Not signed in (Sign In)
Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
-
Something I was thinking about regarding Conflict Resolution as the "fix" for problems with Task-Based Resolution:
From the player/character divide thread:Posted By: xenopulsein task resolution, you sometimes have no way of knowing if the task you are carrying out has any chance of fulfilling your player goals. I always bring up Vincent's "break into the safe" example here. If your player goal is to get incriminating evidence on an enemy, traditional GMs will just ask you what tasks you're trying out to get that. They won't tell you if there's evidence in the safe until you open it. They won't tell you if there's any evidence whatsoever anywhere, i.e., if your goal is actually attainable... The GM wouldn't say, "Sorry, you don't have to bother, you wouldn't find anything in his house." He'd say, "Well, go ahead and break in and find out." That's because in traditional play, the GM reacts to what the character DOES, not what you the player WANT in the larger scheme of things.
I really think that the above is not a "task resolution vs conflict resolution" thing, but rather an issue of getting the Player's Intents on the table. Yeah, true, back in the day we never really thought about getting the player's intent as they went about doing their stuff. However, I don't think that conflict resolution is the only fix for that; better task resolution could just as easily fix that.
I've observed that in task-based games, if players start being a bit proactive with their characters, and obviously Doing Something with Intent, it's best as GM just to come straight out and ask them what their intents are. This step is simple, prevents irritation on the player's side (because the GM "isn't seeing" whatever clever thing they're trying to do), and genrally moves stuff forward without having to abandon task resolution altogether.
Ex: This happpens a lot. I'll be GMing some game, and one of the players (usually Alan) will start doing something "fiddly" with his character:
ALAN: "I'm going to look in the back seat of the car. (rolls dice) I succeed. Is there anything?"
ANDY: "Uh... no?"
ALAN: "OK."
(and I'm sitting here like, huh? What the heck was that)
Later on, this sort of thing started to happen:
ALAN: "I'm going to look around on the desktop for anything with the bad guy's handwriting on it. (rolls dice) I succeed, is there anything? (or "I fail")"
ANDY: "Uh... no. You look around and there's nothing with his handwriting on it" (thinking to myself, "Huh?")
ALAN: "Damn."
ALAN: (to players) "I was hoping that there was something with his handwriting on it, so that I could hire a guy to forge this dude's signature on some incriminating evidence. No big, we'll just go up and fight him." (Note: Alan will be saying this matter-of-factly, not like trying to edge in on me because I didn't provide what he wanted or anything passive-aggressive like that. He was simply stating his intention... just too late to do anything about it).
ANDY (to self) "Dang, that would have been cool".
So nowadays, I just jump right to intentions when I start to see the player noticably do something fiddly.
JEREMIE: "I'm investigating the rooms upstairs. Should I make a roll?"
ANDY (not really planned on having anything in those rooms): "What are you trying to do?"
JEREMIE: "Well, I thought that this guy seemed suspicious, so I was thinking that if we see anything upstairs related to the Scarlet Murders, we could ask him more questions."
ANDY: Oh, OK.
(from here, I have two paths. Here's what I would do if I decided that this dude is clean, and that he has no role at all in the murders)
ANDY: No need to roll: Using your detective instinct, you wander around upstairs for a few minutes but soon realize that you're clearly not getting any weird vibes from this guy. You check around likely secret spots in his bedroom and study, but nothing out of the ordinary at all.
(the player will quickly get the clues that "No, there's nothing here, so move along". Now, say that I spontaneously decide that, upon hearing Jeremie's statement, that I want this guy to be involved: Perhaps as a slavish murderer groupie who may have witnessed one of the murders if not participated in one, I could just as easily say this)
ANDY: "Uh... hold on a sec... Sure, yeah, no need to roll: You go upstairs, and on the study of his desk there's a leather-bound scrapbook of several newspaper articles detailing the muders. You look around upstairs in other likely secret hiding spots, but turn up nothing.
In my group, it has actually evolved to the point where the player will just come right out and state what his intentions are before he starts a run of doing fiddly task-based stuff.
So, in other words, moving from Task to Conflict isn't always the answer. Maybe just taking the lessons learned from good Conflict-based resolutions and folding them back into Tasks can do the trick; Sometimes a simple clearing of intentions will help you to provide the players with what they want while keeping task-based resolution. No need to throw away the baby with thesoupbathwater.
-Andy -
Posted By: AndySo, in other words, moving from Task to Conflict isn't always the answer. Maybe just taking the lessons learned from good Conflict-based resolutions and folding them back into Tasks can do the trick; Sometimes a simple clearing of intentions will help you to provide the players with what they want while keeping task-based resolution. No need to throw away the baby with the
soupbathwater.
Yep. I was going to mention something akin to this on the other thread. The moments you describe above have happened in my games, too. I probably tie CR to "solving" this problem because the CR games I've seen also are explicit about procedures of play, i.e., "What we do in this game."
Of course... if a game is explicit about addressing intent, isn't that, in itself, conflict resolution? Hmm.
I'm remembering a comment from Luke on Malcolm Sheppard's blog wherein he schools Sheppard on the purpose of Let it Ride: "It's what makes it Conflict Resolution, not Task Resolution." Ergo, the dice having the final say about achievement of intent makes BWr a CR system. The GM having the final say makes a game TR. Stating intent just makes everything less confusing. :) -
Andy, when you clarify the intentions, it seems like you're actually clarifying the conflict, and hence moving to conflict resolution.
For example...Posted By: AndyJEREMIE: "I'm investigating the rooms upstairs. Should I make a roll?"
ANDY (not really planned on having anything in those rooms): "What are you trying to do?"
JEREMIE: "Well, I thought that this guy seemed suspicious, so I was thinking that if we see anything upstairs related to the Scarlet Murders, we could ask him more questions."
It seems, to me, as though you just switched from the task "Investigate the rooms" to a conflict based on "Does Jeremie's character find anything suspicious?".
Doing it with intentions puts a slightly different spin on it, of course, but it seems basically as though it switched to conflict resolution.
Or did I misinterpret?
Graham -
There are slight differences in Conflict Res vs Task. Technically, it's about the conflict and not the task... that's slightly more nuanced than it sounds.
An example is you have two gladiators fighting in an arena, against seperate opponents. However, both the gladiators are trying to impress the princess. So despite the fact that they are fighting individual opponents (the task), the conflict is between the two gladiators for the love of the princess.
In task res, the two gladiators would roll against their individual opponents. In a hypothetical conflict res system, you would have the two gladiators rolling against each other with the fight just being color.
[edit] Though I'm not sure if Andy's example crosses the line or not. It might still be task res, or it might be conflict res with a high tie-in to character abilities. [/edit] -
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
What Graham said.
Guys, the DIFFERENCE between task and conflict resolution is as follows (I'm quoting Vincent Baker, whom I believe has it nailed):That's, if you ask me, the big problem with task resolution: whether you succeed or fail, the GM's the one who actually resolves the conflict. The dice don't, the rules don't; you're depending on the GM's mood and your relationship and all those unreliable social things the rules are supposed to even out.
Task resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged authorship. Task resolution will undermine your collaboration.
We keep beating around the bush!
The fucking difference between Task Resolution and Conflict Resoluton? GM FIAT.
This is why I don't LIKE GM fiat. It is also why I say GM fiat is not objectively bad, but not my preference, either.
If you can enjoy task resolution, then fine. Go nuts, I say.
But, you know what the real bitch is? The line gets pretty fuzzy. I read Andy's post here and think "Jeez, Andy's got good stuff here, but it's conflict resolution. Why is he calling it task resolution?" And for that matter, "Why are we so eager to cling to task resolution, as if justifying it makes us feel better about a more equitable hobby or something?" This is weird.
People keep missing the fine line where task resolution becomes conflict resolution. HINT: Addressing and then resolving players intentions ain't task resolution! -
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Tim, isn't it possible to resolve the parallel gladiator thingy with actual fights?
Let's say they're fighting two opponents, and we're playing TSoY. It could go down two ways at least:
1) The gladiators "fight" each other using, I dunno, fighting or social skills. Their "Fight" is represented by beating down their independent opponents and getting crowd reaction or something. The are actually rolling against one another as player characters.
2) The gladiators actually fight their respective opponents. BUT, the one with the higher margin / victory level wins the princess' favor. They are rolling against non-player characters, but stribing for the best / highest margin to compare with one another. -
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Also, guys, DICE DON'T DECIDE SHIT.
They are inanimate objects with symbols on them. They couldn't decide their way out of a wet paper bag.
Rather, people as a group agree that when those dice symbols align in a certain way, they won't change the outcome. I.e. people decide, not dice. They agree, as a group, that something happens fictionally, and they stick with it. If anyone doubts, everyone else can point to the symbols and say "See that? It means we've agreed not to doubt this. This is what happens, not THAT. If you don't want to go along with that, we need to talk about what our agreement was." Of couse, this kind of talk doesn't happen very often! -
- CommentAuthorSupplanter
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
In most of the described cases, it doesn't sound like a distinction between "player intent" and "character intent" so much as a distinction between character means and character ends - levels of character intent, basically.
In the search the car example, it doesn't SOUND like it's the case that
The PLAYER would like to have his character be able to forge the signature.
The CHARACTER lacks any interest in forging the guy's signature.
In the search upstairs example it doesn't SOUND like it's the case that
The PLAYER thinks the guy may have a connection to the murders.
The CHARACTER has no suspicions on that score.
What seems to be happening is a move to resolving larger character goals the player articulates. That seems to be the case in the Famous Vincent's Safe example too.
Now, in a game like CAPES, I probably am engaged in resolving true player intents - I want something that's orthogonal or opposed to what the character I'm narrating for wants. But in a lot of other conflict resolution games, it seems like what's being resolved are character goals articulated more completely than in classic "iterative" play.
Best,
Jim -
Posted By: Matt_SnyderTim, isn't it possible to resolve the parallel gladiator thingy with actual fights?
Of course it is. I was just using an exaggerated example to illustrate the difference between task and conflict. -
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Tim, gotcha. No sweat. -
Posted By: Graham WalmsleyDoing it with intentions puts a slightly different spin on it, of course, but it seems basically as though it switched to conflict resolution.
Well, it tends to start to get fuzzy after a bit of abstraction. In all my examples above I used single-roll examples, which are basically either task or conflict.
I could still conceive of a series of task-y rolls, and with overall intent, ground the tasks in an overall conflict. Like Tim's example of the gladiators.
Hmmm. When you add intentions to task-based resolution, things really start to blend together. "Is it just a bunch of tasks simply framed/crystalized in the background of overall intents of the Players involved?" "Is it actually then just one giant conflict broken up into smaller tasks once intentions are stated?" I'm firmly thinking the Former, but it would probably take me like a day of thinking and about 6 written paragraphs to explain why.
And even then, it might not even be worth dissecting at that level; if it satisfies, and it works, then what's the focus should be on.
Hmmm. More thoughts later. -
-
CommentAuthorJoshua A.C. Newman
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Posted By: buzz
Of course... if a game is explicit about addressing intent, isn't that, in itself, conflict resolution? Hmm.Of course it is.
You're not just resolving a task. You're using a particular tool to resolve a conflict.
Matt's exactly right, which should surprise no one, and since it happens so often, you should probably just listen to what he says.
We used to play this way. It started (this would be late '80s) because I had a character inventing networked computers in 1902. I said that I was doing some little detail differently. The GM didn't know much about computers, and asked, flabbergastedly, "What are you trying to do?" I told him the intention behind what I was doing — that I was making it so that computers inherently shared information, making it the preferred medium for citizen journalists — and he understood that. (My arch-enemy wound up being William Randolph Hearst, btw. He had my dude assassinated, but too late. I was a martyr!)
"What are you trying to do?" became the default question for whenever we didn't understand why a player was doing something. It was, after all, what we wanted to know, so asking seemed the direct route to finding out. It was rudimentary, but it was Conflict Resolution. So's what you're doing.
I think Matt's equivocating a little too much. I won't do that.
Task Resolution doesn't resolve anything except for those direct impacts on resources, like hit points or whatever. Dice roll, hit points are refigured, and then the GM makes up what happens. If you're having fun doing this, it's because you're using some subtle system that resolves the conflict, like the one we're talking about here.
-
-
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Wow! That's really interesting. A question just popped in my brain. (Gawd, I think I'm already wildly de-railing Andy's thread. Sorry, Andy.)
Is Task resolution really a means by which players do stuff, and that doing stuff serves two purposes:
1) It moves stuff around / expands stuff on "your" character.
2) It provides narrative constraints to the GM, who is really the only person resolving conflicts and creating story.
Whereas, conflict resolution usually does #1 and also distributes #2. It provides players more tools than simple narrative constraints to feed to the GM.
This would explain why people keep getting caught up when talking about GM Fiat. They keep saying things like "It's not GM fiat because my good roll 'informs' the GM. He can't ignore that I rolled a 20!" Well, sure he can. But, it's a narrative constraint. Usually, he doesn't HAVE to follow the constraint, but he can.
So, narrative constraint from players does not dismantle GM fiat. Neat. I think that's right, anyway.
Total aside: I directly observe people enjoying task resolution because of No. 1. I can point to a specific person who I know gets a hard on for #1. This same person is barely interested in challenging #2, and will happily go along for the GM's ride, so long as he gets his character resource cialis (ew!). -
-
CommentAuthorChristian Griffen
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
So yeah, that quote was from me, but people have already started explaining why I put it that way. Once you take player goals into account, you are probably crossing into CR territory. But not necessarily :) Voicing goals is only one step--actually resolving goals is another.
There are two parts to my example on which I'd like to elaborate. One is the player/character shared knowledge thing. The other is the prepared-versus-spontaneous thing. Both are integral to what I consider "traditional" play, mainly because it's traditional for me, and it's how most people I've played or talked about RPGs with have always played.
So in this style of play: You are not told anything that your character doesn't know, and all of the important information is prepared or randomly assigned via certain probabilities. These two aspects are important because they are considered necessary for you to play your character properly and simulate what the character would really do. There's a whole sleuth of issues here that have their foundation in the rub between "playing to win" and "playing to simulate" (which many non-theory-heads try to describe as the roll-v-role issue). But only the first one--being told wheter/how to address the goal--stands in the way of CR.
Now: as I pointed out in the example, I might already tell my GM what my intent is. But his traditional response would be, "So what do you do?" That means we're still not necessarily resolving the goal.
What you need to drift TR to CR is to voice the goal, be told how/whether you can achieve it, and have a definitive resolution of it. You can do this with a traditional TR system if you eliminate the player/character knowledge thing and thereby cut out all of the rolls that would not have contributed to achieving the goal. The GM might still tell you that your goal is unattainable, but that's ok, because there are unattainable goals in almost every CR system out there.
However, once you make this step, you're blowing the whole player/character thing to pieces, and that just doesn't work for a lot of players. Because now your character is no longer doing what's most likely, he's doing what the player wants her to do to achieve a particular goal.
As a side note, the second part--the prepared-versus-spontaneous thing--is where the GM can decide whether to focus on simulating the world or on providing the players with the means to achieve their goals. This is another huge step that a lot of players don't want to make. -
-
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
However, once you make this step, you're blowing the whole player/character thing to pieces, and that just doesn't work for a lot of players. Because now your character is no longer doing what's most likely, he's doing what the player wants her to do to achieve a particular goal.
As a side note, the second part--the prepared-versus-spontaneous thing--is where the GM can decide whether to focus on simulating the world or on providing the players with the means to achieve their goals. This is another huge step that a lot of players don't want to make.
MAN am I getting tired of those preferences. It's a personal thing. Get insulted if you want to. Whatever. But, they are inpenetrable to me. For ME it's like hearing people say "But I like moldy bread!" -
First off, I don't buy the definition of conflict resolution as being that thing that automatically occurs when a player is clear about his intents.
A player being clear about his intentions merely means that you have now achieved what I believe is the minimum healthy standard for player-to-player/player-to-GM communication at the table. That's all. I would say you've given yourself a much better shot at fulfilling your social contract, and achieved a firm footing for a lot of things, but that doesn't take it into the explicit game-space for me.
Once those intentions are clear, the GM and players can decide whether or not resolution (of any kind) is necessary in order to get narration to proceed. This is the "say yes" part of "say yes or roll dice". "Say yes" is "proceed, no resolution necessary"; "or roll dice" is "we have two or more interesting things that could happen here, and need to choose what should happen".
So, once you've figured out whether you're going with simply proceeding or you're instead deciding that resolution is called for, THEN it becomes relevant whether you're operating at the "macro" conflict resolution scale or the "micro" task resolution scale. I say macro and micro in quotes because I know not everyone sees those as a matter of magnification -- but I do (and it's part of why Fate had scene resolution, exchange resolution, and turn resolution, which in turn inspired Clinton to produce Bringing Down The Pain in TSOY as the way to go "micro" on a scene resolution).
So let's look at "conflict resolution" and "task resolution".
For me, I perceive conflict resolution (a misnomer, I think, but I'll get into that in a bit) as when the story-structure is directly addressed and altered through the application of mechanics. Explicitly stating: Does the safe have the plans in it, or do ninja guards drop down from the ceiling and attack, preventing opening the safe? -- That's what I see happening in conflict resolution systems (and note, that this sort of A or B doesn't occur until after you've concluded that there are two or more interesting things that could happen here -- you're on a different branch from the "say yes" stuff).
To flip that around, the character's competency at what he is doing may not (necessarily!) assessed or addressed in conflict resolution, unless that competency is what the conflict is actually about. In the above safecracking example I gave, the "conflict" isn't about the character's ability. It's instead about whether or not he gets access to information which is already assumed to be available. It's about time pressure and secrecy.
It's also operating at a level of abstraction that is for me where I find myself not always liking conflict resolution. Because conflict resolution is very often conflated with scene resolution. One interation of the resolution mechanics is performed, and then we the scene's big deal is addressed. This bores me to hell and gone, and is part of why PTA is a dud for me. But it's not insurmountable. As I've posted (a few months ago) in my livejournal, Dogs in the Vineyard gets around this by, yes, resolving a scene (or "a single conflict" -- remember, the two get conflated, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not) in a single iteration of the resolution system -- but that resolution TAKES TIME, and is broken down, internally, into a bunch of smaller atoms that preserve suspense about the outcome over the course of the resolution (*).
Task resolution, for me, is smaller-than-a-scene resolution. The conflict may be an outer container in which multiple tasks occur. And again, remember, we are digging into the task resolution because we are on a separate branch from "say yes". Intent has still been stated, and multiple interesting outcomes are on the table, and the resolution system must be used to figure out which of those interesting outcomes will come to pass. But on a single iteration of the resolution system, the conflict is not necessarily addressed in its entirety.
Let's go back to the safecracking thing. In the exact same setup with the exact same set of interesting outcomes (you get to the safe and you get it opened and you get the info inside OR somewhere along the way the ninjas stop you and there's a fight), task resolution breaks this down into several tasks, which need to be achieved in sequence in order to get to one of the outcomes (getting the information); failure at one of those tasks means you'll get the other (ninjas!). The character's competencies have a chance to shine in each of these moments, and if they prove incompetent for the task at question, something else interesting occurs (ninjas!). So, the character might have a Security Systems task, a Stealth task, and a Safecracking task to resolve. Great! This is still task resolution, despite the player having been clear about his intentions.
* On some level, Dogs is a hybrid. It addresses the conflict/scene level, and it addresses the task/action level, at the same time. This is one aspect of its brilliance that I don't think gets talked about nearly enough.
So really we have these scenarios:
Player states intent: I'm going to break in, get to the safe, crack it, and see if the information's inside. I want to get that evidence.
Situation #1: GM does not believe the information's in this safe. GM chooses "Say Yes"
Result: GM says: "No need to roll. You get in, get to the safe, and crack into it, but the information's not there. Now what?"
Situation #2: GM does believe the information's in this safe, and is using 'conflict'/'scene' resolution. GM chooses "or roll the dice" with conflict resolution.
Result: GM says: "Okay, you're going to have to get past trained ninja guards to do this. So I see a conflict here -- do you get the info from the safe silently and secretly and swiftly, or do you get discovered by the ninjas before the job's complete? Let's roll the dice and resolve this question."
Situation #3: GM does believe the information's in this safe, and is using task/action resolution. GM chooses "or roll the dice" with task resolution.
Result: GM says: "Okay, you're going to have to get past trained ninja guards to do this. Once you do that, you'll have to crack the safe without taking too long or tripping any alarms. Let's do the Stealth task first -- if you fail that, you don't even get to the safe, but you may find yourself fighting the ninjas. If that succeeds, we'll move on to the Safecracking task -- with the same failure consequence. Succeed at both, and you've got the info."
(continued in next post) -
Long-winded, yes, but I think I've made my point: I don't think it's appropriate to conflate the clear statement of player intent with the distinction between resolving a conflict vs. resolving a task. Whether or not you're getting past it a conflict in a single iteration is what matters, to me, once you've gotten to "or roll the dice". But this is also why I look at "conflict resolution" as a bad phrase for it. For me it's scene resolution or task resolution -- both address conflicts, because that's what any resolution system does, period.
Instead, I'd push the perspective that intents give you the lens for determining when resolution is necessary. And -- as it so happens -- Rob and I have already pushed this perspective in Spirit of the Century ... which happens to support both scene and task resolution. Take a look at page 222, which I'll excerpt here:Before you -- the GM -- call for a die roll, it is critically important that you stop and do two things:
1. Imagine Success
2. Imagine Failure
It sounds simple, but it can make a critical difference. Success is usually the easy part, but failure can be a bit trickier. You want to make sure that both outcomes are interesting, though interesting certainly doesn't need to mean good.
If you cannot come up with a way to handle either outcome, you need to rethink the situation.
It's as simple as that, because there are few things more frustrating to a player than making a skill roll and getting told that it nets them no new knowledge, no suggested course of action, no new development for the story, and so on.
In Don't Rest Your Head, I shorthand this thinking to "Only roll when it's interesting or important".
Clarity on these issues, however we've phrased them, however, is vital, and that's what the statement of intent gets you. But it doesn't automatically put you in "not task resolution". Task resolution or scene resolution is the granularity at which you address that intent, and both of them should happen only when you can imagine success and imagine failure as both interesting outcomes. And when we use the word "resolution" in a game, it's implicitly got "conflict" built in, right? Because there's no need -- EVER! -- to "resolve" something that isn't a conflict.
So my flowchart would go something like...
1. State intentions (I intend to get the secret info from the safe).
2. If intentions indicate only one interesting outcome, no resolution is necessary; narration can proceed to the point of satisfying the intentions (discovery there is no secret info).
3. If intentions indicate multiple outcomes (getting secret info or being prevented from secret info due to ninjas), resolution is necessary to determine how or if the intentions are satisfied.
3a. If using scene resolution, the intentions can be addressed directly by a single iteration of the resolution system (secret info or ninjas? roll!).
3b. If using task resolution, the intentions serve as a goal at the end of a chain of tasks. In its simplest form, failure on any one of those tasks branches to an alternative, not-intentions-satisfying outcome (ninjas!). If all of those tasks succeed, then the intentions are satisfied (secret info!). -
- CommentAuthorLeonard Balsera
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
I now dub the following statement the Hicks Principle:
"Player intent is a necessary factor of resolution. All other considerations are merely matters of pacing and scale."
So, that task resolution that *doesn't* factor in player intent? You know, when the GM doesn't think the information's in the safe and runs a full Safecracking roll w/ modifiers anyway? That needs a new term. I think Fred would probably like, "suck-ass play". -
-
CommentAuthorJoshua A.C. Newman
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Fred, you're just talking about different scales of conflict resolution. If you resolve the intentions of the players through principled application of the system, that's conflict resolution. That tasks are resolved in the process does not change the more important part that the conflict is being resolved.
Here's a hypothetical system. I'm playing a GM of some sort. You're playing a protagonist.
Fred: I want vengeance on that wizard who killed my sister. She was a 74-point relationship for me, so you get 74 points of opposition.
J: OK. (writes that down.)
Fred: I'm going to break into his tower.
J: OK, the lock is magical and talks back. It's 12 points of opposition (I mark off 12 of my 74 points). Roll vs. 12 on your Sophistry skill.
Fred: I get 14. I sophistrize the crap out of him. He gets confused and agrees to open the door as a demonstration of his free will, just to prove that he has it. I get the leftover 2 points for later.
J: When you get into the hallway, there's a minion. He's a big, hairy body with huge muscles and no head, just, like, a puckered sphincter where you'd expect for there to be a neck. It "faces" you, and its body language tells you that its surprised. It's 22 points of asskicking of you! Roll vs. 22 on Asskicking!
Fred: Crap! It's not worth the risk right now! I'm using my Run Away! ability and roll against half the dude's Asskicking value — I get a 12! I run away, get a point, and the minion can't get me!
Eventually, a lot of stuff will have happened, you'll have confronted the wizard (and maybe failed to have achieved vengeance), and we'll have resolved the conflict.
The point is that I can't just make shit up to throw in your path — I have rules (that, in this case, are clearly underthought) that I have to use as your opposition that are used to resolve the conflict, and you get to do things that you know are related to the outcome you want. Like, maybe I use up all my points making minions and traps and stuff, and I've only got one point left for the wizard himself. He's surrounded by crackling energy, the sky opens up and so forth, but I've only got a 1 — you extract your vengeance. I've played my pieces, and that's how it came out.
This is not a hybrid. This is long-form Conflict Resolution.
Fred, what I hear you saying is, "Conflict Resolution is obviously required for functional play. I just don't like the short form CR type from PTA or Shock: (which can have multiple conflicts in a scene, but it's not usually more than two)" That's not a difference between CR and TR, though. Everything you're talking about that is function is used to resolve entire conflicts. There only question is the amount of detail, and that's a design-level variable that addresses aesthetic, not functional, goals.
(I'm really, seriously not saying that the system I just described is good. It's just an example of the scale of a Conflict being well beyond one little scene.)
-
-
Posted By: Landon DarkwoodI now dub the following statement the Hicks Principle:
"Player intent is a necessary factor of resolution. All other considerations are merely matters of pacing and scale."
Does a name need to be a principle? I'm just as happy calling it "Clarity of Intention Is Key to Healthy Play".So, that task resolution that *doesn't* factor in player intent? You know, when the GM doesn't think the information's in the safe and runs a full Safecracking roll w/ modifiers anyway? That needs a new term. I think Fred would probably like, "suck-ass play".
You could get all cerebral and call it "dysfunctional communication" or "destructive opacity". :)
I think destructive opacity is possible with scene resolution too, mind you, though it may be less likely: "But I didn't care about whether or not my father would let me back into the house!"
Yeah. In my mind, this all comes down to clear vs. opaque. -
Posted By: Joshua A.C. Newman
Fred, you're just talking about different scales of conflict resolution.
One of those scales is TASKS. Folks are setting up a dichotomy between TASKS and CONFLICTS, and that's a false dichotomy.
Frankly, I assert that it's your terminology that's broken. Not mine.
Edit: In other words, because conflicts can be resolved task-by-task, calling the thing which isn't conflict resolution "task resolution" is misleading and wrong-headed. By labelling that 'task resolution', you're implying by the very term itself that anything that resolves something task-by-task is not conflict resolution. But you've already shown that you agree with me that it's not the case that resolving things task-by-task can't occur in conflict resolution.
Therefore, there are two dichotomies here, being laid out as one.
There's "Clarity (and, thus, consequentiality) of Player Intentions" vs "Opacity (and, thus, inconsequentiality) of Player Intentions"
And there's "Task-by-task resolution" and "Scene-by-scene resolution".
I'm asserting that the first dichotomy lays out whether your play is healthy. Open communications of player intent is mandatory for healthy play. Period. You don't have that, and you'll end up with a game that doesn't make people happy. Don't play that way. Set it aside.
The second one is entirely encompassed in your idea of Conflict Resolution. To which I say: Duh. You call it 'long-form conflict resolution' vs 'short-form conflict resolution'. Long form is what I call task resolution, and rightly so, because it addresses things task-by-task.
Only when you get 'task-by-task resolution' PLUS 'opacity of intention' do you get what *you're* calling task resolution. But that unfairly paints all task-by-task resolution as unhealthy.
The term 'task resolution' is wildly inaccurate.
But I sense this is going to devolve from here, so I'll happily bow out since I'm not using the Official Lexicon. I'll take my natural language over to my corner and lurk. :) -
Posted By: SupplanterThe PLAYER would like to have his character be able to forge the signature.
The CHARACTERlacks any interestin forging the guy's signature.
In the search upstairs example it doesn't SOUND like it's the case that
The PLAYER thinks the guy may have a connection to the murders.
The CHARACTER has no suspicions on that score.Posted By: xenopulseSo in this style of play: You are not told anything that your character doesn't know, and all of the important information is prepared or randomly assigned via certain probabilities. These two aspects are important because they are considered necessary for you to play your character properly and simulate what the character would really do. There's a whole sleuth of issues here that have their foundation in the rub between "playing to win" and "playing to simulate" (which many non-theory-heads try to describe as the roll-v-role issue). But only the first one--being told wheter/how to address the goal--stands in the way of CR.
Exactly. To illustrate it further:
Consider yourself, as a living and breathing human being, standing outside the often mentioned safe. You are the charater context. You don't know what's in it. You have to open it to know. This is task resolution in character context; wheter something is in the safe or is not, is completely beyond you. You could assume that there is something, but until you open it, you just don't know. The Universe knows. The universe could be GM deciding there is something, GM having knowledge there is something, or some rules deciding there is something. The actual mechanism is not that important, it could suck or or not.
Now, conflict resolution blows this up. You have hard time convincing yourself that you're that living, breathing human outside the safe, since your perception is suddenly warped and expanded - you know that something could or could not be in the safe and this depends on some abstract mechanism. That knowledge resides outside the character context, and is only known to the player. This is the player context, which also tells you that you're not the Jack, the sweaty and nervous safe-cracker man, but Joe the player, who's ass itches because he's been sitting on the sofa for three hours.
For some people, being Joe the player is all good and dandy because that allows them to (fill in your preferences, if you fit this description). Some other people do not wish be aware of Joe the player - they want to be Jack the safe-cracker, because being Jack the safe-cracker is why they are here. For their purposes, Joe the player who's ass itches isn't there. Fuck Joe. They get to be Joe for the rest of their lives and Joe does not get to crack safes. Conflict resolution tends to bring Joe to the picture, because it abstracts things beyond character context.
Everythings swell if all players wish to do the first one or all the players wish to do the second one. It's just a preference. There could be more options for all I know. Those who don't get to make an informed decision are the unlucky folks. The group of players which has both preferences and don't make an informed decision might end up confused.
As for the intentions, I've noticed that even with the second option, GM's tend to stay informed - characters tend to articulate what they're going to do, make plans and ponder out aloud.
Edited to add: Some lucky folks claim to be able to get best of the both worlds. I'm envious. -
Interestingly, a strict reading of the D&D 3.5 rules indicates that this is how D&D is supposed to be played -- at least, it leans in this direction.
"Sometimes a player will say, "I look around the room. Do I see anything?" and sometimes she'll say, "I look into the room, knowing that I just saw a kobold dart inside. I look behind the chair and the table, and in all the dark corners." In both cases, the DM replies, "Make a Spot Check.""
-- DMG 3.5, "General Versus Specific", pg 32.
Cheers,
Roger -
Fred, the thing that's different is that task+task+task+task does not necessarily add up to resolution of intent. When the tasks are part of a whole, such that each task represents movement toward/away from intent (or an opportunity to alter intent), you've got conflict resolution. When the tasks are just discrete things, which may or may not even relate to intent (typically at the GM's discretion, but not always - sometimes the rules will just call for something fiddly to happen), then you've got "mere" task resolution. Any task I do, I don't know whether it meaningfully adjusts my position, or how. Often, there's not even any WAY for it to affect my positioning with respect to my intent, except as the GM sees fit - because the system doesn't provide any mechanical way for one task to connect to another.
The position, as I see it, is not "Task Resolution: Teh Suk" but "Task Resolution: Not Good Enough On Its Own". -
-
CommentAuthorJoshua A.C. Newman
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Fred, the thing that's different is that task+task+task+task does not necessarily add up to resolution of intent.
Mark's right.
Fred, what's going on is that you have a perfectly functional mode of play, and you're assuming that everyone plays like that. You're taking a generous reading of game texts because you've found an excellent technique by which you play and have perceived that playing otherwise stinks.
Here's what is probably obvious to you:
Task Resolution: It resolves tasks only. They may or may not result in furthering the conflict. The input from the task into the conflict is entirely a matter of whim, taste, social pressure, or whatever. The point is that it only resolves tasks.*
Conflict Resolution: A system of resolving conflicts. This may be a function of resolving tasks, weighing player interests, randomness, or whatever. You know, however, that it resolves the conflict.
This is not a dichotomy. One is a method of resolving conflicts. Another is a method of doing things that probably add color and may effect resources, but don't resolve the conflicts.
(Incidentally, what I said about the cycle of conflicts in PTA and Shock: is an oversimplification: There's another scale of conflict that both have: PTA's issue resolution is season-scale conflict resolution, as is Story Goal resolution in Shock: where it gets addressed completely once a game for short story one-shots, or every few episodes for longer games.)
*This is not a problem in a dungeon crawl situation because killing the critter is the conflict itself. You get XP, you get its goodies, whatever. The issue comes up when you start pushing the game beyond its design specs: "I don't want to kill him. I want him to be afraid of me. How many hit points does he have to lose before he runs away to tell his master, so I can follow him to find out where his master is?" Bhuuuuhhh... 50%? How about 50%. Uh, rounded... down. Then he'll run away... I don't know if he'd run to his master, though....
-
-
You're using a *pacing term* (task) to label "intent-irrelevant play". Calling intent-irrelevant play "task resolution" incorrectly conflates resolving ANYTHING task-by-task as intent-irrelevant.
The.
Term.
Is.
Broken.
Furthermore, I can do intent-irrelevant play without resolving things task-by-task.
Therefore 'task resolution' is an incorrect label for the concept you're talking about.
Period. -
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006 edited
Fred, I've got no argument that task resolution and conflict resolution aren't problematic. I've participated and read MANY discussions related to the terms, and people are indeed all over the map.
I would find it extremely helpful if you would define, as simply as possible, the difference between the two. What are YOU talking about?
And, importantly, what are WE talking about. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree what I'm advocating: That the only definitional difference between the two is whether or not resolution is determined by the GM. (i.e. Gm fiat, which, yes, I realize also isn't everyone's favorite term).
EDIT: Fred, after re-reading, I think I'm getting what you're saying now. And, really, I don't disagree with your objection of the use of the term "task". But, at the same time, you're not really addressing other things brought up in the thread, and I'm curious to hear what you think of those things. Hopefully, you're not ducking out completely, but it's cool if you've said your piece. -
What I mean:
A "conflict resolution system" is identical to a "resolution system", as *I* tend to use the terms. Resolution systems resolve the conflict between mutually exclusive outcome A and outcome B [, C, D, ...], classically 'success' and 'failure'.
When I say "task resolution", I mean "task-by-task resolution". Resolution, using task-sized. Pretty obvious. When I say "scene resolution", I mean "scene-by-scene resolution". Resolution, using scene-sized grains. Conflict resolution contains both task resolution and scene resolution as a matter of pacing.
The granularity dial can be turned from tasks to scenes and back and forth, no problem. This is a separate axis from whether player intents are clear and relevant, or whether they're either opaque (thus irrelevant) or clear, but not factored in, thus irrelevant. As I've said several times now, intent-irrelevant play is (or at least strongly tends to be) unhealthy, because it's a recipe for people not getting pleasurable, frictionless, relevant play.
What YOU mean:
I hear people saying "conflict resolution" when they mean "intent-relevant play" and "task resolution" when they mean "intent-irrelevant play". Those labels suck to the point of uselessness, because they're using words that aren't on-point.
"Intent-relevant play" on the other hand says exactly what you all keep *meaning* when you say "conflict resolution". It's about intentions, and those intentions being relevant.
I agree that in intent-irrelevant play (or, to use my shorthand, 'unhealthy play'), the GM resolves things without taking the intentions of the players (or the players' characters, depending on another dial that I'm not going to get into) into account. As a result, the GM frequently embarks on a course that does not efficiently maximize player interest and investment in the events of play.
I agree that in intent-relevant play, the GM resolves things by taking the intentions of the players into account. As a result, the GM frequently embarks on a course that efficiently maximizes player interest and investment in the events of play.
In BETWEEN the two:
I typed all of that out, but I think calling it "intent-relevant play" contains a lot of what I said within its labelling phrase. Calling it "conflict resolution" doesn't inform me what the term means at all (as I take it to be a synonym for, simply, "resolution").
Much as calling intent-irrelevant play "task resolution" not only doesn't inform me what the term means, but actively muddles what it's intended to mean.
See? By making the intent of the terms clear, and then treating that intent as relevant, and renaming the terms so that the terms communicate their meaning, it gets a lot more efficient. ;) -
Posted By: Matt_Snyder
EDIT: Fred, after re-reading, I think I'm getting what you're saying now. And, really, I don't disagree with your objection of the use of the term "task". But, at the same time, you're not really addressing other things brought up in the thread, and I'm curious to hear what you think of those things.
I agree that intent-irrelevant play == all the power stays in the GM's hands. Relevancy is the function whereby the GM adopts the players' intents, right? Which is what you're saying. -
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Fred, cool. Yep, I think we're agreeing basically on all points. Joshua and I are coming into this topic riddled with bullets from miles of text arguing about whether SCALE defined task vs. conflict, and we're coming in using the Forge's accrued understandings, all that. So, yeah, I totally get why that language sucks, and you're arguing against it. And, you're totally getting why we point to certain things and say "This not that. NOt that, this over here." And so on.
But, really, no one's disagreeing as far as I can tell. -
So this is all a terminology flame? Okay. You're right. The terms suck.
-
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006 edited
Here's where I stop being so damn nice about it all:
Seriously, people, stop DEFENDING "task resolution" because you think it justifies your fun. HEre's what I mean:
I see this conversation happen a lot:
Someone smart: "Task resolution means your GM runs everything."
Someone defensive: "But I like my group's style of play. Who are you to challenge our fun."
Someone smart: "Well, Task resolution means you don't actually resolve stuff."
Somone defensive: "No fucking way! It does to. We resolve that kind of stuff all the time, and have fun doing it. Nyeah."
Somemone smart: "No, that's conflict resolution. You're doing it pretty well, sounds like."
Somone defensive: "No we resolve tasks, and that informs the GM's choices. You're wrong."
Someone smart: "Actually, again, that's conflict, which is what I've been saying."
Somone defensive: "Nuh-uh. It's just stupid, and my group doesn't do stupid stuff. WE HAVE FUN. How dare you?"
Somone less-smart-all-the-sudden-because-people-suck: "Do you like moldy bread? Also, I'm going to say something out lout now: POOP!"
Someone defensive: "This is not actually a roleplaying game. Fuck all ya'll, especially Ron Edwards." -
Posted By: Matt_Snyder
Seriously, people, stop DEFENDING "task resolution" because you think it justifies your fun. HEre's what I mean:
Are we doing that? And where are doing that? I'm not seeing it in my posts, but I could be pretty blind to it. -
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
I don't know. Are you? I'm not seeing it.
Do you sense, from anyone, the need or the atmosphere that task resolution needs defending. That play is ok? Do you get the sense reading threads, as I do, that people feel obligated to defend task resolution because doing so somehow "evens up" the argument against anyone decrying anyone else's "fun"? (shrug)
Maybe it's just me being cranky. You can always take it or leave it. Which, you know, is pretty good advice to Someone Defensive, too.
Besides, I'm a smart ass. -
-
CommentAuthorJoshua A.C. Newman
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Yeah, I totally, 100% agree with Fred's meaning. And I agree that, upon closer inspection, the terms have baggage from their origins that is misleading.
Task-only resolution is a frequent tool of dysfunctional play, particularly in a system like D&D, where you infrequently gain from a conflict (only when you level or get goodies better than what you've got, or sell the goodies that aren't), but almost always lose resources (HP, potions, spells). That means that, if I want to keep you guys from going somewhere, I can grind, grind, grind away your resources by having lots of rolls that cost you a little bit each time. Or we can play out exactly the same fiction with fewer rolls, if I want you to go that way. Because it's a tool for that kind of crap, it very reasonably came under suspicion. But, really, the issue is that the GM is responsible for for both fairness of the environment and the opposition (DUH), and that fact gives the GM authority over the value of the players' actions.
BTW, I think that the explicit stating of stakes isn't inherent to intent-relevant play. You can arrive at character/plot/relationship/&c.-relevant stuff through any number of functional methods. If all my resources are people I use, and my decisions about them determine mechanically whether they benefit or are harmed by the fictional events of the game, this game probably doesn't need explicit stakes. The stakes are my relationships with those people. I can charge into conflict, not knowing at all what will come out, perhaps not knowing what the fight's about, and the result of the conflicts will be the stuff I care about. The "intents" (as I call them in Shock: and Fred is callng them here) are written down. That stuff is always staked. That requires some very serious mechanical support, I think; it can't just be duct taped on.
-
-
- CommentAuthorkomradebob
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Interesting side thought:
Could you mechanically limit the number of rolls that any resolution is allowed to contain? That sparks some very interesting ideas...
For example, a unit of game is defined as being 10 rolls long? Like all rolls from every particpant combined cannot add up to more than ten?
(sounds of gears grinding...) -
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Many, many games have such limits (currency & resources: that's what games are all about!), but few leap to mind with specific integer limits.
Galactic, which I'm playtesting with Matt Wilson, does this, although it's a bit more open now after some feedback and testing. As a player, your protagonist captain participates in "adventures" which have specific over-arching goals. The original version we played mandated no greater than 5 conflicts, and that 3 victories / losses determiend one of two sub-conflicts.
I'm working on 44, which will have a countdown clock. This basically means you have that many conflict rolls, although greater success can push back the clock. So, if you play an "8-hour" game, you'll have about 8 conflict rolls/scenes (and each scene is 1 roll only). -
Iago is smarter than me and said everything I ever wanted to say about why I consider the task-/conflict-resolution divide completely phony. So there's no need for me to post in this thread and no need for you to read this post. Sorry.
-
Posted By: Matt_SnyderDo you sense, from anyone, the need or the atmosphere that task resolution needs defending.
No, but in case we are talking past each other, let'stry clear that one out, in any case.
Conflict resolution/intent-relevant resolution is a good tool; as a tool, it's a lot better than task resolution. It's more egolocical and it's suits fast(er) paced play very well. To be precise, it suits A Story Game way more better than task/intent-irrelevant resolution. In case of Story Games, it does not wreck the context of character, because the odds are that the game is not designed for such style of playing in the first place. This is usually pretty well stated in the game text.
Task resolution/intent-irrelevant resolution works better with style of play that builds upon staying in the context of the character. That's not saying that it usually performs well; it could well be one of the reasons why such styles of play gradually evolve towards freeform playing. Either because it's not really working or because it's not really used. Because, unlike in (many) Story Games, resolution mechanics don't hang in the nexus of things - they are pretty irrelevant and sporadically used, because the play is slow paced and centerns around dialogue (this is also why the GM Fiat thing is muddled; he rarely resolves things for players, and more like acts as supporting charaters to add his part into the dialogue). It does work for occasional crack-the-safe, though.
Task resolution/intent-irrelevant resolution mechanics could and probably will give out poorer results in play where it's used often and is in the nexus of things. It certainly seems to do that when the players are not informed what they should be doing. Using such resolution with style of play leaning towards Story Games is pretty ankward.
It's not about Fun; there are different kinds of "fun" that different styles of play produce. It's about right tools that get a job done - or tools that wreck the job because they are not designed for it. So, to address Andy's initial question: fixing resolution starts from understanding what you're set to do and choosing tools for it. -
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Merten, totally cool. Count me as on board with everything you're saying. Fella's got a put his flag in the sand somewhere. This is a better place than most. -
Burning Empires leaps to mind, komradebob. The "scene crunch" puts what is effectively a cap on how much rolling is going to happen in a single Maneuver.
-
Posted By: MertenTask resolution/intent-irrelevant resolution works better with style of play that builds upon staying in the context of the character.
I'm still not sure I buy this. Based on Fred's perspective, I don't see why it should matter. How is relevance of intent at odds with immersion? -
Posted By: buzzI'm still not sure I buy this. Based on Fred's perspective, I don't see why it should matter. How is relevance of intent at odds with immersion?
Because Immersion rarely builds on relevance. Relevance is about knowing what you do and aim for; it's about moving things forward in coherent manner, having a clear goal. Immersion is not about relevance, unless you're playing with characters and situation which are and which is supposed to move forward in coherent manner and with a clear goal. Immersion is about simulating human (or others, though it's arguably a lot harder) behaviour and human behaviour is rarely coherent and straight forward. It's muddled, it's filled with emotional hodgepodge and it relies on uncertain and often not-said-out-aloud communication. That's the meat of it. That's where the strong emotions come from. That is, for the immersive players, intresting - and, I'd put out a hazard guess, pretty boring for people coming from elsewhere. And that's cool - that's why there are different styles of play.
The irrelevance of task resolution, kind of, works with this. It's about groping around in the dark, instead of seeing two or more ways a story can emergene from a conflict. Immersive players don't want clarity, they want to be left in the dark and feel their way around. Because that, pretty often, is what we humans do. And, granted, immersive players tend to emphasize that because it's something that generates a lot of content and it let's them to build their character. -
I think this sums up my perspective. Is it valuable to the conversation?
For ease of reading, it's also available as a PDF here: http://www.evilhat.com/lab/clarity-of-intent.pdf -
Posted By: buzz
Posted By: MertenTask resolution/intent-irrelevant resolution works better with style of play that builds upon staying in the context of the character.
I'm still not sure I buy this. Based on Fred's perspective, I don't see why it should matter. How is relevance of intent at odds with immersion?
Well, to point at the above diagram, I can get my immersion in the first column with ease, the second column with only marginal difficulty, and the third one -- for me, at least -- only in the first row of the third column. Soon as you take me to scene-based stuff where my intentions directly translate to what gets resolved -- then I've stepped out of character stance and gone into author or directorial stance pretty much as a given, I think.
My personal preference for play is anything in column #2 -- which I see as the gray area between "intention-irrelevant play" and "intention-relevant play" -- and the first row of column #3. Anything in column #1 is bunk, and interestingly, I often find row #2 of column #3 (scene-based, intention-relevant play) to leave me cold, too. But a LOT of story-games live there.
Interestingly, this diagram goes a long way towards clarifying for me why PTA *tends* to be a dud for me unless I approach it at the get-go with the perspective that I'm not going to identify with my character at all. -
Man, I've been immersed in work for the past 6 hours, all sorts of critical shit exploding left and right. I can't chime in much more intelligently than "The Six Paragraph Post I alluded to above in that last post of mine? Fred nailed it in his followup posts." The terms do suck as they are, it's a fuzzy area which actually Fred's dichotomy clarifies a lot. Turns it from a bunch of words into something useful that can enhance a game session.
More later, but yeah, "what Fred said". ;-) -
- CommentAuthorMike Holmes
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Nice. I like coming in when it's all figured out already. :-)
I play Clear Task, Relevant Task, with occasional forays into Clear Scene, Relevant Scene, but really only if I sense that nobody's actually interested in doing it in more detail.
That is, when I do a fight in HQ, and do it with only one roll, I usually narrate the result like, "You step forward, and with one stroke, cut off his left hand so quickly he can't even respond. He runs for it."
Thus resolution mechanics that seem to be "scene" mechanics really depend on the outcome narration as to which they actually are in application.
Mike -
Posted By: iagoWell, to point at the above diagram, I can get my immersion in the first column with ease, the second column with only marginal difficulty, and the third one -- for me, at least -- only in the first row of the third column. Soon as you take me to scene-based stuff where my intentions directly translate to what gets resolved -- then I've stepped out of character stance and gone into author or directorial stance pretty much as a given, I think.
That makes sense (even if it's relevant to the personal style of play). I think the difference regarding to immersion between columns #1 and #2, first row, is pretty much a learned and cultural thing.
I'm sitting pretty firmly in the upper left box, unless I can imagine a row above that with granularity of, I dunno, Organic or Freeform? In that case I'd be sitting in that upper left corner most of the time. -
Well, I draw the boxes, but I make them dotted lines for a reason. There are midpoints; both axes are continuums rather than discrete states, when an entire game is taken into account, rather than a moment-by-moment. My play tends to slide back and forth between tasks and scenes, f'rexample, in great part due to a desire to go at it "organically".
Though p'raps you mean "Organic" in a different way than I would. I think I would use it to mean that I set the level of granularity "in a fashion which seems appropriate to the moment".
So, you play totally opaque, eh? Interesting. -
Posted By: iagoThough p'raps you mean "Organic" in a different way than I would. I think I would use it to mean that I set the level of granularity "in a fashion which seems appropriate to the moment".
So, you play totally opaque, eh? Interesting.
I think we mean different things; I mean organic in a sense that it resembles human interaction as closely as possible - "scenes" tend to be very long, because they mostly consist of dialogue (and description of physical activities) and time flow pretty much follows the flow of real time (or slower, because everything has to be described verbally). There are no scene changes as such, rather skipping over parts which are not intresting - that would be, sleeping through a journey or something else just not happening.
I think it's best explained by comparing it with LARP. In LARP, real time and game time matches because of the physical reality - you do stuff and you speak, like you would outside a game. The immersive play style around here pretty much shares the same ideals and is heavily influenced by LARPing; the match is not one one one, because the lack of physical correspondency gives you some freedom of movement. That freedom is used if necessary; if not, the actual play is pretty much the same, except that physical activity is replaced by either description or resolution. And of course the freedom to potray things that could not be achieved in physical reality, like superpowers - this is where we start coming down to visit box the boxes in first row.
Opaqueness (it's hardly ever total and is in any case dictated by whatever is prepared before the play - if a character is desrcibed to be strong as a bull, he is, which is a kind of a resolution in itself) comes from the same place. Majority of LARPs lack a resolution system or have a very simple one. Thus the players have pretty much learned to live without one and rely on their own judgement of what happens (is that a "player fiat"?). GM resolves interaction with things other than players, if needed, because unlike LARPs, tabletop play needs NPC's and imagined physical reality. Again, visits to first row, if needed. Depends, really, on the amount and scale of physical activity.
(And I realize I'm now derailing badly, so we could split from this thread, if needed) -
Posted By: Merten
I think we mean different things; I mean organic in a sense that it resembles human interaction as closely as possible - "scenes" tend to be very long, because they mostly consist of dialogue (and description of physical activities) and time flow pretty much follows the flow of real time (or slower, because everything has to be described verbally). There are no scene changes as such, rather skipping over parts which are not intresting - that would be, sleeping through a journey or something else just not happening.
I think it's best explained by comparing it with LARP. In LARP, real time and game time matches because of the physical reality - you do stuff and you speak, like you would outside a game. The immersive play style around here pretty much shares the same ideals and is heavily influenced by LARPing; the match is not one one one, because the lack of physical correspondency gives you some freedom of movement. That freedom is used if necessary; if not, the actual play is pretty much the same, except that physical activity is replaced by either description or resolution. And of course the freedom to potray things that could not be achieved in physical reality, like superpowers - this is where we start coming down to visit box the boxes in first row.
Opaqueness (it's hardly ever total and is in any case dictated by whatever is prepared before the play - if a character is desrcibed to be strong as a bull, he is, which is a kind of a resolution in itself) comes from the same place. Majority of LARPs lack a resolution system or have a very simple one. Thus the players have pretty much learned to live without one and rely on their own judgement of what happens (is that a "player fiat"?). GM resolves interaction with things other than players, if needed, because unlike LARPs, tabletop play needs NPC's and imagined physical reality. Again, visits to first row, if needed. Depends, really, on the amount and scale of physical activity.
Nah, this is important. Here's how I'd fit your description of LARPing into my grid:
Whenever you engage the resolution system (of player fiat or GM determination) you're resolving *specific actions*, e.g., "I'm trying to knock this guy out; he doesn't want me to." That's a task. Note that the granularity of resolution axis only talks about the "single unit" scope of play that's getting resolved in a single iteration of the resolution system. In your LARP, you're never resolving an entire scene with a single iteration of player or GM fiat, right? It's individual actions.
... which is pretty light-shedding for me. I'd totally failed to consider that LARP falls into the Opaque Tasks intersection on the grid. Though one could argue that you could at least go to Clear Tasks in a LARP -- for example, when that GM walks over to arbitrate the fisticuffs, it might help to be clear about your intents, since the GM might not've been around to experience the context in which the fisticuffs arose.
At least based on my experience GMing large games (which are equivalent to "small larps") at AmberCon Northwest, we're totally in 'Tasks' space, and whenever I encounter a player being Opaque to me, I at least try to encourage them to be Clear (and at times, in determining what happens due to their action, I shade into making those intents Relevant).
Dig? -
Posted By: iago
Whenever you engage the resolution system (of player fiat or GM determination) you're resolving *specific actions*, e.g., "I'm trying to knock this guy out; he doesn't want me to." That's a task. Note that the granularity of resolution axis only talks about the "single unit" scope of play that's getting resolved in a single iteration of the resolution system. In your LARP, you're never resolving an entire scene with a single iteration of player or GM fiat, right? It's individual actions.
... which is pretty light-shedding for me. I'd totally failed to consider that LARP falls into the Opaque Tasks intersection on the grid. Though one could argue that you could at least go to Clear Tasks in a LARP -- for example, when that GM walks over to arbitrate the fisticuffs, it might help to be clear about your intents, since the GM might not've been around to experience the context in which the fisticuffs arose.
I think that could be said, yes. The task-part is usually kind of muddy because of the lack of resolution system, though. If there is one, it usually works with quite simple number comparison or similar - I'm better fighter than you are, so I kick your ass, let's act out the results (would that be a task or conflict?). If there isn't one, it's based on acting and player fiat - someone hits you (well, acts like he's hitting or punches lightly), you as a receiving end decide what happens, based on what you know about your character, the opposing character and the situation.
If GM arbitrates then yes, I think that could be considered to be a task or conflict as well, depending on the case. These occasions are few and far between, though - the GM's stay out of the play or out of the GM role if possible, because GM arbitration always breaks the play and the immersion. The notable exception is when player is interacting with something that's not modelled - like making a phonecall to the airport to reserve flight tickets. Or if there is something that's just too complicated to simulate, like the often mentioned safe. That would certainly be a task, with player either comparing some kind value to target number or performing some kind of acting-like task that he's been instructed to simulate the safe cracking. Handcuffs are handcuffs or something that emulate handcuffs, like tape or something - if you can do it with physical props, that's the first choice.
But the main rule, so to speak, is that there are as few resolutions as possible, with the exception of stuff that cannot be simulated. Hence the opaqueness and lack of clearness; there are no clear intentions as such, because the play fervently tries to steer away from such abstractions. For a more task-oriented LARP schema, see any Minds Eye Theatre LARP rules, which certainly fall into the #1 #1 box (and are something of an bad example which originally led to freeform, no-resolution LARPs).
There's not much stuff around the web in English about the subject, but you might want to take a look at the Europa-larp's homepage and the guides in there in order to get a more complete picture.
Edit: To clarify, there different styles of conventions of LARPing around here, of course - I'm an old school immersive player, whereas some people are experimenting with fate-play and other techiques, which might map differently to the picture. -
Before we go too far off into the weeds, isn't it the case that there is resolution at work in the LARPS Merten describes, it's just that it's unstructured-drama? Or is it literally the case that no points-of-resolution (places where there is more than one plausible-and-interesting outcome) are encountered? Or are they avoided as much as possible?
-
Posted By: Mark WBefore we go too far off into the weeds, isn't it the case that thereisresolution at work in the LARPS Merten describes, it's just that it's unstructured-drama? Or is it literally the case that no points-of-resolution (places where there is more than one plausible-and-interesting outcome) are encountered? Or are they avoided as much as possible?
I'd guess it could be called unstructured drama; if a character has clear goals (you want to resolve the unresolved issues with the woman you're romantically involved with and escape with her) or the player comes up with goals during the play, the situtation at the end of the game has several plausible and intresting outcomes. The timespan to achieve the results is just longer. There could be clear goals, there could be possible goals (you either don't know them at the beginning of the game or you have intentions and wants that could turn into goals and conflicts during the game), or the goals are directly tied to the theme of the game (see Europa; you're a refuge, try to manage). -
I think goals in that sense are orthogonal to the question, though. How are tasks resolved when there is no single obvious outcome? I recognize that there's a strong attempt to do it through mimesis, by letting character abilities more -or-less directly map to player abilities, but there must still be situations where you don't have a sufficient mental map of the character to answer a "what would happen" question with certainty, right?
-
-
CommentAuthorElliot Wilen
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
Yep, Fred has nailed it. Although (possibly with Merten) I would also stress that Opaque vs. Clear is a continuum...and not only that, but
a) methods of signaling intent vary, from person to person and instance to instance, in terms of clarity.
b) methods of signaling intent vary, from person to person and instance to instance, in terms of the need to consciously formulate and receive them.
Communities of Practice (paging Jonathan Walton!), i.e., people who've become accustomed to working together, tend to be better at signaling intent than complete strangers. I mean that they're more capable of signaling intent without having to resort to overt or formal signals.
Finally, while column 3 in Fred's chart obviously guarantees that the player's intent won't be arbitrarily voided (at least once the conflict has been defined), columns 1 & 2 don't amount to "the GM runs everything" unless you add one more ingredient: the GM has decided to run everything. -
-
Posted By: Mark WHow aretasksresolved when there is no single obvious outcome? I recognize that there's a strong attempt to do it through mimesis, by letting character abilities more -or-less directly map to player abilities, but there must still be situations where you don't have a sufficient mental map of the character to answer a "what would happen" question with certainty, right?
Excellent question. We certainly run into problems with situations like "So, Mr. Composer, how does that one part in Beethoven's Symphone no 1 go?", if the player just doesen't know. He could improvise and just come up with something and the questioner might believe him if he's wishes so (plays along collaboratively, believing that the character just gave an plausible explanation) - or trouble comes. The player might step momentarily to out-of-character mode and just say that the character knows and he doesen't, but that's ankward. With physical tasks that just cannot be performed, both players probably drop out to the ooc-mode and go through the task by talking (or using resolution, if available). With emotional issues, like very sudden and alien situations, the player probably just acts based on instinct - we discussed about this recently elsewhere and a good point about not having secrets was raised; it could be easier to prepare to these situations if the player knows about them beforehand; the reaction is more that of an character than just gut instinct of a player.
So yes, there certainly are limitations and situtations where you just have to improvise outside the context of the character. The GM can prepare for some of these and seek to eliminate things that could prove troublesome, if he wants to or realizes them. The mechanic for these situtations is usually collaborative discussion between players, instead of using resolution mechanics as such. And there are plenty of other possible problems which could arise as well, the most common one being that players have received contradicting background information that's not intentional. -
Posted By: Elliot WilenCommunities of Practice (paging Jonathan Walton!), i.e., people who've become accustomed to working together, tend to be better at signaling intent than complete strangers. I mean that they're more capable of signaling intent without having to resort to overt or formal signals.
This reminds me of: Making and maintaining frames: a study of metacommunication in laiv (LARP) play -thesis. I haven't read it through yet, but it could touch the subject, though I think it's mostly about different levels of perception during play. Intresting stuff for the theory-oriented, nonetheless. -
Posted By: Elliot WilenFinally, while column 3 in Fred's chart obviously guarantees that the player's intent won't be arbitrarily voided (at least once the conflict has been defined), columns 1 & 2 don't amount to "the GM runs everything" unless you add one more ingredient: the GM has decided to run everything.
Column One most certainly does. All resolution - all decisions that are not foregone conclusions - are in the hands of the GM's interpretation. No matter how good my heart and how pure my intentions, I am the one making all the decisions that actually matter. IN order for that not to be the case, you have to get at least partly over to column 2. The less opacity, the more the GM is able to share authority. A GM with the best will in the world can't genuinely share authority with players unless signals of intent are getting through at least a little. If I don't know what my players are trying to accomplish by their actions, I can't decide whether it works in a reliable and fair way.
This is not to deny the feasibility (and fun!) of play like you or Merten describe - fully mimetic, with no engagement of structured resolution except in edge cases where mimetic resolution is impossible. That kind of play works because NOBODY has authority except when mimesis breaks down. I rather like freeform, actually, but it can't deliver good results for me in (a) the genres I prefer and (b) situations where player interests are divergent. -
-
CommentAuthorElliot Wilen
- CommentTimeNov 3rd 2006
I guess that depends on just how opaque is really opaque. If I say I'm digging, is that going to influence whether a fair GM says I create a hole in the ground? -
-
Just to chip in here without having read the whole thread:
Thanks for hashing this out, folks. The conversation has clarified for me a) why I like FATE so much instinctively (haven't fully played it); b) how to play FATE without my previous baggage; and c) clarifying for me that I now prefer Fred's terminology.
This isn't to say "Fred wins teh thread!!" as much as "this thread has added a lot of value to my understanding of gaming." And it's done so in a revelatory way I haven't experienced since my early Forge days (when I had lots more bunk thinking to clear out), and after that, Vincent's blog. Kudos!
--JB
-
-
CommentAuthorJoshua A.C. Newman
- CommentTimeNov 5th 2006
Well, awesome!
I want to say here that Fred's revelations, whatever their origins, are identical to the conclusions of the Forge in this matter. He's using clearer terminology (having come at it from a different, and coincidentally more intuitive angle), but he's saying exactly the same thing and Vincent et al. I think he understands this because he understands the process of play very well and as a result, he understands RPG design very well.
-
-
Uh...I don't know how you reach THAT conclusion...but why fight if everyone agrees it's right.
-
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 6th 2006
Uh ... he reaches it because it's factually correct and because he isn't compelled incessantly to snipe at the Forge at every turn like Groucho Marks on methamphetamines. -
-
CommentAuthorJoshua A.C. Newman
- CommentTimeNov 6th 2006
Matt, I'm disappointed that you don't think I'm at least a little like Groucho Marx on methamphetamies.
-
-
- CommentAuthorMike Holmes
- CommentTimeNov 6th 2006
Well, while I think that nobody in the original discussions on this subject on The Forge would disagree that the two axes that Fred is describing exist, I'm not sure we ever too the time to look at what the cross-referenced portions looked like individually, or what they imply.
Also, this Forgie would like to point out a few things. For one, I have an even more moderate stance on the idea that playing to intent is "healthier." I would rather put it that playing without any reference to intent means that play is more difficult, and, therefore perhaps more prone to problems. But if a group is good at this sort of play, they can certainly have "healthy" play - lots of groups do. There are also certain potential issues with explicating intent that the intent-driven sorts of play have that the non-intent driven resolution doesn't have. (Like if players aren't honest about intent, for instance).
Further, while Fred is correct in categorizing PTA in the lower right hand corner, I would say that most of the "indie" set is actually ambiguously between the second and third columns, and ambiguous as to how much action is resolved as well. Especially in certain cases like TSOY, or HQ, where there are specific rules to take what Fred would call "Scene" resolution, and break it down into "Task" resolution (Bringing Down the Pain for TSOY, and Extended Contests for HQ).
Now, Fred could say that these are just example of "partitioned scene resolution" or something, but then so is any combat system - HP being the meter by which we determine whether or not the combat is resolved. If you exempt D&D from this, because one can duck out at any time, I'd point out that FATE actually is more like HQ than it is like D&D in this regard, and that all three systems actually have room to change intent in the course of the overall action.
Further muddying the waters are contests for very short actions. If they're not further broken down, are they "Scene Resolution"? Like, for instance, a character is trying to fire an arrow to hit a bullseye. The player just wants to display the character's skill, say. How would that be broken down into smaller parts? What purpose would that detail serve?
I think that what Fred is saying is that some systems do not allow for finer detail if warranted. Like PTA, or MLWM. But I'd say that these sorts of systems are actually pretty rare.
Now, that said, given a system that allows for either of Fred's categories to occur, what you'll often see is that some groups will tend to drift to using a lot more "scene" resolution, discriminating against the sort of detailed action that they may have found dull in playing other systems previously. Combat being the obvious example, many people who have found D&D combat dull in the past will often decide to resolve larger chunks of action with but one roll. So you do get groups where a lot of this goes on.
My groups tend to go in this direction, for instance. I use Extended Contests in HQ only rarely (especially in IRC, where speed is valued a lot).
But this is an advantage of these systems that the question of whether or not to go with "task" or "scene" here is one of taste and relative to the action happening in-game. The participants can actively make the decision. There are just as many groups out there playing HQ that use an Extended Contest every time there is a combat. TSOY's Bringing Down the Pain has explicit rules for determining when a player might activate using this break-down of the action.
FATE 2.0 has three systems from which to choose from, giving three levels of granularity for resolving these sorts of actions.
Other games in the "indie set" are actually explicitly about tasks alone. Like Donjon, where getting through a fight is all about the small individual steps (and what those steps empower the players to create in terms of action). Burning Wheel is about breaking down things like Duels of Wits into actual "Scripted" events. Dogs in the Vinyard requires break down of overall resolution into tasks (including the escallation from one sort of conflict to another).
Many others, however, are pretty silent on the subject. Dust Devils, for instance looks at the gunfight as the primary example of resolution, which is over in one "draw." But I've seen fights get dragged out into series of contests before as well.
I could go on with examples. I think that the Indie Set has been quite cognizant of these issues, and that, in fact, where you do see limitations on these things, they've been important parts of the specific designs instead of some sort of statement that the "scene" lenght of conflict is superior. When it's not important to the design, either it's ambiguous, or the design specifically gives the user the option of which level to use.
What's more accurate to say is that most of these games move from the left column to ones further right. Here, again, I'd say that most of them actaully go only to the middle column. It's been Ron's contention and mine, for a while now that, in fact, people take things to the far right column too often. He and I have been pointing out to people for a while now how "presetting stakes" is simply not neccessary, and can be damaging to drama - questions of immersion aside. Trollbabe, for instance, is firmly also in the "Scene" row, in that it has a very simple resolution system that is intended to run things to their conclusion without any break-down into details. But, as Ron points out, the players state character goals. He uses the term "Stakes" in the book, but this term has aquired a different meaning from that he uses in his book in the general discussions about it, and does not mean what he means (which is clear if you read his text and examples).
I know people who advocate that you can't play HQ successfully unless you pre-set stakes - meaning player intent affects outcome as you state in the third column. But my play of the game shows that this is not true. I'm constantly surprising players with the actual outcomes of HQ contests, while still respecting the character goal statements.
So I think that there's more agreement here than not. Those who have gone over to the radical right lower corner are either doing so for specific design reasons in design. Or as groups as a reaction to the upper left hand corner - and such reaction isn't proof of anything. Where the decision is more reasoned, I think there's quite a lot of consensus on this subject.
Mike -
- CommentAuthorMike Holmes
- CommentTimeNov 6th 2006 edited
P.S. Actually Donjon is an interesting case. In that the players decide what the results of their actions are, player intent is king. But the system actually forces those results to come from very distinct in-game character actions. That is, since they only narrate on success, yes, they can create the papers in the safe. But they can't engineer a failure where the result is that a weight fell on the safe, preventing them from opening it, as it's the GM's job to narrate failures. The GM could do this, but then it has nothing to do with player intent. And just as often, the GM will simply say, "You fail to get the safe open." It's on the player in Donjon to engineer victories, and drive the story forward.
The point is that this probably does void the specific "immersion" line where players are agents to control outside events. But it doesn't cross the "in-game continuity" line that says that resolution results must be within the bounds of what the in-game character ability could produce. That is the ability itself doesn't become metagame.
So there's clearly two lines here that can be crossed. I personally don't mind crossing the "immersion line" and creating things as a player (especially when I can think of them as simply suggestions to the GM who, in vetting them, can be said to be doing the actual creation). But I do have a problem, personally, with making abilities entirely metagame, and saying, for example, that failures are not a failure of the character to use the ability well, but completely of circumstance.
In part this is because there's always a better in-game explanation. No, I don't think that you should describe a low roll as the character acting with less skill than the sheet says they have. A trained safe-cracker suddenly becoming a bumbling stooge is just as implausible as if their failure is caused by the sudden arrival of ninjas. The plausible in-game solution to the problem is to say that a low die roll means that circumstances on the micro-level are such that the character is not able to employ his skill well enough to succeed.
With the safe-cracker, it may turn out that he's simply never seen this particular model of safe before. That makes it so that the safe-cracker can't succeed, but doesn't make him suddenly incompetent. Or some bit of equipment he's using might decide right at that moment to break, causing a jam in the mechanism. Or, if the goal is to get the safe open before detected, the guard simply randomly decided to look into this room sooner than expected.
If you want to look at the system as resolving in-game action based on in-game inputs, then you have to consider what the dice represent. Why does a character hit another one round, and not the next? Why is it not deterministic?
The dice represent the random minutia of the universe that we don't account for with the system. Sure, we could keep track of which decision the character makes in terms of where he's holding his sword - TROS does. But if that's not a level of detail that we consider important in the design in question, then we can say that the dice mean that the character guessed to defend up high, when his opponent's blow came down low. Or any other of the myriad details available.
That's not to say that others don't enjoy using the abilities entirely as metagame (again, like people who like task without intent, these are just preferences). What I'm pointing out is that there are many axes that affect how resolution is carried out.
Mike -
I swear, I'm starting a Mike Holmes fan club.
-
Ho ho ho, yeah, Forge "secret word" jargon laffo. Just pretend I put a nasty joke there. lol.
Since others won't, I will!
d20 combat: Because the number of possible outcomes is pretty limited, there's only a few choices at any given moment. You're either looking to defeat the opponent lethally, nonlethally, or you're looking to get away. Other intents are irrelevant or ignored. There are a couple of decent morale systems that expand on this threefold (hyuk hyuk) possibility with others. Because what you're after in a fight doesn't matter to resolving the fight unless it impacts one of those three choices, it shifts very naturally between opaque and clear. It's fairly solidly at the "task"end of that axis, but it should be noted that the system does not attempt to model each individual swing of each individual sword. It aggregates them into a three-second round, so it's not at the top (if anything is.)
d20 non-combat: Varies considerably. Social skills like Diplomacy, Bluff, and Disguise absolutely require the player to clearly state their intent, because they aggregate extensive social exchanges. Diplomacy, for instance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) lists possible actions that you could be steering the NPC towards: "I want this guy to help us out but he doesn't have to put himself on the line, just give us information". That's a clear intent and from the chart, it indicates you need to get him to Friendly. Still, with physical skills like Climb and Swim, the intent doesn't matter - from my experience the intent is ofen just "find out what happens when I climb this cliff" but of course not always. Still hovers in the "task" area
Put on your helmets to protect from brain damage: Vampire! We'll take Second Edition, the edition MOST HATED by all right thinking people (laffo, lol, etc.) Not surprisingly, it's fairly similar to the traditional play described above, but it also incorporated quite a few scene-based resolution mechanics. Most significantly, there was a "hunting" system that would resolve hours of searching for someone to drink blood from quickly if the group didn't want to get bogged down with individual hunting scenes for everyone. There was also a seduction system and a system for social interaction in highly stylized environments. Several systems would "overlay" a scene, by giving the player who used them additional information or assistance in the scene if they used them successfully. As for intent? Again, intent was mandatory to even activate these systems. ("Damn, I am low on blood, I'll be back in a couple of hours guys.") However, again, a fair amount of intent was irrelevant. ("I'm using my heightened senses because I think the hot chick in the push up corset is lying to me." "Whatever, roll the dice, I'll tell you if you are able to tell if she's lying when we're done.") So while the system rewarded having broad, plan-oriented intents, you didn't have to tell anyone what your intent was past your semi-immediate goal. There were some resolution consequences for intent in some of the systems too - finding someone to willingly be fed from was harder and different than just finding some dude passed out in an alleyway and feeding from them. So the player whose intent was "Gonna go feed, but I don't want my aching heart to break from the tragedy of my existence so I'll find someone broken enough to feed from willingly." did different stuff in the system than the player whose intent was "I'm a monster, I hide in dark places and jump out at people after they've already been scared by their cat."
Later today I'm going to destroy everything you tried to create (lol, laffo): with Toon! -
-
CommentAuthorPer Fischer
- CommentTimeNov 6th 2006
JD, your Forgeophobia is worrying. Were you beaten by a Forgite when you were little?
Anyway, I don't think it helps anything dragging this excellent thread into yet another Forge vs. the rest war.
What are you saying, JD? That Fred's diagram doesn't make sense to you? Or that is doesn't fit your D20/Vampire/Toon roleplaying?
Or are you saying that these games already use conflict resolution, but that the evil Forgites say they don't? Yeah, man, what are you saying?
Per -
-
Posted By: JDCorley
d20 non-combat: Varies considerably. Social skills like Diplomacy, Bluff, and Disguise absolutely require the player to clearly state their intent, because they aggregate extensive social exchanges. Diplomacy, for instance (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm) lists possible actions that you could be steering the NPC towards: "I want this guy to help us out but he doesn't have to put himself on the line, just give us information". That's a clear intent and from the chart, it indicates you need to get him to Friendly.
FWIW, all the Diplomacy skill does is alter the NPC's disposition. It in no way ensures an outcome or achievement of intent. Whether disposition = your intent is up to the DM. Intimidate works pretty much the same way.
Bluff is more specific, in that it resolves whether the target reacts the way you want them to or believes something you want them to.
Disguise just resolves whether the target's Spot blows your disguise or not. -
- CommentAuthorMike Holmes
- CommentTimeNov 6th 2006
I'm not quite sure what JD is getting at, either (am I the "you" referenced in your post? Or Fred? Or...). But if it's that Vampire is further right on the chart than D&D, and that D&D could be further left...I'm in agreement with him on that. Phoenix Command, for example, is probably further up and left than D&D in terms of what it promotes.
Note that "task" as Fred has it can't mean "smallest atomic action imaginable" or something (one could imagine, in fact, working out the motion of the sub-atomic particles, or even quark interactions or something). It merely means that you resolve some part of the character action instead of going straight to the outcome intent.
Mike -
-
CommentAuthorElliot Wilen
- CommentTimeNov 6th 2006
I dunno about J.D. I do know that that agreeing on Fred's terminology hasn't actually produced conceptual agreement.
There's irony in there, somewhere. -
-
By "you" in the last line, I mean "I".
Actually the D20/Vampire analysis is meant to fit into the grid, in the same way as Mike fit in a bunch of indie games onto it.
I love the Forge (it's hilarious!), that's why I kid and why I am not bothered by the accusations of HATORZing.
I think Toon, and maybe Paranoia, are going to destroy the grid, but I may be surprised to find out I'm wrong when I get to analyzing it!
Now on to content. I guess I'm still confused by the statement that Diplomacy doesn't require you to state your intent, or at least that it's requires players to be clearer in their intent than combat is (where your intent is irrelevant except insofar as it affects lethal victory, nonlethal victory, or withdrawal), there's explicit categories to which the player must assign his intent...I suppose outside those categories intent doesn't matter, still, but as the grid teaches, at some point that's true of every game. (DitV player: "I'm Giving because I fucking hate player C...and the Forge!!!" Player C and the Forge: "Whatever.") If the DM is playing according to the rules, he can't have a NPC whose disposition is at the appropriate level act against the stated intent just because he feels like having the NPC do that. So, no, it's not up to them. If I say "I want this guy to help" and I get him to the "willing to help" level on the chart with Diplomacy, then he helps or the rule's being broken. -
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 6th 2006
Sure the GM can. All he has to do say "Yeah, well this guy is FRIENDLY. But he doesn't KNOW anything. So, he's useless to you. Better luck next time sucker ... " And, there's nothing I know if in the rules that prevents the GM from doing this any time he likes. Sure, the GM could have painted himself into a corner by previously setting up some context that logically requires the "Diplomacied" guy to talk, but none of that is D&D by the book, as far as I know it. -
Um....okay, I'm still baffled. So you're saying that because the player might have picked the wrong person, or because the GM can switch up the wrongness or rightness of ther person without anyone knowing, that player intent is not used in Diplomacy checks? I...wonder how they would ever get made or interpreted? "I want to use Diplomacy!" "Hm, well, it doesn't matter what you want to use it for, just roll." "I got a 12!" "Ummm...well, I wish I knew how to set a DC for that, I suppose if you told me what you intended by it I might be able to use this chart to figure it out, but since it doesn't matter what you intend, I don't know what to say. Maybe you won D&D! We'll say you won."
-
Posted By: JDCorleyUm....okay, I'm still baffled. So you're saying that because the player might have picked the wrong person, or because the GM can switch up the wrongness or rightness of ther person without anyone knowing, that player intent is not used in Diplomacy checks?
Jason, the sticky bit is that Diplomacy says nothing about the PC getting what they want. All the skill does is shift the NPC's attitude on the disposition scale. The degree of shift depends on your roll.
The problem is, that shift doesn't necessarily mean that the NPC does what you asked. I.e., nothing about the roll insures that. Sure, the DM is assumed to have the NPC act within their new disposition, but what exactly that means in a given situation is left up to them, or at least some DM-player negotiation. E.g., does the fact my dwarf cleric shifted a drow prisoner to Helpful mean that he'll draw me a map of the drow stronghold with all the cool treasure marked? I dunno. A generous DM might say, "Sure." A more conservative one might say it doesn't matter how good my check was; the drow hates all dwarves and will not assist them in any way. "Helpful" in this DM's case means, "Will not try to escape, or at least won't slit the party's throats when he does."
Ergo, while it's good for me to state my intent, it's not related in any specific way to the roll. The roll does not resolve my intent. -
- CommentAuthorMatt Snyder
- CommentTimeNov 6th 2006 edited
I'm saying that, AS WRITTEN (or at least as I understand the text), it's entirely plausible that the D&D Dungeon Master can indeed determine rightness or wrongness of a person at his whim. There is no rule, and precious little, if any, play advice that prevents this.
Might there be some other understanding that prevents this from happening in someone's group? Certainly. In fact, I'd guess it's probably more common than the strangeness I'm suggesting.
I'll try to use a specific example that makes more sense:
Your character investigates some urban fantasy sewer murder mystery. Pretty bog-standard D&D stuff. Let's say some wererats are killing people, and you're going after them.
Early in the adventure, you and your players go to a dock-side tavern, seeking some information. Spontaneously, you ask the GM "Ok, I find some guy who looks like he's from this town and I ask him if he has any information. I want him point us at the best way to access the sewer tunnels."
The GM responds, "Um, ok. Roll Diplomacy."
You roll, quite well, and the GM further explains, by the book. "Ok, this guy was Indifferent to you. That means he affords only social norms to you, like nodding when you nod and stuff. But, you were successful on your roll, and now he's Friendly. Now, the book says he'll 'Chat, advise, offer limited help, advocate.' "
"Great!" you reply. "I want him to offer limited help."
"Well, he's just a bloke. He doesn't really know anything about the sewers. He's just a tanner. I rolled it up right here." (points to some old chart he likes to use for NPCs.) "So, he says you should ask around about that."
"What? That's what I'm doing. I told you clear as day I wanted him to help with the sewers. Why did I roll, then?"
"Sorry man, you were clear, but just because you ask me doesn't mean every guy in town knows stuff about the sewers. I'm just playing realistically. In this city I created, I want it to seem alive. Just because the Skill rules say that doesn't mean everyone's a sewer guildsman all the sudden. What do you think this is, some short-bus Forge game." (Obviously, everyone thinks he is hilarious.)
"Ok fine, let's do it again after I find a sewer guildsman."
"Well, sure, but even if you make one Friendly, it doesn't mean they know anything about the wererats."
(raises hand) "CHECK PLEASE!" -
-
CommentAuthorElliot Wilen
- CommentTimeNov 6th 2006
Is it relevant that the proper skill in this case is Gather Information, not Diplomacy? Not sure. -
-
Seems more like the realm of Gather Information, Matt. Gather Info helps you find someone who knows what they're talking about, Diplomacy (or Intimidate) works towards convincing him to tell you.
:ducks:
:)
But, your point is spot-on. One would hope that the DM would skip forcing checks that didn't matter to the adventure, but DM-savvy like that often only comes with experience.