The Forge Reference Project

 

Topic: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution
Started by: coxcomb
Started on: 2/2/2004
Board: RPG Theory


On 2/2/2004 at 10:10pm, coxcomb wrote:
Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

First, I am sorry if this has already been beaten to death, I haven't spent too much time trolling through the posts.

I have read most of Ron's essays and while I think the notion of resolving conflict rather than actions is a good idea, I don't understand how it works in practice.

It seems as though some parts of a game will always need more in-depth resolution. That is, if I get to the end of a session and the Big Bad is waiting to kick my butt, I (pretty much regardless of GNS) would be let down if that dramatic conflict were reduced to the fickle fate of a single roll.

I'm sure there is something key here that just isn't making it through my thick skull. Can anyone clear this up for me? Any clever examples of play that illustrate how to make this work?

Thanks,

Message 9609#100211

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by coxcomb
...in which coxcomb participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/2/2004




On 2/2/2004 at 10:24pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

Hi Jay,

The trouble is that there are two variables to consider, not just one.

#1 is conflict vs. task resolution. The best way to think about this is ... let's see, one guy is chasing another guy. The chase-ee comes to a fence and wants to vault it as he runs.

What do the mechanics address? In many games, the issue is the jump per se - can or cannot this guy jump this fence, at this speed? Quick reference to various physical parameters, jumping skills, et cetera, to set up the probabilities. The chase itself is put on hold for a minute while we focus on, think about, and carry out the jump, in terms of the character's capabilities. That's task resolution.

However, in conflict resolution, the chase is the thing. If we're gonna roll (for instance), it's going to resolve the chase, or some aspect of the chase per se. The fence and whatever relevant physical parameters for the character modify the chase, in favor of the pursuer, and are not considered as an isolated task. It might be a dice penalty to the chase-ee, or whatever, but when we swing the system into action, whatever rolls or energy-points or whatever are involved, we'll still be focused on the chase's outcome.

#2 is about scale. It's easy to get confused, because in the above example (and many similar examples), the jump exists inside the chase, so people get mixed up and think that conflicts must always be bigger than tasks. That's not the case at all.

Scale refers to how many or how much of the game-world events get covered by this particular resolution mechanic in action. The usual range is "scene resolution," for the biggest/most, to "single-action" for the smallest/least.

As I say, this is a completely independent variable from #1.

Examples:
Tunnels & Trolls combat: task resolution at the scene scale.
HeroQuest simple contest: conflict resolution at the scene scale
Cyberpunk: task resolution at the single-action scale
Sorcerer rolls in (say) combat: conflict resolution at the single-action scale

Does that help?

Best,
Ron

Message 9609#100212

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/2/2004




On 2/2/2004 at 10:25pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

Well, one of the things to keep in mind is that what you would be missing is not the additional rolls. What you'd be missing is all of the tactical fiddling that goes along with those rolls.

Conflict resolution mechanics are not simply task resolution mechanics moved to a larger scale (where you correctly note you'd lose the desireable level of resolution). Conflict resolution mechanics must be structure so that all of the tactical fiddling is shifted to the roll itself.

Good examples of this would be Story Engine, Trollbabe, and Universalis where a whole bunch of ==stuff== goes on before the dice even hit the table. Its at the level of this "stuff" where all of things you wouldn't want to miss out on occur.

Message 9609#100213

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Valamir
...in which Valamir participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/2/2004




On 2/3/2004 at 7:14am, coxcomb wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

Ron--
Thanks for the response. I understand both of your points, but I am still not entirely satisfied.

I just don't buy "conflict resolution at the single-action scale". I reread the combat section of Sorcerer and it sure seems to be action resolution to me.

Can you give an example of how an action in Sorcerer combat is resolved as a conflict?

Thanks,

Message 9609#100250

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by coxcomb
...in which coxcomb participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/3/2004




On 2/3/2004 at 1:36pm, simon_hibbs wrote:
Re: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

coxcomb wrote: It seems as though some parts of a game will always need more in-depth resolution. That is, if I get to the end of a session and the Big Bad is waiting to kick my butt, I (pretty much regardless of GNS) would be let down if that dramatic conflict were reduced to the fickle fate of a single roll.


Many are the ways to skin a cat!

I think focusing on dice rolls is the root of the problem. My guess is that what you realy want is a compelling narative of how you defeat the bad guy's minions, rescue the princess from the altar and trick the bad guy into falling into the pit of flames.

In a traditional RPG each one of these would be resolved by many dice rolls and the whole thing might take an entire evening to resolve. However the alternative isn't necesserily to just resolve everything with a single roll. In scene resolution a common approach is to break a complex case like this down into sub-scenes and resolve those seperately, perhaps with the results of on feeding a modifier into the next roll.

Even in a more streightforward duel you can still use the same technique for dramatic effect. One sub-scene might be the repartee before combat commences (repartee skill), followed by a dazzling sabre fight (melee combat), culminating in the villain revealing that ihe is in fact your father (passion/relationship contest).

Scene resolution is about adapting the game mechanics to suit your needs, rather than dictating a single fixed level of detail in the game mechanics.


Simon Hibbs

Message 9609#100270

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by simon_hibbs
...in which simon_hibbs participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/3/2004




On 2/3/2004 at 4:28pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

A distinction from film might help here (assuming I understand what's going on). I'm going to use an example I like from The Princess Bride because most people seem to have seen it and it's such a clearly laid-out film. It also rocks.

Remember when the Dread Pirate Roberts (actually the hero in disguise) has to climb up the cliff, then at the top fight Inigo Montoya, then run off and fight Andre the Giant (I forget the character name)? Okay, working from large to small:

Sequence: This could be divided two ways. First, you could take the whole thing from cliff to running off as one sequence. Second, you could take the cliff part as one sequence and the fight with Inigo as a second. I would tend to go with the former, since much of the cliff involves a running conversation with Inigo, who is really hoping that the hero gets to the top so they can have a swordfight. Much backchat and banter happens here, all of which sets up the swordfight to come.

The next thing is the swordfight itself, which has lots of good banter, some crunch moments ("I am not left-handed," "I am not left-handed either," "I would rather cut my arm off than kill an artist like you," etc.), and a lot of great action.

An essential point is that if you take it all as one sequence, the cliff-climbing establishes a whole lot of things about both characters. The hero is quite blase, chatty, undisturbed by the prospect of fighting Inigo. Inigo is actually a decent guy, if a little scatterbrained, and really cares a lot about swordfighting. Once they get to the swordfight, all this really comes to fruition; nothing particularly new is introduced about the characters, apart from the incidental fact that they are both right-handed. The only new thing is that both are fantastic swordsmen, and frankly you expected that.

Scene: Break up the sequence into scenes, and you're there. I would divide it into 4 scenes. First, the cliff. Second, the swordfight with the hero doing better, up until Inigo reveals that he is not left-handed. Third, the swordfight with Inigo doing better, up until the hero reveals that he too is not left-handed. Fourth, the resolution of the whole thing, in which the hero wins and refuses to kill Inigo; he knocks him out instead and runs off.

Structurally, then, a sequence is usually made up of scenes for exposition, dramatic tension, and climax or resolution. Here there are two dramatic tension points, because of the hand-shifting. The cliff is exposition -- it sets up the fight. The hero winning, knocking out Inigo, and running off is climax -- you don't want to waste time on this because it's sort of a foregone conclusion from the moment that the hero shifts hands. The fight is the dramatic tension -- it's the focus and the important part, and garners the most interest.

If you wanted to see this as straight RPG stuff, you could imagine resolving each scene mechanically with a single die-roll or equivalent, with the players filling in all the cool stuff that in effect explains each die-roll.

Action: Suppose you broke down each of those swordfight scenes into a whole bunch of smaller actions. Attack, parry, attack, parry, trip, recover, attack, parry, etc.

The point here is that the traditional RPG focuses at the action level. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but if you think of the film the really interesting stuff doesn't happen here. The interesting stuff happens at the scene level: who wins? why? who shifts hands?

You could do the same thing with big kung fu fights in classic Hong Kong films. They have lots more scenes, of course, but the interesting stuff doesn't happen with every punch and kick; it's a kind of progression of larger blocks that are independently fun and interesting. You get new weapons, new physical settings for the fight-stage, new styles for characters to switch to, new characters to fight. Kentucky Fried Movie pillories this wonderfully by having the main kung fu guy fighting an opponent, and then the camera backs up to show a bunch of additional opponents waiting on line for their turns.

The advantage of the traditional action-based resolution is that you get lots of bang for your scene buck: each flash of the swords gets its own moment. The disadvantage is that you tend to forget the forest for the trees.

The advantage of the scene-based resolution is that you get story and narrative flow. The disadvantage is that you have to have the players fill in all those flashing blades through open description.

Hope this helps somewhat.

Chris Lehrich

Message 9609#100299

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/3/2004




On 2/3/2004 at 5:05pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

Hi there,

Jay (coxcomb), you wrote,

I reread the combat section of Sorcerer and it sure seems to be action resolution to me.


Yup, the text in the main book represents me struggling out of task-resolution terminology and standard RPG texts. Sorcerer & Sword is much more explicit about resolving conflicts, and Sex & Sorcery even more so, using cute li'l diagrams.

(By the way, you keep saying "action" resolution for some reason; can we agree to use "task" for the sake of consistency? It's what I've always used.)

Can you give an example of how an action in Sorcerer combat is resolved as a conflict?


Here are a couple of threads which do the job, I think. Let me know:
But is it REALLY conflict resolution? and Eureka moment: combat and bonus dice for description

Best,
Ron

Forge Reference Links:
Topic 5488
Topic 5499

Message 9609#100307

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/3/2004




On 2/3/2004 at 5:47pm, coxcomb wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

Thanks Chris. Excellent example! Actually, I totally get what you're talking about.

It's funny that you should use the Princess Bride example. I do stage combat choreography, and I use that fight to show new fighters that "kewl" choreography doesn't make a great fight. First we watch the swordfight normally, and everybody cheers and has a great time. Then I start it again, but with the sound turned off. Thing is, the fight sucks on a technical level. Without the actors skillfully delivering their lines, it falls flat.

I think a big problem with many RPGs is that they encourage combat with the sound off. The focus is on which maneuver you should choose for maximum mechanical impact and not on what you are trying to accomplish, or how your actions relate to who your character is. (Yes, I know, I clearly don't mesh with Gamist thinking, in which finding mechanical impact is often much of the point)

My difficulty here is not in understanding breaking sequences into chunks and resolving those chunks. That part is instinctual for me and I've been doing it in my games for years.

My difficulty comes from extending the term "conflict resolution" to a system that is clearly resolving at an task level. Take a look a Sorcerer (I really don't mean to pick on Sorcerer, or Ron. I love Sorcerer, and admire Ron. I use it as an example because it is a game that talks conflict resolution--and I have a copy to refer to) Anyway, in the all things except for combat and some sorcery, Sorcerer clearly presents rules for conflict resolution. The combat is framed in rounds (each of which is of ambiguous length but confined to approximately two seconds of activity). During each round everybody states an action. Dice are rolled to determine the outcome of each action. Clearly task resolution.

So it would seem that Sorcerer (along with many other games) is actually a mix of conflict resolution (with variable scaling) for general actions and task resolution for combat. What Sorcerer does that a traditional task resolution system (e.g. D&D) doesn't do, is mechanically encourage playing with the sound on. That is, instead of encouraging careful selection of static advantages (feats, maneuvers, etc.), Sorcerer has dynamic advantages in the form of bonuses for creative description, clever tactics and so on. The bonuses you get for a roll are not described on your sheet, they are dictated by your ability to add appropriate desription to the scene. Success depends more on character and player investment and context than on character engineering.

I think many people confuse "task resolution" with playing with the sound off (sorry, this metaphor is really working for me this morning).

Am I making sense?

Message 9609#100316

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by coxcomb
...in which coxcomb participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/3/2004




On 2/3/2004 at 6:01pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

Hi Jay,

The way I see it, Sorcerer (and I accept that it's just an example, not "against" it or me) is based on conflict resolution that in addition provides some structure for describing the tasks within it.

Dust Devils, for instance, provides some structure for the tasks within the conflicts it resolves, but not quite as much as Sorcerer (i.e., open to more interpretation). And The Pool provides none at all, just says "goal fails" or "goal succeeds" and leaves narration of anything within that up to the designated person.

I think all of these are a lot different from task resolution alone, even when each action is accompanied by lots of descriptive color. Playing Feng Shui is a lot like that, in my experience. Conflicts are only resolved in Feng Shui, if at all, through the accumulation of many separately-resolved tasks through many "shots." Each shot has a lot of flash and narration associated with it, but that doesn't change the esssential structure of resolution.

Best,
Ron

Message 9609#100322

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Ron Edwards
...in which Ron Edwards participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/3/2004




On 2/3/2004 at 6:04pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

Not to do a pure "me too" post or anything, but the "swordfight with the sound off" thing seems to me an amazingly good analogy. If y'all don't mind, I'm going to steal it for explaining this same issue in my own current game design. Nails and heads have been hit!

Actually, come to think of it, I went to a screening of the Errol Flynn Robin Hood and the sound on one reel was incredibly screwed up; it sounded like the movie was underwater. When it came to the big fight scene up and down the stairs with Basil Rathbone, the screeners came out, apologized, and asked us if we'd rather see it with the sound off or screwed up. We asked for "sound off," and believe me, it was a pretty mediocre experience at best. A little better than it might have been, since we'd actually asked for the sound off, but still mediocre.

Chris Lehrich

Message 9609#100323

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/3/2004




On 2/3/2004 at 6:11pm, coxcomb wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

That makes sense, Ron. I still don't quite agree with the terminology, but I think we're down to semantics, so I'll stop arguing. ;-)

Thanks,

Message 9609#100325

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by coxcomb
...in which coxcomb participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/3/2004




On 2/3/2004 at 6:20pm, coxcomb wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

Steal away Chris! I'm actually rather pleased with myself about the analogy. Every time I play D20 (with my predominantly Gamist group) I feel like the sound is off.

Attack, Feat, Repeat. Ugh! Works for some, but not for me. :(

Cheers,

Message 9609#100327

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by coxcomb
...in which coxcomb participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/3/2004




On 2/3/2004 at 6:58pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

A reply to Chris and Jay --

First of all, my Threefold-Simulationist side feels compelled to point out the obvious caveat: that "The Princess Bride" is not an RPG, and what works for a film may or may not work for an RPG. It's worth talking about, but one should keep that in mind.

clehrich wrote: The point here is that the traditional RPG focuses at the action level. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but if you think of the film the really interesting stuff doesn't happen here. The interesting stuff happens at the scene level: who wins? why? who shifts hands?

You could do the same thing with big kung fu fights in classic Hong Kong films. They have lots more scenes, of course, but the interesting stuff doesn't happen with every punch and kick; it's a kind of progression of larger blocks that are independently fun and interesting.

I think that depends on what you find interesting. Sure, if you rip each individual action out of its context, then its not interesting -- but that doesn't mean that the actions themselves aren't interesting within their context.

Jay's point about "watching with the sound off" resonates with me. At this point, my favorite dramatic combat system is still Champions -- and that's because of the personal aspect, i.e. how fighting can express character. What I enjoy about action/task-based resolution is how it focuses on the moment-to-moment choices of the characters and what they are feeling. In a good fight, PCs are constantly reassessing their goals with decisions like how far they will go, who they are defending, and so forth. This translates into different action choices.

For me, at least, conflict resolution in games like HeroQuest or Everway hasn't had that quality. I'm not saying that it's not possible, but it hasn't been straightforward how to get that feeling of moment-to-moment choice.

Editted to add: I own Sorcerer but I haven't played it, so I can't really comment on discussion of that part.

Message 9609#100335

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by John Kim
...in which John Kim participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/3/2004




On 2/3/2004 at 7:23pm, clehrich wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

John Kim wrote: I think that depends on what you find interesting. Sure, if you rip each individual action out of its context, then its not interesting -- but that doesn't mean that the actions themselves aren't interesting within their context.
Yes, exactly. If the game is of the sort where the moment-to-moment stuff is fascinating, you should go down to what I guess Ron calls the "task" level. I was just trying to clarify notionally what a "scene"-level division would amount to.

I think this is the great thing about "sound off" as an analogy. In some classic kung-fu films, where actually the second-to-second stuff is very cool, "sound off" sucks because you lose the flavor and effect of every hit. In Princess Bride, you lose all the banter that makes a more scene-level thing cool. Both can be wonderful, but either way without the sound it's mediocre.

Chris Lehrich

Message 9609#100340

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by clehrich
...in which clehrich participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/3/2004




On 2/3/2004 at 8:12pm, coxcomb wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

To be clear: I do not intend any value judgements about style of play. I know lots of folks who think the character engineering of a game like D&D (what feats and class abilities work well together to do what I want) is great. It seems to work for Gamist and some Simulationist play styles quite well.

I was trying to differentiate this style of resolution from that used in Sorcerer combat, where the tactics and strategy come more from adding to the narrative than from setting up your pre-planned perfect combo.

Of course there is lots of middle ground here too. As a long time Chamions/Hero player, I hear what John is saying about its style of task resolution. If you want to get your tactical groove on in character context, you can't get much better. But Hero does fall between the extremes. Even though there are specific maneuvers, the system encourages flavorful description, and having strong metamechanics enables the GM to roll with the unusual tasks without fudging the system too much.

Message 9609#100347

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by coxcomb
...in which coxcomb participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/3/2004




On 2/4/2004 at 5:55am, Noon wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

So...
Task = tactical
Conflict = strategic

I mean, you can boil it down to that, can't you? Whether your testing the tactic, or testing whether the strategy works.

Of course, testing the strategy involves squishing down the specifics of the tactical.

And once you do this you realise that you can squish down each strategy and instead resolve a greater strategy.

Of course that has to ceiling out. You can't get to the point where your testing such a grand strategy that RP is also being simulated rather than done (not saying that's what's being here, just postulating a ceiling).

Just thinking...

Message 9609#100426

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Noon
...in which Noon participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/4/2004




On 2/4/2004 at 3:41pm, lumpley wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

Seems to me you're all still getting the two variables mixed up. Check this out: Task Resolution tells you whether you succeed or fail. Conflict Resolution tells you whether you win or lose.

Player: "I crack the supervillian's safe!"
Task Resolution: do you open the supervillian's safe?
Roll: Failure!
GM: "Nope, the safe's too good. You can't crack it."

Player: "I crack the supervillian's safe!"
Conflict Resolution: do you find out who is the supervillain's next target?
Roll: Loss!
GM: "Okay, you spin the dials and pop the safe open. There are a bunch of papers in there, but they don't say who the target is."

Both of these are at the single action scale, but the former's succeed-fail and the latter's win-lose. You can succeed but lose, fail but win.

In conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it. It's possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a win anyway.

Whether you roll for each flash of the blade or only for the whole fight is scale, not Task vs. Conflict. You can Conflict-Resolve the whole fight in one roll or Task-Resolve the whole fight in one roll:

Player: "I fight him!"
Task Resolution: do you win the fight (that is, do you fight him successfully)?
Roll: Success!
GM: "You beat him! You disarm him and kick his butt!"

Player: "I fight him!"
Conflict Resolution: do you make it to the ship before it sails away?
Roll: Victory!
GM: "You disarm him, kick his butt, and then run down the dock just in time! They let you on board and then pull up the gangplank!"

-Vincent

Message 9609#100480

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by lumpley
...in which lumpley participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/4/2004




On 2/4/2004 at 9:45pm, Autocrat wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

I'm really sorry.... but I've read the post trhough twice now..... and I still don't get it......why does it have to be different?

Win / Lose
Succeed / Fail

Not alot of difference... infact, I can only see it as being personal and impersonal, yet the mechanics are still the same, and the scale can be as well.

The only thing that is different is whether its a general check or a specific check.

the idea of having a fight, running to the docks, then trying to get to the ship.....
3 different things! The first is combat... you need to beat the opponent... failure results in death etc. Success means you can move on.... yet time may be important!
The second is the running, so you need to check if you are running fast enough, possibly avoiding obstacles, so a few more checks, much like the combat situation, you need to succeed to win, failure results in overal failure, and time is still important!
The third is leaping for the ship. This may be a Static thing, or may be altered by the speed at which you achieved the first two things. You check to see if you make the jump. Success means you made it, failure means you hit the water!


So you have the big picture, which could be resolved with one check,......
so, do I beat the guy, make it to the docks in time and leap aboard.....result of success = yes, you win! Failure = No, you lose!
Or you could handle it the three seperate parts, with failure at any point resulting in failure throughout!
Basically, it seems like the difference between a single resolve or an extened resolve!

So, if I have got it wrong, or round the wrong way, or I'm not only holding the wrong end of the stick - but a completely different stick, pease explain it to me in simple english, (apparently its the language I'm meant to be able to speak, yet I think they lied!)

Message 9609#100573

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Autocrat
...in which Autocrat participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/4/2004




On 2/4/2004 at 10:16pm, lumpley wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

The fight on the dock example doesn't work, okay. How's the safe example for you?

The key to the two kinds of resolution is: what's at stake?

In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you crack the safe?

In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain?

Win / Lose
Succeed / Fail

Not alot of difference... infact, I can only see it as being personal and impersonal, yet the mechanics are still the same, and the scale can be as well.

Except that, as I said, you can succeed but lose, or fail but win. Given that we haven't established what's in the safe, can you see where your character might a) fail to open the safe, but still get the dirt on the supervillain, or else b) successfully open the safe, but not get the dirt on the supervillain?

Which is important to the resolution rules: opening the safe, or getting the dirt? That's how you tell whether it's task resolution or conflict resolution.

-Vincent

Message 9609#100577

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by lumpley
...in which lumpley participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/4/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 12:31am, Anthony wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

For a while now I've been trying to discuss "alternative" role playing with a few gamers I really suspect would be into it (by alternative I mean less gamist in simulationist clothing, probably with a focus on narrative play, but mostly just getting away from the game style we have right now which frankly no one seems to enjoy that much) for a while now. I've tried to get people interested in some games, I even got a couple started to the point where characters were made and a first session was played. But nothing much has been going on. I suspect a large part of that is because there is another player who is VERY strongly against (most games he plays are in his homebrew system and he has a tendency to lord his authorness of the rules to give him rights over the other players) who is very vocal against any such movement.

I've been trying to get people to read the forge for a while, because I'm really convinced that given

I a copy of this discussion and brought attention to the examples lumpley gave. I got responses with the email equivalent of lights going off in people's heads. Thank you thank you thank you. That was one of the better explanations I've seen here.

Message 9609#100597

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Anthony
...in which Anthony participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 2:16am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

lumpley wrote: In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you crack the safe?

In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain?

While this example works, I'm not sure how broadly these can be distinguished. i.e. Consider "I punch him" instead, where "why" is "To try to incapacitate him". There isn't much difference between the methods here. I think that the safe example works because it is a single-roll resolution of a strategic conflict. i.e. The overall conflict doesn't involve multiple possibly-different tasks, like fighting and running.

So I think conflict resolution is inherently more strategic. It also seems to me to be difficult to include many subtle shifts in intent. As I cited before, what I like about action-based combat is the moment-to-moment emotional choices. For example, in the last Buffy game I was in, at first Dot (my PC) was concentrating on killing a vampire she was facing. But then her friend Max was hit, and she shifted her priority more to protecting Max. But then Max cast a spell of protection for herself, and Dot was able to concentrate more on slaying.

The stated intent is crucial for conflict resolution, it seems, and I'm never very comfortable with that. Within my internal model, people always have multiple reasons for doing things along with some reasons that give them pause -- and they often are trying to accomplish multiple goals. In the combat as given, Max was actually risking herself more because she wanted to prove herself to Dot because Max is secretly in love with Dot. Dot returns the affection slightly but only on a very unconscious level. But Dot shifted from being worried about Max to being confident in Max's abilities during the combat. Given our mainly actor-stance style, it seems difficult to try to parse all that out during a combat, whereas it seems comparatively easy to roll for each action.

Message 9609#100615

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by John Kim
...in which John Kim participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 3:09am, lumpley wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

John? The safe example is short and easy. It illustrates the principle. It does not describe the bounds of the approach.

You want an example of conflict resolution that a) includes many subtle shifts in intent, b) has moment-to-moment emotional choices, where the characters c) have multiple reasons for doing things, d) have some reasons that give them pause, and e) are trying to accomplish multiple goals?

The safe example ain't it. I am not startled to learn this.

You wrote: Consider "I punch him" instead, where "why" is "To try to incapacitate him". There isn't much difference between the methods here.


Sure there is. Imagine, if you will, a mechanic where we roll a bunch of dice to determine whether you incapacitate him, heavily modified by traits on your character sheet and your expenditure of resource, and flip one coin to determine whether your punch lands. Here are the four possible outcomes: punch lands+incapacitated; punch lands+not incapacitated; punch misses+incapacitated; punch misses+not incapacitated.

Then we have to narrate from "I punch him" to whatever outcome-combination the mechanic returns.

The dice are conflict resolution. The one coin is task resolution. The methods, even at that scale and level of detail, are distinct.

The fact that you don't think you'd enjoy conflict resolution hardly invalidates the distinction.

-Vincent

Message 9609#100630

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by lumpley
...in which lumpley participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 3:17am, Valamir wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

John Kim wrote: For example, in the last Buffy game I was in, at first Dot (my PC) was concentrating on killing a vampire she was facing. But then her friend Max was hit, and she shifted her priority more to protecting Max. But then Max cast a spell of protection for herself, and Dot was able to concentrate more on slaying.


Perhaps you need to readjust your thinking of what a conflict mechanic looks like. I see absolutely no reason why all of this can't easily find its way into a conflict resolution roll.

As I said above:


Conflict resolution mechanics are not simply task resolution mechanics moved to a larger scale (where you correctly note you'd lose the desireable level of resolution). Conflict resolution mechanics must be structured so that all of the tactical fiddling is shifted to the roll itself.

Good examples of this would be Story Engine, Trollbabe, and Universalis where a whole bunch of ==stuff== goes on before the dice even hit the table. Its at the level of this "stuff" where all of things you wouldn't want to miss out on occur.

Message 9609#100632

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Valamir
...in which Valamir participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 3:28am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

lumpley wrote: You want an example of conflict resolution that a) includes many subtle shifts in intent, b) has moment-to-moment emotional choices, where the characters c) have multiple reasons for doing things, d) have some reasons that give them pause, and e) are trying to accomplish multiple goals?

The safe example ain't it.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was. If you can provide an example, that would be great. I didn't say that this was impossible, by the way -- just that this sort of case has been relatively easy for me to do using action/task resolution, but (again, to me) it seems difficult using conflict resolution.

lumpley wrote:
John Kim wrote: Consider "I punch him" instead, where "why" is "To try to incapacitate him". There isn't much difference between the methods here.

Sure there is. Imagine, if you will, a mechanic where we roll a bunch of dice to determine whether you incapacitate him, heavily modified by traits on your character sheet and your expenditure of resource, and flip one coin to determine whether your punch lands. Here are the four possible outcomes: punch lands+incapacitated; punch lands+not incapacitated; punch misses+incapacitated; punch misses+not incapacitated.

Well, I agree there is a difference. But how much of one? Three of these are frequent results of traditional combat mechanics. The unique result to conflict resolution is "punch misses+incapacitated". Now, this is definitely a difference, but how important is it? How will my combats be different by including this result (miss but the opponent is incapacitated) in practice? I'm not sure about the answers here -- in practice for me conflict resolution has always been at a more strategic level. But my instinct is that the difference seems minor.

Message 9609#100634

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by John Kim
...in which John Kim participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 3:48am, lumpley wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

John, what might be more interesting than adding "punch misses+incapacitated," is doing away with "punch misses" entirely as a mechanical outcome. Just don't flip the coin, as it were. Punches miss only when the player decides to have the punch miss, as a way (one of many possible) to explain the "not incapacitated" outcome.

-Vincent

Message 9609#100637

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by lumpley
...in which lumpley participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 4:05am, Noon wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

lumpley wrote: Seems to me you're all still getting the two variables mixed up. Check this out: Task Resolution tells you whether you succeed or fail. Conflict Resolution tells you whether you win or lose.

Player: "I crack the supervillian's safe!"
Task Resolution: do you open the supervillian's safe?
Roll: Failure!
GM: "Nope, the safe's too good. You can't crack it."

Player: "I crack the supervillian's safe!"
Conflict Resolution: do you find out who is the supervillain's next target?
Roll: Loss!
GM: "Okay, you spin the dials and pop the safe open. There are a bunch of papers in there, but they don't say who the target is."

Both of these are at the single action scale, but the former's succeed-fail and the latter's win-lose. You can succeed but lose, fail but win.

*snip*

I'm assuming since your post came after mine, you were replying for me. If so:

There isn't any mix up at all. Opening the safe is a tactic used to forfil the greater strategy of getting dirt on the villain. You can either test the tactic or the strategy.

And of course the idea of all this is to focus dice rolling/system use on what we want our characters to do/strategy, rather than focusing on each little tiny tactic of that strategy. Each tiny tactic isn't really of any interest to us at all, yet we can spend hours resolving them in many games, currently. Zzzzz . So it's all about adressing the players desire directly, rather than indirectly through lots of fiddly components his desire consists of?

So it's about resolving strategy. No mix up at all.

Message 9609#100641

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Noon
...in which Noon participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 4:19am, Matt Wilson wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

You know, I think there are probably some D&D players who treat the combat rules a lot like conflict resolution. It all depends on how you interpret what hit points mean.

Use of skills is pretty much "do I make the skill roll or not," but hit points are a little less defined than, say, Arrowflight's wounds. Does a loss of 6 hp mean a small wound, or a glancing blow, or that your luck and intuition spared you completely? Likewise, a "hit" implies that the strike delivers damage. That means a "miss" could also be a glancing blow.

Message 9609#100644

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Matt Wilson
...in which Matt Wilson participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 4:38am, cruciel wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

John Kim wrote: Well, I agree there is a difference. But how much of one? Three of these are frequent results of traditional combat mechanics. The unique result to conflict resolution is "punch misses+incapacitated". Now, this is definitely a difference, but how important is it? How will my combats be different by including this result (miss but the opponent is incapacitated) in practice? I'm not sure about the answers here -- in practice for me conflict resolution has always been at a more strategic level. But my instinct is that the difference seems minor.


Heya John,

The key difference in my experience is whether you are focusing on preserving the players intent (conflict) or focusing on preserving causality driven tension (task) - if that makes any sense at all. By going conflict resolution you're making an active effort to preserve the players intent, and hence avoid frustating moments like:

• Player, "I punch him in the head"
(The player's intent is to incapacitate the target, but is not vocalized and resolution is tasked based)
• Roll, Success!
(GM checks the target's sheet and finds the trait 'Cannot be incapacitated with punch in the head')
• GM, "You nail him square in the jaw, and he seems unfazed - no effect"
• Player while making cranky face, "Grrr..."


Of course, task resolution adds that bit of unknown, adds that bit of tension:

• Player, "Holy shit! He's immune to face punchy! Crap, what now? 'Sock 'em in the kisser' is the only trait I took!"

Give and take, personal preference.

Message 9609#100649

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by cruciel
...in which cruciel participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 5:20am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

cruciel wrote: The key difference in my experience is whether you are focusing on preserving the players intent (conflict) or focusing on preserving causality driven tension (task) - if that makes any sense at all. By going conflict resolution you're making an active effort to preserve the players intent, and hence avoid frustating moments like:

• Player, "I punch him in the head"
(The player's intent is to incapacitate the target, but is not vocalized and resolution is tasked based)
• Roll, Success!
(GM checks the target's sheet and finds the trait 'Cannot be incapacitated with punch in the head')
• GM, "You nail him square in the jaw, and he seems unfazed - no effect"
• Player while making cranky face, "Grrr..."


Of course, task resolution adds that bit of unknown, adds that bit of tension:
• Player, "Holy shit! He's immune to face punchy! Crap, what now? 'Sock 'em in the kisser' is the only trait I took!"

Ahhh!!! Thanks, that's a great example. That resonates with me particularly since this almost exactly happened in the last Buffy episode. My Slayer PC, Dot, staked a vampire through the heart but he turned out to be immune to staking. Sudden plot twist, and Dot thinks "What the hell?" So she had to grapple with him, and in the meantime a minion of his hit her friend Max which she felt really bad about. They eventually destroyed the vamps, and they are now in the process of figuring out why he was immune and what to do about it.

I liked it, but I agree with you that people's preferences can and will differ.

Message 9609#100655

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by John Kim
...in which John Kim participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 6:43am, Anthony wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

My Slayer PC, Dot, staked a vampire through the heart but he turned out to be immune to staking. Sudden plot twist, and Dot thinks "What the hell?" So she had to grapple with him, and in the meantime a minion of his hit her friend Max which she felt really bad about.


Two thoughts about this might be achieved.

1. In your more standard RPG setup, how the player goes about conflict resolution matters. The player tries to defeat the vampire by staking him through the heart? Ahha! The vampire is immune to that kind of thing, take a serious minus to your roll. Just like if the players attempted to pick the lock of a safe in order to determine what was in it and the story so far had made it pretty clear that this safe was pretty much unpickable.

2. The vampire started out as generic vampire: stake through the heart, pile of dust, lets go find another one. Dot does the stakey bit and fails. Hmm, why did she fail? I know! Stakes don't affect this vampire! The plot comes from the failure beforehand. Something I really like because I'm obsessed with a game where failure is an interesting option that the players enjoy and work with, not something to be afraid of.

How would this work as a conflict resolution conflict like you described beforehand. Assume a system that lets you do an extended conflict (somewhat like HeroQuest maybe). Start with a simple bad guy to dust. You know, your standard opening scene vamp, just there to say a few interesting words and make the plot happen. Should be no trouble, but what is this? Dot and Max lose the first roll, uh-oh, what happened here? I know! Mr Vampire is immune to sharp pointy things! That should be an interesting twist! Vampire gets an advantage on his next roll (because he won the last round) and turns on Max, knocking her around a bit. Two failures in a row for the good guys! Things aren't looking good. Max goes defensive, trying to turn the tide, success. Ok, she brought up a shield, the vampire has lost a bit of momentum, time to go in for the kill. With the tide back on the players side and Dot tries to finish him off... overwhelming success. No more vampire.

Message 9609#100668

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Anthony
...in which Anthony participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 11:54am, Alan wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

Using conflict resolution, in a game like Trollbabe, this sequence might instead read:

cruciel wrote:
• Player, "I punch him in the head"
(The player's intent is to incapacitate the target, but is not vocalized. Resolution is conflict based)
• Roll, Failure!
• GM, "You describe how you failed."
• Player "I clock him right on the mouth, but he just grins at me. He's got some magic sympathy with the rock. I grimace and say 'Oh crap.'"
• Other Player "Yeah, that's cool."

Message 9609#100686

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Alan
...in which Alan participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 5:31pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

I have another example to offer, using the HW mechanic, to demonstrate a scene level resolution.

Lets say we have a mighty broght low and sent to the Roman arena. The SCENE we want to run, rather like a movie montage, is one in which this character cust there way through sundry opponents and lives or dies by the end of ther day.

So, in the HW mechanic, you could run the whole thing as a single extended contest. each EXCHANGE in the contest represents a single opponent. It can easily be presumed that all opponents bar the last are going to die; so each exchange resolves how they die and what effect this has on the viewpoint characters AP total.

So after 4 exchanges, the viewpoint characters AP will have changed and 4 opponents will have been dragged from the sand. Each exchange resolves what is really a whole duel in a single action; but this permits the narraytion to move swiftly on and maintain seom dramatic momentum, without getting bogged down in exchanges of precise blows.

This is much more cinematic - in a literal sense - than most action resolution methods, because the tasks which comprise the overall challenge are reasonably abstracted while the challenge as a whole is mechanically rigorous.

Message 9609#100724

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by contracycle
...in which contracycle participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 6:18pm, cruciel wrote:
RE: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

John Kim wrote: Ahhh!!! Thanks, that's a great example. That resonates with me particularly since this almost exactly happened in the last Buffy episode. My Slayer PC, Dot, staked a vampire through the heart but he turned out to be immune to staking. Sudden plot twist, and Dot thinks "What the hell?" So she had to grapple with him, and in the meantime a minion of his hit her friend Max which she felt really bad about. They eventually destroyed the vamps, and they are now in the process of figuring out why he was immune and what to do about it.

I liked it, but I agree with you that people's preferences can and will differ.


Yippy! I go back and forth a lot on it myself. It depends on whether I'm building up to something with my character, or whether I'm more interested in just seeing how situations develop the character. Which, gets all sorts of entangled in the issue of who has narration rights; whether their particular thematic preferences support or violate mine, and whether I find their particular Color preferences engaging or trite.

*****

StumpBoy & Alan,

Totally, and good examples to boot. I guess that in both examples 'character integrity' would be a better word than 'intent' for what you're trying to preserve.

"Why can't my frickin' slayer dust this lame as vamp?"
"Ummm... 'cause he's not a lame ass vamp?"
"Yeah!"

Message 9609#100734

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by cruciel
...in which cruciel participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 7:20pm, aplath wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

coxcomb wrote: It seems as though some parts of a game will always need more in-depth resolution. That is, if I get to the end of a session and the Big Bad is waiting to kick my butt, I (pretty much regardless of GNS) would be let down if that dramatic conflict were reduced to the fickle fate of a single roll.

I'm sure there is something key here that just isn't making it through my thick skull. Can anyone clear this up for me? Any clever examples of play that illustrate how to make this work?


Maybe what´s missing is that you have to design your story to work with the kind of rules you are using.

If the climax of your story is a combat resolution between the PCs and their antagonist, probably a more task oriented, tactical combat system will prove more satisfying.

On the other hand, if you are using more conflict oriented rules you'll probably want to design something that can't be resolved in a single combat.

If there is a final showdown between PCs and the Bad (Good) Guy, you'll probably want that one of the sides is already defeated at that point and the conflict at hand will only decide a nuance of the overall result (will the defeated bad guy escape to return in the future with another masterplan?).

Resolution of the main story conflict must depend on the story as a whole, or on the outcome of several smaller conflicts that happen all through the game. Not a single climatic conflict in the end.

Also, story resolution aside, if you want to play turn-by-turn combat, you certainly want a task oriented resolution system.

That´s becaude if you do focus in conflict, combat turns out to be simply color because when characters engage in combat they seldom do so for the sake of combat itself. The conflict is usually something beyond combat like escaping an ambush, humiliating an opponent, storming a gate, etc...

It doesn't mean that you can't break down a combat in several smaller conflict resolutions. I play "The Pool" and some important combat scenes are resolved over two or three dice-rolls.

I think both ways of playing are fun if you are in the right mood. I usually play D&D (just love those two-hours combat resolutions!) and "The Pool", which go on opposite directions in this matter, and have loads of fun with both.

Andreas

Message 9609#100749

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by aplath
...in which aplath participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004




On 2/5/2004 at 7:39pm, Paganini wrote:
RE: Re: Conflict Resolution vs. Action Resolution

coxcomb wrote: It seems as though some parts of a game will always need more in-depth resolution. That is, if I get to the end of a session and the Big Bad is waiting to kick my butt, I (pretty much regardless of GNS) would be let down if that dramatic conflict were reduced to the fickle fate of a single roll.

I'm sure there is something key here that just isn't making it through my thick skull. Can anyone clear this up for me? Any clever examples of play that illustrate how to make this work?


Gotta chime in here. The game I'm working on right now (Draconum) is basically exactly what you describe as being undesireable. The more intense, important, dramatic, major, etc., the conflict, the fewer rolls you use to resolve it. Draconum is a game about dragon slayers... actually killing a dragon is the culmination of a series of sessions. A to-the-death dragon battle is handled with exactly one roll. If you fail, you die. If you succeed, you don't.

I'm not saying that you'd enjoy playing with this system. However, I'd suggest that you're mistaking your personal play preferences for general preferences. RPGs don't *need* resolution mechanics at all. The Lumpley Principle says that the role of system is to decide who gets to say what during play. That can be done at the social contract level... no need for mechanics at all.

So, resolution mechanics aren't even necessary. Whether or not you even have a resolution mechanic, and what type it is, depends on *what you enjoy.*

This is the reason that the Conflict vs. Action distinction came about in the first place. Picture a D&D fight... hard-core action resolution. You roll the d20 *to see if something happens.* If you succeed, way to go, you hit him! If you miss, well, sorry, nothing happened. Maybe next time.

The point of conflict resolution is that something *always* happens. There are no "whiffs" or "misses." If you fail, it's a *real* failure, with consequences.

In Draconum, if you fail the final battle roll, you DIE. If you fail other battle rolls, the town gets burninated, the princess gets eaten, your friends are hatcheling chow, and so on.

Message 9609#100754

Previous & subsequent topics...
...started by Paganini
...in which Paganini participated
...in RPG Theory
...including keyword:

 (leave blank for none)
...from around 2/5/2004