Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8382330" data-attributes="member: 6696971">This has been a recurring conversation with myself and others:"What constrains GM complications (in various games)?"One game that has come up a lot as of recent is Blades in the Dark (due to some comments by a not-so-well-loved-by-ENWorld TTRPG analyst...whom I overwhelmingly agree with in their analysis but not in this case).  So I'm going to focus on that game to start (drifting to others if the conversation on that game resolves or dries up).  I'll get to a postmortem of a few excerpts of games I've GMed later, but first I want to lay out the intersection of action/conflict resolution + conversation structure + principles + best practices that work to constrain the GM "Complication Space."[HR][/HR]This is basically the alpha and the omega.  Pulled straight from Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World.  It doesn't get more explicit then this.  You're having a conversation.  They open a book of prayers/hymnal of an ancient god looking for one thing or another.  Alright cool...but worse Position and I'm bringing the supernatural/god into the scene if things go south.  Sure you can make a sneaky run across the long corridor, but its a long run with eyes on it.  Its going to be Limited Effect and you need Great to get across it in one go.  Do you want to trade Position for Effect here...Set it up (etc)? Fail and I'm starting a Security Measures Clock and ticking it.Whatever it is, you're having an explicit conversation about consequences and asking what they want to do.This is the implicit part.  On a large number of consequences, the consequence is straight-forward (eg you have no cover and you're shot so you take Harm = Position).  Telegraph it sufficiently and you're good. Once you've telegraphed it or outright told them the consequences, follow through.Ok so you didn't outright tell them the consequences and ask.  You telegraphed but the players don't feel the consequence was right/didn't understand the implications.  Well, that is overwhelmingly going to get sussed out when you're setting Position and Effect (more on that below) because if the threat level suddenly doesn't match the fiction, then you immediately know something is wrong.  But if the conversation didn't flesh out stuff sufficiently and the players feel like things are off because of it.  No big deal.  Rewind.  Reset.  Fix it.  Play on.So this is going to shoulder the bulk of the burden of action/conflict resolution clarity and works in concert with the above to telegraph severity of consequence/new situation post action resolution.You're at Desperate Position because you're in a duel against a dangerous foe?  Well, Harm 3 is on the menu (or Harm 1 and another Complication like Reduced Effect or disarmed or a Clock and 2 Ticks etc etc).You're trying to convince The Duskvol Times lead editor and a host of your best writers to run a piece that hasn't been sourced/is counter to their interests?  She's higher Tier than you and they have Scale on you.  Limited Effect.Complex situation/obstacle?  Bring in a Clock.  Social conflict with back and forth against a deft opponent?  Make it Tug of War (back and forth) and start it low (it fills, you get what you want...other way and you don't).  Trying to disable a complex electroplasmic bomb with a short fuse?  Make it Racing with 4 for Boom and 6 for Whew.  As well as shapes, they come in lots of sizes (you're rarely using 10, but 4, 6, and 8 see a ton of use). Position and Effect will tell you # of Ticks (but again, a GM can divvy out multiple Complications on a move...Risky position could mean 1 Tick + a Controlled consequence...Effect always tells you # of Ticks).You've got rich characters with goals.  You've got thematically loaded genre touchstones.  You've got setting and situation with all the antagonism required to distill the merit (or not) of the Crew and its Scoundrels.  As play continues...you'll get more of that.  Things will naturally distil.  Stuff will melt away while other stuff comes in sharp focus.As the conversation of play marches on, you build and offload a constellation of cause and effect.  You clarify intent and goal.  You winnow consequence of action.  You're leading an interesting, clarifying, explicit or telegraphing, system-assisted conversation.  If you're doing it right, openly, and with integrity...the consequence of singular actions + their mechanical results and the accretion of those actions/results will lead to a clear loop of "situation > action > consequence > new situation" until there is nothing left for play to resolve.[HR][/HR]Alright, that is enough for now.  I'll do some post mortem later.</blockquote>

Verification