Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8599854" data-attributes="member: 16814">Well,  you keep saying I'm wrong, so what are you doing?  From the below,  where you continue to argue and tell me I'm wrong,  this bit seems like a rhetorical attempt to cast me as a bad actor. It's extremely hard to claim you aren't arguing when you take an opposed position and,  well,  keep arguing it. You moved the pea and imagined a situation where there is no conflict.   If both agendas align so that each gets what they want,  there was no conflict to resolve!  You can't erase the conflict and then claim victory for the conflict resolution.The toy example had very quick conflict -- Joe wants the Princess to fall off the cliff, Bob doesn't.  The resolution in the example has the Princess not falling off the cliff, but instead being saved by Bob.  Joe did not get what Joe wanted.  Joe compromised.  Bob got what Bob wanted, Bob did not compromise.  You've replaced Joe's want with just pushing the Princess and being done with it so that Joe can get what he wants (Princess pushed) and Bob gets what he wants (Princess doesn't fall off cliff) and said that the consensus conflict resolution worked for each.  Except, there wasn't a conflict here.  Both sides could get exactly what they wanted without interfering with each other.  That's not conflict resolution.This is kinda of a Gish Gallop of irrelevant questions to the point.  Who cares about cliffhangers -- this doesn't address conflict resolution at all.  If it's a cliffhanger, meaning the fiction is paused, how does the fiction change such that the conflict is removed?  This seems like a postulation like "what if you could hear people scream in space?"  It's nice, but unless you can actually come up with a routine method we're not going anywhere.  A corner case (which I don't see, but could theoretically allow for) wouldn't show much because then we're still talking majority of cases not operating as Story Now except in a specific arrangement of things.  That's not good enough for a game.  This is mostly just more empty conjecture of there maybe being a possibility that something might happen that could be, conceivably, something that might be worth thinking about more.  And that all of that means that Fiasco can totally be story now, if, maybe, the things that might exist show up and show us how.  No, man, make points, not empty conjectures that aren't anything more that "I really believe this is so but can't articulate why."How does a fixed endpoint to the game address anything at all about consensus conflict resolution?  Is this more of "if we put a pin in play and wait (ignoring that any intervening play will have the same problems) something magical might happen in the meantime and then you could just end the game and that makes the consensus conflict resolution issues go away?  I'm totally not following the thinking here at all.Look, Fiasco is a conch passing sandwich with a creamy spread of Improv Theater consensus resolution inside.  All of this cuts hard against any kind of Story Now play.  So what?  Why are you convinced that consensus conflict resolution must allow for Story Now play or that Fiasco or Montsegur 1244 must be Story Now games?  I don't understand the drive here.  To me, one of the largest issues in discussion of Story Now games is that they get so often lumped in with storytelling games and there's an assumption play is the same.  Here you're stridently arguing that a game that bills itself as a storytelling game and that has all of the tech of storytelling games (consensus resolution, conch passing) is a Story Now game.  I think this is doing a disservice to the clear distinctions between these play agendas and discussion surrounding play.</blockquote>

Verification