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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thefutilist" data-source="post: 9845254" data-attributes="member: 7044566">I want to rewind a bit. My issues with generative resolution are:One: Structural. How the generation of content relates to the trajectory of the game as a whole.Two: Aesthetic. What does the resolution mean in the fiction and how do we read it on the level of meaning and human value.Three: Technical. Clarity around what’s going on as a procedure.Johns blog on PbtA moves misses the point because he mixes different stuff together (three). Specifically, if what follows meets the group standards of ‘seems real’ with stakes. Furthermore John uses an example of bad play, the Ninjas, where as I would consider generative resolution bad even if it met group plausibility standards.Although your specific framing of when implicit situation becomes positioning is a challenge to my view, if such a thing is possible then does my demarcation make any sense? I’m going to argue that it does (in PbtA anyway).Torch bearer, and the Golin example you use, are a bit trickier for me because it shows how system specific content generation is. In the case of Torcbearer, what is the trigger for the roll? By which I mean, someone has to decide it is time to roll, how do they do so?I’m betting that the more concrete the trigger, the less generative resolution occurs, we know what the failure state is going to be because it’s implicit in the roll.Or if we flip the whole thing about and look at Golin attempts to buy within the framing of Apocalypse World.The MC has to say, ok act under fire and the fire is that the constable will see you.So the constable is there whichever way the dice go. Although the constables sudden invention is still subject to the ‘seems real’ standards.</blockquote>

Verification