Search results

I'm assuming you're talking about 5E here. If I understand correctly, you would say the PC's task/approach auto-succeeds because it's trivially easy, but you would deny them automatic success on their intent/goal and put it to a roll possibly leading to its failure. I'd say this is task...

Okay, that makes sense.

5E muddies the conversation a bit because the thread has so far cast resolution in terms of rolls, i.e. "Roll for Effect"/"Roll for Intent", whereas in 5E, outside of the combat system, which is a conflict resolution system, the DM is part of the resolution system which, now that I think of it...

To be clear, this was not something I decided. This was part of the rather hyperbolic example given by @bloodtide in which they as GM decided it "will never work" in their game. Granted, their example included the player stipulating that "the guard abandons his post and goes into the woods...

This thread is in the general forum and is not about your specific preference for adjudication only. To answer your question, though, it's because task resolution only cares about resolving the task.

Agreed 100%. I addressed this up-thread. Under task resolution they are asking to throw a rock. Whether the guard is distracted is left up to the GM, but I think this raises some issues that are somewhat separate from task vs. conflict resolution. The first is whether it's acceptable for the GM...

You have a preference. And yet you don't seem to have voted.

It made the sound the player wanted. Success!

And yet 2/3 of respondents to the poll have voted for "Effect".

Maybe you missed it. The player succeeded at hitting the tree.

Agreed, with the caveat that the rules include principles followed by the GM, like this: Another, slightly different, principle I try to follow is "Say yes or roll the dice."

Sure, you can! All that's needed is for the GM to not maintain the relationship between succeeding at the task and achieving the intent. I think it's common for GMs to break this relationship. Here's a post from just up thread: Hyperbole aside, we can make the example more reasonable by...

I think I found an Appendix N example of a sorcerer or maybe a psionicist, Lalette Asterhax, a hereditary "witch", one of the protagonists in The Blue Star by Fletcher Pratt. I haven't read the novel myself, but Wikipedia has the synopsis of the setting and magic's place in it: The novel is set...

Ahmed Ghaleb al-Rahawi, prime minister of Yemen’s Houthi-run government, was killed by Israel in an airstrike Thursday of last week along with 11 other senior Houthi leaders.

Omar Harb, a prominent Palestinian academic, starved to death on Thursday. He was 60 years old.

We're in turn-based combat rounds. Last round, it seems like you didn't take an action on your turn. Maybe you were readying to close the grate or something. Fitz rolled the round, and I moved towards the grate but didn't want the oxen to get an opportunity attacks on me and didn't have enough...

Conflict resolution prevents this because it maintains the connection between success and winning. Task resolution allows it because it leaves the GM free to break that connection at will.

That would be a misreading. He's illustrating they can be used that way counter to what some people think, unrelated to scale.

I haven't expressed any such assumption. I'm talking about the needs of conflict resolution (for which I have a preference, which is what the thread asks about) versus task resolution. The whole point of conflict resolution is to resolve the intent of the action declaration, so an understanding...

Yes, the issue of scale is separate from task versus conflict. As Vincent Baker said in his essay "Conflict Resolution vs. Task Resolution" which you can find here: actually you can conflict-resolve a single blow, or task-resolve the whole fight in one roll: "I slash at his face, like ha!"...