Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8595687" data-attributes="member: 16814">Firstly,  I started this complaint with the consensus resolution for Montsegur 1244, not Fiasco.   Fiasco was an example of a different system with similar but not levitation the same problem.   Fiasco outright encourages choosing story over protagonism. On point,  fom Edwards:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Drama resolution relies on asserted statements without reference to listed attributes or quantitative elements.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Karma resolution relies on referring to listed attributes or quantitative elements without a random element.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Fortune resolution relies on utilizing a random device of some kind, usually delimited by quantitative scores of some kind.</li> </ul>Each one of Drama, Karma, and Fortune deserves massive dissection. My on-line discussion of Fortune-in-the-Middle as a facilitator of Narrativist play is a good example; so is my comparison of flat/linear curves with separate/incorporate effects.These three types of resolution may be combined in a near-infinite variety across the various elements of RPG design; few or no RPGs fail to make use of at least two of them. I also claim that they may be combined in near-infinite variety across the various GNS goals. No particular one of them corresponds to any (entire) one of the GNS goals. Most importantly, I do not think that Drama methods necessarily facilitate Narrativist play. However, I do suggest that a game system may be organized such that a GNS subset and developed Premise are more understandable; this topic is developed further in the next chapter"Emphasis mine. The social contract does do this, but it does it once, at the beginning, whereas consensus resolution does it every single resolution.  Clearly the social contract constrains available play! It also enables play because you can hash out of themes are available or not and everyone is on the same page.  For example, when I played  The Between, the system has a heavy dose of sexuality baked in.   We agreed to avoid this and so built characters that did not feature over sexuality as part of their protagonism. This is clearly an additional constraint and impacted play,  but did so at a high level.   It still did so.   With consensus resolution you have to balance consensus against social contract agreed protagonism because you cannot have everyone win at protagonism if there is a conflict.   You are now pressured to choose for the story. I believe you believe that.   That you cannot see that having to come to a consensus agreement with another player over a conflict means that one or both of you is choosing to no longer engage in full throated protagonism for their PC so that a compromise solution can be achieved is a bit of a blind spot. Like how in the Fiasco game I referenced before,  I chose to resolve a scene with my guitarist character in a bad way (he took possession of a load of coke knowing the cops were on the way and got busted) because it made for good story,  especially since it allow another PC to advance her plans.   That it was in character was not really that important -- Fiasco allows for lots of post-choice rationalization of acts as in character and never really acts to put pressure on what aPC cares about.   Also it meant everyone would give me a delicious black die to go on my accumulating pile of them.</blockquote>

Verification