I hate compromises
Luke:
So this theorizin' sure is interesting, but I was wondering since this is the AP forum, if anyone has concrete examples of unsatisfactory compromises from their games. Anyone?
A campaign or two ago, my group got so heated up about a high-stakes argument, it took us another 30 minutes of wrangling to find the appropriate compromise. We had the words of the argument ringing our ears. Everyone knew what was at stake. And the mechanics told us the necessary scale of the concessions. But both sides refused to be generous. We had to toss out some bad ideas and let them die -- let tempers cool and vindicitiveness fade -- before a reasonable option presented itself. It was an intense moment at the table, but ultimately productive.
-Luke
contracycle:
The point at hand is not that the comprimises ultimately arrived at are unsatisfying, but that the need to break out of formal system and compromise in the first place is itself undesirable to some.
Paka: my point was not about the legitimacy of doing it, but of the desirability of doing it.
greyorm:
Jumping Jesus F. Christ on a pogo stick. I give up; context is lost art.
It really doesn't matter what improv is or whether it is a good example or not, because the point is: do people make mutual creative decisions even if they don't get exactly what they want without taking twenty fucking minutes to do so? Can some of them even do it in a snap without needing to discuss it long-form debate-style? Yes. They do. All the time. In many different creative fields.
Hence the question is then: why can't Filip's group?
Filip, any ideas? Can you run us through any specific compromise situations that were un-fun?
Luke:
Quote from: contracycle on March 06, 2010, 12:56:14 PM
The point at hand is not that the comprimises ultimately arrived at are unsatisfying, but that the need to break out of formal system and compromise in the first place is itself undesirable to some.
Well, if you're referring to my designs, the formality of the procedure for compromise is the same as the formality for the baseline resolution procedure -- build context, state what you want from the context, operate the game mechanism, negotiate between all parties to ensure the result suits the context.
So, since the formalism doesn't seem to be the issue, I'm curious about what's going on in the actual gameplay.
Callan S.:
Quote from: greyorm on March 06, 2010, 01:36:00 AM
And now I must ask you: why do you want to completely divorce group dynamics from the solution?
Why as in justify why? *shrug*
But as to my reasons, they just seem to fall into the usual human norms. Indeed it's pointless playing with people who think exactly the same as you - you want people to disagree and push for other directions, using whatever legit means they have to do that. Art from adversity.
But that's slipping off my point, which is they fall into the usual human norms. Or atleast my standards of normal, from observing life. So I forget about group dynamics being a solution since I don't see any error in falling into the normal human range. I mean, if compromising in a moment is so common - why aren't people compromising instantly in this thread? No ones here just to make a smooth running forge thread. Nor are people roleplaying just to make smooth roleplaying...well, maybe with simulationism, I dunno - sim seems to take roleplay itself as both the means to an end and the end sought.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page