Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9228954" data-attributes="member: 71699">My posts <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rpging-and-imagination-a-fundamental-point.701162/post-9228270" target="_blank">#814</a> and <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rpging-and-imagination-a-fundamental-point.701162/post-9228296" target="_blank">#817</a> cover the closed scene resolution that yields the gameflow in Harper's top diagram. Players pursue goals they've accepted. Resolving those yields the gameflow shown. I haven't paid much attention to his bottom diagram. It's could arise in all kinds of ways, including as a result of unlucky or error-prone players whose GM is upholding conflict resolution.I've offered new terms already - it's either drama resolution or immediacy. Assuming everyone by now has read <a href="http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html" target="_blank">Baker's 2004 anyway blog posts</a> I can run through related examples to elucidate what I've said. Vincent is great at drawing attention to what is going on with the people at the table (negotiation, character sheet as player resource). In a similar vein, focus on what is going on with the person who is GM."I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" It's conflict resolution. Roll: Success! "The safe's too tough, but as you're turning away from it, you see a piece of paper in the wastebasket..." This is what I've called the "rawest" form of conflict resolution. GM cleaves to resolving player's stated goal. If that's all their doing, character performance is irrelevant. If your intuition is that performance should matter and GM would be unlikely to really do this, then you have to ask, why?"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" It's task resolution. Roll: Success! "The safe's still shut, but that's some top-notch cracking you're doing there. You've gently rotated the dial, marked tumbler positions, all that good stuff." This shows why what I called the "rawest" form of "task resolution". GM ignores even the immediate goal of "the safe is cracked" and just narrates the performance. I'm pretty sure no one thinks GMs really do this. Turning briefly to [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s proposed counter-case(Emphasis mine.) [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] inserted a goal - "to show off her climbing skills". To make that clearer, suppose player declares "I do some climbing to show off my climbing skills" and GM resolves how skillful that climbing is. That fits exactly with what I've described.So here's "task resolution" when it means immediacy of goal to performance"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "To see what's inside" It's task resolution. Roll: Success! "You crack the safe and see what is inside."GM and player take a parsimonious view of what the fictional-position legitimates. And here's "task resolution" when it means drama resolution or fitness of act given setting, scene etc"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" It's "task resolution". Roll: Success! "You crack the safe, but the supervillain doesn't keep their incriminating papers where the honest mayor could easily find them!" I've added some internal dramatic justification to indicate possible GM thought processes. But what if the scene was set up in a way they felt was dramatically compelling?"I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" It's "task resolution". Roll: Success! "You crack the safe and just as the honest mayor promised, the dirt is inside!" The GM is a person at the table following a process, in this case they felt that player preparations made finding the dirt the compelling outcome of opening the safe. Drama resolution is unpredictable in exactly the way observed (for "task resolution"). But there is a third option - arbitrary GM..."I crack the safe!" "Why?" "Hopefully to get the dirt on the supervillain!" It's "task resolution". Roll: Success! "You crack the safe, and inside is a pony" Like I said, I'm philosphically skeptical of knowing anything about what arbitrary GM might say. Perhaps they think ponies are found inside safes? That sounds crazy only because even when they're not following rules, GM's overwhelmingly tend to follow norms!As <a href="https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/conflict-resolution-vs-task-resolution-i-think-i-stopped-getting-it.574879/" target="_blank">folk in other forums have repeatedly observed</a>, dividing so-called "task resolution" from conflict resolution on the basis of immediacy yields blurred lines. I can choose what I put on one side, and what on the other, and someone else can make different choices. Cue debate.If we focus on dividing conflict resolution from drama resolution, that means something decisive. If GM or better yet, system sets up expectations - that the way we do resolution in this game is drama - players know it's about the right performance at the right time. It straight up answers question sushc as those folk have had about whether player performance should/should-not be taken into account in character social interactions.The problem folk hit is that in the end, everyone wants fictional position to legitimate effect. The meaningful decision is - how much weight do you want to put on character performance? If you require character performance to succeed before any effect it has can deliver on any broader goal - and provided it does, make that goal also succeed - then you have "task resolution" gate-keeps "conflict resolution": which you might as well call conflict resolution.Having worked through what he did, Baker chose to build AW moves as binaries. Pairing fictional-positions to menus of effects. If I want the effect I must declare the right performance ("to do it, do it"). Getting the dramatic necessities in place. It's a brilliant move and fits exactly what I am describing. By putting it up front, the apparent capriciousness of drama resolution is dissolved.</blockquote>

Verification