thread: 2012-06-25 : "Conflict" "Resolution"
On 2012-06-26, Moreno wrote:
I am probably not the right person to ask about changes in terminology: I don't see the problem in the use of "conflict". Maybe it's because I am so used to it that I don't see it pointing only to "fighting", or maybe it's the different first language, but I have no problem to see "conflict" as a general term for any situation where the interests of two or more character are not 100% coincident. It's called "conflict of interests", after all...
I think it's not the word that trips many players, but their own gaming history: any word we will use will be "mapped" to their own experience, and so even "situation iteration" could be seen as a way to call "fighting" only. (and "interests" has his own problems: it seems to remove the will and actions of the character, it's static)
And I don't really believe in "conflict-less fiction" existence, even before associating it to some kind of "female narration" (Do you know the Jeepform "Lady and Otto"? It's built to reiterate this point. A lot.). Even situations where people collaborate, are about overcoming a situation. A conflict with a third party, for example.
"Resolution" instead I can see as more problematic. Apart from the double meaning in-fiction and at-the-table, as a word it seems to imply "resolution", but often the conflicts in the fiction are not resolved by only one iteration of the resolution mechanics...
In-fiction, maybe it would be better to use the IIEE terms for the parts of the conflict, limiting "resolution" to the at-the-table process. In this case the "Effect" from IIEE, being limited to the in-fiction conflict, is not the same as the at-the-table "effect" of the resolution. Maybe we could call that "outcome".
This is what I think about the terminology issues. Regarding the other points you touched, I see no contradictions and I leave the space for other people's questions.
This makes R go "You seem to think the aim of questioning current terminology concerns the logistics of "converting the heathens" to up-t"
This makes R go "(Was "up-to-date" games). Maybe the point is that we don't get stuck in what's up-to-date NOW, instead."
This makes VB go "Hey R-"
Split your marginal responses into an introduction and an explanation. There's a character limit on "Your response," but "Explanation (optional)" has all the space you need. Thanks!
This makes Moreno go "(To "R") Not this time"
I often talk from the point of view of someone who often has to explain these things to somebody (as I often have), but not this time. I would be absurd even trying to talk about these things to someone before making them play a lot of games that treat conflicts in different manner
The problem with confusing terminology is not that is not instantly recognizable by some kind of evoked "other people" category, but that it's a very nice cover for posing, strutting and passing very confused heaps of misread "theory" as a sort of play-based "knowledge" (see any "theory" thread in most rpg forum as a example).
WE, not "other people", need clear terminology for dispelling this fog with clear thoughts and clear communication.
