Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9226750" data-attributes="member: 42582">What does this mean?You are supposing that the player has picked a goal (= set stakes) and yet achieving those goals won't resolve the situation. So what is the situation? It must be something the GM has in mind, but that hasn't been shared with the player. Which would be the GM fiat of the second diagram.Conflict resolution: succeeding at the check, which (in all the RPGs I can think of) means succeeding at the task, also secures the goal/intent/stakes.Task resolution: succeeding at the check means succeeding at the task, but the GM then has to decide whether or not succeeding at the task secures the goal/intent/stakes.Examples of task resolution are rife in classic D&amp;D - as per my post not far upthread - because the connection between task and stakes is determined by the GM's secret map and key, which is independent of the player's action declaration.To the extent that RPGing generalises from that map-and-key model (see, eg nearly every published adventure ever, the whole framework for CoC, etc) then it is using task resolution.To the extent that RPGing uses techniques like &quot;As you turn away from the safe, you notice some paper in the waste paper basket . . .&quot; or &quot;When you search the bodies for loot, you find a note . . .&quot; or &quot;Instruction to the GM: if the PCs kill such-and-such plotting NPC, then have this other NPC come out of the shadows to take control of the plot&quot; (see, eg, a good chunk of all the published adventures ever, the whole framework for CoC if it is not to grind to a halt, etc) then it is using task resolution.If resolution binds participants to an outcome, but the GM gets to choose that outcome, and/or the outcome is not transparent in the framing of the situation, and/or the GM can introduce that outcome after the check is framed and rolled, then we have task resolution, not conflict resolution.Again, this would be the GM fiat of the second diagram.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9226750, member: 42582"] What does this mean? You are supposing that [I]the player has picked a goal (= set stakes)[/I] and yet achieving those goals won't resolve the situation. So what is [I]the situation[/I]? It must be something the GM has in mind, but that hasn't been shared with the player. Which would be the [I]GM fiat[/I] of the second diagram. Conflict resolution: succeeding at the check, which (in all the RPGs I can think of) means succeeding at the task, also secures the goal/intent/stakes. Task resolution: succeeding at the check means succeeding at the task, but the GM then has to decide whether or not succeeding at the task secures the goal/intent/stakes. Examples of task resolution are rife in classic D&D - as per my post not far upthread - because the connection between task and stakes is determined by the GM's secret map and key, which is independent of the player's action declaration. To the extent that RPGing generalises from that map-and-key model (see, eg nearly every published adventure ever, the whole framework for CoC, etc) then it is using task resolution. To the extent that RPGing uses techniques like "As you turn away from the safe, you notice some paper in the waste paper basket . . ." or "When you search the bodies for loot, you find a note . . ." or "Instruction to the GM: if the PCs kill such-and-such plotting NPC, then have this other NPC come out of the shadows to take control of the plot" (see, eg, a good chunk of all the published adventures ever, the whole framework for CoC if it is not to grind to a halt, etc) then it is using task resolution. If resolution binds participants to an outcome, but the GM gets to choose that outcome, and/or the outcome is not transparent in the framing of the situation, and/or the GM can introduce that outcome [I]after[/I] the check is framed and rolled, then we have task resolution, not conflict resolution. Again, this would be the [I]GM fiat[/I] of the second diagram. [/QUOTE]

Verification