Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9228918" data-attributes="member: 71699">I'm going to answer this obliquely. In all cases I am assuming that players say what their characters do, and either in saying that or in additional speech acts say what they intend (their goals). So conflict resolution and drama resolution are separated not by what players say, but by how that relates to what is acheived."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."Here, GM deemed it was dramatically inappropriate for character to find the papers in the safe. Alternatively, GM deemed that "get dirt on the supervillain" was reaching, and made good on the legitimate intent (crack the safe.) The difference is found in the play leading up to this moment. Alternatively, GM was arbitrary."I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" It's conflict resolution. Roll: Success! "The safe's too tough to crack, but as you're turning away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket..."Here, GM took note of players wider intent and ignored whether or not their immediate action succeeded in its goal of cracking the safe: they gave them the dirt (in the wastebasket). Note my change from original, in bold. (This, by the way, is the unspoken "cost" of conflict resolution, that often comes up when folk have doubts about it. How do we make sure that declared performances matter? Fiction-first directly addresses that: creating the binary I emphasised so many times upthread.)The system defines it: that's its job. If such definition is absent or ambiguous, or insufficiently compelling, then obviously groups will have to find their own way. This is one reason not to defend inadequate constructs. Where rules can't be followed, they won't be followed. Consider three kinds of GM in this lightArbitrary GM - Who knows what they will do? Rules have no hold on them, and they follow no rules... not even their own.Conflict GM - Listens to player goals and ensures that whatever their means of resolution is, resolves them. Drama GM - Observes player acts and thinks about setting, situation, relationships and tensions, and demands of story. Ensures that when performances fit, they achieve the anticipated goals. (Could also be called "performance resolution" as you suggested.) D&D can (and often is) run as a mix - conflict for combat, drama for most everything else. It can also be run as conflict all the way through (by my "virtuous GM" who is consistently player goal regarding.) Baker anticipated this mixtureIn 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. Nothing prevents a mix, but where designer intends that, their system ought to define the intended resolution method for each facet of play.</blockquote>

Verification