Roll for Effect or Intent?

[GMMichael]

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?)​

These are both questions of scale, illustrating how much progress the GM wants to award for the roll result. It seems that Baker uses "conflict" for simpler activities, and "task" for more complex ones.

 

[Umbran]

The alternative is:

"I want to hunt down who did this."

"Okay, roll X."

"I got a 21."

"That succeeds. What does that look like?"

There's nothing about conflict / intent resolution that requires the referee remove the player's agency.

The conversation has probably gone well past this, but this is why a typical good declaration includes both the goal and approach.

Indeed, as a broad generalization, if you don't know the approach, you cannot tell what roll the player has to make!

"I want to get the orc to tell me where the pie is hidden," does not include enough information to tell me whether this is a Persuasion or Intimidation check, for example.

This basic issue remains whether we are talking about a task-level, or a conflict-level resolution.

 

[Umbran]

I think this generally comes to the point that there is no time in which the GM can cleanly assume that Effect is the only thing that matters.

That would be like assuming that any time a player chooses to do something, it is followed by the phrase, "...at ANY cost."

 

[soviet]

Here's an example of the difference that happened to me once:

The group has infiltrated the enemy encampment and we are in the enemy leader's tent killing him in his bed.

An enemy guard hears a bit of noise and pokes his head inside the tent. I say that my barbarian tries to intimidate him into forgetting all about us with a throat-slitting gesture and a 'you saw nothing'.

I had a decent bonus and also rolled a critical success.

The GM agreed it was a critical success and said, oh, he is so scared of you, and therefore of how big a threat to his mates you are, that he immediately runs away in terror and raises the alarm.

Task resolution: this is acceptable.
Conflict resolution: this is not acceptable

 

[Reynard]

Here's an example of the difference that happened to me once:

The group has infiltrated the enemy encampment and we are in the enemy leader's tent killing him in his bed.

An enemy guard hears a bit of noise and pokes his head inside the tent. I say that my barbarian tries to intimidate him into forgetting all about us with a throat-slitting gesture and a 'you saw nothing'.

I had a decent bonus and also rolled a critical success.

The GM agreed it was a critical success and said, oh, he is so scared of you, and therefore of how big a threat to his mates you are, that he immediately runs away in terror and raises the alarm.

Task resolution: this is acceptable.
Conflict resolution: this is not acceptable

That's just undermining success, which is not acceptable.

 

[soviet]

That's just undermining success, which is not acceptable.

No, I successfully intimidated the guard. It just didn't have the outcome I wanted.

 

[Umbran]

No, I successfully intimidated the guard. It just didn't have the outcome I wanted.

Right.
But if the roll is for intent, then the outcome you want matters.

 

[soviet]

Right.
But if the roll is for intent, then the outcome you want matters.

Sure! That's why I said in task resolution (effect) it's acceptable* but in conflict resolution (intent) it isn't.





*still not great

 

[Reynard]

No, I successfully intimidated the guard. It just didn't have the outcome I wanted.

And I think your GM did it wrong. You told him what you were going for, they asked for a roll, you super double succeeded, and the GM then made you fail anyway. Bad form.

 

[Hriston]

These are both questions of scale, illustrating how much progress the GM wants to award for the roll result. It seems that Baker uses "conflict" for simpler activities, and "task" for more complex ones.

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