Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9227722" data-attributes="member: 71699">I'd like to get a bit clearer about what I'm addressing. A claim was put forward that "all closed scene resolution is conflict resolution." That's a strong claim and my first question is simply: is it right? I have been told that the distinction between task-resolution and conflict-resolution comes down to beingAccepting that for the sake of argument, means that in order to decide if "all closed scene resolution is conflict-resolution" I should test whether any scene resolution is not conflict resolution, e.g. task-resolution according to that definition.I used "GM fiat" to mean "GM's authority over the fiction, and what happens next." You've now postulated the additional stricture that GM-fiat is - if I understand correctly - not impinged by rules.I would take a philosophically skeptical position toward knowing anything about what a GM who is both deaf to player intentions and blind to rules. We've denied ourselves knowledge on that score. To make that a little clearer, what we have said is that no game with rules presents a case of GM fiat, because GM fiat is the case where rules don't apply.I suspect what you describe by "GM fiat" is Baker's case where GM inconsistently follows rules: is that right? If so, unless we can describe the nature of their inconsistency - is it random? is it perverse? - I would again be philosophically skeptical toward knowing how a game they run might go.I was pondering this tonight, and I can accept that it is disturbing to have distinctions undermined. Again, my sole purpose was to answer the basic question - is it right to say that all closed scene resolution is conflict resolution? I picture that you come to this discussion with that settled in your mind. You can hopefully see that it is not only not settled in other posters' minds, but also to them feels like an essential piece of foundation to lay. One of the first steps in any investigation is establishing shared predicates.I considered taking a - for the sake of argument let's say that - approach, but I felt that would lead to problems down the line, when notions came up that rested on predicates that I might not accept. It seems better to get firm on those first.In hindsight this was a poor choice of example, sorry. I was not saying that BitD presented here an example of closed scene resolution, rather I was thinking about clear examples of GMs ending a scene and recalled that one. It stuck in my mind because Harper says something like - "I'm going to end the scene here." I don't know if you saw my post a few threads back, but I committed to providing concrete examples where I could. I felt I had one here, but I see it lead to concerns about looking for a smoking gun or whatever, which couldn't have been further from my mind.Unfortunately this is all misdirected by my poor choice of example. I simply wanted to point to as literal a case of "GM ends the scene" as I could recall, and to suggest that there's really nothing stopping a GM from ignoring player intentions while still following mechanics that deal with the necessaries. Given you want to reserve "GM fiat" to mean a GM who ignores or unreliably applies mechanics, let's insert a GM who we're satisfied can't deliver conflict-resolution because they ignore player intentions, but does follow rules. Where any rule would require them to heed player intentions, they simply insert intentions that suit them in their place.Why picture such a GM? Because the strong claim - all closed scene resolution is conflict resolution - ought to withstand any sort of GMing that isn't conflict resolution. It should be impossible to imagine doing the things necessary to achieve closed scene resolution while interposing GM authority between player goals and what comes next.Maybe not. The only question I'm addressing at this point is whether all closed scene resolution is conflict resolution. If it helps, my intuition is - probably not. It's probably possible to conjure up a version of closed scene resolution that isn't conflict resolution. And something that isn't riding on that is whether task-resolution is the same as conflict resolution.Can you say anything about why you feel it's vital to explain the core concepts of closed scene resolution at this juncture? The only aspect of them that I feel is in doubt is the assumption that all closed scene resolution is necessarily conflict resolution. But I don't see any particular reason you couldn't just assert the constructive characteristics, and motivating utility and virtues, of cases of closed scene resolution that are conflict resolution.EDIT To avoid being disingenuous, I should add that conceding the possibility of closed scene resolution with task-resolution would open up a path for folk to lay out design patterns, best practices and perceived benefits of that. Those wouldn't be expected to be the same as with conflict-resolution, but one might dislike the possibility nonetheless.</blockquote>

Verification