RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[pemerton]

I think you are evading the issue. Yes, a conflict resolution game could be constructed in such a way that it mitigates the issue, by simply avoiding the use of conflict resolution to answer the sort of questions that would lead to this sort of a complication. But considering that the safe opening which definitely is prone to this conundrum was your example, I doubt they consistently are built this way. Furthermore, mysteries often are about people.

I don't understand what issue you think I am evading.

The safe opening is Vincent Baker's example. He discusses it through the lens of both task- and conflict-resolution, here. You can read it for yourself if you like - it's a short blog entry, the fourth as one scrolls down the page.

If you are asserting: if (i) what is at stake in the safe scene is finding dirt, and (ii) the cracking of the safe is being resolved via conflict resolution, then (iii) it cannot be the case that prior fiction establishes that no dirt is in the safe, then yes, that is correct. Self-evidently so, I would think.

Hence why, upthread, in reply to you, I posted this:

If the player is declaring an action to look for documents in the safe, and there is (somehow-or-other) fiction that establishes there are no documents there, then something has gone wrong, because the player thinks something is at stake - "Can I get the documents from the safe" - when it fact the answer (no) is already settled.

The post of yours that I expressed doubt about finished like this:

I feel conflict resolution and no/low myth go logically together. I also feel task resolution makes most sense in a situation where the game has objectivish fictional reality that the players are prodding.

The second sentence seems obviously true, as @Campbell already posted several pages ago (post 741).

The first sentence doesn't seem true to me. No myth can be combined with task resolution - the upshot will be largely GM-driven play, of the sort that Lewis Pulsipher lamented as "the GM telling a novel to the players" in his essays on D&D around 40 to 45 years ago. I've GMed and played in this sort of mode. (Though not for about 25+ years.)

And conflict resolution, as I've posted, doesn't require no myth. For instance, and with reference to earlier in this post, there are techniques for avoiding things going wrong, by ensuring (iii), other than no myth.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't understand what issue you think I am evading.

The safe opening is Vincent Baker's example. He discusses it through the lens of both task- and conflict-resolution, here. You can read it for yourself if you like - it's a short blog entry, the fourth as one scrolls down the page.

If you are asserting: if (i) what is at stake in the safe scene is finding dirt, and (ii) the cracking of the safe is being resolved via conflict resolution, then (iii) it cannot be the case that prior fiction establishes that no dirt is in the safe, then yes, that is correct. Self-evidently so, I would think.

Hence why, upthread, in reply to you, I posted this:
The post of yours that I expressed doubt about finished like this:
The second sentence seems obviously true, as @Campbell already posted several pages ago (post 741).

The first sentence doesn't seem true to me. No myth can be combined with task resolution - the upshot will be largely GM-driven play, of the sort that Lewis Pulsipher lamented as "the GM telling a novel to the players" in his essays on D&D around 40 to 45 years ago. I've GMed and played in this sort of mode. (Though not for about 25+ years.)

And conflict resolution, as I've posted, doesn't require no myth. For instance, and with reference to earlier in this post, there are techniques for avoiding things going wrong, by ensuring (iii), other than no myth.

With no myth I don't mean absolutely nothing is pre-established. Most games have something. But I don't see how conflict resolution is compatible with any myth that is pre-established but not known to the players. To me it is rather obvious how this could lead to a conflict.

So please just answer this as plainly as you can: how can we have both:

1) Pre-established facts not know to the players.
2) GM not being allowed to veto player actions based on those facts.

 

[pemerton]

Thank you. But I don't think it's that clear. Is the action 'slashing at his face' or 'trying to knock him off balance'? I think those are both actions. In which case you are intentionally picking the one that allows you to frame this as conflict resolution. But suppose we picked 'trying to knock him off balance' as the action. Does that selection change the scenario to task resolution?

I don't understand why you say it's not clear. Here is the example again, quoted from here. You can read the blog yourself, if you like - it's quite short, and the fourth down from the top of the page:

Whether you roll for each flash of the blade or only for the whole fight is a whole nother issue: scale, not task vs. conflict. This is sometimes confusing for people; you say "conflict resolution" and they think you mean "resolve the whole scene with one roll." No, actually 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."

"I fight him!" "Why?" "To get past him to the ship before it sails!"
Task Resolution: do you win the fight (that is, do you fight him successfully)?
Roll: Success!
"You beat him! You disarm him and kick his butt!"
(Unresolved, left up to the GM: do you get to the ship before it sails?)

(Those examples show small-scale conflict resolution vs. large-scale task resolution.)​

The example is stipulated: the action declaration includes both task - "I slash at his face, like ha!" - and also intent - "To force him off-balance". Resolution determines whether or not the intent is realised. When the roll fails, the GM narrates the failure of intent- "He ducks side to side . . . He keeps his feet".

No RPG is specified for the example, but - of RPGs I'm familiar with - it could come from Burning Wheel, or Prince Valiant, or 4e D&D via p 42 of the DMG.

In your post, you talk about "the action". You seem to treat that as synonymous to "task". The task can't be "I force him off-balance" - that invites the question, "How?" ie by what means, by performing what task, do you force him off balance? To which the answer is, "By slashing at his face, like ha!".

The resolution of the action, in a conflict resolution framework, has regard to both task and intent. In a task resolution framework, only task is referenced. There are not that many RPGs that use task resolution for combat, but Classic Traveller comes fairly close: whether a successful slash at the face knocks the enemy off balance is largely going to be a matter of GM decision-making.

 

[pemerton]

With no myth I don't mean absolutely nothing is pre-established. Most games have something. But I don't see how conflict resolution is compatible with any myth that is pre-established but not known to the players. To me it is rather obvious how this could lead to a conflict.

So please just answer this as plainly as you can: how can we have both:

1) Pre-established facts not know to the players.
2) GM not being allowed to veto player actions based on those facts.

I posted an example, just upthread, in reply to FrogReaver. Here it is again: https://www.enworld.org/threads/tor...ay-of-this-awesome-system.691233/post-9183845

That session of Torchbearer 2e used conflict resolution to determine (among other things) (i) what happened when the PCs tried to make their way to the Moathouse, and (ii) when the PCs fought the killer frogs, and (iii) when the PCs attempt to camp was interrupted by the Dire Wolf, and (iv) when the PCs negotiated with the Dire Wolf, and (v) when the PCs fought the bandits who disturbed their camp, and (vii) when the PCs tried to trick the bandits at the Moathouse.

In each of these cases there was hitherto-unrevealed backstory: (i) all the details of the Moathouse; (ii) the jewel "carried" by one of the frogs; (iii) the Dire Wolf having come from the Moathouse, and everything it knew about the Moathouse; (iv) ditto; (v) the situation of bandits at the Moathouse, and everything they knew about the Moathouse; (vi) dittto.

The way you don't veto player action declarations based on those facts is to not veto player action declarations based on those facts. As per my hypothetical example of AW upthread, and as per this actual example, if the game is well-designed it will ensure that its action resolution framework, and its system for prep, do not generate contradictions or otherwise make things hard.

As a simple example, GM prep in Torchbearer does not include things like This NPC cannot be tricked, which would then preclude the success of an action declared with the goal of tricking that NPC.

Conversely, GM prep in Torchbearer might include things like This house used to be owned by the wizard Pallando, and there is no provision, in the action resolution rules, for a player to establish as the stakes of their action declaration That Pallando was never the owner of this house.

Burning Wheel is a system where, on some of the margins, collisions are possible, because the game features an open-ended framework of Wises, which can be used - via player action declarations - both to prompt GM narration of backstory, and to establish backstory. The game designer has a discussion of how to handle this (Adventure Burner, pp 300-6), which includes a combination of rules and etiquette. The etiquette advice includes the GM (if appropriate) saying "Sorry, I've got something planned in respect of <whatever it was that the proposed Wises check pertained to>", and the player than accepting that and (say) declaring so as to prompt GM narration rather than establish their own conceived-of backstory.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe a dumb question - what constitutes a scene?

Could a scene be…

Scene Start.

You come to a chasm but can see the footprints you’ve been tracking on the other side - what do you do? Player: i try to jump across the chasm.

End of scene.

The scene hasn't ended. We don't know what happened to the protagonist - they're still in mid air (or, perhaps, taking their run-up).

A standard technique in GMing scene-oriented RPGs is to postpone the resolution of one action and cut to another. This can serve a few purposes:

*Maintaining interest, excitement and/or suspense;

*Allowing time for the GM to ponder how to handle the postponed action, while participating in the framing and resolving of a different action;

*Generating new material, in the resolution of the new action, which can then be incorporated into the postponed action.​

Whether the different actions are to be considered components of a single scene, or distinct scenes in their own right, will depend on further considerations.

In a 4e D&D skill challenge, or a Marvel Heroic RP action scene, they will generally be considered components of a single scene; as in those systems all the efforts of the protagonists are combined into a single resolution mechanic, even if those efforts are separate ones.

In Prince Valiant, on the other hand, it probably makes more sense to think of this as cutting from scene to scene.

 

[clearstream]

@pemerton I like the framing of conflict resolution you provided here

...conflict resolution consists precisely in the sort of relationship that obtains between succeeding on the check... and what happens next.​

(EDIT or better still, having just read your post following this) What distinguishes conflict resolution from task resolution is not scale. It is whether or not succeeding at the roll (and hence at the task) means achieving/realising the aim/goal/intent/stakes.​

Which reflected comments by @Campbell and of course was already implied here

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.​

I nevertheless find faulty and to some extent absurd definitions for task resolution, which is why I cut some words from the quote. The essential elements of your framings of conflict resolution stand up regardless of what one thinks about task resolution!

​

So (to restate from yours) ...conflict resolution exists precisely in the relationship that obtains between succeeding on the check and what happens next: it's conflict resolution iff the process of resolution decides what happens next​

As a separate project, I would like to improve on definitions of task resolution. However, I first wanted to introduce some observations on players versus GMs.

In the past, we've discussed whether GMs are players, or not. You might recall that I'm open to GMs as players, while also saying that they need not be. That GM-as-referee is accurately seen as part of lusory-means. A reference point for players. A resolution system, at times. If I recall correctly, you've argued that GMs are players and can't achieve the neutrality that they might be imagined to need to function as not-players. (In fact, I think it is a discipline and an attitude they must achieve, and not neutrality, but that needn't be settled here.)

Suppose that GM is player. In that case, they are participants in conflicts. They can and should have goals. Their goals might conflict with player goals. Where they submit such conflicts to resolution, those are indeed cases of conflict resolution. Therefore one must choose: either GMs aren't players. Or if they are players, they are rightfully participants in conflict resolution.

 

[pemerton]

It seems, on reading this and various other posts here, that conflict resolution (or scene resolution) is on a somewhat more macro scale than task resolution which is more micro

This is not correct. To quote, once again, from Vincent Baker - which you can easily read for yourself here:\

Whether you roll for each flash of the blade or only for the whole fight is a whole nother issue: scale, not task vs. conflict. This is sometimes confusing for people; you say "conflict resolution" and they think you mean "resolve the whole scene with one roll." No, actually 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."

"I fight him!" "Why?" "To get past him to the ship before it sails!"
Task Resolution: do you win the fight (that is, do you fight him successfully)?
Roll: Success!
"You beat him! You disarm him and kick his butt!"
(Unresolved, left up to the GM: do you get to the ship before it sails?)

(Those examples show small-scale conflict resolution vs. large-scale task resolution.)​

What distinguishes conflict resolution from task resolution is not scale. It is whether or not succeeding at the roll (and hence at the task) means achieving/realising the aim/goal/intent/stakes.

That's it.

Not all conflict resolution-oriented RPGs use closed scene resolution. For instance, Apocalypse World doesn't. Whether closed scene resolution includes a focus on small scale matters or not depends on the system in question, and perhaps also the particular occasion and mood, and what seems sensible from the point of view of focus and pacing. I've resolved skill challenges in 4e D&D where a roll determined the outcome of a particular exchange, or even a single utterance, in a conversation - see, eg here - and ones where a roll determined the outcome of an attempt to destroy an entire building and the machines within it - see here.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I posted an example, just upthread, in reply to FrogReaver. Here it is again: https://www.enworld.org/threads/tor...ay-of-this-awesome-system.691233/post-9183845

That session of Torchbearer 2e used conflict resolution to determine (among other things) (i) what happened when the PCs tried to make their way to the Moathouse, and (ii) when the PCs fought the killer frogs, and (iii) when the PCs attempt to camp was interrupted by the Dire Wolf, and (iv) when the PCs negotiated with the Dire Wolf, and (v) when the PCs fought the bandits who disturbed their camp, and (vii) when the PCs tried to trick the bandits at the Moathouse.

In each of these cases there was hitherto-unrevealed backstory: (i) all the details of the Moathouse; (ii) the jewel "carried" by one of the frogs; (iii) the Dire Wolf having come from the Moathouse, and everything it knew about the Moathouse; (iv) ditto; (v) the situation of bandits at the Moathouse, and everything they knew about the Moathouse; (vi) dittto.

The way you don't veto player action declarations based on those facts is to not veto player action declarations based on those facts. As per my hypothetical example of AW upthread, and as per this actual example, if the game is well-designed it will ensure that its action resolution framework, and its system for prep, do not generate contradictions or otherwise make things hard.

As a simple example, GM prep in Torchbearer does not include things like This NPC cannot be tricked, which would then preclude the success of an action declared with the goal of tricking that NPC.

Conversely, GM prep in Torchbearer might include things like This house used to be owned by the wizard Pallando, and there is no provision, in the action resolution rules, for a player to establish as the stakes of their action declaration That Pallando was never the owner of this house.

Burning Wheel is a system where, on some of the margins, collisions are possible, because the game features an open-ended framework of Wises, which can be used - via player action declarations - both to prompt GM narration of backstory, and to establish backstory. The game designer has a discussion of how to handle this (Adventure Burner, pp 300-6), which includes a combination of rules and etiquette. The etiquette advice includes the GM (if appropriate) saying "Sorry, I've got something planned in respect of <whatever it was that the proposed Wises check pertained to>", and the player than accepting that and (say) declaring so as to prompt GM narration rather than establish their own conceived-of backstory.

So the answer is to not prep situations where it is possible that the prepared facts could block the action declaration? I don't see how this can be done as you don't know beforehand what the action declarations will be. I don't think examples where the issue doesn't arise will much help us here, as I am not saying it will always happen.

I see the issue arising in a situation where the players believe something to be true that actually is not. Let's get back to the documents in the safe to illustrate. In traditional mystery there tends to be all sort of layered secrets and red herrings. So the players might have learned that a person who they are investigating keeps mysteries papers in their safe and have due some other circumstantial evidence reason to believe those are the specific papers they are looking for. However, as this is layered mystery with red herrings where every suspect has something to hide, they have actually misconstrued the situation. The person they are suspecting has nothing to do with the actual thing they are investigating, they might have erotic poetry they've written and embarrassed about or something like this in the safe. But as the players do not know that they make the sort of action declaration like in the original example: their intend is to find the specific documents that are related to the case, and they honestly believe them to be there. So now what?

EDIT: I am making this too complicated. The literal point of the original safe example was that it is the roll that establishes whether the papers are in the safe so it is obvious that this is incompatible with pre-established myth about the location of the papers, regardless of the reasons.

 

[pemerton]

If that's the difference then imagine DitV* which is the same as DitV but without that principle of actively revealing the town in play. Suppose both GM's do the same things in both games and actively reveal the town in play. Everything turns out exactly the same, yet DitV you would say didn't have secret backstory and thus was conflict resolution and DitV* did have secret backstory and thus was not conflict resolution. Is that an accurate assessment?

Why is the GM doing this thing that principle demands, despite there being no such principle? What is your ontology of principles? Do you have examples of this happening, where the GM does it and yet would deny that any principle (perhaps an implicit, or understood, one, in the absence of any expressly stated one) requires it?

Anyway, my point about "secret backstory" was that in DitV the GM does not "retain" the secret backstory, require the players to declare and resolve low-stakes actions to obtain it, and use it to defeat action declarations. The GM actively reveals the town in play. So that backstory that was hitherto secret becomes revealed.

 

[pemerton]

So the answer is to not prep situations where it is possible that the prepared facts could block the action declaration? I don't see how this can be done as you don't know beforehand what the action declarations will be. I don't think examples where the issue doesn't arise will much help us here, as I am not saying it will always happen.

What's your example of it happening?

I mean, you asked, upthread, what is the point of thinking about the way imagination is negotiated? One answer is that it helps to identify how to establish the relationships between GM prep, declared actions, resolution frameworks, stakes, and consequences, that will ensure that the game runes smoothly and doesn't generate collisions between prep and consequences.

You're presenting something that is a design problem as if it's a play problem. But it only becomes a play problem if the design doesn't work.

I see the issue arising in a situation where the players believe something to be true that actually is not. Let's get back to the documents in the safe to illustrate. In traditional mystery there tends to be all sort of layered secrets and red herrings. So the players might have learned that a person who they are investigating keeps mysteries papers in their safe and have due some other circumstantial evidence reason to believe those are the specific papers they are looking for. However, as this is layered mystery with red herrings where every suspect has something to hide, they have actually misconstrued the situation. The person they are suspecting has nothing to do with the actual thing they are investigating, they might have erotic poetry they've written and embarrassed about or something like this in the safe. But as the players do not know that they make the sort of action declaration like in the original example: their intend is to find the specific documents that are related to the case, and they honestly believe them to be there. So now what?

EDIT: I am making this too complicated. The literal point of the original safe example was that it is the roll that establishes whether the papers are in the safe so it is obvious that this is incompatible with pre-established myth about the location of the papers, regardless of the reasons.

What you're describing here is - as best I can judge - not conflict resolution play. It seems to be puzzle-solving play, in which task resolution is the method for revealing the secret backstory to the players.

As for the safe example: it is not incompatible with pre-established myth that the papers are located in the safe!, if that myth is what informs the stakes of the action declaration. Whether and how this might work would depend on further details of the RPG in question.