Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9504410" data-attributes="member: 42582">This has me thinking more about compromises in Torchbearer 2e and in BW Duel of Wits.These are, literally, negotiated - and so to that extent there is what might be called a &quot;writers' room&quot; dynamic. The severity/significance is dependent on the degree of mechanical set-back suffered by the winning side of the conflict (in DoW that is loss to the body of argument; in TB it is hp loss). And so to that extent, there is an element to the negotiation that is not just thinking about the fiction.But the fiction should still be the preponderant consideration: what makes sense given what has been happening, and what has just happened. It shouldn't be about &quot;What would make for a cool story?&quot; - the &quot;coolness&quot; should already be implicit, because the trajectory of the fiction should already be cool (as per Baker's injunction that the game should prompt the participants to say cool things).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9504410, member: 42582"] This has me thinking more about [I]compromises[/I] in Torchbearer 2e and in BW Duel of Wits. These are, literally, negotiated - and so to that extent there is what might be called a "writers' room" dynamic. The severity/significance is dependent on the degree of mechanical set-back suffered by the winning side of the conflict (in DoW that is loss to the body of argument; in TB it is hp loss). And so to that extent, there is an element to the negotiation that is not just thinking about the fiction. But the fiction should still be the preponderant consideration: [I]what makes sense[/I] given what has been happening, and what has just happened. It shouldn't be about "What would make for a cool story?" - the "coolness" should already be implicit, because the trajectory of the fiction should already be cool (as per Baker's injunction that [I]the game should prompt the participants to say cool things[/I]). [/QUOTE]

Verification