Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9230378" data-attributes="member: 42582">Upthread, [USER=59]@Citizen Mane[/USER] pointed to Baker's advice on <a href="http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html" target="_blank">Practical Conflict Resolution Advice</a>:My friend anonyfan asks: "Do you have any ideas on how to effectively and meaningfully implement 'what's at stake' in a non-narrativist game?" I sure do. You won't have any trouble at all, and in fact your group will wonder how you got along before, if you find the magic words. I don't know what your group's magic words are but here are some I've used: "The danger is that..." "What's at stake is..." "What you're risking is..." "So what you hope to accomplish is..." Say the magic words every single time, when the dice are in their hands but before they roll 'em. At first, you'll need to finish the sentence every time yourself, with a period, like: "The danger is that you'll set off the trap instead of disarming it." "What's at stake is, do you make it to the ferry in time or do you have to go the long way around?" "What you're risking is being overheard by the goblins on the rooftop." "So what you hope to accomplish is to get through the doorway, whether this ogre lives or dies." But after you've said it three or four or ten times, you'll be able to trail off with a question mark when you want their input: "What you're risking is...?" And then, once the dice are on the table, always always always make it like this: <ul style="margin-left: 20px"> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If they succeed, they win what's at stake. They accomplish their accomplishment or they avoid the danger.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If they fail, they lose what's at stake - and you IMMEDIATELY introduce something new at stake. It might be another chance, it might be a consequence, but what matters is that it's more serious than the former. . . .</li> </ul> In combat, you'll probably want to have an overall what's at stake for the fight, and little tactical what's at stakes for each exchange. When you describe the setup, mention two or three features of the environment, like hanging tapestries or a swaying bridge or broken cobblestones, plus an apparent weakness of the foe, like worn armor straps or a pus-filled left eye, and then when you say what's at stake for an exchange, incorporate one of those: "the danger is that he'll push you back onto the broken cobblestones" or "so what you're hoping to do is to further strain his armor straps." This is on top of hitting and damage and whatever, just add it straight in. It's especially effective if you always give a small bonus or penalty for the exchange before. One thing we can see from this is that the minimum that is required for conflict resolution includes:*Some bit of the fiction that constitutes, or establishes, what's at stake (eg a trap; swarming Goblins, weakened armour); That fiction *being known to the player so they can incorporate it into their action declaration or their response to a GM-announced action declaration (eg they know the risk is that they'll be pushed onto the cobblestones)' *That fiction being incorporated into the narration of consequences, by reference both to (i) the success or failure of the roll, and (ii) the intent of the action vis-a-vis that bit of fiction.This gives us further insight into the point I made in post 976: classic D&D, and the many other RPGs that are broadly similar in their procedures of play, don't need these things; and in these RPGs, the consequences of declared actions can be things that the player had no knowledge of and did not incorporate into their action declaration, and that are not related to anything the player did know of and incorporate.It also helps us understand the relationship, in DitV, between the GM actively revealing the town in play, driving towards conflict, and working with the players to establish what is at stake in a given conflict.</blockquote>

Verification