OK, per Simon's request, I'm splitting this out of the recent thread Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution . What I'd like to talk about is the case of resolution which is purely simulative cause-and-effect (though not necessarily GNS Simulationist), but where the player understands well what the causes are.

Now, it seems to me that what everyone complains about here regarding Task Resolution is that there is an ambiguous situation such that the GM both can and does freely insert improvised elements which changes what the player expected the result of the resolution is. i.e. The player expects to find something useful to their goal in the safe, but doesn't. Personally, I associate this with what is often called "No Myth of Reality" play. Because nothing is nailed down in advance, the players can't know anything and thus can't reliably predict what their tasks will accomplish.

In contrast, I assert that if there is a set of causes known to the players (i.e. they fully understand what the real situation is), then cause-and-effect resolution of the conflict is not arbitrary. To take an example from my recent James Bond 007 campaign: the PCs wanted to snatch a scientist out away from the Soviet agents who were guarding him. Being double-oh agents, they had scouted out and spotted all the enemy guards, and I gave them the hotel layout. They then concocted a plan to do so, and we resolved it.

While there were a few judgement calls in the rolls, for the most part things worked as they expected. Because of how events happened in play, there were some surprises -- like when an enemy got on top of their escape truck. However, those corresponded to risks the players knew they were taking. (They knew that their "allies" planned to betray them, notably.)

Taking a quote from another thread:

xenopulse wrote: That's not necessarily how all task resolution play goes, but if we were using a conflict resolution system, it wouldn't even be an option to play like this. And you know what? The GM loves playing like this, and so does the other main player. Why? It fits their idea on how play should go. Characters act on insufficient information. They might waste time.

That's fine and appropriate for how those two want to play. Me, personally, it bores to death. I want my actions to matter. I want them to reliably address the issues at hand. I don't care whether it's "realistic" that my characters only do things that have that potential.

Now, my question is, where does this fit into the perceived split of Task and Conflict Resolution? From my point of view, the mechanical roll resolves a task, but if the causes are known then the Task has a known effect towards the character's goals.

I think if you know the causes and agree on the potential effects beforehand, you can always choose to do a task that addresses the conflict. So by sharing this information, you allow the player to consistently resolve conflicts.

I think this is where the gray zone is. If the player goes through a list, and the GM tells the player what the stakes would be in each proposal, that's a more TR approach that allows consistent conflict addressing if the player can come up with something that satisfies the GM. E.g., I want to get that dirt, I suggest the safe, the GM says that wouldn't do it, I suggest hacking into his computer, the GM says that sure, I'd be able to find dirt there. If I didn't think of the computer, however, I'd have a hard time addressing the conflict in the way I want.

If, on the other hand, we're collaborating, I think we've moved over the line into CR territory. I say I want to get dirt, the GM says sure, if you can hack into the computer. So it's no longer my sole responsibility to come up with exactly the right task to do this.

Once you move away from requiring "the right task", as in you make a PtA roll and then narrate whatever you think is plausible, we're all the way over on the CR side.

So I think the continuum of possibilities is such:

a) Tasks are resolved without knowledge of conflict addressing potential.
b) Tasks are resolved after the player picks one that the GM agrees addresses the conflict, but finding the right task is up to the player.
c) The GM and the player together negotiate a suitable task once the player determines the conflict to address.
d) The conflict is resolved and the task is determined after the fact.

Does that sound about right?

Most play I've done in my life with traditional RPGs (and still do in my AD&D 2e campaign) has been a and b.

xenopulse wrote: So I think the continuum of possibilities is such:
a) Tasks are resolved without knowledge of conflict addressing potential.
b) Tasks are resolved after the player picks one that the GM agrees addresses the conflict, but finding the right task is up to the player.
c) The GM and the player together negotiate a suitable task once the player determines the conflict to address.
d) The conflict is resolved and the task is determined after the fact.

Does that sound about right? Most play I've done in my life with traditional RPGs (and still do in my AD&D 2e campaign) has been a and b.

Hi John -

I agree with your point in general, I think. It underscores what I'm talking about in my thread about conflict v. task being something of a false dichotomy (depending on what level you take it at).

If the GM is 'fair' and the system is 'solid' and players have the right sets of expectations, of course they can use a task resolution system to work towards their goals! Surely combat is always the clearest example of this from traditional RPGs, but your example works just as well.

There's a reverse point that's important too, one that I was gesturing at with my example (which I swear I lifted from Sorcerer and Sword) about someone winning a conflict roll and losing the swordfight the roll was about.

I can imagine this getting dealt with as follows: your rolls mean you win or lose the conflict, but it's up to the GM to define what 'winning' and 'losing' mean. There's a shared understanding maybe that 'winning' brings you closer to your character's ultimate goal and 'losing' brings you no closer or farther away, but the GM doesn't tell you how they do this, for whatever reason.

So let's say you specified your goal as 'kill the evil wizard.' Your GM decides that the best shot your character has at this is to infiltrate the wizard's palace, and that the only way to infiltrate it with all its magical protections is to get taken prisoner. So you meet the wizard's guards and win your conflict roll. The GM narrates you getting your clock cleaned after a tough fight and getting taken prisoner.

Because you two trust each other you assume that your won roll is moving you closer to your goal, and you keep playing, and sure enough there's a loose piece of metal, or a beautiful princess who sets you free, or something so you can move the story forward from inside the palace. It was a conflict roll all right, but the GM, not the players, were given credibility to decide how the conflict would be 'won'.

I'll call this 'reverse illusionism' to distinguish it from the technique where you put the clue in the safe just because you saw that your players were so convinced it was there that you moved it there to keep pushing the story forward in a task resolution system.

The point is just that (a) I agree with you that task resolution does not have to deprive players of a sense of agency, though all things being equal I think it is more likely to give players their story more slowly and with more intervening factors, so if you have a Narrativist CA it may in many cases be inferior, and that (b) as a corrolary conflict resolution, as such, does not necessarily deprive the GM of his fiat powers; it only does this in many of the applications of CR we've seen in Forge-produced games.

It's when you combine CR with the ability of the players to set the stakes of their own rolls, so that the player can effectively tell the GM "If I win this roll you're giving me the dirt on Mickey, whether it's in the safe or whatever", that you get something different. In the TR systems you describe the players can go for their goals too, and a fair GM with a solid traditional system and good shared expectations with the players can deliver this, but you go for them essentially by putting together a series of actions likely to yield them according to your understanding of the real world and the game. With CR+player stakes-setting you just say "give me the goods now if I win this roll" and you get 'em if you win.

Sean wrote: The point is just that (a) I agree with you that task resolution does not have to deprive players of a sense of agency, though all things being equal I think it is more likely to give players their story more slowly and with more intervening factors, so if you have a Narrativist CA it may in many cases be inferior, and that (b) as a corrolary conflict resolution, as such, does not necessarily deprive the GM of his fiat powers; it only does this in many of the applications of CR we've seen in Forge-produced games.

Sean wrote: It's when you combine CR with the ability of the players to set the stakes of their own rolls, so that the player can effectively tell the GM "If I win this roll you're giving me the dirt on Mickey, whether it's in the safe or whatever", that you get something different. In the TR systems you describe the players can go for their goals too, and a fair GM with a solid traditional system and good shared expectations with the players can deliver this, but you go for them essentially by putting together a series of actions likely to yield them according to your understanding of the real world and the game. With CR+player stakes-setting you just say "give me the goods now if I win this roll" and you get 'em if you win.

I don't think anyone has said that Conflict Resolution systems must remove the individual tasks from the system entirely. Capes, for instance, has a task at each of the many stages of conflict resolution. DitV has a task at each Raise and each See.

I have the strong suspicion that I am, in turn, refuting something that you didn't say. If so, my apologies, and I hope I'll get what's being said with minor clarification.

I think that what makes it a conflict is that you set the Stakes as a resolution of the whole situation. Sometimes in terms of the game-content this is indistinguishable from task resolution, as when you've already established (or guessed correctly) that the dirt on Mickey is in the safe. The task-res safecracking roll and the conflict-res do I get the dirt roll, taken at this point, wind up having the same immediate exploratory content.

Ralph IMO almost always knows what he's talking about, usually better than I do. I think he's using 'conflict resolution' to talk about multiple things which I'm protesting getting jammed together in my other thread, even though jamming them together that way has been tremendously fertile for game design in the past few years. There are techniques that go with 'conflict resolution' in Ralph's sense and maybe certain assumptions about who's setting the stakes that form an important practical whole. What I think though is that calling this important practical whole 'conflict resolution' and opposing it to 'task resolution' and treating these as a neat division of resolution-in-general is obscuring some more basic phenomena. I'm glad to have gotten some support for that idea from Emily and Gordon in that other thread (though Gordon, doesn't a random terrain generator chart resolve something that's neither a task nor a conflict? That's not a subject for this thread).

So I'm effectively redefining 'conflict resolution' and 'task resolution' in a way that makes sense to me, strictly in terms of what's at stake (the possible outcomes to a conflict vs. the possible results of my character's actions), and ignoring all the techniques and history that go/went with these, because I think it makes things cleaner and more precise and un-obscures some of the distinctions within both about who has credibility over what during play.

That's a nice way of saying that I disagree with Ralph about this. It's a terminological dispute, but I think my usage will prove better in the long run, because it cuts things up more neatly in ways that I think will prove relevant to gaming practice.

I don’t if what I have is helpful or not, but here’s my 2 cents in the pot.

If the conflict being resolved functions at the conceptual (Affect Level) level (addressing Premise/Challenge) then you have conflict resolution.

If the conflict being resolved functions at the concrete (Fact Space) level (How does this affect the Fact Space) then you have conflict resolution.

I hope this helps.

EDIT to add - which is why Conflict resolution methods function so effectively for Nar and conflict resolution methods don't function so effectively for Nar. The converse is true for Gamism.

I'd say that's close, Jay, but I'd refine it further. It has to do with the example above about failing the task but winning the goal.

Each resolution actually has two parts, as I see it. There's the goal of the resolution, and the arena of the resolution. So, attacking somebody with a sword can be said to have a goal of, say, killing them, but the arena of conflict is in terms of making a sword hit the opponent in such a way as it ends his life.

Conflict resolution doesn't so much determine what happens in the arena of conflict, it determines whether or not the goal was achieved. Task resolution determines if the task was accomplished in the arena, and/or to what extent.

It's a key feature of conflict resolution that the disposition of the goal will be known after only one resolution. Whereas in task resolution, the task could be left partially done requiring more resolution in order to determine if the tasks have acquired the goal.

Now, John has pointed out that a player might have a goal of just hitting another character. And while I think that's technically true, I think it's rare. Or, rather, it's only a real goal if it's absolutley not part of a larger goal. That is, if the player really wants the opponent dead or similarly disposed of, then just hitting the opponent is simply a task along the way - even if it does have the potential for achieving the goal.

That's key. Just because a task resolution could result in the resolution of a conflict does not make it conflict resolution. In many combat systems it's possible to kill your opponent in one blow. But that doesn't make each individually calculated sword-strike a conflict resolution - that's still task resolution. It's only conflict resolution if what the player is really after is just hitting the opponent.

This is the difference, to me. Task resolution looks at some "reasonable" or "realistic" step that somebody has to take to accomplish something. Even if it's only one step. Conflict resolution is looking at the entire situation, and defining the "size" of the contest by what the player goals are. That is, in conflict resolution we say, "Well, all that's important to me is whether or not my character comes out alive and kills the opponent," that's what the resolution determines. In task resolution we say, "well, to kill an opponent, you have to roll an 'attack' and then see if you get what you want or have to roll again."

I really think this is the only practical measure of these things. Conflict resolutions are variable in scope to cover whatever steps are required to get to the player defined goal. Task resolution means ignoring the end goal of the player, and doing resolution in the steps that the game suggests, possibly over and over until you know whether or not the goal has been achieved.

I don't think that there is any "problem" with task resolution, other than you don't always get to determine the goals with the least amount of handling. Which, given that there are systems like HQ's Extended Contests, we can see is not really a "problem" at all - sometimes longer handling and more game effect on the output is sought. So that's just a preference thing. The advantage that I personally see with conflict resolution is that in having variable scopes, you are freed up in your narration to come up with outputs that just don't seem available with task resolution systems that arbitrarily divide up the scope of tasks. But, again, that has a "downside" in that it means that the in-game "physics" support for the output is not forthcoming with as much rigor.

I think we're just talking about some trade-offs here, and not any one method that's universally inherently superior in any way. Basically, it's in-game (system, really) support of the outcome being traded for freedom of scope.

That's how I see it, anyhow. The "No-Myth" or not issue is, to me, an issue that has some similarities in terms of the effects of certain choices, but to which there are no intrinsic links to the resolution methods in question.

Mike