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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 7105046" data-attributes="member: 13107">If you could generate a murder plot by random means, then the decision points could be shifted in time from before the session to within the session.This doesn't change much, though, since as soon as players start looking for clues, much of the plot will need to be decided.  All that it changes is that the DM doesn't know ahead of time how the plot will resolve.If you then take the random plot generation and allow it to be biased based on players' interest, that adds in a bit of the players driving the resolution.This is the same as writing software using "late" or "lazy" resolution: Deferring all resolutions to as late a point as possible.That is, in theory.  Getting this to work at the table sounds troublesome, and seems to me would not work very well without a system which has built in mechanisms to help the GM.  Which is kind-of of what the more dynamic systems seem to be doing.  Or that seem to be trying to do.Edit: I'm wondering how well dynamic resolution handles building tension.  When the GM knows the plot, he or she can work at building tension towards the eventual resolution.  I suspect that is what "Go to the Action" (not sure if I'm using the correct term there) is all about: Moving the resolution to a field which is exciting to the player.That brings up (to me) interesting questions about the psychology of resolution and how much consistency is required to be psychologically satisfying.  I'm thinking that this varies a lot between different people, and that difference is expressing itself within the dialog and preferences that are being displayed in this thread.Thx!TomB</blockquote>

Verification