Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9226945" data-attributes="member: 71699">To my reading, [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]'s comments, in particularacknowledge concerns like yours. I put it thatConflict resolution: What are legitimate outcomes from this fictional position? (What outcomes is it not reaching for players to propose) Task resolution: What outcomes can this fictional performance legitimate? ([USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]'s puzzle, your strategic/tactical decision making)But to my reading [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] explains (in this thread and elsewhere) many ways that there can be strategic/tactical decision making under conflict-resolution. I suggest that can only be true given player choice of outcomes is constrained. Otherwise, can't they just pick outcomes without respecting the game state!?It is thoughts of that kind that lead me to equanimity about who decides. So long as a binary like performance==outcome is in place, what counts as legitimated can be sufficiently-well constrained. If you give up the binary you get my "rawest versions" that no one wants and might not be feasible. (Tacit binaries such as those formed by norms around the table still count.)The design choices that produce game as game are thus those that set in rules some of the terms of "legitimate". There may be no version that both meets your preference and gets rid of adversary-player / referee who makes the decisions counter to what character-players want as outcomes. Which means that in functional game designs conflict-resolution can accept some amount of VM-fiat. ("VM" being that MC, GM or referee who gives regard to the stakes/outcomes players care about.) Just like in DitV if NPC dice beat players, GM decides (as VM if the game text is successful.)If it's binaries then that give us sound play -null==outcome (rawest "conflict-resolution" - yes to your outcome, regardless of what you do or what it costs) performance==null (rawest "task-resolution" - is this even humanely possible?! "you climb the wall, why?" "..." "but it's the season ball and you're in tails, in a ballroom packed with people" "...") stake==outcome (I don't care what you do, only what it might cost you) performance==outcome (assay performances that compell VM to attach the outcome you want, which express mechanics can influence e.g. PF2e, D&D3e, TB2, D&D5e social interaction) fictional-position==outcome (a superset containing performance and whatever else about fiction could matter) game-state==outcome (a superset containing fictional-position, and whatever system state could matter) Leading to -stakes+game-state==outcome Hence it's vital to get clear commitment from player... fiction-first is one approach. Players also need a way to state outcomes they want... perhaps through their choice of performances. I trust I have now sufficiently muddied the water.</blockquote>

Verification