Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9230178" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is what I was pointing at, upthread. On your account, there is no difference between playing DL or Dead Gods, and playing DitV.Yet it's blindingly obvious that the difference is very big. And it consists in a range of things, including how stakes are established (in part in virtue of how prepped fiction is actively revealed in play) and how conflicts are resolved and how consequences of conflicts are established.That difference is what is labelled by contrasting task resolution and conflict resolution.And we can boil it down to a single example: in classic D&D play, there is nothing degenerate about an action declaration to listen at a door, or to search for a secret door, even though the GM knows there is nothing to be discovered by doing so. In DitV that is a degenerate situation: as I posted way upthread in response to [USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER], it would be a sign that the GM has made some sort of error in their play of the game.These differences in principles, procedures, technical modes of resolution - they are real things.If you have no familiarity with any games that use conflict resolution, or that use closed scene resolution, then on what basis are you making confident assertions about how they do and don't play, and how the techniques that they use do or don't work?And here's another example:Let me post <a href="http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html" target="_blank">the following</a> once again:    Whether you roll for each flash of the blade or only for the whole fight is a whole nother issue: scale, not task vs. conflict. This is sometimes confusing for people; you say "conflict resolution" and they think you mean "resolve the whole scene with one roll." No, actually you can conflict-resolve a single blow, or task-resolve the whole fight in one roll: "I slash at his face, like ha!" "Why?" "To force him off-balance!" Conflict Resolution: do you force him off-balance? Roll: Loss! "He ducks side to side, like fwip fwip! He keeps his feet and grins." "I fight him!" "Why?" "To get past him to the ship before it sails!" Task Resolution: do you win the fight (that is, do you fight him successfully)? Roll: Success! "You beat him! You disarm him and kick his butt!" (Unresolved, left up to the GM: do you get to the ship before it sails?) (Those examples show small-scale conflict resolution vs. large-scale task resolution.)The first example could easily be from Burning Wheel play.Not to the action declaration. Not to any bit of "what happens next". He is talking about how stakes are established before any actions are declared and resolved.I have been responding to the idea of "saying 'no'" expressed in this post, by reference to declaring an action declaration a failure in virtue of hidden fiction: [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] posted something similar here:Both of you were asking, in effect, how there can be secret backstory and yet conflict resolution.And the answer I've given, is that the GM manages this in virtue of actively revealing their backstory in play. And part of that, as per the quote from DitV about the GM encouraging the players to de-escalate stakes, is by pacing.That is not blocking an action declaration. It is scaling back what is at stake in it, as part of the discussion of framing.I mean, you don't even seem to have asked yourself - how it is established in the first place that there is a safe to search? In DitV, there can only be a safe in the town if the GM declares as much. And so how the GM reveals the existence of that safe, is intimately connected to how it is then established, as a possible action declaration, that I look in the safe to find the title deeds.What's one reason that the GM might declare that there is a safe in town? If the players have their PCs question a NPC, to get them to tell why it is that they are refusing to talk to the young innocent about the latter's inheritance. So what is at stake is, will the NPC reveal the truth about the inheritance? And if the GM (playing their NPC) loses that conflict, and if the GM has - in their prep - noted that the title deeds are in the safe, then the GM might have the NPC say The mayor keeps all them documents in his safe! I done seen him put them in there.This would also be an illustration, of what I posted in the abstract above, that there is no conflict between prep/myth and conflict resolution, provided that no contradiction obtains between the prep, and the stakes the player puts into play in their action declaration.I mean, think about it: how do you, and [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER], envisage the safe even becomes part of the fiction? You haven't posted about that. Neither has he. As far as I can tell, neither of you has even given it any thought.Yet you make confident assertions about what must be possible, in a game in which the contents of the safe might be part of GM prep, and in which I look in the safe is a legitimate thing for a player to say in the play of their PC.To close this thread, let me reiterate this: in classic D&D play, there is nothing degenerate about an action declaration to listen at a door, or to search for a secret door, even though the GM knows there is nothing to be discovered by doing so. In DitV that is a degenerate situation: it would be a sign that the GM has made some sort of error in their play of the game.These differences in principles, procedures, technical modes of resolution - they are real things.</blockquote>

Verification