Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9226921" data-attributes="member: 71699">Exactly, and this dissolves the mysteries around [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER]'s earlier comments. Task-resolution when outcomes a player has in mind are respected is the same as conflict-resolution.[USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] You hopefully now see that the crucial rules detail for my example lies in DMG237 Using Ability Scores rather than DMG244 Social Interaction. To see how, just picture that GM declares the same set of outcomes up front that game designers did when they wrote Social Interaction, and then go one step further and suppose that players chose their performances because they had those outcomes in mind.To be fair you ([USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]) said it in your earlier postThe rawest version of task-resolution I can think of has no outcome in mind. And the rawest version of conflict-resolution has no performance in mind. TR would answer the question then, solely of performance. It produces no binding result. CR then tells us result. It produces no binding performance. And that isn't what folk want or experience.[USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] in my post <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rpging-and-imagination-a-fundamental-point.701162/post-9225698" target="_blank">#705</a> I quote the same musing from Baker that you pick up in your <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rpging-and-imagination-a-fundamental-point.701162/post-9226748" target="_blank">#729</a>. Something one can ask is why Baker settled on binaries for AW moves, i.e. Fictional-position==Outcomes? And why did he deem training up virtuous-GMs (via principles, agenda, examples and monologues) a necessary job for his game text?Harper's diagrams aren't detailed enough to show this, which can be seen by picturing what else I could write in the &quot;Situation Resolves&quot; bubble of the first chart. &quot;Situation Resolves by Designer Fiat&quot;, &quot;Situation Resolves by Player Fiat&quot;, &quot;Situation Resolves by GM Fiat&quot;, &quot;Situation Resolves Randomly&quot;. Any of those still produces the same orderly flow. The difference between task and conflict resolution isn't about the orderly flow.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9226921, member: 71699"] Exactly, and this dissolves the mysteries around [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER]'s earlier comments. Task-resolution [I]when outcomes a player has in mind are respected [/I]is the same as conflict-resolution. [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] You hopefully now see that the crucial rules detail for my example lies in DMG237 Using Ability Scores rather than DMG244 Social Interaction. To see how, just picture that GM declares the same set of outcomes up front that game designers did when they wrote Social Interaction, and then go one step further and suppose that players chose their performances [I]because they had those outcomes in mind[/I]. To be fair you ([USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]) said it in your earlier post The rawest version of task-resolution I can think of has [I]no outcome in mind[/I]. And the rawest version of conflict-resolution has no [I]performance[/I] in mind. TR would answer the question then, solely of performance. It produces no binding result. CR then tells us result. It produces no binding performance. And that isn't what folk want or experience. [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] in my post [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/rpging-and-imagination-a-fundamental-point.701162/post-9225698']#705[/URL] I quote the same musing from Baker that you pick up in your [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/rpging-and-imagination-a-fundamental-point.701162/post-9226748']#729[/URL]. Something one can ask is why Baker settled on binaries for AW moves, i.e. Fictional-position==Outcomes? And why did he deem training up virtuous-GMs (via principles, agenda, examples and monologues) a necessary job for his game text? Harper's diagrams aren't detailed enough to show this, which can be seen by picturing what else I could write in the "Situation Resolves" bubble of the first chart. "Situation Resolves by Designer Fiat", "Situation Resolves by Player Fiat", "Situation Resolves by GM Fiat", "Situation Resolves Randomly". Any of those still produces the same orderly flow. The difference between task and conflict resolution [I]isn't about the orderly flow[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification