RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[FrogReaver]

Why is the GM doing this thing that principle demands, despite there being no such principle?

In this example that’s just what he did.

What is your ontology of principles?

Not sure what you mean here.

Do you have examples of this happening, where the GM does it and yet would deny that any principle (perhaps an implicit, or understood, one, in the absence of any expressly stated one) requires it?

Should be obvious that examples of a game I just made up cannot be provided.

Anyway, my point about "secret backstory" was that in DitV the GM does not "retain" the secret backstory, require the players to declare and resolve low-stakes actions to obtain it, and use it to defeat action declarations. The GM actively reveals the town in play. So that backstory that was hitherto secret becomes revealed.

Okay, What prevents the players from interacting with a piece of unrevealed backstory in play before you have revealed it? If they can, then if they do how do you maintain that backstory while saying yes or rolling the dice?

 

[FrogReaver]

So (to restate from yours) ...conflict resolution exists precisely in the relationship that obtains between succeeding on the check and what happens next: it's conflict resolution iff the process of resolution decides what happens next​

1. Isn’t that the purpose of all resolution - to establish a process to determine what happens next?

2. The question IMO is more, what role does the DM play in that process. Generally he is determining what happens on a fail state (sometimes with more constraints, sometimes less). The process just dictates whether that determination occurs before or after the dice are rolled.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just an observation, but it seems to me most of the discussion is now hinging on some fundamental definitions which are being used to define the higher level concepts we are discussing - which is impacting our ability to communicate in the rest of the discourse.

Action
Scene
Resolution
No-Myth
Etc.

There’s also a discussion framework where one side talks a lot more in the abstract and the other wants concrete examples - which would normally be fine, except the abstract things we are discussing are presumably about possibilities for games that don’t currently exist. Somethings going to have to give there or discussion is going to grind to a standstill.

What I would love to see is a set of complete definitions given so that the ground doesn’t constantly shift beneath my feat as I analyze the relationships between all the concepts. Probably a pipe dream, but that to me would be ideal.

Part of why I’m stuck arguing intuitions (ex: this doesn’t seem or sound right) is because these definitions are not given, such that we quickly get into disagreement about what constitutes something as simple sounding as an action - which a larger point hinges upon - leaving us unable to resolve the larger point.

 

[pemerton]

The question IMO is more, what role does the DM play in that process. Generally he is determining what happens on a fail state (sometimes with more constraints, sometimes less). The process just dictates whether that determination occurs before or after the dice are rolled.

In Apocalypse World, the GM determines the consequences of a failure after the dice are rolled. That has no implication for whether or not it is conflict resolution.

In Torchbearer, consequences and compromises are generally established at the end of a conflict (having regard to the fiction established during the resolution of the conflict). This doesn't have implications for whether or not it is conflict resolution.

The difference between conflict and task resolution is whether success at the task does (conflict resolution) or does not (task resolution) entail success at the intent/goal/aim for which the task was undertaken. Or, to quote from Vincent Baker,

In task resolution, what's at stake is the task itself. . . . In conflict resolution, what's at stake is why you're doing the task.​

That's it. It's that simple.

Of course, there are implications. Conflict resolution can't take place, for instance, if actions are declared without intentions, without being aimed at things. Nor can it take place if the GM has already decided (on the spot, in virtue of secret backstory, whatever) that the intent cannot be achieved by succeeding at the task.

And task resolution will look pretty railroad-y if the GM just makes stuff up. (As opposed to, say, referring to a pre-authored map-and-key which the players are supposed to be puzzling out.) Task resolution will work best if the players are committed to unravelling the GM's conception of the fictional situation, with the tasks being the method for working that out.

What prevents the players from interacting with a piece of unrevealed backstory in play before you have revealed it? If they can, then if they do how do you maintain that backstory while saying yes or rolling the dice?

If you're actively revealing the town in play, how do you envisage this happening? Like, why would you not either (i) say 'yes', and reveal the relevant bit of backstory as part of the process of revealing the town and driving play towards conflict, or else (ii) frame a conflict in which the relevant bit of backstory figures in the stakes, or as opposition, or perhaps both?

Conflict between player aspirations for an action declaration, and hitherto unrevealed backstory, arises when the GM is committed to retaining the backstory as secret unless prompted to reveal it by an appropriate action declaration - the canonical example is a "searching"-type action in dungeon-based D&D. Actively revealing the town in play as part of "driving play towards conflict* is basically the exact opposite of this.

 

[pemerton]

Just an observation, but it seems to me most of the discussion is now hinging on some fundamental definitions which are being used to define the higher level concepts we are discussing - which is impacting our ability to communicate in the rest of the discourse.

Action
Scene
Resolution
No-Myth
Etc.

There’s also a discussion framework where one side talks a lot more in the abstract and the other wants concrete examples - which would normally be fine, except the abstract things we are discussing are presumably about possibilities for games that don’t currently exist. Somethings going to have to give there or discussion is going to grind to a standstill.

What I would love to see is a set of complete definitions given so that the ground doesn’t constantly shift beneath my feat as I analyze the relationships between all the concepts. Probably a pipe dream, but that to me would be ideal.

Part of why I’m stuck arguing intuitions (ex: this doesn’t seem or sound right) is because these definitions are not given, such that we quickly get into disagreement about what constitutes something as simple sounding as an action - which a larger point hinges upon - leaving us unable to resolve the larger point.

Have you read the rules for, and/or played, any RPG that does not use GM-as-glue, 3E/5e D&D-style resolution?

Have you ever played or GMed no myth? I posted a link to two actual play reports of no myth RPGing. Did you read them?

Have you read the blog that I linked to. Any of the other posts on that page? Have you read the core of the rulebook for Burning Wheel, which can be downloaded for free from DriveThruRPG? I posted a link to a Torchbearer actual play report, which is in a thread with several others. Did you read any of them?

None of this stuff is particularly esoteric, or hard to find material about. If you are not confident in what you are talking about, I think the responsibility lies with you, not others, to strengthen your grasp.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you are not confident in what you are talking about, I think the responsibility lies with you, not others, to strengthen your grasp.

It’s your theory, your framework. How do you expect me to know what you mean unless you tell me? And how am I supposed to analyze it all unless you tell me all I need to know up front?

-Maybe the whole point is that I’m not supposed to - maybe I’m just supposed to accept everything said as just the way it is.

Because when I actually bring points up that I am confident about, what should have been a settled definition changes before my eyes.

 

[clearstream]

1. Isn’t that the purpose of all resolution - to establish a process to determine what happens next?

For the sake of argument, let's banish the idea of task resolution. Let's say that the sole thing we're interested in is that our method of resolution bindingly decides if goals are achieved. And that we are entirely impartial as to how goals are fed into that system. Maybe it's player character performances signalling player goals. Maybe it's players declaring them outright. Doesn't matter.

it's conflict resolution iff the process of resolution decides what happens next in regard to player goals​

​

The part in italics was I felt implied by context, but here I've spelt it out.

2. The question IMO is more, what role does the DM play in that process. Generally he is determining what happens on a fail state (sometimes with more constraints, sometimes less). The process just dictates whether that determination occurs before or after the dice are rolled.

It has to be player goals, incidentally, because no one else in our circle of play is entitled to have them. Anyone entitled to have goals relating to setting, situation and characters, is a player. How does that sound? Only players have conflicts in-game. The term is meaningless for referees and spectators. Therefore conflict resolution can only be about players.

 

[pemerton]

It’s your theory, your framework. How do you expect me to know what you mean unless you tell me? And how am I supposed to analyze it all unless you tell me all I need to know up front?

It's Vincent Baker, not me. And I've already told you how you can learn it: read his blogs. They're not secret. I've linked to several off them.

Maybe the whole point is that I’m not supposed to - maybe I’m just supposed to accept everything said as just the way it is.

Because when I actually bring points up that I am confident about, what should have been a settled definition changes before my eyes.

I don't know what points you're referring to, or what "settled definitions" you have in mind. But none of this is secret society stuff.

Download the Burning Wheel Hubs and Spokes, and read it. Now you'll know what is meant by "intent and task", "say 'yes' or roll the dice", and "let it ride".

Read the blog I linked to on No Myth. Now you'll know what that means.

Read Vincent Baker's post about conflict vs task resolution, that I've linked to and quoted from several times upthread. Now you'll know what those things are, and will be able to correlate them with what you're read in the BW rules. And will be able to also see the contrast with the D&D 5e rules that @clearstream posted upthread.

Have you done all (or any) of that yet?

 

[clearstream]

Just in case it isn't obvious, at this point I disavow "task resolution" as an empty and rather absurd construct. Fortunately, it's also not needed for understanding of conflict resolution. If anything, it confuses matters.

EDIT: to make this point a little clearer, the problem Baker points to - that's GM intervention rendering the resolution method void. We don't need to roll dice for GM to say something arbitrary. That's absence of resolution. Or conceivably, its Drama (from Drama Karma Fortune.)

The accurate counterpart of conflict resolution is not "task resolution", it's absence of resolution or it's drama resolution. I'm inclined toward the former, but you can see how the latter fits quite well the demand for certain performances.

 

[pemerton]

On "secret backstory".

There is an approach to RPGing in which the GM "hoards" the secret backstory, and parcels it out in small bits, and only when the players declare the correct actions for their PCs to trigger such parcelling out. Depending on the RPG in question, and the details of those declared actions, this parcelling out may or may not be gated behind a check. Eg in classic D&D, if a player opens a door, the GM will tell them what their PC sees with no check required. Whereas listening at a door will typically trigger a check.

The gameplay reason for this is fairly apparent - in classic D&D, opening a door may trigger an encounter (hence is a higher-stakes action) whereas listening at a door typically won't (and so, being a lower-stakes action, has a lower expected pay-off). Later, non-classic versions of D&D tend to retain this contrast in resolution methods even though the gameplay rationale has somewhat faded, though I'm sure some D&D players overlay a theory of the reliability of sight vs hearing as methods of obtaining knowledge via the senses.

CoC uses a lot of checks, but not so much for listening at doors as for searching for and through esoteric volumes, studying art and architecture, etc. The gameplay reason for this is not apparent at all, and it's no surprise that GUMSHOE does away with many of these checks and replaces them with the same "GM narrates" approach as classic D&D uses for opened doors.

In all these games, obtaining information from the GM is, at least to some reasonable extent, its own reward. It is a point of play.

These games generally use task resolution in these information-gathering contexts.

There is a different approach to RPGing in which the GM does not hoard the secret backstory, but reveals it at every opportunity, using it to frame the PCs (and thereby the players) into conflicts, using it to taunt the players or make ironic points, using it to confront them with questions or quandaries about what they should do - where the "should" there is the should of ethics or morality, not the should of expedience or rational calculation.

Vincent Baker explains and illustrates this latter approach on pp 138-9 of the DitV rulebook:

The town you’ve made has secrets. It has, quite likely, terrible secrets — blood and sex and murder and damnation.

But you the GM, you don’t have secrets a’tall. Instead, you have cool things — bloody, sexy, murderous, damned cool things — that you can’t wait to share. . . .

The PCs arrive in town. I have someone meet them. They ask how things are going. The person says that, well, things are going okay, mostly. The PCs say, “mostly?”

And I’m like “uh oh. They’re going to figure out what’s wrong in the town! Better stonewall. Poker face: on!” And then I’m like “wait a sec. I want them to figure out what’s wrong in the town. In fact, I want to show them what’s wrong! Otherwise they’ll wander around waiting for me to drop them a clue, I’ll have my dumb poker face on, and we’ll be bored stupid the whole evening.”

So instead of having the NPC say “oh no, I meant that things are going just fine, and I shut up now,” I have the NPC launch into his or her tirade. “Things are awful! This person’s sleeping with this other person not with me, they murdered the schoolteacher, blood pours down the meeting house walls every night!”

...Or sometimes, the NPC wants to lie, instead. That’s okay! I have the NPC lie. You’ve watched movies. You always can tell when you’re watching a movie who’s lying and who’s telling the truth. And wouldn’t you know it, most the time the players are looking at me with skeptical looks, and I give them a little sly nod that yep, she’s lying. And they get these great, mean, tooth-showing grins — because when someone lies to them, ho boy does it not work out.

Then the game goes somewhere.​

The preceding is all under the heading Actively reveal the town in play.

This is how the GM Drives play toward conflict and Escalates, Escalates, Escalates. By using this pre-authored material to provoke the players, respond to their choices, as Baker puts it (p 141) "'really? Even now? Even now? Really?'"

The difference between the two approaches is a real thing.