Cheating, Action Points, and Second Wind

[Hussar]

Thanks for that guys.

I can see what you mean now. If I'm understanding this right, D&D uses task resolution - intent is largely irrelevant - "I want to jump 10 feet" and roll a jump check.

Would it be fair to say that in conflict resolution, the focus is larger? In other words, you don't really look at each individual step, but rather just what the player wants to achieve and then determine success based on that?

Sorry to be a bit behind here. I'm trying to catch up. What is stake setting? I think it means that the player determines a set amount that he is willing to "lose" if there is a failure. Is that right?

 

[LostSoul]

Would it be fair to say that in conflict resolution, the focus is larger? In other words, you don't really look at each individual step, but rather just what the player wants to achieve and then determine success based on that?

Not really. Here's a neat little chart that explains some of it:
Clairty & Revelance of Player Intent Chart

Look at Gather Information. You can resolve an entire night's chatting and talking and hunting for clues with one roll. That doesn't tell us if it resolves the conflict - if there even is one.

If you want more info, post a situation from a game of yours and I can go into more detail on it.

edit: Here's a blog post that may answer some questions and raise others. I found it helpful when I first encountered this concept.

 

[marune]

Not really. Here's a neat little chart that explains some of it:
Clairty & Revelance of Player Intent Chart

Look at Gather Information. You can resolve an entire night's chatting and talking and hunting for clues with one roll. That doesn't tell us if it resolves the conflict - if there even is one.

If you want more info, post a situation from a game of yours and I can go into more detail on it.

edit: Here's a blog post that may answer some questions and raise others. I found it helpful when I first encountered this concept.

Read both links above, they will explain why my previous examples may be misleading.

 

[jeffh]

Knowingly misleading another player in order to better your score/performance in a game is cheating.

So every remotely competent poker player cheats constantly?

Try again.

 

[Victim]

So every remotely competent poker player cheats constantly?

Try again.

I think there's a big difference between misleading players as to one's intentions in game and misleading them as to the rules applying to the situation.

 

[Najo]

Thanks for that guys.

I can see what you mean now. If I'm understanding this right, D&D uses task resolution - intent is largely irrelevant - "I want to jump 10 feet" and roll a jump check.

Would it be fair to say that in conflict resolution, the focus is larger? In other words, you don't really look at each individual step, but rather just what the player wants to achieve and then determine success based on that?

Sorry to be a bit behind here. I'm trying to catch up. What is stake setting? I think it means that the player determines a set amount that he is willing to "lose" if there is a failure. Is that right?

Conflict resolution allows for resolving outcomes between two or more opposed results that cannot be done through the measured physics of the typical task systems of D&D and other similar games. Usually, these systems resolve social conflicts or pit the odds of certain circumstances in a broader sense than the play by play of round based actions. So yes, in a sense it is broader defination, but because of that, allows for more fluid conflict resolution.

White Wolf's storyteller system uses a mix of task and conflict resolution with a single opposed roll very well. Check out Vampire Dark Ages or Exalted for a D&D like setting to compare D&D's mechanics too.

The downfall of these systems is they are not as detailed, so they lend themselves to story driven game play better than combat simulation game play. This does mean they play faster and are more flexible though.

 

[marune]

The downfall of these systems is they are not as detailed, so they lend themselves to story driven game play better than combat simulation game play. This does mean they play faster and are more flexible though.

Two things..

WoD is not the perfect example of story-driven game play.

The details and complexity of D&D (even more true in 4E) is there to promote the use of strategies more than to simulate a fictional fantasy world.

Edit : You can also have a "round-by-round" conflict resolution combat system where strategies are useful, for example the Fight! rules in Burning Wheel.

 

[buzz]

The downfall of these systems is they are not as detailed...

It really depends on what game you're talking about. Duel of Wits (social conflict res) in Burning Wheel is detailed/robust as heck. No social mechanic in most mainstream RPGs (D&D, GURPS, WoD) even comes close.

Honestly, you could probably point to a ton of different games where non-combat mechanics are far more detail-oriented than comparable ones (should they even exist) in most popular RPGs.

 

[buzz]

So every remotely competent poker player...

I was unaware that we were talking about poker. In fact, I'm pretty sure we weren't.

 

[DSRilk]

Perhaps it's a matter of experience, but I don't see the need for an abstract "conflict" resolution system versus a "task" resolution system. Actually, I'd argue that even for role-playing purposes (my games average 4 combats a year -- we're pretty much all RP) "task" resolution is better. Here's why: If I'm engaged in a tactical encounter, where every round counts, I need a system that's specific - Every round check move silently to move X feet. That tells me how far characters are moving and in what state, which is what I need when I'm in blow-by-blow mode of 6 second rounds where everyone's acting in relation to everyone else. However, there's absolutely nothing stopping me from making the rational DM judgment to generalize a check. If a party member says, "I need a candlestick. Are there any houses nearby that might have one? If so, I sneak in and get it." As the DM, I say, "No problem. Make a stealth check. If you fail, you either can't get access to it or you get it but someone spots you -- your call." D&D is not designed to be a straight jacket - hence rule 0. With a little common sense, "task" resolution systems like D&D give you the best of both worlds. This is not fudging the rules or cheating, it's applying a rational mind to the task of keeping good pacing in the story.