RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[clearstream]

I’d say that can be the case but isn’t necessarily so. It really depends on your objective.

I think that's my point, yes. Ideally it's

Conflict resolution: What is a legitimate outcome from this fictional position?​

​

Task resolution: What outcomes can this fictional performance legitimate?​

But it's down to norms that we recognise what to count as legitimate. Submitting it to resolution is expected to define it and make it binding. So what is binding?

Conflict resolution: outcome is binding​

​

Task resolution: performance is binding​

​

If correct then you can see what isn't binding.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think that's my point, yes. Ideally it's

Conflict resolution: What is a legitimate outcome from this fictional position?​

​

Task resolution: What outcomes can this fictional performance legitimate?​

But it's down to norms that we recognise what to count as legitimate. Submitting it to resolution is expected to define it and make it binding. So what is binding?

Conflict resolution: outcome is binding​

​

Task resolution: performance is binding​

​

If correct then you can see what isn't binding.

in task resolution the outcome is also binding. It’s just the ‘goal’ is more restricted. ‘If I pass my athletics check I jump across the chasm’.

In conflict resolution the performance is also binding, albeit more flexible to twists. ‘You try but you trip, or the opponent knocks you down before you can put your plan into action, etc’.

The difference IMO is really around what is a legitimate declaration and not around what part is binding. And usually the scope of what counts as legitimate is more granular for task vs less granular for conflict resolution (which leaves more room for those twists).

 

[Manbearcat]

We've been here before.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Just like everything else TTRPG system-wise, there are many component parts of conflict resolution. However, the defining characteristic that separates it from task resolution is that system architecture (both game engine structure and constraints/best practices for participants related to that structure) will give non-vetoable shape to play and, through that, give rise to trajectories of play which settles upon one particular trajectory in any given instance of resolution of situation. The implications of what "resolves" means to both the gamestate and the fiction is well-encoded (with constraining structure/procedures to finish any encoding left to be done) or fully-encoded by the conflict resolution framework/procedures. This feeds into subsequent play that is governed the same way; Rinse/Repeat.

"System's Say" has as much input upon the signature of play as both "GM Say" and "Player Say."


TASK RESOLUTION

Just like everything else TTRPG system-wise, there are many component parts of task resolution. However, the defining characteristic that separates it from conflict resolution is that (comparatively unconstrained) GM Fiat and absolute discretion over system input (including profound input in system's mediating role along multiple axes as well as opting-in or vetoing) and its would-be governing trajectories give the majority shape to play as the GM ultimately determines when a situation resolves or is still up-for-grabs. Further, the control over play trajectory is compounded as the implications of what "resolves" means to the gamestate and the fiction is left to the purview of the GM. This feeds into subsequent play that is governed the same way; Rinse/Repeat.

"GM's Say" has considerably more input upon the signature of play than both "System's Say" and "Player's Say."

---

Its not the perfect fit (as even D&D combat has some elements of "situation resolves" that the GM can subtly opt-out of due to extra-combat, holistic authority granted to the GM), but the easiest way to look at it is to contrast combat resolution and noncombat resolution in all non-4e D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

We've been here before.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

View attachment 340937

Just like everything else TTRPG system-wise, there are many component parts of conflict resolution. However, the defining characteristic that separates it from task resolution is that system architecture (both game engine structure and constraints/best practices for participants related to that structure) will give non-vetoable shape to play and, through that, give rise to trajectories of play which settles upon one particular trajectory in any given instance of resolution of situation. The implications of what "resolves" means to both the gamestate and the fiction is well-encoded (with constraining structure/procedures to finish any encoding left to be done) or fully-encoded by the conflict resolution framework/procedures. This feeds into subsequent play that is governed the same way; Rinse/Repeat.

"System's Say" has as much input upon the signature of play as both "GM Say" and "Player Say."


TASK RESOLUTION

View attachment 340938

Just like everything else TTRPG system-wise, there are many component parts of task resolution. However, the defining characteristic that separates it from conflict resolution is that (comparatively unconstrained) GM Fiat and absolute discretion over system input (including profound input in system's mediating role along multiple axes as well as opting-in or vetoing) and its would-be governing trajectories give the majority shape to play as the GM ultimately determines when a situation resolves or is still up-for-grabs. Further, the control over play trajectory is compounded as the implications of what "resolves" means to the gamestate and the fiction is left to the purview of the GM. This feeds into subsequent play that is governed the same way; Rinse/Repeat.

"GM's Say" has considerably more input upon the signature of play than both "System's Say" and "Player's Say."

---

Its not the perfect fit (as even D&D combat has some elements of "situation resolves" that the GM can subtly opt-out of due to extra-combat, holistic authority granted to the GM), but the easiest way to look at it is to contrast combat resolution and noncombat resolution in all non-4e D&D.

I don’t think those graphics do justice to the observation I am making, which is that all task resolution can be defined by the first conflict resolution graphic provided that the conflict is framed appropriately.

 

[clearstream]

in task resolution the outcome is also binding. It’s just the ‘goal’ is more restricted. ‘If I pass my athletics check I jump across the chasm’.

That's what I'm saying up-thread about DMG237 consequences resolution; but binding outcomes come out of DMG ability check rules and not the PHB rules alone.

In conflict resolution the performance is also binding, albeit more flexible to twists. ‘You try but you trip, or the opponent knocks you down before you can put your plan into action, etc’.

This relates to what I mean about norms: what tells you that one twist fits and another doesn't? Baker added an important piece of musing just after the bits already quoted

Something I haven't examined: in a conventional rpg, does task resolution + consequence mechanics = conflict resolution? "Roll to hit" is task resolution, but is "Roll to hit, roll damage" conflict resolution?

A key step is ensuring fictional-position==outcome pairings are declared before resolution. That could be by the game designer (PbtA moves), GM (DMG ability checks) or some other means. In combat, the pairing is roll-to-hit==roll-damage.

The difference IMO is really around what is a legitimate declaration and not around what part is binding. And usually the scope of what counts as legitimate is more granular for task vs less granular for conflict resolution (which leaves more room for those twists).

What is binding would be legitimate, no?

 

[Lanefan]

I think that's my point, yes. Ideally it's

Conflict resolution: What is a legitimate outcome from this fictional position?​

​

Task resolution: What outcomes can this fictional performance legitimate?​

But it's down to norms that we recognise what to count as legitimate. Submitting it to resolution is expected to define it and make it binding. So what is binding?

Conflict resolution: outcome is binding​

​

Task resolution: performance is binding​

​

If correct then you can see what isn't binding.

My question, perhaps naive, but:

Why is this seemingly being looked at as just one step? There's two steps involved, it seems:

One: determining the performance (e.g. success or fail on cracking the safe), and then
Two: using that now-binding performance as input, determining the outcome (e.g. if you got in the safe, what's in there; if you didn't, what happens next e.g. did you set off an alarm), which also becomes binding once determined.

 

[clearstream]

My question, perhaps naive, but:

Why is this seemingly being looked at as just one step? There's two steps involved, it seems:

One: determining the performance (e.g. success or fail on cracking the safe), and then
Two: using that now-binding performance as input, determining the outcome (e.g. if you got in the safe, what's in there; if you didn't, what happens next e.g. did you set off an alarm), which also becomes binding once determined.

This thread covers the difference between DMG ability checks and PHB. In short - consequence-resolution.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don’t think those graphics do justice to the observation I am making, which is that all task resolution can be defined by the first conflict resolution graphic provided that the conflict is framed appropriately.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "framed appropriately" here?

System in conflict resolution does a ton of work to create the distinctions in the experience and execution of play between it and task resolution (the inventory of items I listed). I assume you're implying that "framed appropriately (by the GM I presume?)" can do that same work to entirely remove those distinctions so that the experience and execution of play between the two are indistinguishable?


* SIDE NOTE: I should note that "not all conflict resolution is the same" and "not all task resolution is the same" and that both are very sensitive to systemization. Like, you can systematize one form of task resolution to be quite different from another. That is a wider conversation, but I don't think having that conversation is appropriate until we get the zoomed-out concepts sorted out.

 

[clearstream]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "framed appropriately" here?

System in conflict resolution does a ton of work to create the distinctions in the experience and execution of play between it and task resolution (the inventory of items I listed). I assume you're implying that "framed appropriately (by the GM I presume?)" can do that same work to entirely remove those distinctions so that the experience and execution of play between the two are indistinguishable?


* SIDE NOTE: I should note that "not all conflict resolution is the same" and "not all task resolution is the same" and that both are very sensitive to systemization. Like, you can systematize one form of task resolution to be quite different from another. That is a wider conversation, but I don't think having that conversation is appropriate until we get the zoomed-out concepts sorted out.

I heartily agree that "not all conflict resolution is the same" and "not all task resolution is the same" and a hesitation for me around those charts is that I think they rest on additional assumptions about both.

I think about what the top chart looks like if someone keeps picking goals that won't resolve the situation? Scenes will just proceed in endless procession, going nowhere. The key is getting to a binding exit from the stituation, and that comes out of system and practices. For example, in BitD uniform systemic outputs from scenes (rep, turf, etc) reward exits and motivate new situations.

I think one of the most important steps in bringing order is to declare up-front the fictional-position==outcome / performance==outcome pairing I've been harping on about. Whether that's GM preps it or decides on the fly, or designer writes it down, or players negotiate it... there's multiple ways to do it. How it resolves can be binding because we rolled for outcome, or it can be binding because we've associated outcomes with performances and will abide by roll. And neither of those really answer what we're willing to count as legitimate: they can't, due to the immeasurable nature of fiction.

 

[FrogReaver]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "framed appropriately" here?

Yes!

System in conflict resolution does a ton of work to create the distinctions in the experience and execution of play between it and task resolution (the inventory of items I listed). I assume you're implying that "framed appropriately (by the GM I presume?)" can do that same work to entirely remove those distinctions so that the experience and execution of play between the two are indistinguishable?

Not really where im going but might be a happy side discussion.

The framing I’m talking about is from us analyzing post play experiences and examples. In that analysis it depends entirely on how what happened is framed by the analyst and not on what actually happened.

Or perhaps a challenge would be more illustrative. I believe I can frame any task resolution as a conflict resolution. So which do you think I cannot?

Or maybe it’s better to say this way, all tasks where there is uncertainty of outcome are themselves conflicts.