[Legends of Lanasia] Conflict Flow
dindenver:
Callan,
I really don't know what you are talking about. I feel like there is a misunderstanding between us, so let's see if I can help clarify.
I do know that I have used this rule in actual play and that typically, it serves two positive purposes:
1) Checks understanding of the SIS (as I understand SIS)
2) Allows players to say, "Hey, wait, let's do a little more of this before we use the Conflict rules."
I fully recognize that this is partially a feature of the way I play (I like to bust out the conflict mechanics of games I get excited about), but I don't think it would hurt to expose other players to this simple technique (just ask, "Is there a conflict?").
Maybe it will help to clarify that in the context of the game I am designing, a Conflict occurs when Character A wants to accomplish X in this scene and Character B wants to accomplish Y in this scene and because of some sort of shared logic, they both can't occur (e.g., where X = Character B is dead and Y= Character B is alive. This is an extreme example, but I am trying to be as clear as I can be).
Therefore, if X and Y are compatible (e.g., X= There are no witnesses to what is going on in the area behind character A and Y= Going away from the area behind character A), then there is no conflict.
But, not until the players tell us what X and Y equals, we don't know. So, why not ask them?
Maybe you are trying to highlight some other issue, but I am not sure.
Callan S.:
Dave, part of what I'm saying is that you have never, ever done #1 in your whole life. You can't understand something that doesn't exist. What's happening is that your having a psychological reaction to prior sound waves. That's all. That's not an understanding, that's just psychological reaction. But your attributing your psychological reaction as an existant thing.
This is a mechanism I see as physically working: Having a mechanism where the GM and the player have a real life button each, they may choose to press their button and if either real life button is pressed, then we hit the conflict rules (and you don't need a button, it could be a verbal indicator 'I want to go to conflict on this' - it just has to be a real life indicator).
I mean you practically seem to say that with
Quote
But, not until the players tell us what X and Y equals, we don't know. So, why not ask them?
But you don't need to ask them - just provide them with a RL physical button each, or some physical mechanism with some sort of system to it. If there's a conflict, that button will have been pressed. Heck, if you need everyone/'we' to see the conflict, everyone can have a physical button and only if everyone presses it, do you go to the conflict rules. There are many ways of doing this EXCEPT measuring/understanding something which doesn't exist to be measured/understood.
Anyway, that's what I'll wrap up on - your trying to have a rule based on measuring/understanding something that does not exist to be understood. You might say you've played that way for years and it worked, but it'll have been other processes that occured. Even if the process came down to people just saying they see a conflict just so they can get on with the show.
dindenver:
Callan,
Can you take a step back and tell me, exactly, what you are talking about?
I am not trying to antagonize you or troll you, I really want to understand it.
I really don't understand the distinction you are trying to make. Like how is it hitting a button better than answering a question? My guess is that that was meant as an example, but I am not that good at inferring info, so if you could just explain, plainly, what you mean, I would listen intently and try and understand something cool.
I mean, yeah, you can't really know the minds of the other players at the table. But, you can ask them if they agree with you when you think you see a conflict, right? I mean, its a simple question and there is usually no real pressure to answer either way. If I design the game well, either answer will be fun, right?
Basically, this step is here to avoid three pitfalls:
1) Meaningless conflict where no one cares about the outcome
2) Empty conflict where no one wants any outcome that is different from any other player/
3) Changing modes to the conflict mechanic when people were still exploring the previous mode
All of which I have encountered in play. And both of which I am trying to solve with communication, rather than mechanics (other than the mechanic of asking the players to talk to each other).
Maybe if you gave me a concrete alternative to wrap my arms around, I might understand where you are coming from.
Sorry, I am sure this is getting tedious for you. But if you could lend me an intellectual leg up, I would greatly appreciate it.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Dave,
I will provide my own view on the issue, without engaging in debate. I also suggest - as fellow poster, not moderator - that you and Callan not treat this as a debate and merely seek to lay down what you think, and be done.
I think that the Murk cannot be dispelled solely through some amazing textual rule which works for anyone, any time, whenever it is read. I do think that the text needs to address the issue, hence my post in support of Callan's point. Such text - as I see it - merely needs to be creatively honest, speaking to actual human interactions which can be encouraged, and calling out bullshit actions or willful ignorance of certain types if that's what the author wants to do.
The creative honesty needs to identify some person or some interaction which is to be relied upon, for recognizing conflict, or more colloquially, "when we go to the dice." I know that play can proceed fully functionally when a group does recognize and honor the person or process, because I've experienced it - or even more so, now expect to experience it or I simply don't play with that group. So rules can't magically impose such functionality, but they can say what it should look like for this particular game, and there are real behaviors out there which can be tagged as the way to go.
My call is also that there are many, many modes or styles of such functional Murk-less authority (if it's a person) or interaction. Some nailed-down, procedural forms are available as examples, as you know - I cite Trollbabe as the first text to do this and I think it's held up awfully well too. As I see it, I do not think unconstructed consensus-based approaches work well at all. Strangely, however, text which isn't too specific procedurally, but is specific as to the potential problem, finishing with "work out a solution for yourselves," without invoking consensus, seems to work pretty well. Perhaps it can simply be a matter of helping people admit that they are in, or might fall into, the Murk.
All of that is to say that I don't think there's any point to seeking a Golden Glow of Murk Dispelment, especially one which works like a spell thrown upon the game group from the perfectly-worded game book. In this, Dave, I'm pretty sure we agree based on what you've posted here. But some text which says, "The Murk is real, keep it at bay," and "Here's when," and maybe, "Here's exactly how," with the details of all two or three parts tuned to this particular game and the types of conflicts that show up in it ... that may not be magic text, but it's golden in its own way.
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
Hi Dave,
I'll put it this way. This (let's call it A)
Quote
But, you can ask them if they agree with you when you think you see a conflict, right? I mean, its a simple question and there is usually no real pressure to answer either way.
And this (let's call it B)
Quote
but if there is no character that will resist them, there is no conflict, right? It depends on the fiction, is there a story element that is there to resist them?
are vastly different from each other. I dunno, maybe you've got them tightly interwoven in how you think about the play so they appear to be one thing, but really they are two vastly different things.
Quote
Like how is it hitting a button better than answering a question?
As it was, with your B, how you wrote it and communicated what you meant to me, your not asking someone a question. By your own words your trying to ask the fiction a question. When the fiction doesn't exist to be asked.
With A, that works. But as I said, to me you seem to intermingle A & B even in the same post at times. As I measure it, one works, one doesn't - and the not working of B can stuff up the working of A.
Does that help explain my distinction you asked about? Even if the distiction doesn't make sense, you can alteast see I'm making one between A Vs B, even if they still seem the same to you. That distinction is what I'd like to contribute to the thread, at the very least. :)
Quote
other than the mechanic of asking the players to talk to each other
Just an extra note: As you'd have it, are they talking or just asking? To me, to talk would be, in the end, to persuade. Even here I'd mark another big distinction between talking and asking.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page