I don't understand this framing. No one here is asserting games don't play differently. What is being assessed on my side is the definitional framework being used to describe these games, whether an alternative definitional framework is more accurate and how this particular definitional framework applies to various games.
Thank you. But I don't think it's that clear. Is the action 'slashing at his face' or 'trying to knock him off balance'? I think those are both actions. In which case you are intentionally picking the one that allows you to frame this as conflict resolution. But suppose we picked 'trying to knock him off balance' as the action. Does that selection change the scenario to task resolution?
If you don't want me to tag you then please don't tag me. This one way stuff just doesn't work for me.
If that's the difference then imagine DitV* which is the same as DitV but without that principle of actively revealing the town in play. Suppose both GM's do the same things in both games and actively reveal the town in play. Everything turns out exactly the same, yet DitV you would say didn't have secret backstory and thus was conflict resolution and DitV* did have secret backstory and thus was not conflict resolution. Is that an accurate assessment?
They may be combining these things, but use your brain, why can't I have conflict resolution in a game where fiction is pre-established. Does that constrain you from saying "I want to find the papers, so I am going to open the safe!"? I don't see how! Sure, if the scenario has already established that, by gosh, there are surely papers in that safe, then that will constrain the types of outcomes the GM (or whomever/whatever) can narrate in response to a failure, but that's only a rather minor constraint. For example, I could still narrate that you opened the safe successfully. Many things could result in the non-acquisition of the papers within. Guards suddenly appear, an alarm goes off, you're nabbed by the cops on the way out, etc.
I would expect there to be a resolution of the situation here. In true Narrativist play there would probably be something at stake, at least in a bigger sense, some reason driving a PC to want to do this dangerous thing.
No, I mean, I cannot speak for others, but presumably there are motivations, they are just not what the mechanics speak to directly. If you dice for the resolution of a task, you aren't playing a game of motivations and intent, you are playing a game of task performance. Notice how D&D is classically structured, the motives of the characters are, at best, simply assumed to conform with the action. The PCs want treasure, so they adventure, end of story. Thus we are in a game of performance, do you get GP, or do you die? Much Narrativist play disposes of this indirection, the player tells the GM what their intent is, what they want to achieve by taking an action, as well as generally describing the action itself.
That is NOT AN ACTION. You would have to describe 'I knock him off balance.' Task resolution requires the player to describe the ACTION, what is happening. You cannot resolve that declaration in games like 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, or 5e! A question must be asked by the GM, 'how'? MAYBE given the context and things like character build the how is plainly obvious, but that's just a corner case. In every one of those games I will now, as GM, ask "how do you knock him off balance?" The 'knock off balance' here is a goal, an intent, and there could be many possible pathways to achieving it. In an intent resolution system, I can resolve that statement directly, although I might still want to ask how, as it may determine various mechanical factors, or it could be a bit different process, like BitD where their is a decision made as to approach based on which attribute the player selects, etc.
Who told you this?
It seems, on reading this and various other posts here, that conflict resolution (or scene resolution) is on a somewhat more macro scale than task resolution which is more micro; and thus a series of task resolutuions can add up to a conflict resolution. In other words, a (or the) difference is granularity.
