Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9227535" data-attributes="member: 71699">Time permits continuation, I was looking at the first part of scene-resolution -And I suggested thatBut I could obviously just say that GM makes setting, situation, characters, and goals/stakes transparent to all participants. 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 conflict or decision.To grasp the nettle, I say that encouraged or otherwise, GM sets it all up by fiat. So that's the initial conditions covered.Take a look at episode 1 part 2 of Blades in the Dark GM'd by Harper, from around minutes 30 to 40. John calls the end of scene, and over a few minutes the group move into impacts on setting, situation and characters. The work is done by the Payoff mechanics. Again - to grasp the nettle - I simply say that GM calls the end of scene and says whether it was successful or not ("finality of resolution at the endpoint"). GM may follow mechanics and guidelines, or their own judgement, for impacts; but they make sure that they cover off the goals/stakes they declared up front, as well as impacts on setting, situation and characters. An example is that GM says the score is successful and following the Payoff mechanic determines that the crew earns 2 rep. To grasp that nettle firmly, none of this considers player goals, the shell-like ears of GM are deaf to their intentions.Again I'll pause here, before getting onto the third part. Recollect that the only question being addressed is if all closed scene-resolution is conflict-resolution.</blockquote>

Verification