Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9026382" data-attributes="member: 6790260">You don't actually need a &quot;no rules&quot; system to do this though. This is how Dungeon World works, for example. In its most basic sense, you have a conversation about the events that are going on (&quot;the fiction&quot;) until someone does something that is uncertain in outcome and where there are interesting consequences for both success and failure.*At this point, you make a move. Believe it or not, several moves in DW have shockingly similar structure to exactly what you described there. They just have one key difference:It's not all up to the GM whether things succeed or not.That's sort of the critical problem here. In absolutely pure negotiation land, 100% of the negative consequences, the failures, the falling-just-short, comes from the GM deciding that the players simply don't succeed. There is no possibility for the GM to believe that both success and failure could occur, unless they are simply being completely arbitrary in their decisions.More importantly, I have no idea what you mean by &quot;it minimizes negotiation.&quot; That structure IS negotiation! That's literally what it is. You are offering &quot;a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice,&quot; and figuring out what the player will accept. You are rejecting proposals, but offering alternatives. Etc. It is very literally the process of negotiation, making offers and counter-offers until a deal is struck.*Which does not mean every failure directly leads to high octane action. Just means when you fail, it costs something important (resources, time, allies, etc.), or hurts you in a meaningful way (damage, separation, kidnapping, dead hostages, etc.), or empowers your opposition (the guards know there are intruders, the ritual is completed, the bad guys you were chasing escape, etc.), or some other interesting Bad Thing happens.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9026382, member: 6790260"] You don't actually need a "no rules" system to do this though. This is how Dungeon World works, for example. In its most basic sense, you have a conversation about the events that are going on ("the fiction") until someone does something that is uncertain in outcome and where there are interesting consequences for both success and failure.* At this point, you make a move. Believe it or not, [I]several[/I] moves in DW have shockingly similar structure to exactly what you described there. They just have one key difference: It's not all up to the GM whether things succeed or not. That's sort of the critical problem here. In absolutely pure negotiation land, 100% of the negative consequences, the failures, the falling-just-short, comes from the GM deciding that the players simply don't succeed. There is no possibility for the GM to believe that both success [I]and[/I] failure could occur, unless they are simply being completely arbitrary in their decisions. More importantly, I have no idea what you mean by "it minimizes negotiation." That structure IS negotiation! That's literally what it is. You are offering "a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice," and figuring out what the player will accept. You are rejecting proposals, but offering alternatives. Etc. It is very literally the process of negotiation, making offers and counter-offers until a deal is struck. *Which does not mean every failure directly leads to high octane action. Just means when you fail, it costs something important (resources, time, allies, etc.), or hurts you in a meaningful way (damage, separation, kidnapping, dead hostages, etc.), or empowers your opposition (the guards know there are intruders, the ritual is completed, the bad guys you were chasing escape, etc.), or some other interesting Bad Thing happens. [/QUOTE]

Verification