Talking About An Apocalypse: Looking At Apocalypse World 2E

pemerton · May 18, 2018

This from Vincent Baker seems relevant for thinking about resolution and GM-authority in PbtA games:

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 privileged authorship. Task resolution will undermine your collaboration.

dragoner · May 18, 2018

pemerton said:
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.

This is where the game loses me, if I roll a success, then I expect to succeed; otherwise what we are playing is advanced mother may I.

The truth is, is that the player can always quit easier, which balances out the GM's investment; in the middle there is a no-fault area of the game not being for that person, then on either end, the GM or player can be at fault for the relationship not working. Nevertheless, like any other relationship, commitment and investment are the keys to success.

pemerton · May 19, 2018

dragoner said:
This is where the game loses me, if I roll a success, then I expect to succeed; otherwise what we are playing is advanced mother may I.

I'm not sure which game you're referring to.

But this, from ]url=http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html]the same post by Vincent Baker[/url] that I linked to above, seems like it might be relevant to:

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

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

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

Task resolution is succeed/fail. Conflict resolution is win/lose. You can succeed but lose, fail but win.

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

Let's assume that we haven't yet established what's in the safe.

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
It's task resolution. Roll: Success!
"You crack the safe, but there's no dirt in there, just a bunch of in-order papers."

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
It's task resolution. Roll: Failure!
"The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket..."

(Those examples show how, using task resolution, the GM can break success=winning, failure=losing.)

I've read a lot of adventure modules that exemplify the point about task resolution.

In the context of PbtA, this closing remark of that same post seems apposite:

Something I haven't examined: in a conventional rpg, does task resolution + consequence mechanics = conflict resolution? "Roll to hit" is task resolution, but is "Roll to hit, roll damage" conflict resolution?

dragoner · May 19, 2018

pemerton said:
I'm not sure which game you're referring to.

But this, from ]url=http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html]the same post by Vincent Baker[/url] that I linked to above, seems like it might be relevant to:

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

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

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

Task resolution is succeed/fail. Conflict resolution is win/lose. You can succeed but lose, fail but win.

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

Let's assume that we haven't yet established what's in the safe.

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
It's task resolution. Roll: Success!
"You crack the safe, but there's no dirt in there, just a bunch of in-order papers."

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
It's task resolution. Roll: Failure!
"The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket..."

(Those examples show how, using task resolution, the GM can break success=winning, failure=losing.)

I've read a lot of adventure modules that exemplify the point about task resolution.

In the context of PbtA, this closing remark of that same post seems apposite:

Something I haven't examined: in a conventional rpg, does task resolution + consequence mechanics = conflict resolution? "Roll to hit" is task resolution, but is "Roll to hit, roll damage" conflict resolution?

I am talking any game, and ptba2 if relevant. Rarely do I run or play in a situation so linear as not opening the safe and things simply stop. ISTR that's the secret door trap where if the players don't find the secret door, the adventure stops, that's bad. Not that I'm 100% innocent of making mistakes, but the GM should generally try to be a protagonist of the players. There's a high likelihood of when the safe-cracking scene going south, the players will try something else, such as removing the safe and running with it. The GM shouldn't block that. No matter what, any conflict, task, or consequence should be interesting.

pemerton · May 19, 2018

dragoner said:
I am talking any game, and ptba2 if relevant. Rarely do I run or play in a situation so linear as not opening the safe and things simply stop. ISTR that's the secret door trap where if the players don't find the secret door, the adventure stops, that's bad. Not that I'm 100% innocent of making mistakes, but the GM should generally try to be a protagonist of the players. There's a high likelihood of when the safe-cracking scene going south, the players will try something else, such as removing the safe and running with it. The GM shouldn't block that. No matter what, any conflict, task, or consequence should be interesting.

Well, I think in a PbtA game there typically is no "the adventure". And in conflict resolution there typically are no retries.

aramis erak · May 20, 2018

pemerton said:
Well, I think in a PbtA game there typically is no "the adventure". And in conflict resolution there typically are no retries.

It's also much more essential to allow fail-forward.

EG: Trying to break into the safe to get the dirt on the badguy...
Success: you get the dirt.
Failure: You destroyed the dirt, but there's still coin surviving, at least once the fire dies down.

Ratskinner · May 21, 2018

pemerton said:
I'm not sure which game you're referring to.

But this, from ]url=http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html]the same post by Vincent Baker[/url] that I linked to above, seems like it might be relevant to:

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

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

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

Task resolution is succeed/fail. Conflict resolution is win/lose. You can succeed but lose, fail but win.

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

Let's assume that we haven't yet established what's in the safe.

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
It's task resolution. Roll: Success!
"You crack the safe, but there's no dirt in there, just a bunch of in-order papers."

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"
It's task resolution. Roll: Failure!
"The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket..."

(Those examples show how, using task resolution, the GM can break success=winning, failure=losing.)

This example, and a lot of discussion I've seen about it bother me. IMO, they skip over the importance of setting the stakes of the conflict in the first place, and the necessity of rules involving that in a game that utilizes Conflict Resolution. This makes the difference between conflict and task resolution appear much more like an arbitrary matter of scale rather than a qualitative difference.

I didn't really get Conflict Resolution until I played Capes (an obscure indie game I bring up perhaps a bit too often around here). In that game, which relies entirely on Conflict Resolution, Players can put conflicts into play* (like..."We discover dirt on the bad guy".) As play progresses, players vie for control of the final resolution of that conflict. Two rules govern what they may narrate for their actions:
"And then..." If you fail to take the lead in control of the Conflict, you may narrate your action, but the controller gets to add additional narration possibly explaining what went wrong.
and
"Not Yet" You cannot narrate anything that would effectively resolve a goal that is in play. (Unless you have just won that goal.)

So, unless someone put a "the safe is opened" event in play, you can use your action to open the safe or not.

Interestingly, the "Not Yet" rule can be used to control the speed/flow of narration, by introducing a goal that blocks certain actions until the goal is won. So, If I throw out "Medusa turns a hero to stone", then a player (the medusa or anyone else) needs to win that goal before it can happen. (Hero players might vie for control as a defensive measure.)

pemerton said:
I've read a lot of adventure modules that exemplify the point about task resolution.

In the context of PbtA, this closing remark of that same post seems apposite:

Something I haven't examined: in a conventional rpg, does task resolution + consequence mechanics = conflict resolution? "Roll to hit" is task resolution, but is "Roll to hit, roll damage" conflict resolution?

I've seen this before, and I tend to think not, because "10 points of damage" isn't a narrative event or description, but only mechanical. Although IMO cumulative "Roll to hit, roll damage" rolls usually approach Conflict Resolution, but the GM can abort it by introducing a call to surrender or similar event. i.e. The Conflict to be resolved is only presumed to be "which characters or monsters will die in this fight?", but that isn't clearly only table, its only a presumption.

I'm very curious about the Index Card rpg, which (If I understand it) adds mechanics similar to HP and countdown timers to non-combat resolution. I don't know if that approaches Conflict Resolution.

I don't think the PbtA engine really adds anything in particular to Conflict Resolution. Although I would suppose that would depend greatly on the wording of the moves in question.

*There are also a few rules about objecting to poorly-worded goals or events, and resolving or rewording them.

pemerton · May 21, 2018

Ratskinner said:
I don't think the PbtA engine really adds anything in particular to Conflict Resolution.

I'm no PbtA expert, but I think it does provide some interesting examples - for example, the way information gathering is resolved.

pemerton · May 21, 2018

I've been reading the rules for Vincent Baker's RPG Poison'd. It's a pirate RPG, which some might find in slightly bad taste (moreso than Apocalypse World). In many respects it seems to anticipate the PbtA approach to resolution - "moves" (though they're not called that) which track the fiction, with an important role for the GM being to enforce these. It also has elements of DitV, like escalation as an alternative to losing a fight.

The play would be pretty different from (eg) D&D!

Ratskinner · May 22, 2018

pemerton said:
I'm no PbtA expert, but I think it does provide some interesting examples - for example, the way information gathering is resolved.

That varies a little from game-to-game. Its not that the Apocalypse Engine can't to Conflict Resolution, it just depends entirely on how the moves are written. Dungeon World tends to lean away from it, while Uncharted Worlds (to my eye) leans into it. (Perhaps oddly, I have never owned or played the original.)