Generative resolution

[thefutilist]

What would non-generative resolution, in the Circles case, look like? Having one of the Elves appear, but being angry or dismissive of Aedhros? I don't think it would have been as satisfying.

It’s really hard to create parity amongst different situations with different resolution mechanics and so I think the following is actually kind of forced.

Aehdros begins to evade the guard, and moves toward the Embassy hoping he’ll run into an Etarch.

Say in Sorcerer...


Aehrdro’s hope and homeland VS the city (which wants to emesh him in depravity)

Sounds like a humanity roll. Failure.

You walk toward the embassy and around it, the guard following, quicker. You find yourself in dark twisting back alleys. In total darkness. Watching as the guard stumbles around a corner, he can’t see you, he seems a little scared now, unsure. You find your hand on the hilt of your knife.

Now I would probably never have a conflict like that AND I don’t think it’s necessarily better. Well in general I do but not for any give instance.

Your example of play (sounds awesome by the way), was reincorporating newly generated facts into the situation. Because you’re attuned to thematic stuff, that all came with it. This is the exact thing that gives that sense of emergent causality. The component pieces strongly suggest something more (as if by themselves) when you put them together.

 

[pemerton]

Aehdros begins to evade the guard, and moves toward the Embassy hoping he’ll run into an Etarch.

Say in Sorcerer...


Aehrdro’s hope and homeland VS the city (which wants to emesh him in depravity)

Sounds like a humanity roll. Failure.

You walk toward the embassy and around it, the guard following, quicker. You find yourself in dark twisting back alleys. In total darkness. Watching as the guard stumbles around a corner, he can’t see you, he seems a little scared now, unsure. You find your hand on the hilt of your knife.

I don't know Sorcerer as well as I should: what happens when Aedhros's hand goes to the hilt of his knife?

 

[thefutilist]

as you'd expect from a PBTA offshoot full of "I introduce a complication to the scene on a miss that should follow from teh established fiction but may not be from the immediate established fiction)

Really on point post. The snipped bit is interesting because the origin of this discussion was me and @pemerton discussing Apocalypse World and my claim that it doesn't (or shouldn't) use generative resolution and everyone is playing it wrong.

 

[thefutilist]

I don't know Sorcerer as well as I should: what happens when Aedhros's hand goes to the hilt of his knife?

That was me adding flourish. As a GM I'm throwing it back to the player because I assume he's going to kill the guard. he would be in his rights to say, no way I flee the city (or whatever).

 

[thefutilist]

The first of the ones that I want to focus on is the Sing check. The context for this is (i) a Belief, that I will free Alicia and myself form the curse of Thoth together with (ii) an Instinct, When my mind is elsewhere, quietly sing the Elven lays. The rules of the game demand a test at this point: given that, as a player, I'm trying to establish an advantage die that bears directly upon my Belief, there is something at stake, and so it's time to roll the dice. What's the conflict? I guess it's a conflict within Aedhros's spiteful soul, between his reality and some aspiration he still has to truly be an Elf. (One of his character traits is Self-deluded.)

In non-generative resolution, the failure would therefore - I guess? - have to pertain to Aedhros himself. Whether adding a new, disadvantageous die trait (perhaps in some fashion stepping up Self-deluded from a character trait); or carrying forward a penalty to his next test. (This seems to be what Vincent Baker does in some of his examples of AW play, turning their move against them.)

This is interesting. In Sorcerer I’d frame it as a humanity test and the roll over gives you extra dice to put toward conflicts with Thoth. Although, like the other conflict, I’m not sure I’d do it? Maybe? I’m more likely to do this one and than the one with the Etarch. It’s probably very group dependant.

I’d probably want the player to narrate on failure. Say if I was playing I might narrate it as ‘I sing the song but the contours and cold stone of the city eat it. The words feel hollow.’ Something like that.

 

[zakael19]

Really on point post. The snipped bit is interesting because the origin of this discussion was me and @pemerton discussing Apocalypse World and my claim that it doesn't (or shouldn't) use generative resolution and everyone is playing it wrong.

Here's an interesting question: if the GM/MC is aware of a larger set of Threats/Dangers/etc due to their prep, and they bring that in on a miss, is that generative in your consideration? It's adding to teh scene from the player's point of view - they didn't know X was lurking, or if they did not with such immediacy. Or does having previously say, hinted at future badness (eg: I'm pretty sure an NPC told the players the grounds around the Ruined Tower were cursed with undead, and then I introduced one into a scene on a miss) suffice?

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Here's an interesting question: if the GM/MC is aware of a larger set of Threats/Dangers/etc due to their prep, and they bring that in on a miss, is that generative in your consideration? It's adding to teh scene from the player's point of view - they didn't know X was lurking, or if they did not with such immediacy. Or does having previously say, hinted at future badness (eg: I'm pretty sure an NPC told the players the grounds around the Ruined Tower were cursed with undead, and then I introduced one into a scene on a miss) suffice?

This gets to part of what I am not understanding about @pemerton question in this post.

All of all of what all of everyone has said here feels entirely system dependent. So are we just asking = "for given system X, when a roll is made, how can we determine if we should generate new fiction or stick within what was established in the position the was was undertaken only"??

Because Vampire V5 handles this very different than how Blades handles this which handles this very different than how PBTA handles this, which each PBTA game handles it differently. so... Help me out here...

....

I will point back to the constable: generative vs. position? = you never said a what the threat was before the roll, and likewise you never limited what the threat could (due to not stating the threat to the position).
- ...However big or small, hard or soft that choice is, does not seem to alter what the 'meaning' how that roll is resolved is.

....

Are we asking if when its clear that the GM/player is adding something net new = is that "acceptable roleplay?" (i don't think anyone is asking this here, so just double checking if it is asked or not)

.....

Are we asking what RPGs have the most Generation of Net New (generative?) content and context to the scene? = I can think of two that would battle for top spot off the top of my head, not sure which is more excessive...)

.....

\TLDR: wat?

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think D&D really does generative resolution per se, at least not in terms of the RAW. I think it can help the system a lot to include it in places though. This same thing goes for pretty much any system with a binary pass/fail skill system, most of which don't do much beyond 'task failed' on a failed roll.

Maybe there are some cool cases I haven't considered?

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I don't think D&D really does generative resolution per se, at least not in terms of the RAW. I think it can help the system a lot to include it in places though. This same thing goes for pretty much any system with a binary pass/fail skill system, most of which don't do much beyond 'task failed' on a failed roll.

Maybe there are some cool cases I haven't considered?

This is also what I am wondering too...

So I Fail a persuasion check, that reads RaW = nothing. you failed. There is no result of a fail roll listed in D&D book on this skill check (or most any?) A few have "you failed climb, take damage" so that implies....
- yes, D&D has generate results on fail, they are just 100% GM fiat (they are always what PBTA would call a MC Move so to speak?)

So back to persuasion, it is almost always roleplayed as, or even assumed, that on a Fail of persuasion, the NPC or situation gets to react (often in a negative way, as that is for some reason implied often?)
- Does this mean D&D has implied "Position and Effect" concepts where maybe the GM was supposed to state before the roll what was at risk/failure meant? (again due to things like climb and lockpicking, it seems yes, there is an implied fail result where something happens and the GM was supposed to make up what it was just like a trapped lock?)

I dunno, just thought on pass/fail binary systems...

 

[Fenris-77]

This is also what I am wondering too...

So I Fail a persuasion check, that reads RaW = nothing. you failed. There is no result of a fail roll listed in D&D book on this skill check (or most any?) A few have "you failed climb, take damage" so that implies....
- yes, D&D has generate results on fail, they are just 100% GM fiat (they are always what PBTA would call a MC Move so to speak?)

So back to persuasion, it is almost always roleplayed as, or even assumed, that on a Fail of persuasion, the NPC or situation gets to react (often in a negative way, as that is for some reason implied often?)
- Does this mean D&D has implied "Position and Effect" concepts where maybe the GM was supposed to state before the roll what was at risk/failure meant? (again due to things like climb and lockpicking, it seems yes, there is an implied fail result where something happens and the GM was supposed to make up what it was just like a trapped lock?)

I dunno, just thought on pass/fail binary systems...

I think the place to start is, as the GM, to set generative consequences as part of adjudication before the player rolls. That doesn't escape the gravity of the rules as RAW and means that you aren't dropping gotchas on the players.

So - "If you fail the persuasion check there is a chance the merchant will call for his guards" or whatever.