The Forge Archives

Heya,

This is loosely related to another thread over in the GNS forum: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=15369.  I hope I'm not honking off anyone by asking this sort of question here about a couple threads that have a bit of emotional charge to them.  Please accept my appologies if I incure your ire, that is not my intent.

So here's my question.  Ron Wrote:

Quote
1. Conflict Resolution of some kind is necessary for Narrativist play.

2. Cumulative Task Resolution may result in Conflict Resolution, but only with a specific cognitive, social shift at specific times, such that everyone understands it at the time.

Okay, let's say I wanted to design a system that used Task Resolution to produce a conflict resolution.  What kinds of things would the system need to say and/or do to make sure the players know the difference?  Does it involve metagame?  Should it involve currency of some kind?  Is this question just too broad to be answered as I have worded it?

I guess bottom line is, what is a way a system can make Task Resolution meaningful to the overall conflict?

Peace,

-Troy

Well, I'd guess there'd have to be a point at which you say "okay, enough dancing, now we resolve the conflict."

Look at extended conflicts in HQ: all the bidding and roling is all well, fine and good, and feels very "tasky". Then, bang, someone's lost their last AP's, we resolve the conflict. We've taken a series of tasks, and applied their results to resolve the conflict. Because we decieded at the outset what the conflict was staking, and agreed that the series of tasks would decide the conflict resolution at the end. It's a direct "plug-in" replacement for a bald conflict resolution system.

Why isn't this the same as D&D combat with HP? Because it's only ever about combat & damage, and all it can resolve is "alive or dead". Other results lie outside the combat system (Escape, negotiation, etc.).

Troy,

I wonder if you're looking at the word "task" the way I did before I saw the distinction Ron, Eero and Valamir were trying to make. Whether I've got it now or not I don't know, but here's how I see it now:

I take a step back from the "resolution" part of it, and focus simply on the difference between a conflict and a task. There is a clear distinction: one is thematically charged and the other isn't. So, if I add an issue/theme to a task, I get a conflict. If I remove an issue/theme from a conflict I get a task.

Now if I bring back into play the "resolution" part, it's pretty clear. If the thing I'm resolving is a conflict, it's conflict resolution. If the thing I'm resolving is a task, it's task resolution. The difference is the presence of an issue/them in the situation, not in the type of game mechanic used to resolve the situation.

Again, this is just my (no doubt incomplete) understanding of the issue. In which case, I'd say that the attempt to make task resolution meaningful looks to me like the basic shift from TR to CR.

Or, is there something more subtle in your question that I am completely missing? Are you asking whether it's possible to have a number of meaningless tasks make sense thematically?

Thanks pete; that clarifies things. I'll take it that the answer to my last question is "yes".

Most of my experiences playing in the Supers genre fall into this category. There is some larger meaning to the conflict, but the game pretty much runs along resolving individual "biffs" "bams" and "pows".

I would think it would depend largely upon whether the important issues and themes were related to individuals or the whole group. An important group issue or theme would be easy for a GM to keep in mind and then shift to when necessary (in which case, the GM holds all the thematic cards). Individual issues might get tricky, unless you had a specific currency that allowed players to make the shift from TR to CR. Fate points in FATE can function either way (as +1 to a roll or as narrative influence), though of course you have to have the currency to spend.

Quote from: paulkdadI take a step back from the "resolution" part of it, and focus simply on the difference between a conflict and a task. There is a clear distinction: one is thematically charged and the other isn't. So, if I add an issue/theme to a task, I get a conflict. If I remove an issue/theme from a conflict I get a task.

I feel the need to make a disticntion here. The only reason Ralph and those guys were discussing theme in relation to conflict resolution was because the thread in question was specifically addressing Narritivism.

More properly, conflict resolution resolves conflicts of interests. In other words, one player/character wants one thing to happen, another wants to see something else happen. In this sense, conflict resolution is interested in a player/character's goals or intent.

I say this because you can have conflict resolution in a Gam or Sim situation, where theme is irrevelent.

Thanks Tim. I wish others would grab a clue about that.

Best,
Ron

Heya,

Quote from: timfire

Quote from: paulkdadI take a step back from the "resolution" part of it, and focus simply on the difference between a conflict and a task. There is a clear distinction: one is thematically charged and the other isn't. So, if I add an issue/theme to a task, I get a conflict. If I remove an issue/theme from a conflict I get a task.

I feel the need to make a disticntion here. The only reason Ralph and those guys were discussing theme in relation to conflict resolution was because the thread in question was specifically addressing Narritivism.

More properly, conflict resolution resolves conflicts of interests. In other words, one player/character wants one thing to happen, another wants to see something else happen. In this sense, conflict resolution is interested in a player/character's goals or intent.

I say this because you can have conflict resolution in a Gam or Sim situation, where theme is irrevelent.

-So what do we call Task Resolution that uses the theme as a component of the resolution?  Take for instance, a game about corruption in pollitics uses a PC's Corruption Points as a basis for his debating skill rolls, shmoozing rolls, campaigning rolls, etc. rather than using his Corruption Points to decide if he simply won the debate or and entire campaign in one lump roll.  Or is there even a need to name such a thing?

Peace,

-Troy

Quote from: Troy_Costisick-So what do we call Task Resolution that uses the theme as a component of the resolution?

Task resolution. Theme is irrevelant to Task/Conflict resolution.

Here's another subtley to Task/Conflict resolution that will hopefully be helpful. (Disclaimer -- this is my understanding, others may disagree.) Conflict resolution has this idea that there are two (or more) active,  opposing forces. One force is pushing in this direction, and the other force is pushing in that direction. What the dice decide is which force is more powerful, or which one is able to overcome the other.

QuoteTake for instance, a game about corruption in pollitics uses a PC's Corruption Points as a basis for his debating skill rolls, shmoozing rolls, campaigning rolls, etc. rather than using his Corruption Points to decide if he simply won the debate or and entire campaign in one lump roll.  Or is there even a need to name such a thing?

Hmm... The issue here is not neccessarily Task vs Conflict resolution. The difference between your two examples here is one of scale. In the first, the multiple rolls decide little tasks/conflicts, while the latter decides the overarching task/conflict. I think its easy to confuse scale with task/conflict resolution. Large scale task resolution (meaning scene resolution) sorta looks like conflict resolution because you have to abstract individual actions.

But you need to ask yourself -- Are you rolling the dice to see if the character is capable of doing whatever he is trying to do (task)? Or are you rolling because someone is trying to oppose him (conflict)?

Is what I'm saying making sense?

Quote from: timfire
I say this because you can have conflict resolution in a Gam or Sim situation, where theme is irrevelent.

Would Great Ork Gods be an example of strong conflict resolution supporting gamist play?

John

Quote from: TroyOkay, let's say I wanted to design a system that used Task Resolution to produce a conflict resolution.

Being basically clueless about all this, all I can say is that an obstacle course comes to mind. In the obstacle course, you have a definite goal (winning the race), but to win the race you have to do a number of meaningless tasks better and faster than your opponents.

If I use this as a template, I get the following:
[list=1]
[*]I have defined the conflict before any of the tasks are undertaken.
[*]I know the consequences of success or failure for the conflict (again, before any of the tasks are undertaken).
[*]I know what is necessary to resolve each individual task.
[*]As the success of each task is determined, it is obvious whether it helps or hinders my goal in the conflict.
[*]The conflict does not require any resolution separate from the resolution of the individual tasks.
[/list:o]
This sequence makes sense, but it certainly doesn't give the participants any degree of freedom. Presumably, if they veered off the course, they would simply lose the conflict. And yet, if you wanted to be certain that your resolved tasks would result in a resolved conflict, wouldn't you have to be explicit about the conflict from the start?

Hiya,

John, about Great Ork Gods: yes, absolutely. Bullseye.

Paul, maybe if we try it this way. Given the obstacle race ...

- if we roll for clearing obstacles, with degree of success indicating how well we clear each one, and maybe with a "run" roll too ... and whoever ends up doing best wins the race - that's Task Resolution. Winning the race is an epiphenomenon of clearing the hurdles best and fastest.

- if we roll for winning the race, then backtrack or perhaps have some mechanics-based way of retroactively describing the way the obstacles were cleared, then it's Conflict Resolution. Winning the race is winning the race, and "how" is always going to be a subset of winning/losing.

Again, this is not a scale issue. Either of the above could be handled with one roll or twenty, in one-second increments of game time or whole-race increments, whatever.

Folks will probably note that a certain degree of Fortune-at-the-End and Fortune-in-the-Middle are correlated to Task and Conflict respectively, and in practice, this tends to be the case historically. Again, however, it doesn't have to be, theoretically.

Best,
Ron

Ah! More concrete example, from the depths of time.

Someone once asked me how Sorcerer would handle a character (from one of the published character examples) nailing a bunch of copper nails into the doorframe of one of those side-of-house cellar entrances.

I said, "It depends on what is after her while she's trying to do it. That's what she rolls against."

See? It doesn't matter how good the character is at pounding in nails. The narration takes care of that, because in Sorcerer, narration is not structured and tends to be very faithful to the vision of the character.

So: she succeeds, and someone (whoever) narrates, "Boy does she suck at it, but she's so determined she gets it done in time!"

Or she succeeds, and someone (whoever) narrates, "Expert nailing, hold-wham, hold-wham, hold-wham!" For a different character, obviously.

You can fill in the last two (the failure options) yourself, it's easy. What matters is her Stamina vs. the opponent's Stamina, and the nails are merely the narrative medium of their current opposition.

Same goes for hopping fences, climbing cliffs, etc, etc. Really, there are no Task rolls in Sorcerer whatsoever. They never happen.

Best,
Ron

Ron, I'd like to ask a couple of quick questions to check my understanding of this:

(I'm thinking of games in general when I'm asking this, not just about Sorcerer.)

If no-one is actively opposing the character, does that mean that no roll is made because whether the character succeeds or fails is irrelevant except in terms of furthering the "vision of the character"?

And if no roll is made, then whether the character succeeds or fails is decided by narration, and specifically, by whoever has authority to narrate the success or failure of the action? (Emphasis there because authority won't automatically lie with the character's player or the GM.)

Quote from: Doug RuffIf no-one is actively opposing the character, does that mean that no roll is made because whether the character succeeds or fails is irrelevant except in terms of furthering the "vision of the character"?

I'm no way an expert on this, and not in the same league as Ron or Tim, but I would think you're absolutely right. This is what Vincent covers by his "Say 'Yes' or roll the dice" mechanic in Dogs in the Vineyard.

TTFN,

Yoki

Heya,

Quote from: timfire

Quote from: Troy_Costisick
Hmm... The issue here is not neccessarily Task vs Conflict resolution. The difference between your two examples here is one of scale. In the first, the multiple rolls decide little tasks/conflicts, while the latter decides the overarching task/conflict. I think its easy to confuse scale with task/conflict resolution. Large scale task resolution (meaning scene resolution) sorta looks like conflict resolution because you have to abstract individual actions.

But you need to ask yourself -- Are you rolling the dice to see if the character is capable of doing whatever he is trying to do (task)? Or are you rolling because someone is trying to oppose him (conflict)?

Is what I'm saying making sense?

-Okay, I think I'm getting somewhere now.  Indeed, I do believe that I was confusing Task vs. Conflict Reso with scale of resolution.  I definately see that now.  And what Ron wrote also helped out greatly- (paraphrase): Conflict only happens when there are opposing forces.

-So let me see if I can break this down some using Ron's copper nail example and you guys can check me to see if I'm on the right track.

-The girl (we'll call her Emily) has a 60% in Hammering Nails skill.  She succeeds on 6 out of every 10 nails and does a decent job of nailing the door shut. [Task Resolution]

-Emily quickly drives nail after nail into the door, being more proficient with each swing than usual since something is chasing after her. She gets in all 20 nails without any trouble.  [Multi-roll Conflict Resolution]

-Emily's fear increases her speed and accuracy to such a degree she has no trouble nailing the door securly. [Single roll Conflict Resolution]

-Emily's deepest, darkest fear- the one she's lived with all her life- has come true.  And it's chasing her from house to house where she grew up as a child.  Frantic, she rushes into Reverend John's house.  She grabs his old hammer and bucket of copper nails and somehow manages to nail the cellar door shut. [Themed Conflict Resolution]

-How am I doing?

Peace,

-Troy