Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 9227041" data-attributes="member: 16586">A player in a conflict resolution-oriented game has a different set of responsibilities then one does in a task resolution-oriented one. One of those responsibilities is to aggressively pursue aims that seek to change the environment and push the momentum of play forward. Exploring the environment simply to do so is fundamentally at odds with conflict resolution because with no established stakes the GM does not have what they need to determine fallout in a way that is hygienic (oriented around the larger conflict at hand) to the play model.An example of this contrast at play is the way Carved by Brindlewood (Brindlewood Bay, The Between, Apocalypse Keys) games work compared to solving mysteries in most traditional games. Each threat in The Between is given a set of Questions that provide an opportunity to resolve that threat when resolved. In our game of The Between one of our active threats, The Shoreditch Slugger, has two active questions 'What is the source of its strength?' (Complexity 2) and 'what is its weakness?' (Complexity 6). During our investigation into the slugger, it was our imperative to actively pursue clues that both answer one of these specific questions and fit within our characters' working theories of what may be afoot while tying in our characters' personal goals as much as possible. This is necessary for [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] to both provide clues that maintain the momentum of play and to assess what consequences would be compelling / frustrate our aims.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Campbell, post: 9227041, member: 16586"] A player in a conflict resolution-oriented game has a different set of responsibilities then one does in a task resolution-oriented one. One of those responsibilities is to aggressively pursue aims that seek to change the environment and push the momentum of play forward. Exploring the environment simply to do so is fundamentally at odds with conflict resolution because with no established stakes the GM does not have what they need to determine fallout in a way that is hygienic (oriented around the larger conflict at hand) to the play model. An example of this contrast at play is the way Carved by Brindlewood (Brindlewood Bay, The Between, Apocalypse Keys) games work compared to solving mysteries in most traditional games. Each threat in The Between is given a set of Questions that provide an opportunity to resolve that threat when resolved. In our game of The Between one of our active threats, The Shoreditch Slugger, has two active questions [I][B]'What is the source of its strength?'[/B][/I] (Complexity 2) and [B]'[/B][I][B]what is its weakness?' [/B][/I](Complexity 6). During our investigation into the slugger, it was our imperative to actively pursue clues that both answer one of these specific questions and fit within our characters' working theories of what may be afoot while tying in our characters' personal goals as much as possible. This is necessary for [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] to both provide clues that maintain the momentum of play and to assess what consequences would be compelling / frustrate our aims. [/QUOTE]

Verification