RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[FrogReaver]

Maybe not! So here again is conflict resolution:

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

Player goals are any goals players choose to pursue, regardless of how they're expressed or established. And here again is rehabilitated task resolution:

it's task resolution if the process of resolution decides how a performance counts toward a creative purpose​

Creative purpose could be dramatic vision, could be strategic challenge, could be elevated appreciation. You put it that

I've doubly emphasised correct to draw attention to its nature as a measurement against criteria. What counts? What is legitimate? What is directed in just the right way? I've described all that as "counts toward a creative purpose."

I think what you are calling task resolution is conflict resolution. More accurately, I think it’s a subset of conflict resolution. At least based on the definitions you provide.

As you had noted before - no task is intentionless. Thus all task resolution decides what happens in regard to player intentions/goals. Thus, task resolution always meets your conflict resolution definition. Task resolution then also has an additional requirement - one you’ve stated above that I’m not fully understanding the meaning of as written - but nonetheless - an additional requirement.

 

[FrogReaver]

Here’s my starting take.
1. There is resolution based on player intentions
2. There is resolution not based on player intentions

Most resolution methods are player intention based. I struggle to think of any game that has resolution not based on player intentions. Maybe a railroad?

We can then breakdown resolution based on player intentions into further types.

Will expand more in a bit, but wanted to get the ball rolling.

 

[FrogReaver]

Now for subtypes of player intention based resolution, with some additional comments.

Since we are describing a fairly simple concept so far there aren’t many aspects we can split subcategories around. We can either categorize into types of player intents and/or types of resolution.

So what would be the best differentiators of player intents and what the best differentiator of resolutions?

My first thought is whether the dm can change the players stated intent before proceeding to resolution. But maybe there’s a better one, or maybe there are multiple good ones.

Then for resolution - whether all outcomes were decided upon before the dice were rolled or whether some outcomes can be determined after the dice are rolled. While not as important to me, that really seems to be of paramount importance to some.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Most resolution methods are player intention based. I struggle to think of any game that has resolution not based on player intentions. Maybe a railroad?

I'm not sure we need to reframe things like this, but, setting that aside -- I think, if a system does not require that the GM honor a player's intent in narrating a resolution or if it does not require that a player reveal her intent when declaring an action, then we can't really say the game has resolution based on player intentions.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not sure we need to reframe things like this, but, setting that aside -- I think, if a system does not require that the GM honor a player's intent in narrating a resolution or if it does not require that a player reveal her intent when declaring an action, then we can't really say the game has resolution based on player intentions.

So the reason I separate like this is that If the intent is ‘try to do X for Y’ then saying ‘no, Y isn’t achieved’ is still honoring both action and intent of ‘try to do X for Y’.

Every game I can think of (other than maybe a railroad) does this at a minimum.

Said another way - Players won’t have intentions to achieve results that a stated action under their games resolution framework won’t allow.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

So the reason I separate like this is that If the intent is ‘try to do X for Y’ then saying ‘no, Y isn’t achieved’ is still honoring both action and intent of ‘try to do X for Y’.

You're a step down the line from me here. I'm not making an argument about whether saying "no" can ever honor a player's intent for a declared action. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, a game can only have intention-based resolution if it explicitly requires the two things that I've listed above in its rules. You could play a game such that it does work this way, even if the rules don't require it, but that'd be a house rule. And I've played in a number of games where players have hidden their intentions for action declarations or declared actions almost algorithmically, and these games have been exhausting but otherwise chugged along in accordance with the rules. Mostly this has been D&D (every edition but OD&D, which I've not played), but it's not only been there.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm not sure we need to reframe things like this, but, setting that aside -- I think, if a system does not require that the GM honor a player's intent in narrating a resolution or if it does not require that a player reveal her intent when declaring an action, then we can't really say the game has resolution based on player intentions.

And I don't think D&D for example has these things. Intent is often just implied, and merely the obvious causal outcome of the action chosen. And the GM doesn't need to honour the intent, they're allowed to block it due the hidden myth.

 

[FrogReaver]

And I don't think D&D for example has these things. Intent is often just implied, and merely the obvious causal outcome of the action chosen. And the GM doesn't need to honour the intent, they're allowed to block it due the hidden myth.

Ive never seen a d&d GM not honor the players intent. The d&d player doesn’t intend to do things the rules won’t support, thus the d&d player never intends to go against hidden myth - hence why their intent is virtually always - ‘try instead of do’

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ive never seen a d&d GM not honor the players intent. The d&d player doesn’t intend to do things the rules won’t support, thus the d&d player never intends to go against hidden myth - hence why their intent is virtually always - ‘try instead of do’

I see. Sure, if the intent is always just to try, then we can argue that you can "try" even if the GM decrees that you automatically fail. But I am not sure this is what is usually meant by honouring the intent.

Though this is related to the important point of what sort of action declarations the players are allowed to make in the first place. Basically any game has some sort of limit on this. The discussion about downgrading the stakes in DitV was about this. In some games the GM is allowed to deny the action declaration, in some the outcome; but in either case it is the GM saying that the thing is a no go.

 

[FrogReaver]

I see. Sure, if the intent is always just to try, then we can argue that you can "try" even if the GM decrees that you automatically fail. But I am not sure this is what is usually meant by honouring the intent.

It’s fine if they mean something else. I just want to be specific there. If they mean something else they are either saying ‘try’ is not a valid intent or that honoring an intent of ‘try’ means a lot more than letting them try. Both seem really strange stances to me, but they can mean whatever they want. It just seems there would be a better way of describing that.

Though this is related to the important point of what sort of action declarations the players are allowed to make in the first place. Basically any game has some sort of limit on this. The discussion about downgrading the stakes in DitV was about this. In some games the GM is allowed to deny the action declaration, in some the outcome; but in either case it is the GM saying that the thing is a no go.

Indeed! The kinds of valid action declarations inform the players about the things they can intend to do with their actions, such that a player playing by the rules and groups norms will only ever have intentions they can actually have in that game.

What we see occurring is intentions from other games getting smuggled across games - and both sides do this. It’s the crux of most arguments about how various games function.

D&D player introduced to Story Now games - since a player in d&d typically cannot intend to do more than try, it feels like something else is going on when the player of another game describes intending to recall knowledge and success doesn’t mean he tried well, but that he gets to introduce facts about the thing he is trying to recall knowledge about. The difference there is in intent, not having and not having intent, rather how the intent differs in both.

Likewise from the story now player perspective, if the intent in d&d is only to try and he’s used to being allowed more elaborate intents, then it can almost seem like d&d doesn’t really involve intent play and especially not the kinds of intents he’s used to.

And this all goes back into how some jargon is being codified to describe one game type despite another game type doing the same kinds of things as defined by natural albeit in different ways. That’s what’s so frustrating about dealing with this specific set of jargon. If you define the difference between 2 games around intent (or whatever), then it’s really hard for me to explain how my game features intent albeit in a different way (or whatever concept you are associating with only one game and not the other).