Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thefutilist" data-source="post: 9264794" data-attributes="member: 7044566">PART TWOSo this exact sequence could appear in both modes of play but here are the differences as I experience them.We’ve got all the characters on the board before play begins and are pretty constrained by them. Someone can’t just decide that aunt Daisy turns up (that would be expanding the situation not collapsing it)The scene framing is specifically keyed off where the characters interests conflict or are in tension. So we know what to scene frame because we know our overall goal. Which is always collapsing down towards the resolution.I didn’t mention anything about a GM. Both players are really doing the same kind of thing. If you use a GM in this mode then what they’re doing probably isn’t that different to the players. They’re looking for where the conflicts of interests happen and framing scenes towards collapse.One thing I’m leaving a little ambiguous is how much is pre-established. In the examples above, very little is established about motives. They were more fully fleshed out in play. You could flesh out the motives a lot more before play begins though. Like maybe we establish that Marge cheated and Dick’s angry about it before play. In some ways the above is a possibly misleading example because I think sketching out the broad priorities of characters is actually quiet important. This is because. Depending on the context, choosing a motive may have the same impact on the situation as some one introducing aunt Daisy. Or alternately, they’re basically taking unilateral control of the situation. Imagine if Dick’s player, sitting at the side of Marge’s bed, suddenly says ‘I know you’re trying to get back into my will and I won’t allow it, die poor.’This is getting long but I’m going to provide another extended example from an actual session we did tonight.THE SITUATIONMe and a friend brain stormed several characters.Orc warlord: Head of a huge Orc army who has suddenly lost his taste for violence and death.Warlords son: Is aggrieved by his fathers sudden change of heart. He’s not yet had the chance for glory himself.Human King: A bit of a fool, out of his depth when it comes to war and easily swayed by his advisors.Human General: Advisor to the King and a hard headed realist about the realities of war and the inevitability of volence.The Kings daughter: Peacenik but also the lover the General.A sinister mage: Advisor to the King. Out to increase his own power.An ancient war golem: Sickened by war by struck by the inevitability of it. Bound to the sinister mage.SCENE ONEThe warlords son and his father. The warlords son raged about not having his chance at glory, conflict resolution happened in his favour. The warlord, with a heavy heart, agreed to go to war again but warned his son about what the horrors of war do to your soul. His son didn’t care.SCENE TWOThe King, the mage, the General.The conflict was about persuading the King. The general wanted to prepare for war, right now. The mage wanted to send a peace envoy to further his schemes. The mage won.SCENE THREEThe Kings daughter and the general. The daughter has decided to be part of the peace envoy and the general wants her to go with elite troops, for her safety.. They argue and the daughter refuses the offer and kicks the general out of her room, saying he’s blood thirsty.And so on.So what happens if there is a GM?The GM plays the npc’s in the same way that a player would. The big difference is that you’re not framing npc v npc scenes and the GM does have sole control over who would prevail. I’m not saying the GM necessarily plays the scene out in their head, they might just have a vague notion of how it goes.Anyway back to differences. So the biggest important difference for me, between the two modes. Was in value challenge mode, there wasn’t much of a sense of a situation (for the obvious reasons). Sometimes a fixed situation would arise but it wasn’t certain. So the producing fiction tended to heavily revolve around the interior states of the characters. I also found it all a bit contrived but obviously that’s preference based. Also when I was GM in that mode, the really big difference was that I was doing something different to the players. Where  in collapse mode we were all finding out how the situation collapsed together.Anyway I hope that isn’t too garbled. Clarifying questions are welcome. As are disputes, to me the modes really do seem different at the core but maybe others don’t feel as strong.</blockquote>

Verification