RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[pemerton]

Ah, well, I have certainly NO first hand DitV experience. That's interesting, so there's a kind of 'man against environment' kind of thing there, with it being a kind of an almost active malevolent force. I can see how that would be both a useful device and an interesting aspect of play from a narrative/milieu kind of perspective.

I don't have play experience either! But am going from the rules. It's interesting to see how it builds on In A Wicked Age (which I have played).

(MHRP has something similar, with actions against the Doom Pool if there's no opposing character.)

 

[clearstream]

Well, if (a) is true it would be mighty perverse play if the players then were unwilling to execute on their own stated desires. I would expect such a game to implode, basically, or else effectively reboot itself.

The more important implication is that they may execute on goals established by someone or means other than themselves.

As for the "one can predict their performances will resolve them" I think if I am understanding this correctly then I don't agree. It is by no means certain that the players SUCCEED in acting out their character's goals. This is in fact the essential nut of play! Play to Find Out! That's what it means. Dare to dream, put your money on the table, and be prepared to lose it! Otherwise what the heck are you here for, go play yourself some Neo-Trad where the outcomes are dictated by the players! (more or less).

Who said "succeed"? Resolve.

 

[clearstream]

Because it literally does not contain a description of WHAT I DID. I mean, yes, as I even stated, the two may virtually become indistinguishable and interchangeable in some contexts. "I eat the pizza!" is an action declaration, but it probably also largely subsumes and implies the goal of "having the gustatory experience of pizza-eating" or maybe "having the nutritional experience of pizza-eating" (and which is the primary focus is likely abundantly apparent from context). "I try to disrupt her spell casting" is a nothing-burger as far as D&D-like systems go, it might as well not have even been uttered as it adds nothing but color to the proceeding. Now that, or the off-balance one, MAY prompt the GM, in some cases to invent an action for themselves, but that's just lazy playing! I mean, most of us probably do this kind of thing often, but its still not the full explication of what's HAPPENING. The GM is taking control of the PC and saying "Well, he's a fighter standing in front of this other guy, OK he probably shoves him..." Honestly I'm surprised this sort of thing doesn't get your hackles up, as you are IME pretty hostile to GMs filling in the blanks in other contexts.

But the GM isn't going to 'want' such clarification, it is ABSOLUTELY VITAL to have it, because you cannot adjudicate "I want to push him over", you MUST adjudicate something like "I step forward, sword across my chest, and shove him hard!" Again, the GM can take over the PC and basically say this, or at least assume it, and proceed, perhaps. Even that won't always be possible.

No, you may be used to making light of the process and thus obscuring the distinction, but it is a vital distinction!

I've read these same debates many times over the years, in multiple forums. If one wants to salvage "task resolution" then a route sometimes pursued is to consider immediacy of action to goal. I've used the word "absurd" to describe at least one definition of task resolution offered in this thread, which is an accurate characterisation of what happens if one detaches player character performances from goals. Consider -

Player: "I climb the wall"​

GM: "Okay, roll for perfomance"​

Player: "nat-20!"​

GM: "That's some nice climbing"​

Player: "I'm at the top now, right?"​

GM: "Oh no, you've just done some really nice climbing. Top notch."​

Player: "So... I need to roll again?"​

GM: "No need, we've got your performance. Great climbing. Really good."​

​

It's absurd, and it's not necessary to have any construct in mind for task resolution in order to understand conflict resolution.

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

​

What this shows is that if you want to counterspell banishing for "task resolution" then you have some work to do. Players do not declare goaless actions. Go ahead and observe some actual play. Bring back examples of players declaring actions where their only motive is the performance of the action and not the effect they hoped it would have.

I can readily buy that what has been called "task resolution" is a form of drama resolution: GM considers not what players want, but how their characters act. Others have described the "puzzle" this produces: what act will lead to the desired effect? But I cannot buy that players declare intentionless performances.

 

[clearstream]

Can a game provide mechanics that depending on how they are used be what you term-drama resolution in some cases and conflict resolution in others?

I'm going to answer this obliquely. In all cases I am assuming that players say what their characters do, and either in saying that or in additional speech acts say what they intend (their goals). So conflict resolution and drama resolution are separated not by what players say, but by how that relates to what is acheived.

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"​

It's "task resolution". Roll: Success!​

"You crack the safe, but there's no dirt in there, just a bunch of in-order papers."​

Here, GM deemed it was dramatically inappropriate for character to find the papers in the safe. Alternatively, GM deemed that "get dirt on the supervillain" was reaching, and made good on the legitimate intent (crack the safe.) The difference is found in the play leading up to this moment. Alternatively, GM was arbitrary.

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"​

It's conflict resolution. Roll: Success!​

"The safe's too tough to crack, but as you're turning away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket..."​

Here, GM took note of players wider intent and ignored whether or not their immediate action succeeded in its goal of cracking the safe: they gave them the dirt (in the wastebasket). Note my change from original, in bold. (This, by the way, is the unspoken "cost" of conflict resolution, that often comes up when folk have doubts about it. How do we make sure that declared performances matter? Fiction-first directly addresses that: creating the binary I emphasised so many times upthread.)

That is does drama and conflict resolution define the system itself or specific instances in the system?

The system defines it: that's its job. If such definition is absent or ambiguous, or insufficiently compelling, then obviously groups will have to find their own way. This is one reason not to defend inadequate constructs. Where rules can't be followed, they won't be followed. Consider three kinds of GM in this light

Arbitrary GM - Who knows what they will do? Rules have no hold on them, and they follow no rules... not even their own.​

Conflict GM - Listens to player goals and ensures that whatever their means of resolution is, resolves them.​

​

Drama GM - Observes player acts and thinks about setting, situation, relationships and tensions, and demands of story. Ensures that when performances fit, they achieve the anticipated goals. (Could also be called "performance resolution" as you suggested.)​

​

D&D can (and often is) run as a mix - conflict for combat, drama for most everything else. It can also be run as conflict all the way through (by my "virtuous GM" who is consistently player goal regarding.) Baker anticipated this mixture

In conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it. It's possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a win anyway.​

​

Nothing prevents a mix, but where designer intends that, their system ought to define the intended resolution method for each facet of play.

 

[pemerton]

Suppose that we redefine conflict resolution so that it includes I climb to the top of the wall to see what I can see, then resolved by a climbing check to see if they get there; or I skulk in the shadows as best I can, so that no one can see me, resolved via a stealth check that forms the DC for Perception checks by unknown NPCs under the GM's control. And that it includes play where all consequences of both success and failure are decided by the GM, with or without discussion with the players and with or without making those things clear prior to the dice being rolled.

Now everything counts as conflict resolution. Playing through Dragonlance or Dead Gods using the rules of AD&D and the instructions in the modules counts as conflict resolution. Terrific.

Now can we now please be offered a new term to describe the difference in resolution processes captured by Vincent Baker's blog post and John Harper's diagrams? As I posted upthread (post 840), the difference is a real thing, and defining away all the terminology coined to describe it won't make the difference itself disappear.

 

[Lanefan]

I've read these same debates many times over the years, in multiple forums. If one wants to salvage "task resolution" then a route sometimes pursued is to consider immediacy of action to goal. I've used the word "absurd" to describe at least one definition of task resolution offered in this thread, which is an accurate characterisation of what happens if one detaches player character performances from goals. Consider -

Player: "I climb the wall"​

GM: "Okay, roll for perfomance"​

Player: "nat-20!"​

GM: "That's some nice climbing"​

Player: "I'm at the top now, right?"​

GM: "Oh no, you've just done some really nice climbing. Top notch."​

Player: "So... I need to roll again?"​

GM: "No need, we've got your performance. Great climbing. Really good."​

​

It's absurd, and it's not necessary to have any construct in mind for task resolution in order to understand conflict resolution.

Were I the player here, in place of the bolded I'd be asking "So...if I'm not at the top, where the hell am I?"

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

​

What this shows is that if you want to counterspell banishing for "task resolution" then you have some work to do. Players do not declare goaless actions. Go ahead and observe some actual play. Bring back examples of players declaring actions where their only motive is the performance of the action and not the effect they hoped it would have.

I can readily buy that what has been called "task resolution" is a form of drama resolution: GM considers not what players want, but how their characters act. Others have described the "puzzle" this produces: what act will lead to the desired effect? But I cannot buy that players declare intentionless performances.

I've seen it happen occasionally, where a player (who might have been me, now and then ) has a character do something just for the merry hell of it, with no real goal in mind beyond "because I can, I will" or "just for practice". Declaring an intentionless action or performance isn't common, but it's also not unheard of.

Here, the player might have had the PC climb the wall for no other reason than to show off her climbing skills.

 

[Aldarc]

This is just silly. The blogs are all there, and I've linked to them. Have you read them?

Are they in any of the 1e D&D game books? If not, then the answer is and will be no. But I promise you that the strength and conviction of my opinions about those blog entries will be inversely proportionate to how little of them I have read.

Saying that this stuff is all unknowable, and that all you can do is sceptically question other posters, is ridiculous.

Could you imagine a student writing this in a paper or even discussing this in a debate?

"I guess we have no idea what John Rawls thought about democratic societies because they're dead so we can only ask people who talk about Rawls."

Meanwhile you're just silently screaming on the inside, "Yes, we do know what he thought about this basic issue. Read the freaking books, essays, and lectures that were all provided for you in the syllabus and class materials!"

 

[pemerton]

@Aldarc

Obviously it's a complete mystery what Vincent Baker and John Harper think a good conflict resolution system would look like!

 

[clearstream]

Suppose that we redefine conflict resolution so that it includes I climb to the top of the wall to see what I can see, then resolved by a climbing check to see if they get there; or I skulk in the shadows as best I can, so that no one can see me, resolved via a stealth check that forms the DC for Perception checks by unknown NPCs under the GM's control. And that it includes play where all consequences of both success and failure are decided by the GM, with or without discussion with the players and with or without making those things clear prior to the dice being rolled.

Now everything counts as conflict resolution. Playing through Dragonlance of Dead Gods using the rules of AD&D and the instructions in the modules counts as conflict resolution. Terrific.

Now can we now please be offered a new term to describe the difference in resolution processes captured by Vincent Baker's blog post and John Harper's diagrams? As I posted upthread (post 840), the difference is a real thing, and defining away all the terminology coined to describe it won't make the difference itself disappear.

My posts #814 and #817 cover the closed scene resolution that yields the gameflow in Harper's top diagram. Players pursue goals they've accepted. Resolving those yields the gameflow shown. I haven't paid much attention to his bottom diagram. It's could arise in all kinds of ways, including as a result of unlucky or error-prone players whose GM is upholding conflict resolution.

I've offered new terms already - it's either drama resolution or immediacy. Assuming everyone by now has read Baker's 2004 anyway blog posts I can run through related examples to elucidate what I've said. Vincent is great at drawing attention to what is going on with the people at the table (negotiation, character sheet as player resource). In a similar vein, focus on what is going on with the person who is GM.

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"​

It's conflict resolution. Roll: Success!​

"The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket..."​

​

This is what I've called the "rawest" form of conflict resolution. GM cleaves to resolving player's stated goal. If that's all their doing, character performance is irrelevant. If your intuition is that performance should matter and GM would be unlikely to really do this, then you have to ask, why?

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"​

It's task resolution. Roll: Success!​

"The safe's still shut, but that's some top-notch cracking you're doing there. You've gently rotated the dial, marked tumbler positions, all that good stuff."​

​

This shows why what I called the "rawest" form of "task resolution". GM ignores even the immediate goal of "the safe is cracked" and just narrates the performance. I'm pretty sure no one thinks GMs really do this. Turning briefly to @Lanefan's proposed counter-case

Here, the player might have had the PC climb the wall for no other reason than to show off her climbing skills.

(Emphasis mine.) @Lanefan inserted a goal - "to show off her climbing skills". To make that clearer, suppose player declares "I do some climbing to show off my climbing skills" and GM resolves how skillful that climbing is. That fits exactly with what I've described.

So here's "task resolution" when it means immediacy of goal to performance

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "To see what's inside"​

It's task resolution. Roll: Success!​

"You crack the safe and see what is inside."​

GM and player take a parsimonious view of what the fictional-position legitimates. And here's "task resolution" when it means drama resolution or fitness of act given setting, scene etc

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"​

It's "task resolution". Roll: Success!​

"You crack the safe, but the supervillain doesn't keep their incriminating papers where the honest mayor could easily find them!"​

​

I've added some internal dramatic justification to indicate possible GM thought processes. But what if the scene was set up in a way they felt was dramatically compelling?

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"​

It's "task resolution". Roll: Success!​

"You crack the safe and just as the honest mayor promised, the dirt is inside!"​

​

The GM is a person at the table following a process, in this case they felt that player preparations made finding the dirt the compelling outcome of opening the safe. Drama resolution is unpredictable in exactly the way observed (for "task resolution"). But there is a third option - arbitrary GM...

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!"​

It's "task resolution". Roll: Success!​

"You crack the safe, and inside is a pony"​

​

Like I said, I'm philosphically skeptical of knowing anything about what arbitrary GM might say. Perhaps they think ponies are found inside safes? That sounds crazy only because even when they're not following rules, GM's overwhelmingly tend to follow norms!

As folk in other forums have repeatedly observed, dividing so-called "task resolution" from conflict resolution on the basis of immediacy yields blurred lines. I can choose what I put on one side, and what on the other, and someone else can make different choices. Cue debate.

If we focus on dividing conflict resolution from drama resolution, that means something decisive. If GM or better yet, system sets up expectations - that the way we do resolution in this game is drama - players know it's about the right performance at the right time. It straight up answers question sushc as those folk have had about whether player performance should/should-not be taken into account in character social interactions.

Obviously it's a complete mystery what Vincent Baker and John Harper think a good conflict resolution system would look like!

The problem folk hit is that in the end, everyone wants fictional position to legitimate effect. The meaningful decision is - how much weight do you want to put on character performance? If you require character performance to succeed before any effect it has can deliver on any broader goal - and provided it does, make that goal also succeed - then you have "task resolution" gate-keeps "conflict resolution": which you might as well call conflict resolution.

Having worked through what he did, Baker chose to build AW moves as binaries. Pairing fictional-positions to menus of effects. If I want the effect I must declare the right performance ("to do it, do it"). Getting the dramatic necessities in place. It's a brilliant move and fits exactly what I am describing. By putting it up front, the apparent capriciousness of drama resolution is dissolved.

 

[clearstream]

Here's a simple diagram, to help out

drama resolution <----------------------> conflict resolution

If you 100% care whether set up and performance are right, before you will say yes, you're on the left.

If you 100% care what player said they wanted to achieve, you're on the right.

Nearly all play falls somewhere between those poles.