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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="deleuzian_kernel" data-source="post: 9566841" data-attributes="member: 7036985">I'm not talking about story control at all. It's clear that Sir James and the squire have opposite desires in conflict and have sat down, to talk it out, and see how they are gonna move forward.I never think of things as winning or losing. I need to know how conflicts resolve though? Not just shrug and stall if they do not. If we reconcile our interests that's fine by me. It sounds like your Monsterhearts character reconciled conflicting interests through internal struggle. I'm all cool with that.But, when both sides are bringing out their best arguments against each other, and no one is ready to concede...the only way out is if we bring out mechanics that will let one side persuade (back to the threads topic) the other to change some aspect of their opposition and then check if, with that change, the interests can then be reconciled.Like in the case of our little role-play, when Sir James said "Listen kid, you gotta stop it with Violette. She told me she is annoyed by your constant insistence to ride with her. I command you to cut it off."I'm kind of appalled that, you know, you couldn't think of a universe in which maybe that actually does get the squire to wonder: "Is it true?" "Did she really say that?" "Is he lying to me?" "Do I even want to be his squire?". We roll not because the randomization of whether or not squire doubts is necessarily better than deciding. We roll because if it does, we find out that the squire does actually doubt, and if it doesn't we find out that he is able to see through Sir James' trick. What are we going to find out through pure role-play of our little personality sketch notes? That you wrote a sensible argument and I wrote a sensible argument and without possibility for a change the story is...over? Puff.</blockquote>

Verification