Recent content by thefutilist

This is why it's worth asking, why use resolution mechanics in the first place. What are they for? what's the fun of the game? The resolution mechanics fit within a broader framework, how does it all hang together? Take Apocalypse World and the cook. Now AW can be interpreted a few different...

Good call. I use this distinction all the time as a basic technique. One is very much in the vein of Apocalypse World where various 'things' are distinct threats and therefore implicitly in play as people as far as the resolution is concerned. It's great as a way of framing conflict resolution...

Oh yeah 100% agree.

Yeah I just found it amusing that you independently created a very similar demarcation. In GNS speak: Crumbly rocks is color, the nature of the writing in @pemertons example is actually color as well until the resolution system kicks in and then it gains situational positioning. I'm also not...

You probably picked up using the word color from conversations around GNS, which does have different categorisations for this stuff because it is extremely important for looking at how systems are different. To give a really clear example, there's a game called 'The pool'. When you win a roll...

Things can get weird because a lot of Narrativist best practices aren't actually best practices and what gets ported between games is obviously reliant on the group. The three most influential games on Narrativism used to be Sorcerer, Burning Wheel and Inspectres. They all had different...

I don't really buy that for the numerous reasons the 'Nar side' has gone over. I can give you my take on what's probably happening. 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...

Entities operate at different granularities and this allows color to become situation whilst still being a resolution procedure rather than a generative procedure. Let me try and turn this word salad into an illustrative example. So the game is Sorcerer, which operates in many respects like...

It's by design though right. Rolling for intent in the BW style destroys puzzle solving. Conflict resolution in say Sorcerer, can destroy puzzle solving and that's a strength of the system. It's harder than in BW because you have to be on the lookout and make sure you resolve at the right...

The definition of conflict resolution has morphed over time. In its original definition, all it means is that you're resolving conflicting priorities between entities. I'm not sure about Deep Cuts but Blades wasn't conflict resolution (look at the resolution trigger), and I'm assuming if Cuts...

Hmm, well given the same conditions as @pemerton gave, I'd stop the game and have a chat and clarify why they didn't want to go into the dungeon. If they said their characters just decided to do something else. I'd have a wizard create an illusion where no matter which way they went, there was...

How do you provide new material? you mean like you have another load of prep? edit: asking because in some games, if you don't have prep you may have to end the game so they amount to the same thing.

I getcha and if it's not obvious, I do of course agree.

I would push back on the idea that there was a single thing. Due to the whole, what's the reward for play and what techniques are emphasised. I mean what games would you consider representative of the standard model?

Because I'm GNS brained I obviously have a cognitive bias but I see defence of technique as (often) related to it's necessity for functional play for a given agenda. So you can't share content authority in Gamism because of planning (and execution as well really) Meta-currencies, in Gamism...