RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[clearstream]

Let me start here. It's not clear why conflict resolution requires this 'no GM choice'. I've seen this asserted a few times now but not demonstrated. And it may very well make a better overall game to have this be the case. Great! But not everything that makes a better game has to be lumped under the 'conflict resolution'. Wouldn't it be more accurate to have a classification of 'conflict resolution' with 'no GM choice' and another classification of 'conflict resolution' with 'GM choice'. It's just really strange to suggest that GM choice is the hinge that turns something from task resolution to conflict resolution because GM choice should really be orthogonal to tasks or conflicts... IMO.

This summarises an intellectual hurdle I noticed late yesterday that I have been struggling with. Because I simply do not believe in intentionless speech acts in ordinary play! So I struggle to picture intention-free player-character performances. Thus, I have focused on questions of immediacy, regard (how intentions are parsed and respected, who decides), and established norms (including by rules and other game text) of legitimation (from game-state).

EDIT The canonical definition doesn't adequately deal with the greater likelihood of heterogeneity and strengths of commitments, over a simple polarity (VM/GM). That makes it impossible to cleave to without rendering the task resolution construct meaningless. (What I've called the rawest version or performance==null.) Limiting investigation to an effective strawman has no utility once the basic intuition is pumped.

Today is Christmas Eve. I hope all my interlocutors are safe and well, and able to rest or enjoy their version of the season. I owe @Manbearcat and @pemerton direct responses to their recent posts, which I will write next... around Christmas commitments!

 

[clearstream]

I'll be honest that "I'm not sure what we're debating." I know what I'm saying and what I'm trying to convey (that task resolution and conflict resolution are very different modes of play and "here are the distinguishing characteristics"), but its not clear to me what you and FR are saying. I thought you were disputing that contention (either that you flatly don't believe they're different or that you don't believe the distinguishing characteristics are sufficiently sturdy and sensitive to perform the necessary, distinguishing impacts), but I'm not sure at this point.

This was in response to my asking

We're not debating whether "Situation resolves via referee" can replace "Situation resolves" in the top chart, and otherwise they're the same, are we?

Hopefully others can now see how @pemerton's assertion that -

The difference between task resolution and conflict resolution consists precisely in the sort of relationship that obtains between succeeding on the check, the GM's authority over the fiction, and what happens next. If the GM the mediator between success on the check and achieving intent/goal, then we are talking about a system of task resolution, and it doesn't cease to be that because the GM often maintains the relationship.

Leads to my question. Look at @Manbearcat's post #703 and mentally insert "GM fiat" in the green bubble where it reads "Situation Resolves" in the top diagram.

@FrogReaver asked

I don't understand where scene resolution came into the discussion - but I'm not understanding how it helps us understand conflict resolution vs task resolution?

Seeing as @Manbearcat has proposed or claimed that

all closed scene resolution is conflict resolution.

In relation to my question, that implies that we must think of situations as containing scenes but being separate from them: so that even if GM fiat is our mechanism for resolving situations, that doesn't alter the character of scenes contained within those situations. But what if GM fiat could perform the functional necessities of some part of a scene: would that stop the top diagram being conflict resolution even though it remains otherwise unaltered. Not only would that deny the claim that all closed scene resolution is conflict resolution, it would give task resolution its own version of the top diagram (if it's distinguishing trait is exactly as @pemerton suggests).

So that's what I take to be the import - how it helps us understand - of analysing scene resolution. I welcome corrections, but for now will proceed in that light, first by working through the deconstruction of a scene. Some game texts I am mentally comparing include Paragon, DitV, Cortex Prime, L5R FF 5e, D&D 5e, ToR, Torchbearer 2, Ironsworn, MotW and BitD, and RQ 7e.

(a) there are initial conditions which include all of setting, situation, character(s), and goals/stakes that are transparently understood by the participants.

From Cortex Prime

Scenes are always framed by the GM, which means the GM describes where the scene takes place, which of the PCs is there, and what is​

going on. We encourage the GM to ask the players leading questions to give them an opportunity to explain why their PC is present, what they’re doing, and so forth. A scene doesn’t need to involve the dice until the back and forth—the GM presenting the situation and the players saying what they’re doing—comes to a point of confliict or decision.​

This is where I run into a problem with our interpretation of canonical (what I've called "rawest") task-resolution. Players aren't permitted intentions, or if they have them we don't care what they are. Baker explains that

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.​

But what this means - as found in conversation with @Campbell - is that cases of the former (GM maintains the relationship) are not task-resolution. It would seem that canonical task-resolution cannot possibly include that the "goals/stakes are transparently understood by the participants." Maybe that's a good place to stop and check my intuitions and analysis with others thus far.

 

[clearstream]

I assume you're referring to the 5e DMG. I don't have a copy and have not read it.

Can you describe what resolution process you are using? Then I might be able to form a view as to whether it is conflict resolution or task resolution.

The relevant 5e DMG237 text is this (which must be read together with PHB174)

USING ABILITY SCORES​

When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. For example, a character doesn't normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:​

​

Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?​

Is a task so inappropriate or impossible- such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?​

​

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. The following sections provide guidance on determining whether to call for an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw; how to assign DCs; when to use advantage and disadvantage; and other related topics.​

​

MULTIPLE ABILITY CHECKS​

Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one. In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard's Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won't work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off.​

I've discussed this text here, and would draw attention to my third bullet under "For emphasis" which frames refereeing it in terms of what I might now call VM-ship. The general through-line is something like - player expresses their intentions in their choice of performances, and GM (functioning as VM) gives regard to those intentions by assigning them as binding consequences in resolution. And we're only rolling if it's uncertain and the stakes matter. In the past I would have thought of this as task-resolution based on the immediacy of intentions to performance (a basic legitimate intention for opening a safe would be to see what's in the safe, but game-state could legitimate getting the dirt.) But that does not fit your take on task-resolution, so I'm wondering if you'd call it conflict-resolution? You might also see how this prompted my earlier question about how we know how far out a goal has to be, before it normally counts as reaching.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So there was some discussion about "GM's secret backstory" i.e. whether we use myth or no myth and how it is compatible with conflict resolution.

To me is seems that if we have conflict resolution and "say yes or roll the dice" we also need to have no myth. Like in the safe example the GM cannot veto the attempt because the incriminating papers are not in the safe but instead in hidden compartment behind a painting, or that they are not there because the PCs had actually misconstrued the situation and the person whose safe they are poking has nothing to do with the incriminating documents. These are things that can only arise when the player fails their roll and doesn't find the documents, thus how it is cannot be predetrmined.

But if we don't have "say yes or roll the dice" I assume the GM could still veto attempts based on their backstory, even if the game used conflict resolution when the rolls were allowed. For example in case where the players were looking the papers from the wrong place the GM could just say without any roll, "you open the safe but the papers are not there." This is saying "no" as the intent of the player was not just open the safe but find the documents.

 

[clearstream]

So there was some discussion about "Gm's secret backstory" i.e. whether we use myth or no myth and how it is compatible with conflict resolution.

To me is seems that if we have conflict resolution and "say yes or roll the dice" we also need to have no myth. Like in the safe example the GM cannot veto the attempt because the incriminating papers are not in the safe but instead in hidden compartment behind a painting, or that they are not there because the PCs had actually misconstrued the situation and the person whose safe they are poking has nothing to do with the incriminating documents. These are things that can only arise when the player fails their roll and doesn't find the documents, thus how it is cannot be predetrmined.

But if we don't have "say yes or roll the dice" I assume the GM could still veto attempts based on their backstory, even if the game used conflict resolution when the rolls were allowed. For example in case where the players were looking the papers from the wrong place the GM could just say without any roll, "you open the safe but the papers are not there." This is saying "no" as the intent of the player was not just open the safe but find the documents.

I've noticed folk overlooking changes to the information-state of the game. Take the 'no secret door' case. Taking time to search and finding nothing has a cost (time) and result (changed information.)

Say I'm playing an OD&D elf, with a 2:6 chance to find secret doors. In choosing the performance "search for secret doors" I am announcing an intent to change the information-state to "there is at most a 4:6 chance of there being a secret door that I don't know about here." If another elf joins in, it's 16:36.

That's the intent legitimated by the game-state. It would be reaching for me to have an intent of "know for certain there are no secret doors here". That would be the same as my having an intent of flying: games normally impose limitations, and an important aspect of what it is to play a game is to work within limitations, as we've discussed elsewhere.

 

[clearstream]

Time permits continuation, I was looking at the first part of scene-resolution -

(a) there are initial conditions which include all of setting, situation, character(s), and goals/stakes that are transparently understood by the participants.

And I suggested that

It would seem that canonical task-resolution cannot possibly include that the "goals/stakes are transparently understood by the participants." Maybe that's a good place to stop and check my intuitions and analysis with others thus far.

But I could obviously just say that GM makes setting, situation, characters, and goals/stakes transparent to all participants. From Cortex Prime

Scenes are always framed by the GM, which means the GM describes where the scene takes place, which of the PCs is there, and what is going on. We encourage the GM to ask the players leading questions to give them an opportunity to explain why their PC is present, what they’re doing, and so forth. A scene doesn’t need to involve the dice until the back and forth—the GM presenting the situation and the players saying what they’re doing—comes to a point of conflict or decision.​

To grasp the nettle, I say that encouraged or otherwise, GM sets it all up by fiat. So that's the initial conditions covered.

Secondly, (b) there is finality of resolution at the the endpoint which does the work of determining the outcome of those evinced "goals/stakes" and the impacts on the prior three (setting, situation, character(s)

Take a look at episode 1 part 2 of Blades in the Dark GM'd by Harper, from around minutes 30 to 40. John calls the end of scene, and over a few minutes the group move into impacts on setting, situation and characters. The work is done by the Payoff mechanics. Again - to grasp the nettle - I simply say that GM calls the end of scene and says whether it was successful or not ("finality of resolution at the endpoint"). GM may follow mechanics and guidelines, or their own judgement, for impacts; but they make sure that they cover off the goals/stakes they declared up front, as well as impacts on setting, situation and characters. An example is that GM says the score is successful and following the Payoff mechanic determines that the crew earns 2 rep. To grasp that nettle firmly, none of this considers player goals, the shell-like ears of GM are deaf to their intentions.

Again I'll pause here, before getting onto the third part. Recollect that the only question being addressed is if all closed scene-resolution is conflict-resolution.

 

[Manbearcat]

Time permits continuation, I was looking at the first part of scene-resolution -

And I suggested that

But I could obviously just say that GM makes setting, situation, characters, and goals/stakes transparent to all participants. From Cortex Prime

Scenes are always framed by the GM, which means the GM describes where the scene takes place, which of the PCs is there, and what is going on. We encourage the GM to ask the players leading questions to give them an opportunity to explain why their PC is present, what they’re doing, and so forth. A scene doesn’t need to involve the dice until the back and forth—the GM presenting the situation and the players saying what they’re doing—comes to a point of conflict or decision.​

To grasp the nettle, I say that encouraged or otherwise, GM sets it all up by fiat. So that's the initial conditions covered.


Take a look at episode 1 part 2 of Blades in the Dark GM'd by Harper, from around minutes 30 to 40. John calls the end of scene, and over a few minutes the group move into impacts on setting, situation and characters. The work is done by the Payoff mechanics. Again - to grasp the nettle - I simply say that GM calls the end of scene and says whether it was successful or not ("finality of resolution at the endpoint"). GM may follow mechanics and guidelines, or their own judgement, for impacts; but they make sure that they cover off the goals/stakes they declared up front, as well as impacts on setting, situation and characters. An example is that GM says the score is successful and following the Payoff mechanic determines that the crew earns 2 rep. To grasp that nettle firmly, none of this considers player goals, the shell-like ears of GM are deaf to their intentions.

Again I'll pause here, before getting onto the third part. Recollect that the only question being addressed is if all closed scene-resolution is conflict-resolution.

1) You're working off of a definition of "Fiat" when it comes to TTRPGs that isn't helpful to understanding how play is differentiated by various forms of systemization. All GM decision-making isn't "Fiat." When it comes to GM decision-making, there are systemitized constraints, systemitized-directives, and systemitized-incentives and whether you can opt-out of any/all of them at GM discretion. A game like Dogs in the Vineyard (for instance) will tell you "do this", "don't do that", "when you do this other thing then this rewarding thing will occur", and "if you don't do this thing, then this punishing thing will occur." The combination of these things curate a GM's decision-space away from subset of choices and approaches and toward a different subset of choices and approaches. Further, these things are not opt-in/out at GM discretion.

Actual GM Fiat does not have these distinguishing characteristics. Instead of system, only the GM curates their decision-space. Further still, overwhelmingly, choices and approaches or subsets of them are almost entirely (or entirely) opt-in/out at GM discretion. Such a game might, contra to DitV, do none or few of those 4 things in the paragraph above and/or they might simultaneously tell the GM "feel free to opt-out or opt-in to any/all of these as play unfolds and as your instincts/discretion take you."

What purpose does obliterating the distinctions of these things and their impacts (on the cognitive space of the GM, on the cognitive space of the players who are playing a game governed by one vs the other, on the experience play at both the moment-to-moment level and at session-level) serve? I can't fathom any good reason why one would do this?

GM framing of situation (establishing initial conditions) in a closed scene resolution game is not Fiat. The inputs and choices made in framing are systemically constrained and informed (both the mechanics and the components of play that inform the constituent parts of the framing) and the GM doesn't just get to opt-in/out of their system-directed job at their discretion.

2) I'm not going to watch a Blades in the Dark video. I probably watched it in 2017 or whatever and by this point I've probably GMed more Blades in the Dark than almost anybody in the world not named Jon Harper (and I might even be able to give him a run for his money in terms of total hours GMed in the game).

Blades in the Dark isn't a closed scene resolution game. Blades in the Dark absolutely features various conflict resolution tech (Clocks in particular), but its not a closed scene resolution game like Dogs or several other games. It is a snowballing resolution game which features an abundance of conflict resolution and other tech.

3) I have no idea what you're meaning with:

To grasp that nettle firmly, none of this considers player goals, the shell-like ears of GM are deaf to their intentions.

And I don't see how it interacts with what is happening in closed scene resolution. We're wandering wildly at this point and I'm about to press the "this conversation has 0 % chance to achieve any functional ends" button.

If I had to wager a guess, I think you might be doing one of two things or both:

1) Considering "goals" either (a) too much in isolation or (b) too globally or (c) entirely out of context of the particular game in question. Again, we're now careening wildly away from the very specific conversation of goals/stakes in closed scene resolution (which is a form of conflict resolution...and after we have that fully canvassed, we can discuss other forms of conflict resolution and nail down "what these various forms of resolution share and what they do not share"). But, I'll humor this:

"Goals" at the Score level (which, again isn't closed scene resolution) are 100 % player-derived. They want to do this Score vs that Score and their thinking is invested with all of (i) individual PC protagonism (personal motivations and goals) and (ii) Crew protagonism (collective motivations and goals):

* Take out my Rival.

* Protect our Friend/Contact.

* Gain allies or help our current allies.

* Hit our enemy where it hurts/while they're weak.

* Hit our enemy in such a way that achieves misdirection and pits two of our enemies against each other.

* Gain this Claim or open up this other Claim on the Map for later.

* Prevent this Faction/Setting Clock from going off.

* Earn this beefy Payoff.

* Remove this amount of Heat/Wanted Level.

On and on and on.

These Goals inform both the general shape of the menu of prospective Scores that players mull and then inform the specific one they choose from their derived subset.


2) Confusing what Payoff is. Payoff is a part of the rewards/upkeep/maintenance phase of play after "the goal cake has already been baked." Its "the receipts." You get your Rep, your Coin, and we discuss if a district Crime Boss in play and what the fiction is for that and whether they pay them off or whether they suck it up and we start a clock for your comeupance. This is all principally constrained/guided and systemitzed and, again, has nothing to do with player goals (because the goals led us here in the first place).

---

Maybe this is not going to work. This conversation is looking like some collection "wandering through the corridors of our mind meets a spray of conceptions/priors" rather than focusing on very specific game tech, nailing down exactly what that thing is/does and then working outward from there to nail down "what other forms of conflict resolution are" and "how this diverges from task resolution."

Let me say this as straight-forward as I can.

I 100 % know that task resolution and conflict resolution are not only not the same things, but, phylogentic tree-wise, their common ancestor is sufficiently far apart that they're only superficially recognizable as even linked. Further, GM Fiat is not the same thing as systemically constrained and systemically-directed, GM decision-making. Right now, it feels like the work that we're putting in is coming from a position of obliterating the significant differences in these things and the methodology of attempting to prove the lack of differentiating characteristics is a winding conversation that is pulling random anecdotes from all over the place in a "look at this thing"..."ok, what about this other thing"..."ok, what about this" "ok look at this <thing I think is a smoking gun>."

I'm desperately trying to focus like a laser beam on core concepts of closed scene resolution and we're suddenly talking about Blades in the Dark (which doesn't feature it) and what appears to be either "goals at a global level" or "Payoff not directly indexing goals (which Payoff does, in fact, index goals insofar as "Payoff is the reward phase of Downtime where the receipts of prior evinced and recently actualized goals are materially rewarded via system-directed procedure."

I'm just going to say that I'm not doing another one of these.

I'll monitor this thread for focused, specific engagement on the core concepts of closed scene resolution. But that is the only thing I'm going to respond to. If I don't see that, then so be it. This isn't a conversation that we need to have (or needs to be had at all).

 

[FrogReaver]

So there was some discussion about "GM's secret backstory" i.e. whether we use myth or no myth and how it is compatible with conflict resolution.

To me is seems that if we have conflict resolution and "say yes or roll the dice" we also need to have no myth. Like in the safe example the GM cannot veto the attempt because the incriminating papers are not in the safe but instead in hidden compartment behind a painting, or that they are not there because the PCs had actually misconstrued the situation and the person whose safe they are poking has nothing to do with the incriminating documents. These are things that can only arise when the player fails their roll and doesn't find the documents, thus how it is cannot be predetrmined.

But if we don't have "say yes or roll the dice" I assume the GM could still veto attempts based on their backstory, even if the game used conflict resolution when the rolls were allowed. For example in case where the players were looking the papers from the wrong place the GM could just say without any roll, "you open the safe but the papers are not there." This is saying "no" as the intent of the player was not just open the safe but find the documents.

Right. To some degree I think the concepts of no-myth and conflict resolution are being combined when they don't need to be. There's no reason I can tell that it is impossible to have myth based conflict resolution.

I think task resolution can be played in a say yes or roll the dice way as well. Just set extremely high DC's for the tasks like 'flapping your arms to fly' or 'finding incriminating documents under this rock'. You've said yes or rolled the dice. But it strikes me is that maybe I'm taking that a bit too literally - it's not say yes or roll the dice, it's say yes or have a chance for success. Functionally though, we could change a 0% chance of success to 1 in a million success chance and we are suddenly right back in to saying yes or rolling the dice.

The other things to note is that even in say yes or roll the dice, the player doesn't get to say absolutely anything - there are restrictions there, as we have all talked about before. Is there a fundamental difference in telling a player he can't say this thing vs telling a player that says a thing, no?

 

[FrogReaver]

I've noticed folk overlooking changes to the information-state of the game. Take the 'no secret door' case. Taking time to search and finding nothing has a cost (time) and result (changed information.)

Say I'm playing an OD&D elf, with a 2:6 chance to find secret doors. In choosing the performance "search for secret doors" I am announcing an intent to change the information-state to "there is at most a 4:6 chance of there being a secret door that I don't know about here." If another elf joins in, it's 16:36.

That's the intent legitimated by the game-state. It would be reaching for me to have an intent of "know for certain there are no secret doors here". That would be the same as my having an intent of flying: games normally impose limitations, and an important aspect of what it is to play a game is to work within limitations, as we've discussed elsewhere.

This is a very good point!

 

[FrogReaver]

Do you mean this example that Vincent Baker provides, of conflict resolution?

you can conflict-resolve a single blow, or task-resolve the whole fight in one roll:​

​

"I slash at his face, like ha!" "Why?" "To force him off-balance!"​

Conflict Resolution: do you force him off-balance?​

Roll: Loss!​

"He ducks side to side, like fwip fwip! He keeps his feet and grins."​

That's conflict resolution.

Yes, and I asked what makes that not task resolution.