Search results

I went and thought about it for a bit, especially in the context of more low-myth systems, and there were complicating factors (I don’t appreciate the irony). If we take very bare bones conflict resolution it works as follows: One: Triggers when an ACTION in attempted in the fiction that is...

The GM needs to frame the player into decisions that are consequential for the mechanics. I’m bad at explaining how to do this because it’s not of particular interest to me. I’m only dimly aware of why Blades is fun and that’s only because I’ve played Dungeon World with a Blades GM and had that...

Here’s where I’m at. One: Creating fiction in response to each other is trivial. The player does something and the GM makes up whatever. Rinse and repeat. Two: Constraints are what makes role-playing fun. So if you prep an adventure with fictional stuff, you have your constraints. This is...

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...

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...

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).

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.

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...

Yes but let me break it down further. If making a move on a miss means introducing a problem we could, very broadly, put the generation into a few different tiers. Ninja’s attack (This breaks plausibility, seems naff and probably doesn’t have anything to do with anything) What if it’s...

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...

A great many people have difficulty switching between different systems of resolution. For instance: You want to escape the guards and you’re doing that by leaping across the roof-tops. (what happens next and how do we decide) You fail and the guards catch you (how did we decide?) Not...

Yeah it’s more an illustration than something I’d recommend. You can just take a resolution system and as long as you’re playing to find out, use it to find out. In practice I can’t see why anyone would use GURPS for such a thing unless they were trying to prove a point.

At minimum you need: Some kind of organisational question which we’re answering The principle that you are actually playing to find out what happens as it relates to the question Attentiveness to the ethos of the characters involved If you strip out the GM section of GURPS 4 and replace it...

Slugblaster is a good example of a game that creates story but where the player doesn’t create story. Not in any meaningful way, they just colour in the lines. It’s a bit like one of those 90’s wod games or critical role, I’d put it in the same category.

Yeah it’s a story to me. I’m making character choices based on what they would do but it’s through the prism of value rather than rationality. Same with how I perceive the other participants contributions to the fiction, they’re good if they’re expressive in the same vein that stories are...

This conversation inspired me to go back to AW and formalise and tighten up what I’d do. My word is it complicated. The way threats are organised in 2e is weird because they’re both an actual thing (sometimes) and organisation nodes. So I went and contrasted Burned Over and 1E against each...

The agenda and principles are hard, in so much as they do tell you how to generate fiction. They’re soft in that they can be replaced, re-written and even ignored if you understand the purpose behind them. To take Apocalypse World. I ignore ‘look through cross-hairs’. I think I understand what...

If/when I need to think about it more formally I consider all characters as a priority stack. So it would look something like. Jim Rebel: Part of the Z-force mutants who war against the evil mechnoids. Don’t get talked down to Get closer with Katline Fight the mechnoids Human stuff in...

Our last conversation about this was interesting. It got me thinking the constraints + authenticity are really the important part in general. Then there has to be an organising principle in play that creates trajectory. That could take the form of minimal myth + mechanics or it could be creating...

IAWA acts as training wheels in that regard I think. Apocalypse world gets more complex with it though and is like the advanced version of iawa. If you don’t know what you’re looking for then it’s hard to know what to fix in place. Where the threat map doesn’t work, is that it doesn’t show the...