we might just discover that their actual resolution mechanic is Conflict Resolution... it's just hidden behind skill and task terminology. I gotcha. I do this in D&D all the time. Mostly because my players are used to Task Resolution. Instead of talking terminology with them, I just changed the meaning of the rolls behind the scenes.
On 6/12/2005 at 12:01am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Valamir wrote: Characters don't know anything. The character may have been told by an NPC that there is dirt in the safe. The character may have witnessed and NPC putting something in the safe that he thought was the dirt he was looking for. But until he actually opens the safe and looks...the character can never KNOW that the dirt is in the safe.
There is always the opportunity for the dirt NOT to be there even if the character (i.e. the player thinking for the character) was sure it would be. This could be simply because the player drew incorrect conclusions about scenes that were played.
Valamir wrote: So its absolutely what the PLAYER knows (which will generally always be OOC) that matters here.
Hold on. By your definition here, the player never knows anything from any in-character action. i.e. Suppose I play in a traditional game where I say what actions I am doing, then get back in-character answers to what I see and understand in-character. By your standard, then by definition I as a player know nothing even after years of play because there is always a chance that some piece of in-character information was wrong.
I don't think that's a reasonable view. In my mind, the issue here is the reliability of the information -- regardless of IC or OOC. For example, you cite that the player could draw incorrect conclusions from in-character information. It could just as easily be that the player draws incorrect conclusions from out-of-character information.
Valamir wrote: Its entirely what the player knows that matters. If the GM tells the player directly (not in character hints and inuendoes and clues) that "If you make this roll you will get the dirt"..then the player KNOWS absolutely 100% that if he makes the roll his character will get the dirt...as noted above, it may be in the safe as the character thought, or it may not be, but somehow someway he'll get the dirt. That's absolutely known in advance in Conflict Resolution (baring an agregious breach of trust on the part of the GM).
You're drawing a line here that unless there is a 100% guarantee then everything else is meaningless. That doesn't seem useful to me. In practice, 99.9% versus 100% isn't an important distinction.
That is, if the player can and does act with confidence in reliable in-character information, then it seems the same to me as acting on out-of-character assurances. Either way, it's true that the GM could break trust and change things. But that's only relevant to the degree that it actually happens. In other words, unless the players are regularly deceived by illusions or similar deceptions, then your objections seem mostly pedantic.
Now, there is an open question about how a game design can be enforced to minimize such deceptions. But that's different than how we should consider Actual Play.
On 6/12/2005 at 9:21am, Simon Kamber wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Guys. Could I get you to split that discussion into another thread? I've lost track of which parts of your post are actually a reply to what I'm saying and which parts have trailed off into another discussion. I've tried reading through it, but I've got a feeling that half of you are talking about something completely different.
So, if you're taking part in the main discussion on the thread, could you rephrase your arguments so I can pick things up and put it into the context. If you aren't, please start another thread on the matter.
EDIT: Ok, I've read through your discussion for the third time, and I think I get what you're discussing. And as far as I can see, you've completely and utterly missed my point.
I'm not talking about those proto-CR conflicts where the players know there's dirt in the safe. I'm talking about groups where the players go through the usual motions of entering the office and so on. They haven't said it, but they're looking for dirt. And then one of the players declare "I try to open the safe". The GM tells him to roll his open-safes skill. I propose that with that information, it is impossible to tell if it's task resolution or implicit conflict resolution.
If the method is actually task resolution, the GM can declare that there was no dirt there. It doesn't matter one whit if it's his own whim, his notes or the pre-written result.
If the method is implicit conflict resolution, which will often be the case, then the GM will break the social contract by declaring that there is no dirt in the safe. If there never was dirt, he wouldn't have allowed the roll in the first place. It's conflict resolution, but up to the point where the GM narrates the roll's results, it's completely indistinguishable from TR.
And the problematic issue in this:
A) Our examples, like the safe, are formed so that rolling to open the safe is task resolution. In fact, the safe is the most used example of task resolution.
B) It's my impression that the majority of the Conflict Resolution players out there utilize Implicit conflict resolution.
And these lead to:
C) These players, when encountering our examples, go "gee, we're using task resolution". And going from that you can try to explain conflict resolution as much as you want and they'll still be going "what's the difference again?". It's a discussion just like that that made me start this thread.
On 6/12/2005 at 9:54am, Noon wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Simon Kamber wrote: If the method is actually task resolution, the GM can declare that there was no dirt there. It doesn't matter one whit if it's his own whim, his notes or the pre-written result.
There seems to be a social pressure to make the safe result more significant, though.
When you have one roll, and significant player investment in "it all rides on this roll!" I think you get drift toward conflict resolution.
On 6/12/2005 at 10:36am, Simon Kamber wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Noon wrote:Simon Kamber wrote: If the method is actually task resolution, the GM can declare that there was no dirt there. It doesn't matter one whit if it's his own whim, his notes or the pre-written result.
There seems to be a social pressure to make the safe result more significant, though.
When you have one roll, and significant player investment in "it all rides on this roll!" I think you get drift toward conflict resolution.
Yep, and that's exactly when it becomes implicit conflict resolution.
On 6/13/2005 at 12:00pm, Yokiboy wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
I think one thing people get hung up on too much is the actual safe itself. In Conflict Resolution the focus is on the dirt, not the safe. In CR the safe is just color, it could be part of the narrative following a successful resolution of the conflict, but doesn't have to be.
The only time the safe would become a part of CR is if a specific skill is used thereby defining what task is performed (most CR-systems aren't so nitpicky).
Here's what I see as a typical in-game example.
CR: I want to find dirt on the bad guy. Lemme see... I think I'll use my safecracking skill, he would probably keep the dirt in his office safe. Let's frame the scene to me standing in his office late at night.
TR: Having successfully broken into the bad guy's office, I now want to crack his safe using my safecracking skill. Oh I hope he keeps his dirt in there...
What really defines CR is that conflict only happens when you have opposing forces clashing! For me the CR "safe example" comes down to a conflict roll by the character trying to find the dirt, and opposed by the bad guy. In TR the determination of the bad guy wanting to keep his dirt out of prying eyes usually only enters into the equation by how good a lock he got on his safe.
[edit] To bring my post more on topic, I am trying to adapt the TR system of TROS to CR, and documented my ideas in Holken just last night. You find the specific rant here. It is easy to fall into the TR-to-CR drift, thinking you're doing CR, when in fact it's TR that step-by-step brings you closer to resolving a conflict. We've gotten much better at CR however, and love it!
TTFN,
Yoki
On 6/13/2005 at 5:06pm, Simon Kamber wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
What really defines CR is that conflict only happens when you have opposing forces clashing! For me the CR "safe example" comes down to a conflict roll by the character trying to find the dirt, and opposed by the bad guy. In TR the determination of the bad guy wanting to keep his dirt out of prying eyes usually only enters into the equation by how good a lock he got on his safe.
If you don't mind me asking, how does that connect to the implicit CR thing? Are you telling me that you don't think it's there?
To me, it sounds like you're trying to explain to me what CR and TR is. I'm perfectly well aware of what it is. In fact, I'm postulating that examples just like yours confuse people who are used to implicit CR because they'll be saying "Now I want to crack his safe using my safecracking skill" and they will still be doing CR.
On 6/13/2005 at 8:33pm, Yokiboy wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Hello Simon,
No, I don't think it's there. Resolving conflicts implicitly is not CR IMO, even if it happens to resolve one [man theory talk can turn strange]. I did try to point out how explicit CR is, by stating that the safe is never what's in focus, but the dirt is, and specifically how the bad guy opposes the protagonist's attempts at finding it, not the difficulty of the safe's combination lock.
TR can of course be drifted towards CR, but in reality I think you're either stuck with TR, or eventually find that CR is all you have left. You can't accomplish CR using TR.
So in short, I don't think you can have implicit CR.
TTFN,
Yoki
On 6/15/2005 at 12:23pm, Simon Kamber wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Yokiboy wrote: Hello Simon,
No, I don't think it's there. Resolving conflicts implicitly is not CR IMO, even if it happens to resolve one [man theory talk can turn strange]. I did try to point out how explicit CR is, by stating that the safe is never what's in focus, but the dirt is, and specifically how the bad guy opposes the protagonist's attempts at finding it, not the difficulty of the safe's combination lock.
But if the outcome is the same, what's the difference really? We could define CR and TR like you do, but if we include implicit CR under TR, the distinction falls apart.
Because as I see it, there's really no important actual-play difference between implicit CR and CR. Whether you roll for getting the dirt or roll for opening the safe to get the dirt isn't really that important as I see it. As long as both rolls are, in the end, about you getting the dirt.
As for accomplishing CR using TR, I think it's more a matter of "talking" TR when in reality, you are using CR. Most of the (admittedly sparse) diplomacy rolls I've made in D&D games have worked like this.
On 6/15/2005 at 12:37pm, Troy_Costisick wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Heya,
But if the outcome is the same, what's the difference really? We could define CR and TR like you do, but if we include implicit CR under TR, the distinction falls apart.
I'm gonna back Simon up on this. There is no difference in Implicit and Excplicit Conflict Resolution when looking at the end result. Yoki, I think you're getting hung up on labels. It's entirely possible for a rules book to call something Task Resolution but in actuallity it runs as Conflict Resolution. Why? Because of term familiarity. Rightly or wrongly, CR is often associated with large scale scene resolution. TR is associated with small scale multi-rolls.
If a conflict is resolved, it's conflict resolution. If a task is simply completed, it's task resolution. There's a lot more CR out than people believe IMHO.
Peace,
-Troy
On 6/15/2005 at 12:48pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Ah... cool. I finally get why I've been so uneasy about the "implicit CR" label. It's a relief to actually know why I disagree, as opposed to just having an unsettled feeling in my stomach.
CR vs. TR is about process, not outcome. All systems resolve conflicts. The question is how. CR does it through dealing with the conflict explicitly, and TR does it indirectly by "doing stuff" and having consensus or (more often) GM fiat decide how it implicitly applies to the conflict.
The power of CR is that it's explicit. In fact, I will refer folks to my actual play thread of months ago labelled (applicably enough) [Capes] The power of explicit conflicts.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 14588
On 6/15/2005 at 1:19pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Bingo Tony.
Its ALL about the process...the mindset of the players...HOW the decisions of when to roll, what to roll, and what to roll for are arrived at. Are you thinking in terms of resolving conflict when you make those decisions, or are you thinking in terms of tasks? You might get something that mechanically looks like CR by accident, but if you were thinking in the syntax of TR it isn't CR no matter how coincidentally it looks like it.
Some systems are designed from the ground up to facilitate a CR process...others have a square peg in a round hole problem...but its the process not the system that determines which it is.
On 6/15/2005 at 1:55pm, Simon Kamber wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
TonyLB wrote: CR vs. TR is about process, not outcome. All systems resolve conflicts. The question is how. CR does it through dealing with the conflict explicitly, and TR does it indirectly by "doing stuff" and having consensus or (more often) GM fiat decide how it implicitly applies to the conflict.
Hmm. I still think that there's a bit in the TR that messes up the lines. If you remove the "GM fiat" and assume that implicitly, "concensus" is defined by the social contract before the conflict even begins, I don't think it fits in the TR pattern anymore.
I.E. in the case of the safe. If one player says "I try to open the safe" and everyone immidiate thinks "he's trying to get the dirt", then isn't that as good as "I try to get the dirt"? I agree that it isn't as "powerful" or "pure", but as far as I can see, it's exactly the same thing.
It might sound impossible that everyone interprets "I try to open the safe" as "I try to get the dirt". But think again. I think most of us can think back on places where exactly that thing happened.
Its ALL about the process...the mindset of the players...HOW the decisions of when to roll, what to roll, and what to roll for are arrived at. Are you thinking in terms of resolving conflict when you make those decisions, or are you thinking in terms of tasks? You might get something that mechanically looks like CR by accident, but if you were thinking in the syntax of TR it isn't CR no matter how coincidentally it looks like it.
Yeah. But are they? They'll say they're thinking in the words of TR, but what's really in focus is that they're up to finding the dirt. If you tell them to say "I want to find dirt", they'll go "but that's what I've been doing all along".
Oh, and to the link Tony provided. I agree that explicit CR can do a lot of things that implicit CR can't. Most notably, it works without intricate aspects of the social contract backing it up. But that doesn't mean implicit CR doesn't exist.
On 6/15/2005 at 2:00pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Simon Kamber wrote: I.E. in the case of the safe. If one player says "I try to open the safe" and everyone immidiate thinks "he's trying to get the dirt", then isn't that as good as "I try to get the dirt"?
I never said it wasn't "as good as" CR. It sounds like it would foster equally enjoyable play, maybe even better play. But it's not CR.
On 6/15/2005 at 2:13pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Yeah. But are they? They'll say they're thinking in the words of TR, but what's really in focus is that they're up to finding the dirt. If you tell them to say "I want to find dirt", they'll go "but that's what I've been doing all along".
Are they? Good question. People often aren't able to articulate what they are actually doing in play. Look at how many game books are written one way, even though the designer actually plays completely differently.
Personally, I don't trust anyone who hasn't spent a considerable amount of time in critical self evaluation of gaming and the nature of their play to be able to accurately depict what they are really doing. Look at how difficult it is to get a new game designer in Indie-design to even begin to grok how to answer a simple question like "what do you do in your game". Let alone a pretty involved question about evaluating Task vs. Conflict resolution.
Those are only simple questions to those of us who've spent many hours thinking about such things. To most gamers they're utterly baffling.
So...could they really be thinking in terms of Conflict Resolution and a Conflict Resolution process...while all the while swearing up and down that they're doing regular old task resolution...of course.
What people say they do and what people are actually doing is no easier to determine for CR vs TR than it is for Creative Agendas.
On 6/17/2005 at 12:08pm, Simon Kamber wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
I never said it wasn't "as good as" CR. It sounds like it would foster equally enjoyable play, maybe even better play. But it's not CR.
I get you that far. But could I get you to describe how it's not CR? When the roll resolves exactly the same issue, where is the difference?
What people say they do and what people are actually doing is no easier to determine for CR vs TR than it is for Creative Agendas.
That's true. But most people have grown out of trying to explain Creative Agendas in a simple way. Yet, we're still doing it with resolution systems, and as far as I can see it leads to no small amount of misunderstandings.
On 6/17/2005 at 12:23pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
You have resolved conflict, and so you are engaged in conflict resolution as an activity. And, by the Lumpley Principle, you are therefore using a conflict resolution system. You are not, however, using a conflict resolution mechanic.
The mechanic you are using is about resolving tasks. In the example, the mechanic tells you about cracking safes, possibly going so far as to give safes complexity ratings, and represent the quality of the characters safe-cracking tools.
The way that you are linking this to conflict ("If you crack the safe you get the dirt") is done entirely outside the written mechanic of the rules.
Does that make sense?
On 6/17/2005 at 5:05pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
TonyLB wrote: You have resolved conflict, and so you are engaged in conflict resolution as an activity. And, by the Lumpley Principle, you are therefore using a conflict resolution system. You are not, however, using a conflict resolution mechanic.
The mechanic you are using is about resolving tasks. In the example, the mechanic tells you about cracking safes, possibly going so far as to give safes complexity ratings, and represent the quality of the characters safe-cracking tools.
I generally agree that most games do not do this.
However, I am somewhat concerned over the division of what is in a mechanic -- since this is a fairly fluid line that doesn't necessarily correspond to a functional difference. For example, Dogs in the Vineyard is clear that there are stakes -- but it is left entirely up in the air as to how stakes are decided. Nevertheless, stakes-setting is thus a part of the mechanics. This is common in a number of indie games. In contrast, a few traditional games give a default answer for how the task is resolved, but then include suggestions for how to handle conflicts and incorporate player ideas as "GM Advice". While the GM advice in most games is terrible, I don't see a clear line among things like Sorcerer's Bangs, Dogs' stakes-setting, Theatrix's improvisations, and Champions' genre advice.
On 6/17/2005 at 6:07pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Well, I disagree. There is a clear, bright, line between Sorceror's Bangs and Dogs' Stakes.
When you roll in Sorceror (at least per my understanding) you are rolling for whether your Lore (or whatever) allows you to do a specific task (e.g. notice a tell-tale). Whether that resolves the Bang? Who can say? Certainly the mechanics don't insist upon any connection between a Lore roll and a Bang.
Whereas in Dogs, if the other guy runs out of dice, you have won the Stakes. Period. The mechanic insists upon it. If you don't end up winning the Stakes then you have broken the rules.
On 6/17/2005 at 6:43pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
TonyLB wrote: Well, I disagree. There is a clear, bright, line between Sorceror's Bangs and Dogs' Stakes.
...
Whereas in Dogs, if the other guy runs out of dice, you have won the Stakes. Period. The mechanic insists upon it. If you don't end up winning the Stakes then you have broken the rules.
I specified stakes-setting. It is a clear mechanic in Dogs that if you win you get the stakes, but it is totally unclear what the stakes are -- i.e. how you set them.
On 6/17/2005 at 6:50pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Okay. I'm not sure I see how the two things are connected. There's stake-setting (which you're talking about) and resolution mechanics (which I'm talking about). Is there an intersection there? Seems to me that resolution starts only after you've figured out what's at stake. But maybe that's the root of my confusion.
On 6/17/2005 at 7:24pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
TonyLB wrote: Okay. I'm not sure I see how the two things are connected. There's stake-setting (which you're talking about) and resolution mechanics (which I'm talking about). Is there an intersection there? Seems to me that resolution starts only after you've figured out what's at stake. But maybe that's the root of my confusion.
When considering what Simon calls "implicit conflict resolution", I think you need to look at the bigger picture to compare apples to apples. i.e. I have a situation which has a conflict. How do I proceed from there? How is the conflict resolved (or not resolved)?
To take the old safe example, in Dogs in the Vineyard, it could in principle be that the stakes are set as "Do I open the safe?" I don't think that's what most groups will do, but doing so is mechanically legal. So I think you need to look a little wider than the pure mechanical resolution.
On 6/17/2005 at 7:26pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Well then, shouldn't we stop using the terms "conflict resolution" and "task resolution"? They're referring to purely the mechanical resolution, aren't they?
On 6/17/2005 at 9:19pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
TonyLB wrote: Well then, shouldn't we stop using the terms "conflict resolution" and "task resolution"? They're referring to purely the mechanical resolution, aren't they?
You know, I'd like to have a concrete definition like this. However, as I ask people, I get differing answers. Most recently was the thread on Known Cause and Conflict Resolution . For example, Ralph (aka Valamir) suggested that in order to determine if my case was Conflict Resolution, he had to know about the emotional reactions of the players.
I don't think there's a way of getting around that Task vs Conflict has to include stakes-setting, though. If not, then how do you distinguish between the case where the stake is "Do I open the safe?" and "Do I get the dirt?".
In short, I don't really have a good answer -- but I wish there was one. I had my own idea about what Conflict vs Task meant, but it doesn't seem to reflect most people's opinions, so I don't think it's very relevant. I'm happy to go with any definition that is clear.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 15680
On 6/17/2005 at 9:36pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
Tha makes sense. I wasn't being anywhere near that fancy. I was just going off the provisional glossary:
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.
Task Resolution: A Technique in which the Resolution mechanisms of play focus on within-game cause, in linear in-game time, in terms of whether the acting character is competent to perform a task.
So that explains, I think, why I didn't see Stakes-setting as particularly relevant.
Even if the stake is "Do I open the safe?", if the structure of the rules is "Opening a safe is a conflict, here's what the safe can bring in on its side of the conflict, here's what the other guy brings in on his side, combine and resolve" then you're in CR. If the structure of the rules is "Opening a safe is a task, here's how difficult a task it is given the tools and conditions, here's the effectiveness of the character doing it, combine and resolve" then you're in TR. Same result, different process.
But maybe that just means that I'm not talking about the same thing as you, and therefore I should get out of the way so that you can talk to the people who are using the term CR to cover a broader variety of things.
On 6/17/2005 at 10:17pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution
I'm tossing in with Simon on this; there does seem to be a genuine case of conflict resolution by social contract masquerading as task resolution. In the safecracking case, it may well be that the die roll technically determines whether Gary managed to open the safe; but if everyone at the table believes that this will result in some unspecified "dirt" being found about a specified person, then the social contract has converted this task to a conflict: the die roll which ostensibly determines whether the safe is opened effectively determines whether the characters get the dirt they seek.
In such a setting, if the referee announced that the safe was empty, there might be a pause followed by efforts to find the secret compartment in the safe, and there might be a gentlemanly acceptance of this new information--but the players will think the referee cheated, because opening the safe was supposed to be the task that resolved the conflict. Either they got the dirt by opening the safe, or they didn't get the dirt because they failed to open the safe. Opening the safe but not getting the dirt was not, in the social contract, a possibility; therefore, the roll to open the safe was conflict resolution disguised in a single task.
--M. J. Young