Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9228986" data-attributes="member: 42582">There are other techniques than this.Actively revealing the town in play is one. A related one is managing framing. Vincent Baker discusses some aspects of this on pp 76-77 of DitV:As GM, you get to help establish stakes. If your player says “what’s at stake is this” you can say “no, I don’t dig that, how about what’s at stake is this instead?” Not only can you, you should. This is an important duty you have as GM and you shouldn’t abdicate it. As GM, you should push for small stakes. It’s natural for the players to set stakes big. “Do we get the whole truth from her about everything that’s going on? Do we convince him to give up his sinnin’ ways and do right forever after? Do we undo all the harm the cult has done?” You as GM have to engage with them and wrestle them down. You should be saying, “no, how about do you win her trust about some small matter? Do you give him a moment’s pause? Do you make this one person breathe easier, right now?” It’s out of creative tension between their big stakes and your small stakes that the right stakes are born. What you’re after is two things: follow-up conflicts and givable conflicts. Since you want good follow-up conflicts, the right stakes can go either way without creating a dead end or a dull patch. Pushing stakes smaller will tend to make them less make-or-break. Givable conflicts - that’s the trick. The right stakes will make it so that escalating, taking a blow and giving are all roughly equal. Set the stakes too large and Escalating is always worth it. Set them small enough and Giving vs. Escalating becomes a real question, as does Giving vs. Taking a bad Blow. Conflicts always end with a Give. It doesn’t have to be because one side has used every single last die. It can be as soon as one side sees which way the wind’s blowing - but that won’t happen if the stakes are too grandiose.</blockquote>

Verification