The Forge Archives

We had a discussion on a danish forum about conflict resolution and task resolution (on the what-is-it level). And as part of that, I've thought about something.

In many games that utilize task resolution, you're resolving the conflict at the same time. Let's take the classical example of opening a safe looking for dirt. In task resolution, you roll for opening the safe rather than for the stakes of looking for dirt. But in most cases, you'll be resolving both. In many social contracts, it would be a gross breach of the contract for the GM to declare after a passed roll that "yes, you skillfully open the safe. No, there's nothing in there."

As such, I'd say that in many cases of task resolution the social contract actually hides conflict resolution right between the lines. And this happens to the point where in the examples I was using, I often had to realize that there was no difference. And that's something I think we need to take into account, because the distinction between task resolution and between-the-lines conflict resolution is an important one in a game sense, as far as I can see.

What do you think? Am I making sense, and do you agree?

You're making sense, but I'm skeptical.

If you, the GM, have agreed that going and breaking into the safe is a reasonable way to pursue finding dirt on this guy, and that the task roll will determine whether or not that method succeeds, then I can see your point.  That agreement, that negotiation prior to the roll is system at work.  It's just unformed, implicit, system.

Because, of course, they could also have said "We'll make an Investigate roll to find the newspaper articles detailing all the people this guy has murdered, and leading us to his mutant transvestite mistress."  In most systems (barring the skill difference between "safe-cracking" and "library research") you're talking about the same thing from the rules-viewpoint:  roll a skill, figure out whether you succeeded.

Would it be a breach of social contract in your games for the GM to say "Uh... you can research all you want, but you're not going to find a public expose of mutant transvestite mistresses on this guy"?

Simon,

Actually, I don't think your example is Task Resolution at all.  I think the Social Contract of the people at the table is simply Conflict Resolution using the skill at Safe Cracking to handle it.  If they were using Task Resolution then there wouldn't be anything at all wrong with saying, "You get the safe open but there's no dirt in there."  In fact, that statement wouldn't have been strange in any of the D&D games I've played in the past.

Quote from: TonyLB
Would it be a breach of social contract in your games for the GM to say "Uh... you can research all you want, but you're not going to find a public expose of mutant transvestite mistresses on this guy"?

On a mechanical basis, if the game allows the characters to succeed in rolls but fail anyway then it's clearly Task resolution on a mechanical level. But on a social conteact level, I think most functional games are  Conflict Resolution (in the important ways, anyway) for the reasons Simon describes.

Additionally, there is also 'pure exploration' (i.e. I roll to find out what I can about the new city we are visiting). If the players are looking to see if the guy has a transvestite mistress then a successful roll which determines he doesn't is still a success.

If a game includes any rolls that can be used to gather information that may or may not yield a desired result and the player accepts going in that the making of a roll will not resolve explorational-aspects of the game then I think the difference between task and conflict resolution in a functional traditional game is so fine as to often be non-existent.

-Marco

One further reason why it's Task at that level is that it is strictly up to the GM to determine how much Tasking is enough and what comes out of it.  One element of the Social Contract for all Task-resolution systems with functional play is "And the conflict's gotta emerge out of all this, the stakes have to be obtained, in a reasonable amount of effort."

The important thing to remember is that this is perfectly functional.  Social contract is real, and if you're putting this part of resolution in there, that's cool.

What it doesn't do is open up the bones of things for everybody, not just the GM, to participate.  If you want to do that, it has to become mechanized in some way, because that's exactly what the mechanics do - they mediate multiple contributors.  So if you want to support player input into what the safe contains (more generally, into what the stakes are and so forth), bam, you need conflict resolution.  Emergent conflict (what you call between the lines) isn't enough.

- Eric

Gaerik's got it right, Simon.

Your example of the safe IS conflict resolution.

1) Working out with the GM in advance that a successful safe cracking roll will get the sought after dirt is a conflict resolution approach to the problem.

2) If instead you work out with the GM in advance that a successful safe cracking roll will open the safe, and the sought after dirt will or won't be there based on the GM's prepared notes that indicate where it actually is...then this is task resolution.

3) If instead you work out with the GM in advance that a successful safe cracking roll will open the safe, but unbeknownst to you the sought after dirt will or won't be there based on the GM's whim after he sees the result of the roll (based primarily on whether the GM's story line is ready for you to have that information yet or not); and the GM pretends that #2 is the case...then you have a pretty bog standard Illusionist trick that has been used by GM's to railroad players for decades.  A situation that isn't possible with conflict resolution because the terms of the conflict are outlined in advance.

Quote from: Valamir1) Working out with the GM in advance that a successful safe cracking roll will get the sought after dirt is a conflict resolution approach to the problem.

2) If instead you work out with the GM in advance that a successful safe cracking roll will open the safe, and the sought after dirt will or won't be there based on the GM's prepared notes that indicate where it actually is...then this is task resolution.

3) If instead you work out with the GM in advance that a successful safe cracking roll will open the safe, but unbeknownst to you the sought after dirt will or won't be there based on the GM's whim after he sees the result of the roll

You seem to be implying that #1 and #2 are exclusive, but there doesn't seem to be a reason.  That is, you can have straight-out cause-and-effect reasoning -- i.e. the dirt is there or is not there based on what is defined in prewritten notes.  The GM and player can also agree in advance on the effect of the roll.  If the player (either in-character or out-of-character) knows what is in the safe, then he knows what is at stake on the roll.  

It seems to me that the question here is: Is this Conflict Resolution (because it matches #1) or Task Resolution (because it matches #2)?

John,

Even if the Player knows what's in the safe before hand, if the roll for Safe Cracking is resolving "get dirt" then it is Conflict resolution.  If it is just determining whether you opened the safe or not, Task Resolution.

The key thing to me here is that in Task Resolution there may not be any dirt to find no matter what rolls you make or don't make, either because the GM says there isn't or because the pre-gen adventure doesn't have any or whatnot.  The character could be successful at Safe Cracking, Computer Hacking, Information Gathering or any of 20 other skill rolls.  It wouldn't matter.  No dirt to be found.

Conflict Resolution however would mean that if the character was successful on "Find dirt." then there is dirt there.  Even if the GM didn't plan it that way.  Even if the pre-gen adventure didn't have it there.  The conflict was about finding dirt and the character was successful therefore dirt was found.

Quote from: GaerikEven if the Player knows what's in the safe before hand, if the roll for Safe Cracking is resolving "get dirt" then it is Conflict resolution.  If it is just determining whether you opened the safe or not, Task Resolution.

The key thing to me here is that in Task Resolution there may not be any dirt to find no matter what rolls you make or don't make, either because the GM says there isn't or because the pre-gen adventure doesn't have any or whatnot.  The character could be successful at Safe Cracking, Computer Hacking, Information Gathering or any of 20 other skill rolls.  It wouldn't matter.  No dirt to be found.

Um, hello?  As far as I can tell, you're just contradicting yourself here.  If the player knows that there is dirt in the safe, then there is dirt to be found.  That is basic definition.  The crap about "Oh, there might not be dirt to be found" is simply wrong.  There either is or is not dirt to be found, and either way the player knows it beforehand.  Let's go through this point by point.  The case to consider here is:

1) The GM decides whether or not there is dirt in there based on what is in the written notes.  In this case, there is dirt there.  
2) That fact is also known to the player.  
3) The player rolls on his safecracking skill to see if he opens the safe.

John,

I think we might be talking past each other.  Let me take your example and then give one of my own.

Quote from: John Kim1) The GM decides whether or not there is dirt in there based on what is in the written notes. In this case, there is dirt there.
2) That fact is also known to the player.
3) The player rolls on his safecracking skill to see if he opens the safe.

Rolling Task to "open safe".

If the player fails, then the safe isn't open.  The dirt's still there but it just means the player didn't open the safe.  There might still be dirt in the other guy's desk or on his computer or written in graffiti all over his home.  The player just failed to crack the safe.

If the player succeeds then he got the safe open and... that's it.  We assume he finds the dirt.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  What if the dirt's in some sort of code or cipher?  Now he has to make another roll to see if he recognizes it perhaps?  Because the only thing Task Resolution establishes is that he got the safe door open and establishes nothing about the ultimate goal of "finding dirt".

Rolling Conflict to "find dirt"

If the player fails, then he didn't find the dirt.  He might have gotten the safe open but missed the dirt in the hurry to get out of the house.  He might not have opened the safe.   Whatever... the ultimate goal fails either way.

If the player succeeds, then the dirt is found.  He might have gotten the safe open and found some dirty papers.  He might not have gotten the safe open and then found the dirt on the desk.  Whatever... the ultimate goal succeeded.


The issue as it was raised originally, is Conflict Resolution, as described by  Simon.  It was just being mistaken for Task Resolution because the players involved had (consciously or not) agreed that if the roll succeeded then resulting success would have something to do with getting the safe open since they had used Safe Cracking for the roll.

John, your example is just an illustration of a time where there is a happy coincidence between task and conflict resolution.

Knowingly pursueing and using that coincidence...(i.e. revealing OOC information to the players that their characters wouldn't actually know as part of defining what a task roll will or won't accomplish) can certainly be a useful technique for gamers who are attempting to engage in conflict resolution using a system designed for task resolution.

Quote from: ValamirJohn, your example is just an illustration of a time where there is a happy coincidence between task and conflict resolution.

Knowingly pursueing and using that coincidence...(i.e. revealing OOC information to the players that their characters wouldn't actually know as part of defining what a task roll will or won't accomplish) can certainly be a useful technique for gamers who are attempting to engage in conflict resolution using a system designed for task resolution.

First of all, a clarification.  It doesn't matter whether the knowledge is In-Character or Out-Of-Character.  While it can be revealed as Out-Of-Character information, my preference is usually In-Character.  i.e. In this example, the character knows that there is dirt inside the safe, and thus he tries to break in to get it.  In short, the character knows what he is doing.  I generally prefer well-informed, competant PCs.  

Anyhow, I accept that it is a happy coincidence, but it's not a rare or random circumstance in my experience.  It requires two things:

a) The GM bases his decision on defined facts of the gameworld.  
b) The player is also well-informed about those facts.  

Given these two, then the resolution becomes an open process where the method and stakes are known.

No one needs to know, IC or OOC, if there is dirt in the safe.    The GM doesn't need to know there is dirt in the safe.  A conflict resolution results in the character finding dirt or not finding dirt.

Thus, the player states that his character wants to find dirt prior to the conflict, then he decides to use his safecracking skill to resolve the conflict and, if his roll suceeds, he finds dirt.  If he fails, he doesn't find dirt.  And it doesn't matter if the safe is ever opened.  The GM could state "You find some papers on top of the safe that contain dirt."  Or in a failure, "You open the safe, but all it contains is a few rolls of $100 bills."

In my examples, the roll determines the existence of what the character is looking for.  Of course, this could be run differently, but I think that is the clearest example of Conflict Resolution.

Quote from: ErrathofKoshNo one needs to know, IC or OOC, if there is dirt in the safe.    The GM doesn't need to know there is dirt in the safe.  A conflict resolution results in the character finding dirt or not finding dirt.

Quote from: ErrathofKoshIn my examples, the roll determines the existence of what the character is looking for.  Of course, this could be run differently, but I think that is the clearest example of Conflict Resolution.

I completely agree that it isn't necessary for anyone to know beforehand whether there is dirt in the safe.  There are different ways to resolve things.  But the topic is "Between-the-lines Conflict Resolution", which I take to mean we're specifically discussing edge and/or borderline cases.

QuoteFirst of all, a clarification. It doesn't matter whether the knowledge is In-Character or Out-Of-Character. While it can be revealed as Out-Of-Character information, my preference is usually In-Character. i.e. In this example, the character knows that there is dirt inside the safe, and thus he tries to break in to get it. In short, the character knows what he is doing. I generally prefer well-informed, competant PCs.

Actually it makes a BIG difference if you're trying to examine borderline cases.  Characters don't know anything.  The character may have been told by an NPC that there is dirt in the safe.  The character may have witnessed and NPC putting something in the safe that he thought was the dirt he was looking for.  But until he actually opens the safe and looks...the character can never KNOW that the dirt is in the safe.

There is always the opportunity for the dirt NOT to be there even if the character (i.e. the player thinking for the character) was sure it would be.  This could be simply because the player drew incorrect conclusions about scenes that were played.  It could be because the player failed a roll and so the character was intentionally misinformed (which the player may or may not know).  It could be because the GM messed up the continuity by accident.  Or it could be because the GM is knowingly playing a bait and switch game.

I would argue that what the character knows is pretty much completely irrelevant to identifying conflict resolution.

Its entirely what the player knows that matters.  If the GM tells the player directly (not in character hints and inuendoes and clues) that "If you make this roll you will get the dirt"..then the player KNOWS absolutely 100% that if he makes the roll his character will get the dirt...as noted above, it may be in the safe as the character thought, or it may not be, but somehow someway he'll get the dirt.  That's absolutely known in advance in Conflict Resolution (baring an agregious breach of trust on the part of the GM).  The character may have no idea that there is even any dirt to be found.  The character may not even be looking for dirt (maybe the character is just there to steal some diamonds).  

So its absolutely what the PLAYER knows (which will generally always be OOC) that matters here.