Generative resolution

[RenleyRenfield]

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.

Indeed, that is very much what I was thinking in that regard.

So ... I still am not sure the question this thread is asking. Ideas?

Again, is this just a "how to different systems do this? are some more explicit in this?" or some other question?

 

[Fenris-77]

Indeed, that is very much what I was thinking in that regard.

So ... I still am not sure the question this thread is asking. Ideas?

Again, is this just a "how to different systems do this? are some more explicit in this?" or some other question?

Yeah, pretty much. The whole concept is a bit fuzzy, so don't worry about not knowing exactly what's being asked, that's kind of the point.

 

[pemerton]

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.

To an extent, yes. That's why I've given examples from a few different systems. There does seem to be a significant dissensus, though, over whether or not generative resolution is (or should be) a thing in Apocalypse World.

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).

I don't think this is fully accurate. One known consequence of a failed roll in TB2e is a twist. And a common sort of twist in town phase is a twist that brings the town phase to an end. And the player knew (as did their PC) that it was two PCs releasing a cinder imp that had led to the Hedge Witch's establishment being burned down. So the risk of retribution for that - with a twist as the method of bringing it to bear - was known.

This is one of the things I've been discussing with @thefutilist: to what extent does fictional position include implicit elements?

Are we asking if when its clear that the GM/player is adding something net new = is that "acceptable roleplay?"

@thefutilist doesn't much like generative resolution (that may be too simplistic; he will correct me to the extent necessary). It's one reason, I think, that contributes to his dislike (maybe that's too strong? again, I can be corrected as necessary) of Burning Wheel.

The objections/concerns are:

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.

My sense is that two is perhaps the strongest? And that one is a concern mostly because of its implications for two. (Again, corrections welcome.)

I want to come back to this:

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.

So, in TB2e, every roll is acting under fire. If there's no fire, no roll (it's a "good idea") but I've never seen a good idea used to acquire stuff: my players rely on their Resources attributes, and that calls for a roll.

It's a bit less clear in TB2e than Burning Wheel, so I'll switch to that. In Burning Wheel, what establishes "under fire" (or risk) is that a Belief (or similar PC build element) is at stake. Which is not fully separate from fictional position, but is partly separate - eg a PC wants to acquire a magic item to help deal with their balrog-possessed brother, and an angel feather presents itself, and so reading that feather's aura clearly requires a roll (because the Belief is at stake) - but the consequence of failure isn't necessarily clear at the moment of action declaration.

The parameters for consequences are clear - the PCs salient build elements - but that's not the same as the sort of situational/positional clarity that @thefutilist prefers. (The aura-reading/feather example is from my actual play: [Burning Wheel] First Burning Wheel session | Roleplaying Actual Play)

Personally, I like the BW heuristic - stakes => risk => roll. I recently GMed Mythic Bastionland, which uses the heuristic risk => stakes => roll; and I found that quite hard to do, given that Mythic Bastionland is relatively low myth. Prince Valiant (which as I posted upthread doesn't use generative resolution much if at all) is different, because it relies on prep of reasonably concrete situations that engage the PCs because of the whole premise of the game (namely, Arthurian knight errantry).

The previous paragraph shows the connection, I think, between @thefutilist's concerns about generative resolution and his concerns about low-/no-myth play. (Again, I am very happy to be corrected where I've got @thefutilist wrong.)

 

[zakael19]

Personally, I like the BW heuristic - stakes => risk => roll. I recently GMed Mythic Bastionland, which uses the heuristic risk => stakes => roll;

Doesn't MB follow the same as BW? Intent/Stakes -> Risk -> Roll?

 

[thefutilist]

Good stuff

Yeah you’ve nailed it.

The simple way to put it is that generative resolution is used for plot heavy games that proceed through twists and revelation. Positional resolution is used for character centric games where the plot is generated through conflict between characters.

Although that’s a massive generalisation. Generative resolution can produce profound themes and positional resolution is the default mode of what are often considered traditional games (GURPS, D&D, Vampire).

Generative resolution also has the advantage that it can double up and be used as resolving conflict into positional change. You can often do this in the narration phase after a roll. I’m pretty sure you could run a lot of Burning Wheel as positional if you wanted.

Although this leads to questions about how sturdy my model is. And whether I’m mixing up some stuff that’s actually discrete. The following example is a good case study.

Note that actor stance and director stance can occur simultaneously, in the following way: Tru-leigh's player, using on knowledge and perception that Tru-leigh has (ie he knows that he has to get Joachim's blood to his dark naga master, and he can see it spilling onto the floor) declares that Tru-leigh looks around. Actor stance. But then that action declaration is resolved in the usual way, and because it succeeds, Tru-leigh can see a vessel. That is director stance, in that Tru-leigh's player, via the successful Perception test, determined an aspect of the environment relative to Tru-leigh (ie a vessel that he could see) separated from Tru-leigh's ability to influence events (ie Tru-leigh didn't cause the vessel to be in the room). But the cleverness of the BW resolution system is that there is no tension or contradiction between actor stance for action declaration, with resolution permitting the "transformation" of that into director stance.

The issue at hand is whether Tru-leigh can gather up the blood. Perception rolls tend to enter a fuzzy zone but narration can retroactively describe the resolution in terms of motive action. For instance, if the player gets to narrate their failure they could do something like the following:

I methodically look for a vessel and find one but I’ve taken too much time and the blood is now drained over the floor (says something about a methodical approach, speaks to character)

In a rush I grab the nearest vessel and place it under the body but the vessel is cracked and the blood seeps through.

I look around, see nothing and cup my hands under the body, the blood seeps through my fingers.

Or in an area that doesn’t involve perception. Think about a persuasion check where the content of the speech is narrated after the roll. I persuade Lucy to go to the dance with me. We roll and I succeed and may narrate something as different as:

I ask her in a breathy tone and my sheer sexual charisma overwhelms her.

I appeal to her vanity by talking up how perfect a couple we’d make and how jealous it would make the other attendees.

The above is generative but the closer I hew to established facts, say facts about Lucy’s vanity, the more the fuzziness between the two methods might be revealed to simply be when stakes are set.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

To an extent, yes. That's why I've given examples from a few different systems. There does seem to be a significant dissensus, though, over whether or not generative resolution is (or should be) a thing in Apocalypse World.

See below...

The simple way to put it is that generative resolution is used for plot heavy games that proceed through twists and revelation. Positional resolution is used for character centric games where the plot is generated through conflict between characters.

I am not saying I disagree with much said by anyone here.

But from these two statements i can clearly say = Pasion de las Pasiones defies both above statements, and sets them both as untrue for being 'separate', or at least a rather incomplete question of, "should or should not", because Pasion proves it can and does so with great acclaim.

Pasion is a PBTA game.
Pasion has very clearly both ...
..."generative resolution is used for plot heavy games that proceed through twists and revelation" = quite literally has 2 moves that do this specific thing plus a few other minor ones that do similar.
... "Positional resolution is used for character centric games where the plot is generated through conflict between characters" = this is the crux of the gameplay loops and also literally called out by name in many many moves.

............

So..... Again, I am not fully sure what we hope to gain here, other than to maybe identify what games do these two things well, and which games do both well and which games do neither? if so, then these are all useful posts and questions for sure!

 

[RenleyRenfield]

...BW heuristic - stakes => risk => roll.
...Mythic Bastionland, which uses the heuristic risk => stakes => roll;

This is a fun point, I would be interested in how each of these plays into and plays out generative and positional gameplay (each utilizing the ideas separately or mixing generate and positional)

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Although this leads to questions about how sturdy my model is. And whether I’m mixing up some stuff that’s actually discrete. The following example is a good case study.

I think, maybe dunno yet, the mistake is is the initial assumption that any of this is discreate or that there is a model at all. Passion is one such game that breaks everything many have said here. And Blades can as well, since the idea of generative can be fed from and part of position. Which is by and large true for any PBTA game too that has Act Under Pressure of some sort.

What I mean to say is that its perfectly valid to entirely mash together generative and position as just one thing that is 'context'. Then we are looking at inputs and outputs based on 'context'. (how much is "implied" or implicit is a digression; which only matters in so much as how it does or does not break the 'context').

The issue at hand is whether Tru-leigh can gather up the blood. Perception rolls tend to enter a fuzzy zone but narration can retroactively describe the resolution in terms of motive action. For instance, if the player gets to narrate their failure they could do something like the following:

I methodically look for a vessel and find one but I’ve taken too much time and the blood is now drained over the floor (says something about a methodical approach, speaks to character)
....

FYI, i have been much enjoying your examples, very cool!

 

[pemerton]

Doesn't MB follow the same as BW? Intent/Stakes -> Risk -> Roll?

Not as I read it. It first asks is there a risk?

 

[zakael19]

Not as I read it. It first asks is there a risk?

Interesting! When I read p16 it asks:

"What are you trying to do?"
"Why can you do this/what makes it possible?" (if you don't have Leverage, go back to top)
"Does this have a Cost?" (If yes, make sure you understand it)
"Is something at Risk here? If no, show the outcome. If yes, establish what it is and roll."

So I understand that Risk is the last thing you assess, and it determines if there's a roll.