Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9228319" data-attributes="member: 71699">[USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] I like the framing of conflict resolution you provided here...conflict resolution consists precisely in the sort of relationship that obtains between succeeding on the check... and what happens next.(EDIT or better still, having just read your post following this) What distinguishes conflict resolution from task resolution is not scale. It is whether or not succeeding at the roll (and hence at the task) means achieving/realising the aim/goal/intent/stakes.Which reflected comments by [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] and of course was already implied hereIn 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.I nevertheless find faulty and to some extent absurd definitions for task resolution, which is why I cut some words from the quote. The essential elements of your framings of conflict resolution stand up regardless of what one thinks about task resolution! So (to restate from yours) ...conflict resolution exists precisely in the relationship that obtains between succeeding on the check and what happens next: it's conflict resolution iff the process of resolution decides what happens nextAs a separate project, I would like to improve on definitions of task resolution. However, I first wanted to introduce some observations on players versus GMs.In the past, we've discussed whether GMs are players, or not. You might recall that I'm open to GMs as players, while also saying that they need not be. That GM-as-referee is accurately seen as part of lusory-means. A reference point for players. A resolution system, at times. If I recall correctly, you've argued that GMs are players and can't achieve the neutrality that they might be imagined to need to function as not-players. (In fact, I think it is a discipline and an attitude they must achieve, and not neutrality, but that needn't be settled here.)Suppose that GM is player. In that case, they are participants in conflicts. They can and should have goals. Their goals might conflict with player goals. Where they submit such conflicts to resolution, those are indeed cases of conflict resolution. Therefore one must choose: either GMs aren't players. Or if they are players, they are rightfully participants in conflict resolution.</blockquote>

Verification