Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9225435" data-attributes="member: 6696971">We've been here before. CONFLICT RESOLUTION[ATTACH=full]340937[/ATTACH]Just like everything else TTRPG system-wise, there are many component parts of conflict resolution.&nbsp; However, the defining characteristic that separates it from task resolution is that system architecture (both game engine structure and constraints/best practices for participants related to that structure) will give non-vetoable shape to play and, through that, give rise to trajectories of play which settles upon one particular trajectory in any given instance of resolution of situation.&nbsp; The implications of what &quot;resolves&quot; means to both the gamestate and the fiction is well-encoded (with constraining structure/procedures to finish any encoding left to be done) or fully-encoded by the conflict resolution framework/procedures.&nbsp; This feeds into subsequent play that is governed the same way; Rinse/Repeat.&quot;System's Say&quot; has as much input upon the signature of play as both &quot;GM Say&quot; and &quot;Player Say.&quot;TASK RESOLUTION[ATTACH=full]340938[/ATTACH]Just like everything else TTRPG system-wise, there are many component parts of task resolution.&nbsp; However, the defining characteristic that separates it from conflict resolution is that (comparatively unconstrained) GM Fiat and absolute discretion over system input (including profound input in system's mediating role along multiple axes as well as opting-in or vetoing) and its would-be governing trajectories give the majority shape to play as the GM ultimately determines when a situation resolves or is still up-for-grabs. Further, the control over play trajectory is compounded as the implications of what &quot;resolves&quot; means to the gamestate and the fiction is left to the purview of the GM.&nbsp; This feeds into subsequent play that is governed the same way; Rinse/Repeat.&quot;GM's Say&quot; has considerably more input upon the signature of play than both &quot;System's Say&quot; and &quot;Player's Say.&quot;[HR][/HR]Its not the perfect fit (as even D&amp;D combat has some elements of &quot;situation resolves&quot; that the GM can subtly opt-out of due to extra-combat, holistic authority granted to the GM), but the easiest way to look at it is to contrast combat resolution and noncombat resolution in all non-4e D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9225435, member: 6696971"] We've been here before. [B]CONFLICT RESOLUTION[/B] [ATTACH type="full" alt="1703170539619.png"]340937[/ATTACH] Just like everything else TTRPG system-wise, there are many component parts of conflict resolution. However, the defining characteristic that separates it from task resolution is that [B]system architecture (both game engine structure and constraints/best practices for participants related to that structure) will give non-vetoable shape to play and, through that, give rise to trajectories of play which settles upon one particular trajectory in any given instance of resolution of situation. The [B]implications of what "resolves" means to both the gamestate and the fiction is well-encoded (with constraining structure/procedures to finish any encoding left to be done) or fully-encoded by the conflict resolution framework/procedures. This feeds into subsequent play that is governed the same way; Rinse/Repeat.[/B][/B] "System's Say" has as much input upon the signature of play as both "GM Say" and "Player Say." [B]TASK RESOLUTION[/B] [ATTACH type="full" alt="1703170555084.png"]340938[/ATTACH] Just like everything else TTRPG system-wise, there are many component parts of task resolution. However, the defining characteristic that separates it from conflict resolution is that [B](comparatively unconstrained) GM Fiat and absolute discretion over system input (including profound input in system's mediating role along multiple axes as well as opting-in or vetoing) and its would-be governing trajectories[/B] [B]give the majority shape to play as the GM ultimately determines when a situation resolves or is still up-for-grabs. Further, the control over play trajectory is compounded as the implications of what "resolves" means to the gamestate and the fiction is left to the purview of the GM. [B][B]This feeds into subsequent play that is governed the same way; Rinse/Repeat.[/B][/B][/B] "GM's Say" has considerably more input upon the signature of play than both "System's Say" and "Player's Say." [HR][/HR] Its not the perfect fit (as even D&D combat has some elements of "situation resolves" that the GM can subtly opt-out of due to extra-combat, holistic authority granted to the GM), but the easiest way to look at it is to contrast combat resolution and noncombat resolution in all non-4e D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification