Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6295268" data-attributes="member: 6696971">That's about the score of it.  I'm trying to figure out what  [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] is thinking upon with andIt seems that the first bit is a testimonial against a generalized conflict resolution system/framework that is expected to be the load-bearing mechanics which move play along (I think I've seen you voice your displeasure there before)?  Is that correct?And perhaps the second bit is advocating for story material that interfaces specifically with a granular task resolution system (eg with objective Spellcraft DCs to discern the nature of illusions)?  The way I see it, there are a few ways to handle the "Perilous Journey Through the Blue Dragon's Desert Domain."1a)  A granular task resolution system.  This system attempts to hard-code setting components, marrying narrative fluff and objective DCs.  The GM might make a few rolls with contests but generally, the objective DCs are his mechanical pushback.  Win conditions are malleable (GM ruling).  The GM is expected to make a lot of rulings along the way, from singular tasks to what seems (another ruling but this one based on the GM's model of the phenomenon and setting elements at work) fair to legitimately stipulate the "win condition" for either the PCs or the dragon.  The degree and type (and whether they are bound by it when framing future conflicts) is generally left to (yet another) GM ruling/inclination.  2e AD&D's approach and some approaches to 3.x are good examples of this.1b)  Like the above except there is much more codified in the way of potential adversity.  You're talking about adherence to a pre-established % chance of random encounters rolled every <time interval> for <specified locale> and/or hex exploration protocol.  Old school D&D and some approaches to 3.x are good examples of this.2a)  A focused conflict resolution system set out to specifically capture the action and fallout of a specific trope.  You've got a basic resolution system (eg; roll 2d6 + wis vs a DC system of tiered outcomes/fallout), pre-ordained roles for the PCs to assume (such as Scout) which prescribe fictional positioning (perform reconnaissance ahead of the group) and their expectant impact (attempt to have the group avoid trouble) and mechanical deployment (roll + wis).  The basic resolution scheme guides complications, fallout and ultimate resolution.  An example of this might be Dungeon World's "Undertake a Perilous Journey".  The pushback by the GM is only in the way of evolved fictional positioning.  He does not deploy dice.  He frames the situation and he makes moves against the PCs by proxy of escalating/re-framing the conflict through the fictional positioning evolution that he is responsible for, until the conflict resolution system dictates a win/loss condition and whatever fallout/proceeds stems from that.2b) A variation of the focused conflict resolution outlined above is when the GM is taking an active role in the mechanical resolution of the conflict to be resolved.  He is actively deploying dice and making strategic/tactical decisions with his available dice based on genre logic, fictional positioning, and probably what is fun and/or best escalates the stakes/conflict.  Burning Wheel's "Duel of Wits" is an example of this.3a)  A generalized conflict resolution system that sets out to capture a myriad of genre tropes and the fallout/proceeds of the resolved conflict.  The resolution system is meant to be malleable in that it allows for varying stakes/tropes established at the outset (which are to be resolved) and, within those stakes/tropes, varying PC roles/responsibilities at the outset of the conflict and possibly still varying as the conflict progresses toward denouement and the fictional positioning evolves until the relevant question at the heart of the conflict (Will the PC's find the medicine man in Evermurk Swamp?) is answered.  Similar to 2a, the pushback by the GM is primarily in the way of evolved fictional  positioning.  He does not deploy dice but he does set DCs in accord with the system's guidelines while simultaneously considering for other interests (fictional positioning, what is fun and tension-inducing; eg, I want this required hard DC to be toward the end to make them sweat).  He frames the situation and he  makes moves against the PCs by proxy of escalating/re-framing the  conflict through the fictional positioning evolution that he is  responsible for, until the conflict resolution system dictates a  win/loss condition and whatever fallout/proceeds stems from that.  4e "Skill Challenges" are a good example of this.3b)  A variation of the generic conflict resolution system outlined above is akin to the change from 2a to 2b.  The GM is taking an active role in the mechanical resolution of the  conflict to be resolved.  He is actively deploying dice and making  strategic/tactical decisions with his available dice based on genre  logic, fictional positioning, and probably what is fun and/or best  escalates the stakes/conflict.  The more risks the PCs take, the more they escalate the conflict (both fictional positioning and mechanically).  This is because those risks the PCs take systemically feed back (by way of the mechanics of the resolution system) into greater threats, inevitable complications, upped stakes, and an attendant higher chance that something precious will be at risk, compromised, or outright lost.  The conflict resolution system naturally heaps on the tension this way.  Dogs in the Vineyard and MHRP are good examples of this.KM, it seems that you're not a fan of 3a or 3b.  Maybe you're inclined toward 2a or 2b, not sure. However, my guess is when you talk about "gave me some mechanics", you're referring to 1b; tools for hexmap exploration; random encounter tables, travel time stats and attrition of supplies, how "getting lost" works and what are the consequences/fallout are.  Is that correct?</blockquote>

Verification