Roll for Effect or Intent?

[JConstantine]

So, I suspect a potential reason some people seem to be struggling to grasp rolling for effect vs intent, may be due to viewing through the lens of a system designed for effect (i.e. approach, or task resolution). I think a system needs to be designed with intent/goal in mind.

I'm reminded of City of Mist. For anyone unfamiliar with it, it's an urban fantasy noir RPG involving people imbued with powers from beings of story. Mechanically, it takes the 2d6 with tiered success and moves common to PbtA and mashes it with FATE style tags, where you add to your roll for each tag that's narratively relevant.
The "moves" are:
Change the Game - "When you use your abilities to give yourself or your allies an advantage"
Convince - "When you use your abilities to talk, threaten, or seduce someone into doing something"
Face Danger - "When you use your abilities to avoid an incoming hit, endure harm, resist a malign influence, or hold it together"
Go Toe to Toe - "When you use your abilities to overcome someone or something in a struggle for control"
Hit with All You've Got - "When you have a clear shot and you use your abilities to hit someone or something with all you’ve got"
Investigate - "When you use your abilities to seek answers to burning questions"
Sneak Around - "When you use your abilities to act secretly or deceptively"
Take a Risk - "When you perform a daring, risky, or outright stupid feat"

Let's say the group is embracing their inner Agatha Christie and investigating a murder like good little vigilantes citizen detectives. Character A, an investigative reporter imbued with Aletheia, decides to question witnesses. Meanwhile, Character B, a former pro boxer imbued with Herakles, decides to lean on a known mob enforcer because their boss is a suspect. Lastly, Character C, a petty thief imbued with Autolycus, decides to poke around the back office where the victim worked.
One might look at this and think that Character A is attempting to Convince the witness to talk, Character B is attempting to Go Toe to Toe with the mob enforcer, and Character C is attempting to Sneak Around. However, because the goal of each of them is to acquire information about the murder, the actuality is that all 3 are attempting to Investigate. The goal (i.e. intent) is what determines which move is rolled, while the approach determines which tags the players can reasonably invoke (and thus improve their chance of succeeding).

 

[Reynard]

So, I suspect a potential reason some people seem to be struggling to grasp rolling for effect vs intent, may be due to viewing through the lens of a system designed for effect (i.e. approach, or task resolution). I think a system needs to be designed with intent/goal in mind.

I'm reminded of City of Mist. For anyone unfamiliar with it, it's an urban fantasy noir RPG involving people imbued with powers from beings of story. Mechanically, it takes the 2d6 with tiered success and moves common to PbtA and mashes it with FATE style tags, where you add to your roll for each tag that's narratively relevant.
The "moves" are:
Change the Game - "When you use your abilities to give yourself or your allies an advantage"
Convince - "When you use your abilities to talk, threaten, or seduce someone into doing something"
Face Danger - "When you use your abilities to avoid an incoming hit, endure harm, resist a malign influence, or hold it together"
Go Toe to Toe - "When you use your abilities to overcome someone or something in a struggle for control"
Hit with All You've Got - "When you have a clear shot and you use your abilities to hit someone or something with all you’ve got"
Investigate - "When you use your abilities to seek answers to burning questions"
Sneak Around - "When you use your abilities to act secretly or deceptively"
Take a Risk - "When you perform a daring, risky, or outright stupid feat"

Let's say the group is embracing their inner Agatha Christie and investigating a murder like good little vigilantes citizen detectives. Character A, an investigative reporter imbued with Aletheia, decides to question witnesses. Meanwhile, Character B, a former pro boxer imbued with Herakles, decides to lean on a known mob enforcer because their boss is a suspect. Lastly, Character C, a petty thief imbued with Autolycus, decides to poke around the back office where the victim worked.
One might look at this and think that Character A is attempting to Convince the witness to talk, Character B is attempting to Go Toe to Toe with the mob enforcer, and Character C is attempting to Sneak Around. However, because the goal of each of them is to acquire information about the murder, the actuality is that all 3 are attempting to Investigate. The goal (i.e. intent) is what determines which move is rolled, while the approach determines which tags the players can reasonably invoke (and thus improve their chance of succeeding).

That is a helpful explanation. Thank you.

 

[Hriston]

I am not sure how to implement "goal oriented rolls" in play. So for anyone who voted for "Roll for Intent" (or who didn't but understands and has utilized it) how do you do it?

As I am one of only two people who have voted for "Roll for Intent" so far, I feel almost obligated to respond.

First, I'd like to say the reason I prefer what's referred to as "conflict resolution" (what you call "Roll for Intent") is that it results in finality, i.e. a state of having won or lost with respect to the obstacle at hand, as opposed to "task resolution" (what you call "Roll for Effect") which results in the success/failure of the character's task only, leaving the GM in a position to turn your success into a loss by having you succeed at your task but fail to achieve your intent. In conflict resolution, this is not the case; if you succeed on the roll, you achieve your intent.

That being said, I can tell from your examples that you don't understand the difference between the two types of resolution to the point which I think your OP probably discouraged people from voting for "roll for intent" even if that was their actual preference. To understand the difference, I think you need to back up and consider the player's action declaration which ideally, for the purpose of conflict resolution, should include both the task being performed and the player's intent. I.e. why they're doing the task.

So let's look at your examples. I'm going to use them to reconstruct some action declarations (broken down into task and intent) that might have led to the sequences of gameplay you describe, so I can show what's at stake in each resolution method:

Example Scenario A: The PC wants to sneak into a walled compound, break into a locked office, and steal documents containing compromising information they can use to blackmail a rival NPC.
Roll for Effect: The player rolls to determine if the PC can scale the wall to enter the compound. The player then rolls to determine if the PC can pick the lock on the office door so they can get inside. The player then rolls to see if the PC can find documents containing compromising information.
Roll for Intent: The player rolls to determine if the PC successfully blackmails the NPC.

1. "I scale the wall (task) to sneak into the compound (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully scale the wall. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully sneak into the compound.

2. "I pick the lock on the office door (task) to break into the office (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully pick the lock. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully break into the office.

3. "I search the office (task) to find documents containing compromising information (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully search the office. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully find the documents.

4. "I use the information (task) to blackmail the rival NPC (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully use the information. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully blackmail the NPC (i.e. get them to do what you want).

Example Scenario B: The PC wants to decipher an ancient scroll to gain access to a ritual that will banish a Demon.
Roll for Effect: The player rolls to determine if the PC can decipher the text on the scroll. The player then rolls to determine if the PC has the knowledge/skill to perform the ritual. The player then rolls to determine if the PC performs the ritual correctly.
Roll for Intent: The player rolls to determine if the PC banishes the Demon.

1. "I decipher the text on the scroll (task) to gain access to the ritual (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully decipher the text on the scroll. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully gain access to the ritual.

2. "I recall my knowledge/utilize my skill (task) to perform the ritual (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully recall your knowledge/utilize your skill. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully perform the ritual (and banish the demon).

Example Scenario C: The PC wants to gain an audience with the king so they ask the king to send troops to the border to help defend against an invading army.
Roll for Effect: The player rolls to determine if the PC can gain an audience with the king. The player then rolls to determine if the PC can convince the king to send troops to the border. The player then rolls to determine if the PC can effectively command the troops in battle.
Roll for Intent: The player rolls to determine if PC successfully defends the kingdom from the invading army.

1. "I petition the court (task) to gain an audience with the king (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully petition the court. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully gain an audience with the king.

2. "I ask the king to send troops to the border [in such and such way] (task) to convince him to do so (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully ask the king in such and such way. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully convince him to send troops to the border.

3. "I command the troops in battle (task) to defend the kingdom from the invading army (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully command the troops. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully defend the kingdom.

My biggest issue is when to call for roll(s). Do you...
A) Call for the roll at the beginning of the scene, then have the result determine how to narrate the events of the scene?
B) Begin describing the scene, pause during a "tense" moment to roll, then finish the narration based on the result of the roll?
C) Narrate the events of the scene, then roll at the end to determine if the goal is ,in fact, accomplished?
D) Something else? (please explain)

I don't think this has much to do with task resolution versus conflict resolution, but I follow what I think is a conventional pattern in my games. I describe the opposition, the players declare their actions, I call for rolls if needed, then I describe the results.

 

[zarionofarabel]

As I am one of only two people who have voted for "Roll for Intent" so far, I feel almost obligated to respond.

First, I'd like to say the reason I prefer what's referred to as "conflict resolution" (what you call "Roll for Intent") is that it results in finality, i.e. a state of having won or lost with respect to the obstacle at hand, as opposed to "task resolution" (what you call "Roll for Effect") which results in the success/failure of the character's task only, leaving the GM in a position to turn your success into a loss by having you succeed at your task but fail to achieve your intent. In conflict resolution, this is not the case; if you succeed on the roll, you achieve your intent.

That being said, I can tell from your examples that you don't understand the difference between the two types of resolution to the point which I think your OP probably discouraged people from voting for "roll for intent" even if that was their actual preference. To understand the difference, I think you need to back up and consider the player's action declaration which ideally, for the purpose of conflict resolution, should include both the task being performed and the player's intent. I.e. why they're doing the task.

So let's look at your examples. I'm going to use them to reconstruct some action declarations (broken down into task and intent) that might have led to the sequences of gameplay you describe, so I can show what's at stake in each resolution method:



1. "I scale the wall (task) to sneak into the compound (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully scale the wall. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully sneak into the compound.

2. "I pick the lock on the office door (task) to break into the office (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully pick the lock. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully break into the office.

3. "I search the office (task) to find documents containing compromising information (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully search the office. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully find the documents.

4. "I use the information (task) to blackmail the rival NPC (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully use the information. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully blackmail the NPC (i.e. get them to do what you want).



1. "I decipher the text on the scroll (task) to gain access to the ritual (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully decipher the text on the scroll. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully gain access to the ritual.

2. "I recall my knowledge/utilize my skill (task) to perform the ritual (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully recall your knowledge/utilize your skill. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully perform the ritual (and banish the demon).



1. "I petition the court (task) to gain an audience with the king (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully petition the court. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully gain an audience with the king.

2. "I ask the king to send troops to the border [in such and such way] (task) to convince him to do so (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully ask the king in such and such way. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully convince him to send troops to the border.

3. "I command the troops in battle (task) to defend the kingdom from the invading army (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully command the troops. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully defend the kingdom.


I don't think this has much to do with task resolution versus conflict resolution, but I follow what I think is a conventional pattern in my games. I describe the opposition, the players declare their actions, I call for rolls if needed, then I describe the results.

Awesome! Thank you! I am beginning to think that there is less of a dichotomy between Task and Conflict as I originally thought. Mostly it appears that I am thinking of Conflict in too broad of a sense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As I am one of only two people who have voted for "Roll for Intent" so far, I feel almost obligated to respond.

First, I'd like to say the reason I prefer what's referred to as "conflict resolution" (what you call "Roll for Intent") is that it results in finality, i.e. a state of having won or lost with respect to the obstacle at hand, as opposed to "task resolution" (what you call "Roll for Effect") which results in the success/failure of the character's task only, leaving the GM in a position to turn your success into a loss by having you succeed at your task but fail to achieve your intent. In conflict resolution, this is not the case; if you succeed on the roll, you achieve your intent.

That being said, I can tell from your examples that you don't understand the difference between the two types of resolution to the point which I think your OP probably discouraged people from voting for "roll for intent" even if that was their actual preference. To understand the difference, I think you need to back up and consider the player's action declaration which ideally, for the purpose of conflict resolution, should include both the task being performed and the player's intent. I.e. why they're doing the task.

So let's look at your examples. I'm going to use them to reconstruct some action declarations (broken down into task and intent) that might have led to the sequences of gameplay you describe, so I can show what's at stake in each resolution method:



1. "I scale the wall (task) to sneak into the compound (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully scale the wall. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully sneak into the compound.

2. "I pick the lock on the office door (task) to break into the office (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully pick the lock. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully break into the office.

3. "I search the office (task) to find documents containing compromising information (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully search the office. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully find the documents.

4. "I use the information (task) to blackmail the rival NPC (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully use the information. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully blackmail the NPC (i.e. get them to do what you want).



1. "I decipher the text on the scroll (task) to gain access to the ritual (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully decipher the text on the scroll. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully gain access to the ritual.

2. "I recall my knowledge/utilize my skill (task) to perform the ritual (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully recall your knowledge/utilize your skill. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully perform the ritual (and banish the demon).



1. "I petition the court (task) to gain an audience with the king (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully petition the court. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully gain an audience with the king.

2. "I ask the king to send troops to the border [in such and such way] (task) to convince him to do so (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully ask the king in such and such way. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully convince him to send troops to the border.

3. "I command the troops in battle (task) to defend the kingdom from the invading army (intent)." Task resolution determines whether you successfully command the troops. Conflict resolution determines whether you successfully defend the kingdom.


I don't think this has much to do with task resolution versus conflict resolution, but I follow what I think is a conventional pattern in my games. I describe the opposition, the players declare their actions, I call for rolls if needed, then I describe the results.

I think the assumption you make here that intent should be folded into task when determining the outcome of the roll is unwarranted and subjective. Intent need not have any bearing on the success or failure of any particular task.

 

[Tonguez]

I think the assumption you make here that intent should be folded into task when determining the outcome of the roll is unwarranted and subjective. Intent need not have any bearing on the success or failure of any particular task.

really? - why is the character doing a particular task if not driven by their intent? surely the determination of outcomes provides the praxis of the game play driven by intent.

Sure I know DnD is task focussed but what do you do when a failure to get over the wall occurs?

 

[Hriston]

Awesome! Thank you! I am beginning to think that there is less of a dichotomy between Task and Conflict as I originally thought. Mostly it appears that I am thinking of Conflict in too broad of a sense.

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!" "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?)​

 

[Hriston]

I think the assumption you make here that intent should be folded into task when determining the outcome of the roll is unwarranted and subjective. Intent need not have any bearing on the success or failure of any particular task.

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 of that intent is needed for that method. For task resolution, what you say is true, which is why I don't prefer that method.

 

[Retros_x]

I don't think there are two distinct kinds of roll like you describe, just differences in granularity of conflict resolution. I switch in granularity depending on the situation. We have to keep in mind that each additional roll increase the risk of failure. So basically I only do that more fine granularity of rolls when interesting situations could emerge that change the story in an interesting way.

So in your first example I would definitely do the fine granular rolls, or for effect as you call it, because breaking in is an exciting adventure in its own with a lot of possibilities while the roll for intent fells like a "roll to win adventure".

In your second example I would use the one single roll because there isn't very exciting stuff happen in the more granular rolls it will just feel to the player like you make it hard to reach that goal.

The third example is a special one because I would do neither of those. If it is an interesting scenario I would actually roleplay the players trying to get an audience instead of hiding the rolls. And then I would design a cool battle scenario to defend the kingdom. The Intent option is completely absurd. Why play at all if you just do one single roll if the players save the kingdom.

 

[Micah Sweet]

really? - why is the character doing a particular task if not driven by their intent? surely the determination of outcomes provides the praxis of the game play driven by intent.

Sure I know DnD is task focussed but what do you do when a failure to get over the wall occurs?

Suffer the consequences, then try another way or give up? What do you do when you fail to get over a wall?