RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[pemerton]

How that fiction proceeds in that moment is largely governed by game rules and abstractions

Those game rules require participants to make suggestions about the way the fiction might proceed - eg "I go over to the window to get a better shot at the goblin." "Well hang on, the table between you and the window is on fire. How are you avoiding that?"

 

[pemerton]

Maybe. I thought that initially but further reflection I think conflict resolution can also be modeled with the ‘attempt to do X so Y happens’ language.

The difference of course is that ‘so Y happens’ part which isnt required for task resolution. Thinking a bit deeper and I think task resolution is just a special simplified case of conflict resolution.

I don't know what you mean by that last sentence.

From here:

In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you crack the safe?

In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain? . . .

"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?)​

I don't understand how task resolution is a special case of conflict resolution.

 

[clearstream]

How is that assertion? What does it actually establish about the fiction? I mean, is the forge hot? Is the character actually wielding the hammer. Can people walking down the street nearby hear the clanging?

Yes.

That to me seems a paradigm of Baker's notion of suggesting. Until someone actually does something more to establish some agreed fiction, "I attempt to forge a sword" doesn't take the fiction anywhere.

In modes that apply task resolution, the player has committed the character to action. That's been added to the fiction. If it's fate at the end, they might roll to see what to say next. If it's D&D, DM will narrate that (add it to the fiction.)

It's striking how the norms of modes of play push more toward assertion or negotiation.

 

[clearstream]

Those game rules require participants to make suggestions about the way the fiction might proceed - eg "I go over to the window to get a better shot at the goblin." "Well hang on, the table between you and the window is on fire. How are you avoiding that?"

"Suggestions" is really your take on it, not how folk who embrace such modes necessarily see themselves. In the example here, GM is reminding player of established fiction (table on fire).

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know what you mean by that last sentence.

From here:

In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you crack the safe?​

​

In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task. "I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" What's at stake is: do you get the dirt on the supervillain? . . .​

​

I don't understand how task resolution is a special case of conflict resolution.

that is just framing. What’s at stake - the safe is keeping me from seeing what’s inside. Why do I try to crack the safe - To see what is inside. I’ve just defined the safe example as a conflict resolution without needing to resolve an external conflict.

 

[soviet]

that is just framing. What’s at stake - the safe is keeping me from seeing what’s inside. Why do I try to crack the safe - To see what is inside. I’ve just defined the safe example as a conflict resolution without needing to resolve an external conflict.

Just read the examples. If it's task resolution you can succeed but get nothing (you open the safe and find it to be empty). In conflict resolution you cannot.

 

[clearstream]

that is just framing. What’s at stake - the safe is keeping me from seeing what’s inside. Why do I try to crack the safe - To see what is inside. I’ve just defined the safe example as a conflict resolution without needing to resolve an external conflict.

Take a look at the Paragon system to see how they differ. With conflict-resolution, we're bound by the outcome, but not the fiction getting there.

Outcome resolution: Success = I find the dirt, failure = I don't find the dirt.​

Possible narration: Success = I crack the safe and grabbed the documents inside, failure = I crack the safe but it's empty.​

​

Benefit: resolving outcomes makes that binding on everyone. Disadvantage: some folk aren't comfortable with leaving how we got there in doubt - possibly leading to narrations we find jarring (maybe they dislike me saying I cracked the safe even though I failed my roll).

With task-resolution, we're bound by the fiction getting there, but not the outcome.

Task resolution: Success = I crack the safe, failure = I don't crack the safe​

Possible outcome: the dirt is in the safe (could be the dirt isn't in the safe, even on success)​

Benefit: resolving how we got there makes that binding on everyone. Disadvantage: some folk aren't comfortable letting someone else say what we found when we arrived - possibly leading to frustration even on a total success.

You raise the question of - just how far out can and must an outcome be? Can it be as near as - I want to crack the safe to see what's inside? Or as far as - the super-villain is defeated, her plans laid to ruin and and she forever incarcerated!? For me, questions like that indicate that regardless of how we structure play, we're still reliant on linguistic, cultural, social and perhaps other norms to judge what is fitting.

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

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

The route to bringing these together is - in short - declare your fictional-performance==outcome pairings up front. This is achieved in D&D by following the DMG237 rules for ability checks, and in PbtA through moves. The difference is that in D&D, DM assembles fictional-performance==outcome pairings either in their prep or on the fly, while in PbtA game designer preps fictional-performance==outcome pairings during design.

You don't need to resolve both fictional-performance and outcome: pick one. In PbtA, performance is not in doubt: roll indexes outcome. In D&D, roll indexes performance: DM tells you what outcome attaches to each. This has ramifications for design and for how the game may be played - the kinds of things going on in mechanics and modes of play the text will have clearest utility to.

I don't know if that all implies we could have a principle like this: It isn't fun for a single player to assert both the fictional performance and the outcome associated with it. There ought to be resolution or someone else involved, on one side or the other.

 

[clearstream]

Just read the examples. If it's task resolution you can succeed but get nothing (you open the safe and find it to be empty). In conflict resolution you cannot.

It's worth highlighting that the reason you might not (in conflict resolution) could be you fail your task but get your objective (you don't open the safe, but turning away you see the dirt in the wastepaper basket.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Just read the examples. If it's task resolution you can succeed but get nothing (you open the safe and find it to be empty). In conflict resolution you cannot.

That seems to depend on the framing. If I frame the conflict as getting into the safe, then any resolution that gets me into the safe got me exactly what I wanted. That’s a success. But that’s just showing what’s normally deemed task resolution can be framed as conflict resolution.

But what isn’t true is that what’s normally framed as conflict resolution cannot generally be framed as task resolution. Thus, the special case vs general case.

Its interesting to me that RPG’s started off in the special conflict resolution case of task resolution and have generalized out from there.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's worth highlighting that the reason you might not (in conflict resolution) could be you fail your task but get your objective (you don't open the safe, but turning away you see the dirt in the wastepaper basket.)

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