Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8942227" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, I am not in a position to comment on that as I have not seen these diagrams you speak of (sorry, I didn't read a LOT of this thread, so I probably missed something). I was simply responding to the blog post about 'resolution types', which didn't really go into how the author arrived at their classifications. My response to that post seems reasonable to me, but it isn't some highly analyzed position. I'm not sure what your 'rich diversity' is supposed to tell me though! When I classify things, I generally do so on the basis of something akin to 'engineering principles'. That is, what are the possibilities for ways that things could function, and which ones will meet my needs? I have broken things down GENERALLY into 'task' and 'intent' as the two most salient elements of the resolution style, though I am fully aware that actual instances of play/actual game designs are likely to have some mixed character. Resolution style is not the only dimension here though, there are also things like the source of fiction, and the level of engagement with things like resource subsystems which may create player-side dilemmas for example. I would consider things like 'task/situation/scene/conflict/tension' to be OUTCOMES, not different resolution types, myself. That is to say, a given example of a resolution process might be pretty zoomed in and only focus on a part of a scene, or the fiction might only allow of resolution at the most granular level (IE picking a lock during combat in 4e). Other situations might be much higher level, resolving whatever is at stake in the whole scene. In some cases an entire conflict could be resolved, either because it is fairly straightforward, OR because the resolution mechanism is fairly broad (IE a 4e SC), OR because the participants have simply decided to resolve things at a fairly zoomed out level in this particular case. To be honest, I think most resolution systems can work at multiple levels of detail. In fact I am of the opinion that this is a general virtue of cases where intent is being explicitly addressed, as it generally means that the elements required for some sort of resolution are included and its a pretty scalable type of system. As for types of information: Obviously there are various possibilities different systems can allow for. I'm not sure what 'legitimated' is, though. I would say there are different SOURCES of information, which might include external (something written down outside of play), determined through play, and possibly undetermined as of yet (not provided, missing from the game). I think though the key question is who's agenda is information flow serving, and how and why? I think [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] is the real expert on this analysis here, though, and my classification is mostly in keeping with his I think. There's also a question of player vs character information, which he also gets into a lot.</blockquote>

Verification