Hi there!

This thread is a sub-thread of Task vs. Conflict Resolution – Saying it for my group wherein we discussed how I could break the concept of Conflict Resolution (CR) to my group. A number of definitional questions came up and I'd like to discuss them here.

*-*-*

I'd say that at its most basic, CR is negotiating how (and THAT) a roll will resolve a conflict. That sounds like a no-brainer, but my point is this: (a) whether the conflict is meaningful, (b) whether the consequences are known in advance, and (c) who calls for a conflict are separate issues.

(a)
CR conflicts do not have to be meaningful. "Make a climb check at –4 to see if you can cross the ledge without taking 1 point of damage" is CR. However, formulating a conflict will automatically expose it as meaningful or trivial. As Sean put it in the other thread:

Sean wrote: [It's] a way of calling bullshit on apparently system-generated and/or habitual conflicts, among other things, as well as getting people out of the 'you do something, you should roll' mentality.

Right on, right on, and right on.

-Vincent

Hiya,

I have some strong advice: do not do it through email. This must be a face-to-face, social discussion.

Best,
Ron

Here's the definitions of TR and CR from the Provisional Glossary:

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.

Andrew, all that's true and good.

Reflect a little and I think you'll see that "you make explicit what the roll resolves before you roll" and "you don't make explicit what the roll resolved until after you've rolled" is another way to say exactly what you just said.

For most purposes, I think, a better way, but that's just me.

John Kim deserves credit for this new formulation, by the way, I believe.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: Reflect a little and I think you'll see that "you make explicit what the roll resolves before you roll" and "you don't make explicit what the roll resolved until after you've rolled" is another way to say exactly what you just said.

You already gave examples.

Explicit: the roll resolves whether I get down the hallway unseen. Nonexplicit: does the roll resolve whether I get down the hallway unseen? Dunno; we left that ambiguous.

-Vincent

I think we have some crossed wires, and an assumption that characteristics of a thing are the definition of the thing.  Specifically, stakes and resolution systems.  Conflict resolution requires declared stakes, yes.  However, declaring stakes does not make something conflict resolution.

Task Resolution is about, well, resolving a task.  It determines "whether the acting character is competent to perform a task."  It concerns only in-game causality in a relatively narrow window of game time.  It cares nothing for why the character is performing that task, only how competent the character is in tasks of that nature and the resources they can bring to bear on the task.  Stakes can be declared before rolling ("Beat 15 to make the jump without falling into the alley.") or they can be up to the GM after the roll is made ("You failed the roll -- you fall into the alley / you're hanging by your fingertips / you crash through the third-story window.").

Conflict Resolution, on the other hand, is about resolving a conflict.  It arbitrates "conflicts of interests" and it requires the participants of the conflict to have those "interests" even if it requires some anthropomorphism.  That is, everybody comes to a conflict with a desire to be fulfilled, and it's a conflict because there's an obstacle to that fulfillment, often each other.  If no participant has a desire involved, stuff may happen, but it won't be a conflict, and you can not effectively apply conflict resolution.  Conflict resolution determines whose desires get fulfilled and who does not overcome their obstacles. Because CR resolves conflicts, and conflicts consist of interests, CR therefore requires declared stakes in order to define the conflict being resolved.  Otherwise nobody knows what you're rolling dice for.  If the conflict is "I want to kiss Mary-Sue but her father frowns upon that" and I win, we know I kiss Mary-Sue since that's the conflict being resolved.

I like declaring stakes; it empowers and informs players to better address the situation.  It's nifty.  But it's not Conflict Resolution.  CR is a fundamentally different way of approaching a fictional situation, as a narrative instead of as a simulation (not, not, not talking about CA here).  CR deals with characters, interests, and obstacles.  By contrast TR deals with enactors, competencies, and difficulties.  Declaring stakes is a piece of the CR apparatus, but it is not the apparatus itself.

Joshua wrote: If no participant has a desire involved, stuff may happen, but it won't be a conflict, and you can not effectively apply conflict resolution.

lumpley wrote:
Reflect a little and I think you'll see that "you make explicit what the roll resolves before you roll" and "you don't make explicit what the roll resolved until after you've rolled" is another way to say exactly what you just said.

For most purposes, I think, a better way, but that's just me.

John Kim deserves credit for this new formulation, by the way, I believe.

What Joshua said.

Seriously, this is very confused, but I think it's largely because we're not meaning the same thing by the same words. I saved a quote from what I take to be the parent thread, because I was hoping that this thread would already exist, and if it didn't I fully intended to start it. Here it is.

lumpley wrote: I think that "in conflict resolution, we say what's at stake before we roll" is a great way to put it, far better than how I've put it in the past.

-Vincent

The way I see it is, what folks hereabouts call Conflict Resolution resolves conflicts between players about what's going to happen in the fictional world. Task Resolution by contrast dictates rolls for the declaration of intent of certain types of action or event in the fictional world. (That's not an exhaustive characterization of the difference, but there it is.)

So then the way I break it down is:

Task Resolution, Decided Stakes: Traditional RPG combat (where you've got a solid system and you know if you inflict enough hit points the thing dies and you've got the AC chart in front of you and no-one's pretending that everyone hasn't read the monster books, etc., or at least something that approximates this more than it approximates the next.)

Task Resolution, Open Stakes: "I roll to jump the ravine." "OK, roll." The roll is failed. Now, because the GM didn't specify anything about the ravine, he can do just about anything from insta-death to have the character make a mickey mouse dexterity or saving roll to catch a branch a few feet down and climb back up, nothing happens. This is prime territory for Illusionists. I remember back in the late seventies some D&D players used to think it was cheating if you didn't write down everything in your dungeon as DM before coming to play, and this is the reason why, I think: the default to GM-drama.

Conflict Resolution, Decided Stakes: Dogs in the Vineyard, and Heroquest, if it's run 'right' (which is to say, not the way it's expressed in the book in many cases, but I agree with those around here who claim that the system is best suited to this kind of treatment). "I'm-a kill you." "No, but I don't want to kill you, I just want to make it so you ain't doin' no killin' no more."

Conflict Resolution, Open Stakes: The Pool, but maybe only when the non-GM player wins. Then the player can gain a die and let the GM say what happens, or the player can take a die and say what happens. The constraint on the saying can be pretty darn loose. Universalis complications are kind of like this too, I think, where the player wins the massive pile of chips and then busts out with the new facts all over the place.

Is Donjon's 1 victory = 1 fact rule an example of open stakes TR (where someone besides the GM has credibility over what's introduced into the fictional world) or open stakes CR? I don't know offhand.

I think the CR definition in the glossary, as well as in some of Ron's posts, is slightly misleading. I talked to Ron about this once and I think it's misleading for pedagogical purposes rather than because there's anything Ron misses (I add 'of course' for those of you who won't be put off by my deep respect for the man and his work). But. If I were to re-write that definition I'd explicitly add 'between players' after the first 'interest' and substantially rephrase the bit about inanimate objects, since it still seems to me to reflect 'physics of the gameworld' think. If you can't climb the cliff because there's a bad-ass necromancer on top of it and the GM doesn't want you getting at his necromancer without a fight, then he might pick the necromancer's game value as the cliff's value. On the other hand if he stipulated that mountain as the highest mountain on his map and doesn't want you just to brag about how you climbed it without a fight, he can invoke its mountain rating against you too. Either one is CR. It's only when the system whacks you with climbing rules ("whenever a character climbs, roll...") and the player expects and/or the GM feels compelled to make you roll whether he cares about the mountain or not that it's TR.

Because as it stands it's ambiguous between what I take to be the essentials of the local definition and the kind of stuff e.g. S. John Ross talks about when he talks about Conflict Resolution and which has been around for a long time: doing something against another in-game token vs. rolling against your character's abilities alone. Those are both TR, they're just different kinds (or, rather, they're written as TR and then used as TR or CR depending on the GM's (usually) pattern of invoking them).

John, the benefit of declaring stakes is increased communication and a larger sense of authorship on the part of the players.  It allows them to accurately gauge their chances of success, failure, and other consequences and armed with that knowledge make informed choices about what statements -- strategic, thematic, celebratory, whatever -- they want to make through roleplaying.  It's the difference between the players pushing unlabeled buttons on the black box GM hoping to create something enjoyable and the players collaborating with the GM in clear terms to create something meaningful.

Or another tack (based on your LJ post you referenced): the act of rolling the die creates an authority to which the participants can refer in your post-roll freeform discussion.  This definitionally constrains the discussion, perhaps in terms that nobody is especially interested in (you fell down the bottomless pit!).  Discussing such things before there are any authorities, which means discussing them without reference to the SiS but by reference to player preferences, prevents most of the situations where you get a roll that unavoidably means something nobody wanted.

Sean, I can't disagree more that Conflict Resolution does not resolve conflicts between players.  If I'm running a game using CR and the Big Bad is about to destroy the world and the PCs are there to stop her, I'm rooting on their side.  There is no conflict between the players.  There are conflicts between characters, however, and that's what CR arbitrates.

Well, we certainly disagree.

A question for you: If I'm on their side, then why don't I just punt on the roll. "OK, you save the world, cool!"

The obvious answer to that is: 'that would be cheating!' But why? If everyone wants it to go the same way, just say yes, right? Don't roll?

The word 'want' is multifarious here. The evidence for what you want is what you choose to do, and to a lesser extent what you say and feel about what you want. Human beings have desires that can't all be fulfilled in many situations. You want the players to win, yes, but you don't want them to win in a way that renders the victory empty or hollow. And you don't want the second more than you want the first. Which is why you choose to roll. And that choice is what makes it CR. You want them to win but you want them to work for it more.

What makes it TR is that you roll because you wrote/bought the adventure that way, he's got these stats, the combat rules say this, the players declare actions xyz, and so on.  I agree 100% with the glossary definition of TR - the connection between what I'm saying and it is the belief of some designers that 'the system is the physics of the gameworld', which might be a belief that leads a designer to choose TR, or might be a belief that a designer who uses TR by habit comes to by thinking it through without realizing that there are other possibilities.

(Also, even though I'm usually on the player's side, I'm not always, as GM. I really recommend GMing Dogs (though IIRC you have, so I'm interested if you didn't experience it this way) if you want to see this in action in a functional way. You can totally be all, like, 'fuck you, that's not the way it's going to be' in Dogs as GM, be all in like you are sometimes as a player, because the system doesn't force you to pull your punches. Because the player can win the conflict straight-up even though you put the best pNPC stats you had into the character and pulled out all the stops to make the story go your way.)

Sean wrote: The obvious answer to that is: 'that would be cheating!'

The discussion intended to distinguish task and conflict resolution has been interesting. Eero made a comment in an earlier thread that has stuck in my mind: of course every system has both. Still don't know what to make of that, but it's intriguing. The glossary is a bit technical, bit it does the job: task resolves tasks, conflict resolves conflicts. Vincent's way of explaining conflict resolution is succinct and accessible: say yes or roll dice; set stakes. I think the assertion that “setting stakes makes resolution concern conflict” is wanting conflict resolution too much. MJ's clarification makes good sense to me, that task resolves a cause, leading to an interpretation of its effect, and conflict resolves an effect, leading to an interpretation of its cause. I'm in the camp of no conflict between game elements; it is instead between the players who control them.

I like Eero's parameters of stakes: explicitness, meaning and choice. In my play, it's unusual to set explicit stakes, unless the system requires it. (e.g. DitV, TSOY.) Even then, sometimes the formality rankles. On the other hand, it's a recurring phenomenon that I have to pin down a player as to what they're trying to accomplish (i.e. what's at stake). This usually happens when a risk-aversive player tries to squeeze multiple action into a single announcement; either that, or they make some defensive argument that something should be a certain way because of physics or rules support or whatever. I usually say, “So level with me: What would you really like to have happen?” And then they fess up, and we've got stakes. This has happened at least once that I can remember when I was the player trying to get the GM to set stakes. It was a WoD game, and through Drama, the Storyteller started interpreting the effect of my carefully won cause (i.e. provoking my sire with bait). And I just went meta. Speaking as a player, not a character at all, I insisted that he set stakes or I was going to give. (To be all DitV-ish.) And he did. What makes that not me just insisting I get my way is that I stood by the dice roll after we agreed to terms; they rolled my way that time. And without thinking, without permission, I spontaneously narrated my success.

In that example, the cause was settled beforehand as well (i.e. some kind of vampire mind power). As I think about it, providing bait was really just player provided scene framing. Another way to look at it is that we just made explicit what that mind power could do. But whether it was conflict or task resolution (which doesn't matter), I got my right of attempt for relevant impact (which does matter).

It's only when one player is outside an intersection of interest that meaning comes up. For instance, in a TROS campaign, a player announced that he gambled to earn money .. again. Though I didn't say anything about it at the time, I was thinking Christ! Who cares? What are you wanting to do with the money?

Choice is traditionally accorded to the GM. It's unusual for a player to pipe up and say, “I roll intrigue to curry her favor .. [rolls before the GM can regain his composure] .. Success! She approves my proposed trade route.” You can almost imagine the GM sputtering, “Now just a damn minute! You didn't even let me set your target number!” What actually happens is everybody laughs as though you must be joking. There may be some follow up jokes, but everybody's waiting (maybe even nervously eying) for the GM to make the next prompt for input, as though only he may provide sanction.

However you do it, whether the system provides support for it or not, you've got to get what you want. Re-rolling failures is a dead giveaway for lack of meaning. Reach down between your legs .. Yes, those are your balls. Give yourself what you really want and move on. If the players are engaging in frustration play, they want the GM to shoulder the duty of input and choose what requires resolution. If they make anxious causal arguments, give them a voice in setting stakes. (WARNING: Even so, they may dread doing it. Those who seek advantage typically disdain commitment.) If they quickly cut to one open-ended cross after another, they desperately want to connect; consider your apprehension as a perceived risk to your prep. Then follow their lead or counter offer to tie them into your material. If they blather on and on about .. the hors d'oeuvres at the ballroom dance, press or frame them.

I guess I've wandered into more general GM technique. Anyway, hopefully some of this is valuable to consider.

There can be a kind of task madness that leads to dysfunctional play. Luke Crane talks about this in BW:C. I call it double jeopardy. To pick up on MJ's example, you cross the chasm, now check to keep your balance on the narrow ledge. You remain, but the thief is long gone. Check to pick the lock. The door swings open, but the way is blocked by toppled furniture. Check to clear the obstacle, etc. At some point, this becomes asshole play by the GM. Even if you use task resolution, it's advisable to negotiate the course.

Hi, Joshua -

The obvious answer to me is that that would be boring.

But even in your example, if I want the players to 'work for it' and that makes a conflict, doesn't that assume the players don't want to work for it?  That's not my experience, either.

lumpley wrote: You already gave examples.

Explicit: the roll resolves whether I get down the hallway unseen. Nonexplicit: does the roll resolve whether I get down the hallway unseen? Dunno; we left that ambiguous.

Sean: Conflict resolution resolves in-game conflicts, not between-player conflicts.

When the players first agree to roll the dice, they've resolved whatever conflict they may have had. "Let's roll for it." "Yes, let's." BAM no conflict between them. Otherwise they'd keep arguing instead, right?

They can each prefer a different outcome or the same outcome or whatever. If it's a FitM system they can even keep fighting for their prefered outcome after the dice are down. But by picking up the dice at all in the first place, they've both agreed - AGREED, now - to set their preferences ultimately aside.

Andrew:

Andrew wrote: In the first, the stakes are whether you get down the hallway unseen, and the roll resolves that. In the second, the stakes are whether you take out the security camera, and the roll resolves that. In both cases, the player wanted his character to get down the hallway unseen, but in the first, that issue was directly resolved, while the second resolved something that might or might not lead to the player accomplishing his goals.

That's interesting, Vincent. I know where you're coming from, and it's right to say that the agreement to roll dice is just as much an agreement as the agreement to let it go one way or another.

But look. In one sense, in a democracy, I agree to vote and to abide by the outcome of those votes (at least, until the next one). But the voting mechanic is a system for resolving disagreement between citizens. In one sense, yeah, I can take to the streets with my gun and try to change things by fire and sword, but then I'm not playing the democracy game any more.

In just the way that voting resolves disagreement between citizens, resolution mechanics in general are aimed at resolving disagreement between players. The social contract to play that game is a contract to abide by its resolution mechanics. The advantage of (what-I'm-calling, with much less disagreement in practice about what the cases of it are than we might be having in theory) conflict resolution mechanics is that they explicitly address the interactions between the players.

In-game conflicts? So whenever my fictional token bumps up against one of yours, we roll? That's not how your game works. It's not the imaginary stuff driving the player rolling except insofar as players care about it and want to take one side or the other. Whereas in a game where you have to roll to climb walls, as soon as the wall gets described, then if you want to climb it you have to roll.