Generative resolution

[pemerton]

A little while ago @thefutilist posted this:

Think of a scene as a chunk of stuff with entities in it. The entities can be people or even things, like a cliff face, numerous winding corridors, like discrete bits of fiction.

So we set a scene up. Does the resolution method create new entities or does it just change the status of already established entities? (By change status, I mean does entity A do something to entity B that causes the change. Like hit them with a sword or marry them.)

The former is what's often called fail forward. Although it's a naff phrase really because it doesn't always mean that.

I prefer the terms, generative resolution V positioning resolution or something along those lines.

The actual line can be far more blurry than it first appears but I think there is a line.

I agree that the term "fail forward" isn't really the best here, because not all fail forward involves generative resolution. Suppose, for instance, that it's already established that a particular NPC is part of the situation: then a "fail forward" narration that has that NPC pipping a PC to the post won't be generative. But some "fail forward" involves generative resolution.

Here's an example from Torchbearer 2e play, that shows both possibilities:

Golin used his 2nd level Outcast ability to haggle for free. The test failed, but the Failed Haggling Events roll didn't hurt him. He also bought some candles and food, but had some trouble with other purchases. He failed an attempt to buy rope, and I introduced a twist - a constable of the Tower, who wanted to learn more about Golin's involvement in an explosion at the hedge wizard's establishment, and its subsequent burning down. Golin decided to turn the gathered crowd against the constable and in his favour - opposed Oratory tests! Fea-bella helped with her Manipulator ("He's an innocent Dwarf, just trying to buy some rope!" called a heckler from the crowd), and Golin succeeded. So the constable backed off, but not without giving a look to the rope vendor that made it clear no rope was to be vended (ie the failed Resources test was to stand).

Golin then decided to buy a small shovel (pack 1 compared to the standard pack 2) - I asked whether he wanted wooden (Ob 1) or metal (Ob 2) and his player replied "Wooden, of course!" - it can also be used as fuel if necessary. But the three dice (Resources back up to 2 by this stage, plus +1D from a stimulated economy) yielded not a single success, and who should Golin see coming towards him once again but the constable! I told him to note down his new enemy, and that the town phase was now done.

Introducing the constable is generative: when the situation is initially established, their is the PC Golin trying to acquire rope from a vendor of rope; and then, when the roll fails, the GM (that is, me) introduces a new element into the scene to explain why the PC can't purchase the rope that he is after.

The second time the constable turns up, though, is not generative. The presence of a constable who doesn't like Golin has now been established as a feature of the situation in town, and so narrating a failure as the constable chasing Golin out of town is "positional" - an already-established element of the situation (the constable) acting on an already-established element of the situation (Golin) to change the latter's status (driven out of town).

When this episode happened, I had (as best I recall) already written up some notes for important NPCs in the town: the wizard Burne and the warrior Rufus (both taken from dungeon module T1 The Village of Hommlet). And in a much more recent session, I identified Rufus as the constable who had harassed Golin. But this "retcon" doesn't change the fact that the resolution of the first failure was generative. A note in my prep, which down the track I apply/re-purpose, doesn't change the fact that - as the situation was framed at the table - there was no constable in it.

I also think this example shows how the line can be blurry. After all, a town probably has a constable, and so implicit in any situation of doing things in town, is the possibility that a constable might approach you to ask questions. (And the constable was correct to suspect that Golin had some connection to the explosion and fire at the Hedge Wizard's place, and Golin's player knew this at the time.) And so it's hardly the case that the constable comes from nowhere!

Compare this example, from a John Harper blog:

I've seen people struggle with hard moves in the moment. Like, when the dice miss, the MC stares at it like, "Crap! Now I have to invent something! Better make it dangerous and cool! Uh... some ninja... drop out of the ceiling... with poison knives! Grah!"​

That's generative resolution that does come out of nowhere.

When is generative resolution so implicit in the situation that it really should be considered "positional"? Post your answers in this thread!

 

[thefutilist]

A little while ago @thefutilist posted this:
I agree that the term "fail forward" isn't really the best here, because not all fail forward involves generative resolution. Suppose, for instance, that it's already established that a particular NPC is part of the situation: then a "fail forward" narration that has that NPC pipping a PC to the post won't be generative. But some "fail forward" involves generative resolution.

Here's an example from Torchbearer 2e play, that shows both possibilities:
Introducing the constable is generative: when the situation is initially established, their is the PC Golin trying to acquire rope from a vendor of rope; and then, when the roll fails, the GM (that is, me) introduces a new element into the scene to explain why the PC can't purchase the rope that he is after.

The second time the constable turns up, though, is not generative. The presence of a constable who doesn't like Golin has now been established as a feature of the situation in town, and so narrating a failure as the constable chasing Golin out of town is "positional" - an already-established element of the situation (the constable) acting on an already-established element of the situation (Golin) to change the latter's status (driven out of town).

When this episode happened, I had (as best I recall) already written up some notes for important NPCs in the town: the wizard Burne and the warrior Rufus (both taken from dungeon module T1 The Village of Hommlet). And in a much more recent session, I identified Rufus as the constable who had harassed Golin. But this "retcon" doesn't change the fact that the resolution of the first failure was generative. A note in my prep, which down the track I apply/re-purpose, doesn't change the fact that - as the situation was framed at the table - there was no constable in it.

I also think this example shows how the line can be blurry. After all, a town probably has a constable, and so implicit in any situation of doing things in town, is the possibility that a constable might approach you to ask questions. (And the constable was correct to suspect that Golin had some connection to the explosion and fire at the Hedge Wizard's place, and Golin's player knew this at the time.) And so it's hardly the case that the constable comes from nowhere!

Compare this example, from a John Harper blog:

I've seen people struggle with hard moves in the moment. Like, when the dice miss, the MC stares at it like, "Crap! Now I have to invent something! Better make it dangerous and cool! Uh... some ninja... drop out of the ceiling... with poison knives! Grah!"​

That's generative resolution that does come out of nowhere.

When is generative resolution so implicit in the situation that it really should be considered "positional"? Post your answers in this thread!

I want to rewind a bit. My issues with generative resolution are:

One: Structural. How the generation of content relates to the trajectory of the game as a whole.

Two: Aesthetic. What does the resolution mean in the fiction and how do we read it on the level of meaning and human value.

Three: Technical. Clarity around what’s going on as a procedure.



Johns blog on PbtA moves misses the point because he mixes different stuff together (three). Specifically, if what follows meets the group standards of ‘seems real’ with stakes. Furthermore John uses an example of bad play, the Ninjas, where as I would consider generative resolution bad even if it met group plausibility standards.

Although your specific framing of when implicit situation becomes positioning is a challenge to my view, if such a thing is possible then does my demarcation make any sense? I’m going to argue that it does (in PbtA anyway).

Torch bearer, and the Golin example you use, are a bit trickier for me because it shows how system specific content generation is. In the case of Torcbearer, what is the trigger for the roll? By which I mean, someone has to decide it is time to roll, how do they do so?

I’m betting that the more concrete the trigger, the less generative resolution occurs, we know what the failure state is going to be because it’s implicit in the roll.

Or if we flip the whole thing about and look at Golin attempts to buy within the framing of Apocalypse World.

The MC has to say, ok act under fire and the fire is that the constable will see you.

So the constable is there whichever way the dice go. Although the constables sudden invention is still subject to the ‘seems real’ standards.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think that what counts as generative depends to some extent on resolution. So the introduction of the constable is certainly generative in the first example, but I'd probably call the second generative as well because the constable isn't part of established situation involving the purchase of the shovel - he's introduced to the situation. That said, I do think that the two examples are different to some degree for the reasons you mention, specifically that in the second case the presence of the constable in the setting has already been established, but his presence in the situation at hand had not.

I think the difference there has a lot to do with how the constable 'feels' to the players as appropriate. Here's I'm speaking more generally about generative resolution. The first instance is the really tricky one because there's a lot of verisimilitude riding on it, while there's is far less at stake in that regard in the second instance.

In the case of Blades in the Dark, I'd probably start with the faction and PC relationships (to decide who's the most likely to be sticking their oar in) plus events and characters from recent play (because recent setting elements are, I think, easier to swallow than ones dredged up from months ago). That, combined with the current setting state and moving parts is a lot of possible triangulation.

 

[Fenris-77]

I would also like to state that I support any and all adjudication that involves ninjas.