RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[clearstream]

Yet it's blindingly obvious that the difference is very big. And it consists in a range of things, including how stakes are established (in part in virtue of how prepped fiction is actively revealed in play) and how conflicts are resolved and how consequences of conflicts are established.

That difference is what is labelled by contrasting task resolution and conflict resolution.

And we can boil it down to a single example: in classic D&D play, there is nothing degenerate about an action declaration to listen at a door, or to search for a secret door, even though the GM knows there is nothing to be discovered by doing so. In DitV that is a degenerate situation: as I posted way upthread in response to @Crimson Longinus, it would be a sign that the GM has made some sort of error in their play of the game.

These differences in principles, procedures, technical modes of resolution - they are real things.

If you have no familiarity with any games that use conflict resolution, or that use closed scene resolution, then on what basis are you making confident assertions about how they do and don't play, and how the techniques that they use do or don't work?

And here's another example:
Let me post the following once again:

​

Whether you roll for each flash of the blade or only for the whole fight is a whole nother issue: scale, not task vs. conflict. This is sometimes confusing for people; you say "conflict resolution" and they think you mean "resolve the whole scene with one roll." No, actually you can conflict-resolve a single blow, or task-resolve the whole fight in one roll:​

​

"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."​

This sort of example is why I count immediate, parsimonious intents into conflict resolution, i.e. I don't get hung up on blurring the lines on account of immediacy.

"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?)​

​

(Those examples show small-scale conflict resolution vs. large-scale task resolution.)​

Here I am thinking about what principles or rules compell GM one way or another (and their purpose). Game designers lean heavily on GMs... or perhaps aim to keep it open. As given, the resolution method here gives no output relevant to reaching the ship (no time quotient, no distance travelled, no dramatic progress.) It's down to GM to have something in mind and apply it. All this one-roll combat resolution method is doing is gatekeeping referee-side resolution.

"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: Fail!​

"He beats you! Disarm's you, and kicks your butt! The ship slips its berth... without you."​

It's natural here to suppose fail would resolve intent (negatively) but that was still down to referee. I'm finding the mental model of task resolution as gate useful.

player intentional act > performance result > intent resolved​

​

player intentional act > performance result > contribution to creative purpose resolved​

To close this thread, let me reiterate this: in classic D&D play, there is nothing degenerate about an action declaration to listen at a door, or to search for a secret door, even though the GM knows there is nothing to be discovered by doing so. In DitV that is a degenerate situation: it would be a sign that the GM has made some sort of error in their play of the game.

As I've noted upthread, it changes the information state of the game. In D&D it may be a weak action, but it's not a degenerate one. Listening at the door is done to make it less likely (on silence) that it is dangerous to open it. If we open one hundred doors with random dungeon rooms behind them, and listen at all of them: that will reduce our dangerous-door-opening-rate.

 

[clearstream]

I think there's more substance to this than you are asserting here. D&D 'task' resolution differs substantively from more narrativist 'intent' resolution. As I stated in my previous post, the differences may get blurred at times because we often use shortcuts and assumed context in play, eliding the specific actions in something like D&D, or likewise simply describing the fictional action taken in, say, BitD. So it can seem like they're 'the same thing', but they're not in the critical sense of WHAT IS THE THING IN DOUBT. In straight up D&D task play you throw dice to see if the action you described your character taking is, ATOMICALLY successful, that is if the blow you attempted to strike lands, if you were able to climb successfully (the unit of success here will vary depending on edition), etc. Canonically when a character in a D&D game is said to be taking a swing, and the dice indicate a miss, then the blow itself does not land, and cannot be described as landing. This is the heart of the hostility towards DOAM, because it is undermining the very nature of task-based resolution!

As @pemerton just drew attention to, Baker says it's not about immediacy. Even parsimonious intents, if resolved are conflict resolution. If your intent of rolling for the blow is "does it land" and your method resolves that, it's conflict resolution.

player intentional act (strike with sword) > performance result (hit with sword) > intent resolved​

But - and I think this will be the objection in your mind - that's not quite Baker's example

"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."​

We resolve the slash landing to determine if we get the effect of force off-balance. And that is what players actually intend with their strikes in D&D combat. It's

"I strike at the troll, like ha!" "Why?" "To deal my weapon damage!"​

Conflict Resolution: do you deal your weapon damage?​

Roll: Loss!​

"It ducks side to side! Avoids your slashes."​

I guess I'm saying that I don't agree that players strike for the sake of striking. I've never seen that. Baker too, muses on this point. I feel like it is better not to make it about immediacy, so as to avoid blurred lines and better see the utility of task resolution to play. I want to use task resolution when I want to decide outcomes on some basis other than - players aimed to do it.

 

[clearstream]

'I want to look in the car to find my lost phone.' Is my intent to look in the car, to find my lost phone, or to look in the car to find my lost phone? One sentence, at least 3 possible intents!

More likely, I want my lost phone because I need to call my grandmother to check she's okay after her hospital visit. Do I need to call my grandmother, or do I need to know she's okay?

Hence we should set aside questions of parsimony and immediacy in deciding if a resolution method is conflict resolution. Does it resolve a player intent? Any intent or all them, doesn't matter. If yes, it's conflict resolution. D&D combat uses conflict resolution. I roll to hit to resolve my intent to deal my weapon damage.

 

[clearstream]

We've focused a ton on putative distinctions between task resolution and conflict resolution, trying to see the one in light of the other. What I've called rehabilitated task resolution requires a different perspective. The focus is on - what is the utility to play of resolving something other than what players aim to do?

"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."​

What is the utility in play? Why does this make sense for groups who love playing this way? What did resolution resolve, if it wasn't the player's aim? Was it a void act with no meaning?

"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "To rule it out of possible locations for 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 I've interpreted "hopefully" to mean "rule it out of possibility". Is it now conflict resolution? If task resolution doesn't resolve what players aim to do, then I haven't yet gone far enough.

 

[FrogReaver]

As @pemerton just drew attention to, Baker says it's not about immediacy. Even parsimonious intents, if resolved are conflict resolution. If your intent of rolling for the blow is "does it land" and your method resolves that, it's conflict resolution.

player intentional act (strike with sword) > performance result (hit with sword) > intent resolved​

But - and I think this will be the objection in your mind - that's not quite Baker's example

"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."​

We resolve the slash landing to determine if we get the effect of force off-balance. And that is what players actually intend with their strikes in D&D combat. It's

"I strike at the troll, like ha!" "Why?" "To deal my weapon damage!"​

Conflict Resolution: do you deal your weapon damage?​

Roll: Loss!​

"It ducks side to side! Avoids your slashes."​

I guess I'm saying that I don't agree that players strike for the sake of striking. I've never seen that. Baker too, muses on this point. I feel like it is better not to make it about immediacy, so as to avoid blurred lines and better see the utility of task resolution to play. I want to use task resolution when I want to decide outcomes on some basis other than - players aimed to do it.

You've said this much better than me. This is what I was on about so many pages back when I talked about framing the intent.

 

[pemerton]

I think there's more substance to this than you are asserting here. D&D 'task' resolution differs substantively from more narrativist 'intent' resolution. As I stated in my previous post, the differences may get blurred at times because we often use shortcuts and assumed context in play, eliding the specific actions in something like D&D, or likewise simply describing the fictional action taken in, say, BitD. So it can seem like they're 'the same thing', but they're not in the critical sense of WHAT IS THE THING IN DOUBT. In straight up D&D task play you throw dice to see if the action you described your character taking is, ATOMICALLY successful, that is if the blow you attempted to strike lands, if you were able to climb successfully (the unit of success here will vary depending on edition), etc. Canonically when a character in a D&D game is said to be taking a swing, and the dice indicate a miss, then the blow itself does not land, and cannot be described as landing. This is the heart of the hostility towards DOAM, because it is undermining the very nature of task-based resolution!

All this, 100%.

In AD&D, the action declaration "I climb to the top of the statue" is completely well-formed. Once there, the player can then declare "I search for secret doors". And that action declaration, too, is completely well-formed whether or not the GM's notes record the existence of a secret door to be found.

A player who suspects there's a trap in the doorway can declare "I jump into the room, not touching the floor in the doorway". They don't need to mention that they are trying to avoid a trap. Their action declaration is well-formed even if, as per the GM's notes, there is no trap. And nothing about the resolution of the jumping action in itself is affected by the presence or absence of a trap: eg if the action fails, and the PC lands clumsily short of where they had hoped to land, then if there is no trap there this costs them nothing; and likewise if there is no trap there, jumping over the doorway successfully gains them nothing either.

This sort of thing is part and parcel of classic D&D play. It's completely different from Burning Wheel or even from Torchbearer.

So, I mentioned players hiding intentions for action declarations and declaring actions algorithmically. For me, at my table, these would both be examples of dysfunctional play in most games. (I'd be inclined to be less bothered with them in more adversarial games, like if I were running old tournament modules or something similar.)

If a player makes an action declaration and hides their intention, what are we resolving in play? What's the situation?

<snip>

I actually think a player declaring actions algorithmically is even worse in most situations because there's an intentionality to it and a hostile undertone — the player has a clear endpoint they're aiming at, which I would argue is their intent, but we're going to resolve a series of tasks that solve that intent partially in order for the player to avoid bad/unexpected consequences?

I'm less hostile to this than you are, in contexts where task resolution is the norm.

Eg in my 4e game, sometimes during breaks between sessions, if a combat was unresolved, the players would plan over email (without including me). Then when we got back together, they would implement their plans. So such-and-such a PC moves here and does this thing. OK, we resolve that. Then the next PC moves there and does that thing. OK, we resolve that. And now the big reveal: it's a set up for some epic action from the Sorcerer, or from the Fighter, occasionally from the Invoker/Wizard. (The Cleric/Ranger and Paladin were lighter on these sorts of combos.)

I don't think the players are obliged to tell me what they're aiming at. But it's completely different from (say) Linked Tests in BW. For starters, the movement mostly just happens (Tweet's drama resolution), with no roll of the dice required. And then various powers do their things, in terms of positioning or condition imposition, which all feed into the big reveal.

In skill challenge resolution, things are quite different from this because generally there are no components of discrete/atomic task resolution in a skill challenge.

Burning Wheel handles this sort of thing pretty elegantly with linked tests, though I think the consensus is that there's a danger of overusing them? At least I seem to recall advice to that end somewhere, either on their messageboards or in one of the books.

A linked test requires beating (not just reaching) the obstacle to get the bonus, so they can be quite punishing. And they only make sense where the test itself is warranted (ie it's not just "say 'yes'" and grant an advantage die).

So in my experience they don't come up as often as FoRKs.

 

[pemerton]

I don't understand the continued insistence that I am saying everything is the same when I have repeatedly stated that is not the case. Let me say it one more time just so it's really clear. I acknowledge differences - real, meaningful, substantive differences! I'm not hiding my intentions here. I'm not going along to argue later that there are no differences. However, what precisely the real, meaningful, substantive differences are - the details there are very much in dispute.

So just to be clear - you're disputing the difference in detail between (on the one hand) RPGs that like AD&D 2nd ed CoC and(on the other hand) a RPG you've never played, never read the rules for, and on your own account do not easily follow discussion of - be that second RPG DitV, or Burning Wheel, or HeroWars, or Maelstrom Storytelling, or Prince Valiant, or MHRP, or Apocalypse World, or one of the others that have been mentioned in this thread.

And so what is the basis for your dispute?

 

[clearstream]

In AD&D, the action declaration "I climb to the top of the statue" is completely well-formed. Once there, the player can then declare "I search for secret doors". And that action declaration, too, is completely well-formed whether or not the GM's notes record the existence of a secret door to be found.

A player who suspects there's a trap in the doorway can declare "I jump into the room, not touching the floor in the doorway". They don't need to mention that they are trying to avoid a trap. Their action declaration is well-formed even if, as per the GM's notes, there is no trap. And nothing about the resolution of the jumping action in itself is affected by the presence or absence of a trap: eg if the action fails, and the PC lands clumsily short of where they had hoped to land, then if there is no trap there this costs them nothing; and likewise if there is no trap there, jumping over the doorway successfully gains them nothing either.

This sort of thing is part and parcel of classic D&D play. It's completely different from Burning Wheel or even from Torchbearer.

I like your notion of "well-formed" here (my bolding). Contrary to some of my earlier posts, suppse task resolution is defined like this

It's task resolution if it can be resolved and have a meaningful effect on the game state ignoring intent​

The theoretical move is to detach intent and see if it can still be resolved. I believe all agree that you cannot do that with conflict resolution. That gets around my firm intuitions that players express intention in their choice of performance, and that we never resolve performances for their own sake. @AbdulAlhazred @FrogReaver WDYT?

 

[FrogReaver]

So just to be clear - you're disputing the difference in detail between (on the one hand) RPGs that like AD&D 2nd ed CoC and(on the other hand) a RPG you've never played, never read the rules for, and on your own account do not easily follow discussion of - be that second RPG DitV, or Burning Wheel, or HeroWars, or Maelstrom Storytelling, or Prince Valiant, or MHRP, or Apocalypse World, or one of the others that have been mentioned in this thread.

That's not very clear - you've used the term 'disputing the difference in detail between'...

That's ambiguous.

If you are implying that I dispute any of the cold hard facts that are provided me about the game - then I don't dispute those. What I dispute is how theory terms intersect those cold hard facts and how how to best define/talk about the substantive differences between the games revealed through those cold hard facts.

And so what is the basis for your dispute?

Mostly the cold hard facts you provide, along with definitions and logic. That's a sound basis, no?

 

[FrogReaver]

I like your notion of "well-formed" here (my bolding). Contrary to some of my earlier posts, suppse task resolution is defined like this

It's task resolution if it can be resolved and have a meaningful effect on the game state ignoring intent​

The theoretical move is to detach intent and see if it can still be resolved. I believe all agree that you cannot do that with conflict resolution. That gets around my firm intuitions that players express intention in their choice of performance, and that we never resolve performances for their own sake. @AbdulAlhazred @FrogReaver WDYT?

It's a good question - i'll need to sleep on it.