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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9845736" data-attributes="member: 42582">[USER=7044566]@thefutilist[/USER] That most recent post sets things out very clearly.I'm trying to think about some of my play through that lens. I think that my Prince Valiant play has little (off the top of my head, none - but that probably isn't right) generative resolution. Generally the conflict, if there is any, is between the PC(s) and NPC(s) already present in the scene, whose motivations are established as part of the scenario write-up.Here's an example where the NPCs were present, but their motivations/context were left a bit hazy in the write-up; and were solidified a bit in play, but via the players rather than the GM:I'm not sure how this looks to you. The two bits of significant content-introduction that I see are (i) that the NPCs are Celtic and (ii) that their is a wooden dais in the forest to which their curse is linked.The first was introduced by the players simply by way of assumption, and I ran with it: I would consider it a consensual part of the initial framing.The second was introduced by me as GM, in response to a player's use of a fiat ability (ie spending the Storyteller Certificate to Find Something Hidden). To me, it's not unlike a successful Wises check in Burning Wheel: generative, but on the player side because of a success, rather than on the GM side because of a miss/failure. If you have any thoughts I'd be interested.In contrast to my play of Prince Valiant, my Burning Wheel experience is rife with generative resolution. Here's an example, that you've seen me talk about before, that has two instances in close proximity:I've included quite a bit of prelude, as this is important - I think - for elaborating on Aedhros's Beliefs, both in relation to Thurandril (a NPC) and Thoth (introduced as a NPC, but then becoming my friend's PC while Alicia recovers from her Mortal Wound).It occurs to me that the prelude actually includes two bits of generative resolution - Thurandril being present and observing; and Thoth coming out of his secret door. I'm happy to talk about them, but they're not what I'm going to focus on at the moment.The first of the ones that I want to focus on is the Sing check. The context for this is (i) a Belief, that I will free Alicia and myself form the curse of Thoth together with (ii) an Instinct, When my mind is elsewhere, quietly sing the Elven lays. The rules of the game demand a test at this point: given that, as a player, I'm trying to establish an advantage die that bears directly upon my Belief, there is something at stake, and so it's time to roll the dice. What's the conflict? I guess it's a conflict within Aedhros's spiteful soul, between his reality and some aspiration he still has to truly be an Elf. (One of his character traits is Self-deluded.)In non-generative resolution, the failure would therefore - I guess? - have to pertain to Aedhros himself. Whether adding a new, disadvantageous die trait (perhaps in some fashion stepping up Self-deluded from a character trait); or carrying forward a penalty to his next test. (This seems to be what Vincent Baker does in some of his examples of AW play, turning their move against them.)Speaking as the player, I found the guard turning up very compelling. It obviously follows from the fiction in a way that the ninjas don't. But it also worked very well as a consequence: my attempt, as a player, to try and shift the frame away from Aedrhos's enmeshment in the world of Thoth, into the world of Elves, is undone. The GM brings the world of Thoth right back into the foreground: Aedhros is not in the world of Elven lays and Elven courts and Elven lays, but in the world of the night-time city where kidnappers and assassins do their work and guards try to stop them.The second bit of generative resolution pertains to the failed Circles test. This is really an attempt at escalation of the reframing by me, playing Aedhros: if Elven lays won't do the job, what about Elven Etharchs? And the GM, in response to the failure, doubles down on the previous consequence: and so although superficially this looks like the "enmity clause" for a failed Circles test, it's not really about relationships in the strictest sense at all: it's about reasserting the curse of Thoth, from which Aedhros can't escape.When I decide to have Aedhros bribe the guards, and the GM says "yes" rather than calling for a test, that is my resignation as a player to what the mechanics have dictated, and that is Aedhros's resignation to the reality that he has failed to transcend. Both I, and Aedhros, affirm this resignation by kidnapping George and bringing him back to Thoth to be subjected to "Blood Magic".What would non-generative resolution, in the Circles case, look like? Having one of the Elves appear, but being angry or dismissive of Aedhros? I don't think it would have been as satisfying.@thefutlist, I'm curious as to what thoughts you might have about these Burning Wheel examples. to me, it seems like confining the resolution to positional resolution would have narrowed the thematic significance and impact. The curse of Thoth would have been confined to Aedhros's own emotions and relationships, rather than a sordid world in which he is enmeshed, with Thoth (for the moment at least) at the centre.As per thefutilist in post 7, it's about the start of the scene, not the start of the game.And about whether the GM, in the course of introducing the fiction that resolves a conflict, can introduce new elements into the scene, thus changing the fictional position rather than working within it. Eg, in the example I've just set out involving Aedhros, the narration of failure introduces new elements into the scene in which Aedhros's conflicts arise - namely, the guards - rather than resolving the conflicts by reference to the extent elements. (Which include Aedhros, and the Elves who are his Relationships and Circles.)</blockquote>

Verification