Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6108393" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I'm going to have to break this up into multiple posts as its just too much stuff and I don't have the time to type this all out this evening.  I will try to find the time tomorrow evening to fully scribe the entirety of the "idol, chase, gorge" scene.  If I can do it tomorrow, I will fully detail each aspect/technique/mechanical resolution/narrative rendering with respect to the below definitions that I'm working off of.  You guys can then pick it apart as you see fit.  Fully canvassed play examples help clarity I suppose.  To the definition cave:Agency - Authority or control over characters' thematically-significant content and (meaningful) decisions and the mechanical resolution of those (meaningful) decisions.Force -  The Technique of assuming control over characters' thematically-significant (meaningful) decisions and the mechanical resolution of those (meaningful) decisions by anyone who is not the character's player. Significant application of this by a GM will lead to Railroading (below).Railroading - A technique of scene, setting, and/or story design/preparation in which the GM has prepared a rising conflict/climax and maneuvers or otherwise determines that character activity inexorably leads to this scenario. Conflict resolution (orthodox Forge +) - A Technique in which the mechanisms of play focus on the thematic context, stakes and aggregate components of a macro-conflict or challenge a hand, rather than on the component tasks within that conflict. When using this Technique, inanimate objects are conceived to have "interests" at odds with the character, if necessary. Contrast with Task resolution.Example:  In a test of riding a horse in a chase scene, you aren’t just testing the component acumen of “riding (a horse)”.  You may be testing (i) galloping full bore on a horse through the adrenaline fog of a life or death scenario, while simultaneously (ii) trying to keep an eye out for obscured/scant trail-markers to choose the correct path to freedom, (iii) navigating treacherous (uneven, craggy, rock-filled tundra) terrain, (iv) trying to dodge artillery, (v) trying to keep track of the status of your allies, (vi) all with the heavy stakes at hand that if you don’t get a proffered idol to a village so a ritual can be performed, hundreds of innocent men, women and children will die.  Any one of 1 – 5 can be “causal mechanisms” for Failing Forward or having Success with Complications until the conflict mechanically resolves itself.  What’s more, every stage of the conflict should be framed within the context of 6; the stakes at hand…the reason for the non-combat conflict resolution.Task resolution (orthodox Forge + ) - A Technique in which the Resolution mechanisms of play focus on within-game cause, in linear in-game time, in terms of whether the acting character is competent to perform a task. Neither thematic context, stakes, nor interplay with the multi-variable components of a conflict frame the resolution of this micro-action.  Contrast with Conflict resolution.Example:  You mechanically resolve (if character assets dictate a check is required) a singular test such as "riding a horse".  Success or failure will be narrowly framed as a derivative of the singular component acumen of "riding".One thing to note is that my table does not hold "Agency" as an all or nothing premise.  100 % agency in 9 out of 10 framed circumstances (90 % of the time) does not translate to 0 % agency.  The GM liberty to frame a scenario (as in the MHRP advice I quoted upthread) that does not impinge upon a player's thematic content (eg don't frame a master infiltrator as a caught amateur) to begin a scene is not "Agency-adverse".  Now, anything resembling regular application of GM force to (i) misrepresent a player's thematic content while framing, or encroach upon a player's autonomy in their thematically-significant decisions and mechanical resolution of those decisions is VERY "Agency-adverse".  I've consulted with my 3 players and they all stridently agree on this interpretation; and it doesn't happen at my table.  Second to last thing of note; my table is somewhat unorthodox in the way I handle narrative rendering of conflict resolution.  Again, I'll go to MHRP as it depicts precisely how I (and everyone else I'm sure) handle things in the orthodox fashion and then it touches upon the unorthodox technique of enlisting players to author their own outcomes (failing forwards or success with complications) or allowing them authorial control over framing the ultimate outcome to the conflict.  This is very unorthodox (and controversial), I'm certainly aware, but my players enjoy it when I grant them that authority now and again and I enjoy being put on the spot in framing the transition and the next scene with respect to the continuity they have imposed upon the narrative.Last thing of note; a few rambling issues that I have with ardent process-simulation and adherence to methodical task resolution:1 - No matter how good the "simulator" (the GM interpreting the task resolution and the system mechanically resolving it), it is limited in its introduction of one of the (if not the) most potent forces of everyday life and of Action Adventure genre specifically; Entropy or Murphy's Law.  This is because the "causal logic" behind many phenomenon is so intensely steeped in 2nd and 3rd order (borderline unknowable and undetectable) functions.  Strict process simulation cannot produce a man jogging on the beach and getting hit by prop plane.  It does not bring about a man in Bradenton, Florida, laying  his head down to sleep and the floor under his bedroom opening up and swallowing  him causing him to never be heard/seen from again.  Neither the "jogging" nor the “laying down to sleep” task resolution functionality cause the prop plan loss of control and "perfect" trajectory with the runner nor the sinkhole manifestation.  Nor could any other action that either of those men undertake in those circumstances.  Pilot error + catastrophic mechanical breakdown (and possible downburst) caused this.  The slow deterioration of the bedrock limestone/sand  bedrock beneath the property due to prolonged exposure to moisture and  natural earth movement caused this.  They just happened to have been there  and committed the last human “recorded action” that took place before  Murphy showed up. 2 - It doesn't reliably reproduce the genre stories/tropes and thus provide consistent content to address the premises that my groups' collective creative agenda seeks to engage with.</blockquote>

Verification