A me sembra che si stiano ripercorrendo e ridicendo un sacco di cose già trattate nel thread che aveva segnalato Mauro all'inizio... (questo:
Risoluzione a conflitti e confusione sui medesimi). Molte risposte sono già lì.
Provo a copiaincollare...
-------------------------------------
Mettiamo un po' d'ordine, partendo dall'inizio invece di rispondere a domande parziali.
Cos'è la Conflict Resolution per il glossario?
Conflict resolution A Technique in which the mechanisms of play focus on conflicts of interest, rather than on the component tasks within that conflict. When using this Technique, inanimate objects are conceived to have "interests" at odds with the character, if necessary. Contrast with Task resolution.Task resolution A Technique in which the Resolution mechanisms of play focus on within-game cause, in linear in-game time, in terms of whether the acting character is competent to perform a task. Contrast with Conflict resolution.Com'è nato il termine? Edwards l'ha coniato per parlare del sistema di risoluzione di "Sorcerer", che richiede SEMPRE tiri contrapposti (quindi, ogni tiro ha sempre un "opposizione"). Non ne parla nel manuale ma nelle discussioni successive. Il termine si è evoluto col tempo e quindi non vale la pena cercare i vecchi thread se non pr ragioni storiche, ma ecco come Edwards descri la cosa in
questo thread del 2006:
---------------------------------------------
I'm spreading my hands in frustration, man. It's conflict resolution. Play it that way and the rules/system will make perfect sense in actual play.
In the absence of a conflict of interest among the fictional characters, never roll the dice.When such a conflict is present, then always roll the dice.It's not the terms that were lacking in 1996-2000; it's the actual cognitive and communicative information that was lacking, in my head and in the community. The italicized points above aren't clear in the book (and in some places are badly obscured) because I, and we, didn't know we had to say it - I only knew "it" through use, and to explain "it," could only gesture vaguely.
The fact that rolls in Sorcerer concern short-term actions at the same scale as "to-hit rolls" in traditional role-playing isn't relevant to these points.
I don't really know what else to tell you. You see a contradiction. I see a guy who isn't seeing my point.
Best,
Ron
-------------------------------------------------
Come vedete, chiamare "conflict resolution" Sorcerer calza come un guanto perché in quel gioco c'è SOLO conflict resolution: "tira SEMPRE in presenza di conflitti, non tirare MAI in assenza di conflitti". Chiarissimo. In altri giochi la differenza si sfuma perchè convivono diversi tipi di tiri, ma in generale la semplicissima differenza è la solita: una tecnica di risoluzione che si usa solo in caso di confltto è
conflict resolution, se si usa in caso di azioni, è task resolution. Notare che queste sono solo duer alternative di TANTE: il mondo non si divide in task resolution e conflict resolution. Ci sono tantissime tecniche che non sono ne l'una nè l'altra.
In altri giochi, come si presenta l'idea della Conflict Resolution? Cito ancora Edwards, da
QUI:
Vincent helps us here too. I'll take some credit - in Sorcerer and Trollbabe, the standards for rolling dice are extremely solid, but textually, both games suffer a little because the language for explaining it was still being birthed here at the Forge. I called it "Conflict resolution," but this term still encounters a lot of resistance (and even worse, over-extension in mistaken agreement). Vincent turned it around into direct instruction, in the text of Dogs in the Vineyard: "Say yes or roll the dice."
What this phrase means is that the die mechanic is highly focused on facilitating the CA, and as such it is held in reserve until such moments, and not applied semi-randomly to anything and everything in the SIS.Domanda: avete ben chiaro che nel testo di Cani nella Vigna, l'istruzione esplicita "Tira i dadi o dì di sì" è perfettamente equivalente al fatto di dire in termini teorici "Questo è un gioco a conflict resolution"? Al dire che se non c'è conflitto, i task riescono, ma se non vuoi che i task riescano, devi far partire un conflitto?
Se non è chiaro questo, consiglio di rileggere i post precedenti prima di proseguire. Io faccio una paura prima di proseguire con la spiegazione.
[...]
Proseguo con esempi pratici, perché la differenza abissale fra task e conflict è nella pratica, non nella teoria.
Sempre Edwards, da
QUI:
First, about resolution. I am going to be a little pedantic about terms, so forgive me. As I use the term, conflict resolution vs. task resolution is best understood in terms of opponents. Let's say one character is chasing another, and the person being chased is confronted by a fence. It's time for a roll!
If the character rolls against the fence, in the sense that it is tall or otherwise difficult, and if we the players consider how fast or strong the character is, then this is task resolution.
If the character rolls against the pursuer, in the sense that the fence modifies the chase (and it might do so significantly if it is tall or whatever), then this is conflict resolution.
An important side point: the distinction has nothing to do with the scale of the events resolved by the roll. The in-game time might be a second or a day or a century. The number of individuals affected could be one bit of one character's body, or a whole shipload of characters' lives. A lot of people think "task" means smaller increments of fictional material, and "conflict" means larger increments, and that is not correct.
Sorcerer rolls should always be conflict resolution. They rely on the situation including a conflict of interest among fictional characters or entities. This is important too - another common misunderstanding is that conflict resolution concerns disagreements among the real people, and this is extremely incorrect. If you think in terms of conflict of interest, in my example, the fence is not a character - it can have no conflict-of-interest with anyone, ever. If the character came upon it and there were no chase occurring, there would be no roll. He would either get over it because he can, or he would not get over it because he could not, as dictated by the GM.
But if there were a chase occurring, the fence presents an opportunity to express the chase, with a modification to the dice perhaps if it is an interesting or dramatic fence. The chase is what's important - the conflict of interest between the two characters.
I apologize for all the lecturing. Let me know if this makes sense: in Sorcerer, rolls are made whenever a conflict of interest among fictional characters is occurring during play. Never resolve a conflict of interest without rolling, and never roll when a conflict of interest is not occurring. Notare come, in Sorcerer, è perfettamente possibile rispondere "no, non ce la fai" ad una richiesta di un giocatore di fare qualcosa che non comporti un conflitto. L'equivalenza "di dì o tira o dadi" con "conflict resolution" è specifica del sistema di Cani nella Vigna, non generica. Pare assurdo che debba specificarlo ancora ma...
il sistema conta!Notare inoltre, che NON SI PARLA DI "POSTE". Il concetto di "posta" (stakes) è superfluo in una conflict resolution.
Edwards ne parla anche
QUI:
It happens that I think "Stakes," as currently discussed in a lot of blogs and forums, isn't really as big a deal as a lot of people are making out. In fact, in many cases, I think they are mixing up several distinct things:
1. Resolution of an at-hand conflict of interest in the current situation
2. Mechanical effects of a given outcome of the resolution system (score changes, etc)
3. Larger-scale implications for relationships among other characters, outcomes of other events
4. Consequences for the next significant real-person choices (new scenes, turn changes, etc)
Now, there are a lot of games out there in which a more generalized combination of all of them is fundamental to play. My Life with Master is probably the core system which has influenced many of them, including The Mountain Witch, Primetime Adventures, The Shab al-Hiri Roach, With Great Power ..., and others. If you roll to gain Love in My Life with Master, you know (a) that the minion will or will not successfully appeal to his or her Connection character; (b) that the minion does gain a point of Love, but will or will not gain a point of Self-Loathing as well; (c) that the Master or a hostile minion may well turn his or her nefarious attention to the Connection character; and (d) that the scene is effectively over, because this game typically sees one roll per scene.
However, I think people are confounding combining all of them with conflict resolution by definition, which is, as I see it, a bad case of synecdoche at the Techniques level.
The Sorcerer resolution rules are only concerned with #1 and #2. This is a big deal. You don't have to announce or account for or otherwise deal with anything about #3-4 prior to the roll. So, it's perfectly OK to announce "I cow him with my fierce gaze," or even, "I convince him to stop exploiting the factory workers," as a Sorcerer action, but there's no need to
Furthermore, and this is important for the kinds of actions I just mentioned, there is no final/guaranteed outcome for a given stated Sorcerer action. In the factory-workers example, the targeted character may lose ... and yet continue to exploit the workers, just operating with an inflicted penalty based on the dice-defeat he just suffered. That is just the same as announcing "I kill him!" in a fight scene, but hey, the dice, even on a successful roll, don't kill the guy, so he doesn't die.
See the difference? In a game like Dogs in the Vineyard, if my stated goal is to kill a guy, and we're rolling, and the other player/GM gives ... then he's dead. Because I'd stated that as the goal. Same goes for My Life with Master, with slightly different dice - if I'm going to use Violence to kill some poor Townsfolk schlub, and I succeed in my roll, he's dead - because I'd stated that as the goal. These games use "Stakes" in the broadest, #1-4 sense.
That doesn't happen in Sorcerer. The statement prior to the roll doesn't have that kind of "weight" (which I associate with #3, above).Non ho solo citazioni da Edwards. Questo è vincent Baker, da un thread su
Knife Fight:
GNS cop, and oh my LORD here comes a truncheoning.
Task resolution rules are the rules you follow when it's time to figure out whether your character can, in fact, carry out an action she undertakes.
In every game I've designed since kill puppies for satan, the task resolution rules are "yes, she can. Unless someone's interfering with her, in which case..."
Conflict resolution rules are the rules you follow when it's time to resolve a conflict of interest between characters in the fiction.
"Does my character get what she wants?" is only sometimes, not reliably, the same as "do my character's interests prevail over this other character's conflicting interests?"
Saying what your character wants is, at best, a single step in some sets of conflict resolution rules. Same with naming stakes. Those two things, they absolutely do not define conflict resolution.Ad una domanda successiva, specifica:
Citazione<blockquote>So is D&D combat conflict resolution? Because its about me trying to make the orc dead, and the orc trying to make me dead. Whereas rolling to hit a post, which isn't resisting, would be task resolution? </blockquote>
D&D combat is absolutely conflict resolution.
The to hit roll is expendable, the way I see it. D&D combat would be cleaner if you only rolled damage, and let the events of the game's fiction follow from how much damage you and the orc did to one another mechanically. The game also wouldn't require you to roll to hit or roll damage on a post, of course - unless your attacking it were somehow relevant to a conflict.E ancora:
Anyhow, yes, there's someone, and yes, Dogs' resolution is conflict resolution.
Does your character, undertaking action X, succeed?
Always yes, unless there's someone interfering, in which case...
Roll dice, raise and see, give, fallout, followup. Conflict resolution. Spero che sia chiaro, il prossimo post è sul casino provocato dal 2005-2006 dal concetto di "posta"...
[...]
