NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6194426" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I'm going to make a quick observation here that links complex, conflict resolution frameworks and GM force.  There are a few reasons why I am a fan of complex, conflict resolution frameworks as the containment vessel for framing, mechanically resolving, and concluding certain conflicts.  The 1st reason is because the contained mechanical resolution regulates, assures, and guides; it promises a specific pacing and dramatic structure of a conflict.  I want a (relatively) consistent, specific pacing and dramatic structure of a conflict.  The fact that pacing and dramatic structure resides in the mechanics of the conflict resolution framework (rather in GM force/manipulation) is a rewarding aspect of complex conflict resolution frameworks.  GM frames scene, players deploy their thematic resources and engage the resolution mechanics to facillitate success (and as an intentional byproduct, manifest their archetype), and we both understand that we are moving down a track, evolving a narrative together, until finality is asserted by the "stressed out" or win/loss condition as it is mandated by the framework.  Reason number 2 relates directly to reason number one and relates back to the conversation at hand.  Much of the conversation has been devoted to using the fictional positioning (hopefully overt, granular, and well conveyed) and GMing techniques to challenge the Wizards ability to re-frame the scene.  The Wizard player uses his resources to attempt to turn what could be a complex, dynamic, engaging conflict into an anti-climactic, non-complex scenario by deploying spell(s) that circumvent engaging standard task resolution mechanics and, by proxy of this and their open-ended power, seek to automatically and immediately achieve the "win/success condition" of the scene.  So the response is for the GM to either leverage strategic gaffes in the Wizards playbook/plan...or leverage the lack of perfect resolution/granular information (and the natural blind spots that this creates for the player) that is inherent to TTRPGing; eg This Lizardman is on sentinel duty and just now is being relieved by his buddy Louie.  Its all but impossible for the Wizard player to have all of the requisite spatial and temporal information available to him (that a normal inhabitant of the world might) to make fool-proof "decisions under uncertainty".  Therefore, a GM can always (without fail) inject some "blind-spot" conflict that short-circuits the players strategic deployment of a spell (or spells) to re-frame the scene with early and immediate stipulation of the "win/success condition."  This is not difficult given the medium.  However, heavy use of this technique is 100 % GM-force.  And that heavy usage may or may not be anathema (and thus toxic) to a Wizard player's expectations of "fair-use" of natural "blind-spots" inherent to TTRPGs to extend conflicts and render innert their deployed spell.So what is my second reason that I prefer complect, non-conflict resolution frameworks to facillatate scene resolution?  It utterly abrogates the need for GM-force, "Calvinball" and the potential toxic relationship with Wizard players that may evolve from such back-and-forth.  It mandates that if they successfully resolve their first spell (be it an automatic success or a rolled check or a leveraged metagame resource), we are going to frame that panel/aspect of the conflict in a way that is thematically/archtypically appropriate for the Wizard.  He is Wizarding and his Wizarding is awesome, powerful (whathaveyou) and (this is key) effective in facillitating the "win/success condition" for the conflict (a success or a move down the enemy's stress track).  However, we both understand that it does not, in itself, stipulate the "I/we win condition" and that further complications/challenges/situations are going to manifest to move the scene to conclusion.  Whats more, these further complications/challenges/situations can be resolved by more effective, thematic, awesome Wizarding that affects scene resolution in a positive way (as a Fighter ablating HPs) but not in a total (and anti-climactic) way, until the final portion of the "win/success condition is met" (as happens when a Fighter ablates that final enemy HP).  I'm not "hosing him" or "moving goalposts" or "playing Calvinball" by leveraging inherent temporal/spatial/resolution blind-spots (that it may be a very reasonable surmise, or an inevitability, that he would not have access to).  I'm just playing the game and in that game the mechanics say that he must Wizard more and in different ways to resolve the scene and that the fiction will reflect "powerful, brilliant Wizarding" (or whatever archetype he is playing to) as he does so (with Fail Forward being deployed as necessary).In other words, the scene mechanics (n success before 3 failures, requring d12 or 5 points of stress to win/lose, ablation to 0 HPs) provide the "force", not the GM.  Further, the resources are built/codified around this paradigm and the framng guidelines dictate that "awesome and effective Wizarding" are a result of a successful check/action/contest along the way...rather than "yeah, you did the cool Magic Jar thing but smarty-pants Wizard didn't plan for all contingencies and now you look like an idiot as Louie (who may very well be blind-spot conflict extender 001 rather than a legitimate gaffe/hole in the player's strategic planning) enters stage left and the gig is up".</blockquote>

Verification