Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9227423" data-attributes="member: 71699">This was in response to my askingHopefully others can now see how [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s assertion that -Leads to my question. Look at [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s post <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rpging-and-imagination-a-fundamental-point.701162/post-9225435" target="_blank">#703</a> and mentally insert "GM fiat" in the green bubble where it reads "Situation Resolves" in the top diagram.[USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] askedSeeing as [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] has proposed or claimed thatIn relation to my question, that implies that we must think of situations as containing scenes but being separate from them: so that even if GM fiat is our mechanism for resolving situations, that doesn't alter the character of scenes contained within those situations. But what if GM fiat could perform the functional necessities of some part of a scene: would that stop the top diagram being conflict resolution even though it remains otherwise unaltered. Not only would that deny the claim that all closed scene resolution is conflict resolution, it would give task resolution its own version of the top diagram (if it's distinguishing trait is exactly as [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] suggests).So that's what I take to be the import - how it helps us understand - of analysing scene resolution. I welcome corrections, but for now will proceed in that light, first by working through the deconstruction of a scene. Some game texts I am mentally comparing include Paragon, DitV, Cortex Prime, L5R FF 5e, D&D 5e, ToR, Torchbearer 2, Ironsworn, MotW and BitD, and RQ 7e.From Cortex PrimeScenes are always framed by the GM, which means the GM describes where the scene takes place, which of the PCs is there, and what is going on. We encourage the GM to ask the players leading questions to give them an opportunity to explain why their PC is present, what they’re doing, and so forth. A scene doesn’t need to involve the dice until the back and forth—the GM presenting the situation and the players saying what they’re doing—comes to a point of confliict or decision.This is where I run into a problem with our interpretation of canonical (what I've called "rawest") task-resolution. Players aren't permitted intentions, or if they have them we don't care what they are. Baker explains thatIn conventional rpgs, success=winning and failure=losing only provided the GM constantly maintains that relationship - by (eg) making the safe contain the relevant piece of information after you've cracked it. It's possible and common for a GM to break the relationship instead, turning a string of successes into a loss, or a failure at a key moment into a win anyway.But what this means - as found in conversation with [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] - is that cases of the former (GM maintains the relationship) are not task-resolution. It would seem that canonical task-resolution cannot possibly include that the "goals/stakes are transparently understood by the participants." Maybe that's a good place to stop and check my intuitions and analysis with others thus far.</blockquote>

Verification