RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[hawkeyefan]

Interrogation of the ideas doesn’t mean I have my mind made up. It means I’m not going to just blindly accept them.

Perhaps the reason I don’t get them is because I’m not just blindly accepting the whole of them.

At what point will you consider yourself not to be blind about these things?

How many more posts will be needed? How many more quotes of the source of these terms and the ideas behind them? How many more examples will finally get us there?

That you still consider yourself blind to them seems very telling. I think "blindly disagreeing" is a more appropriate label.

Why personally attack me by impugning bad motives?

I'm not personally attacking you. I am making an observation. I explained how your posts over the past many pages come across.

A critique of your posts is not a personal attack.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not personally attacking you. I am making an observation. I explained how your posts over the past many pages come across.

A critique of your posts is not a personal attack.

Please stop personally attacking me. When your critique of my posts is personal in nature that’s a personal attack. One can critique posts without impugning the poster.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Please stop personally attacking me. When your critique of my posts is personal in nature that’s a personal attack. One can critique posts without impugning the poster.

I've not said anything about you as a person. I've described how your posts seem. If you don't agree, then feel free to explain. Without that, all I can do is state how your posts seem to me.

Also... at what point do we view your continued doubt of the things that everyone is posting here to be you assuming bad motives on their part? I mean, you just continue to assume that they're not being honest or truthful, or that the links and quotes from the original sources are not accurate... how is that not personal? Do you not believe them? Do you think they're wrong? Or do you just not like the answer?

Go read the sources. Even better, play one of the games that have been mentioned. Clearly explanations aren't accomplishing anything. Get some firsthand experience and maybe that will help you to understand what the difference is between task resolution* and conflict resolution. The difference is really not that hard. It's been explained in writing and in graphic form now.

* I counterspelled your banishment!

 

[FrogReaver]

I've not said anything about you as a person. I've described how your posts seem. If you don't agree, then feel free to explain. Without that, all I can do is state how your posts seem to me.

You have and continue to make it personal. See below for the latest example.

Also... at what point do we view your continued doubt of the things that everyone is posting here to be you assuming bad motives on their part? I mean, you just continue to assume that they're not being honest or truthful, or that the links and quotes from the original sources are not accurate... how is that not personal?

Please stop making this personal.

 

[Campbell]

Conflict resolution and closed scene resolution are not like platonic ideals. They are play processes pioneered in a set of roleplaying game designs by the primary sources being linked to. Does anyone think these sources are wrong about the way the games they designed work? Closed scene resolution is a term of art that means works like HeroQuest, Primetime Adventures, FATE, 4e skill challenges, et al. It's not any deeper than that. Same for conflict resolution. Term of art for works like Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Cortex Plus, Sorcerer, et al.

I don't get what there is to question. We're just discussing a novel form of RPG play. Not engaging in a philosophical debate. Stuff ain't that deep.

 

[FrogReaver]

Conflict resolution and closed scene resolution are not like platonic ideals. They are play processes pioneered in a set of roleplaying game designs by the primary sources being linked to. Does anyone think these sources are wrong about the way the games they designed work?

I don’t dispute that the games work differently and are designed to work differently or that they work at all. All these things are true.

Closed scene resolution is a term of art that means works like HeroQuest, Primetime Adventures, FATE, 4e skill challenges, et al. It's not any deeper than that. Same for conflict resolution. Term of art for works like Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Cortex Plus, Sorcerer, et al.

That’s fine. I actually like that take better, but personally I still want to understand the edge cases, when does something go from being closed scene resolution to not - when does something go from being conflict resolution to not. Etc.

I don't get what there is to question. We're just discussing a novel form of RPG play. Not engaging in a philosophical debate. Stuff ain't that deep.

I guess the obvious takeaway is that we are talking about different things. I would love to get into all the intricacies of designs, but we keep getting stuck on definitions and apriors. Which is an incredibly frustrating conversation to have for all sides. We have that conversation because I (and others) either don’t agree or don’t yet know whether I agree with many of the apriors. Until that foundation is solid, everything built on it is just a house of cards that’s going to come crumbling down.

If you or anyone doesnt want to have that conversation I get it, but it’s a valid and essential conversation to have.

 

[Lanefan]

Conflict resolution and closed scene resolution are not like platonic ideals. They are play processes pioneered in a set of roleplaying game designs by the primary sources being linked to.

And as those primary sources aren't posting here* such that we can directly question their ideas and-or what they were hoping to achieve with their designs, all we can do instead is question those who persistently support said designs.

Same goes when talking about Gygax and early-era D&D. We can't exactly question him directly any more, thus it's left to those who support his ideas and designs to defend them when they're put under question.

And IMO "What the hell were you thinking when you wrote [x,y,z]?!" is sometimes a valid question to put to any of these designers, be it about the design itself or about their rationales for/defenses of said design.

* - unless someone here's got some secret backstory they're not sharing.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

And as those primary sources aren't posting here* such that we can directly question their ideas and-or what they were hoping to achieve with their designs, all we can do instead is question those who persistently support said designs.

A lot of this has been written down, is available for free, and can be read. Quotes and links have been posted in the thread. It's not that I don't enjoy reading the back and forth (I do!), but part of me feels like going back to the source might be more fruitful at this point than this conversation has been at times. No one likes homework (or maybe no one likes to be assigned homework?), especially for their hobbies (like, we've all got enough work to do, or, at least I do; certainly I can imagine folks being luckier than me), but having this conversation rely on mediated accounts of Baker, Crane, and Harper's thinking has been at times a wee bit suboptimal.

(Your asterisk's killing me, by the way. )

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The issue is with the opposite. We are trying to solve a mystery and the GM has pre-established the facts of the case. Players do not know these. I don't see how this is compatible with conflict resolution. There could easily arise a situation where the "GM's secret facts" would unbeknownst to the player make the goal of their announced action impossible. "I.e. the clue is not there, the butler did not do it, etc."


Sure.


I feel conflict resolution and no/low myth go logically together. I also feel task resolution makes most sense in a situation where the game has objectivish fictional reality that the players are prodding.

I think we agree on the peanut butter goes with chocolate level. I can see your point about hidden facts and conflict resolution too. However my answer is twofold, transparency and bigger picture. The player says she wants the papers, but I know they're not in the safe. But wanting the papers is just an intermediate goal. Success at the higher level of abstraction is not precluded. This is part of the appeal of SCs, clocks, or even fronts. Structure is provided for the working out of the higher level goals, with specific actions and sub-goals being just way points.

 

[pemerton]

It is a feature of conflict resolution that it can "decide" acausally decide facts about the setting, like here whether the papers are in the safe or not. It is blatantly obvious that this is incompatible with those facts being predetermined. I don't understand why you keep evading this. It is not criticism of conflict resolution, merely an observation.

You assert this, but I already pointed out that it need not be true.

Suppose that the GM has established, via pre-authorship/prep, that the papers are in place X.

And suppose that the procedures of play ensure that no action declaration to find the papers will occur - and so the presence or absence of the papers in a given place will be at stake - until that bit of backstory, ie the presence of the papers in place X, has been revealed in play.

In this case, no contradiction will emerge between "myth" and conflict resolution.

And if you're wondering what is an example of a game that might, at least in broad terms, follow the above schematic? DitV. Because the GM actively reveals the town in play.

still want to understand the edge cases, when does something go from being closed scene resolution to not - when does something go from being conflict resolution to not.

I think understanding core cases is a helpful precursor to understanding edge cases.

And I posted upthread about an edge case in Burning Wheel, namely, certain uses of Wises, and said a bit about how the game advises dealing with that case. What were your thoughts about that?

And as those primary sources aren't posting here* such that we can directly question their ideas and-or what they were hoping to achieve with their designs, all we can do instead is question those who persistently support said designs.

This is just silly. The blogs are all there, and I've linked to them. Have you read them?

I've linked to the Burning Wheel hub-and-spokes, which can be downloaded for free. Have you downloaded and read it?

Story Bones, the core of the Maelstrom Storytelling engine, can be downloaded for free too, from DriveThruRPG. Have you downloaded and read it?

There are two free online versions of Wuthering Heights in English, and one in French: https://unseelie.org/rpg/wh/ https://www.oocities.org/soner_du/files/wuther.pdf http://philippe.tromeur.free.fr/rrpg.htm

Here's a review of the game by a clever critic: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/reviews/23/

And here's an actual play report, that will also show you what scene-framed play and no myth play can look like: https://www.enworld.org/threads/played-some-wuthering-heights-today.672161/

Saying that this stuff is all unknowable, and that all you can do is sceptically question other posters, is ridiculous.