[Legends of Lanasia] Conflict Flow
dindenver:
Callan,
I have always welcomed your input. You are great at getting me to better gel my ideas.
Quote
What if one person thinks there is a conflict, and another doesn't?
Well, the person who thinks there is a conflict wins their imaginary conflict. I mean, this issue points to a bigger problem in play when it happens. But the point is, there is no conflict mechanic that will work and help evoke any sort of shared fiction if both sides want the same results.
I think I understand you, but I have seen on more than one occasion where a conflict is well under way before both sides realize they want the same thing. I think for groups that are gelling, this is a "gimme." We don't have to dwell on this step. But, if this is a little wobbly, there is a reminder, right there in the book, to ask this question.
Quote
Is there some sort of impetus in refering to it as existant that is necessary for the creative process here? Or is there a benefit I'm not seeing?
No, this one step is not about the creative process. This is more about efficiency. In other words, let's make sure we still have a similar understanding and then we can bust out the cool/fun conflict mechanics if it still makes sense.
Quote
Note: I'm second guessing a 'your reading it wrong' responce.
Ah, OK. Well, my awesome response wasn't really about me saying "you are reading it wrong," it was more about me saying "In my haste to abbreviate it for web consumption, I wrote it wrong."
Sorry about the confusion. In the final version, this will include a lot more words, and I may or may not include the diagram. I am still trying to decide (I will probably fix it and include it in the back as an appendix if I do keep it).
Thanks for checking this thread out, I really do appreciate it.
Callan S.:
*confused* I didn't mention both sides wanting the same result? One person at the table thinks theres a conflict, another doesn't.
You can have rules which designate a person and say if that person thinks there's a conflict, there is, regardless if no one else sees it (or you could have rules that say someone can do this, but have to spend an X token each time and they only have so many, which ends up more interesting, IMO).
Or you could have it that one guy can say he sees a conflict, but if another guy says he doesn't, that's it, it isn't there.
There are probably a few dozen ways of working on this. I just don't know which 'Agree that there is a conflict' refers to? It's a bit like writing a rule that says "If the real life food tastes bad, do X"...it begs the question, what happens if one guy at the table tastes it and says yuck, but another guy says yum? What is the procedure if one guy 'tastes' the prior spoken fiction and tastes a conflict, while the other guy doesn't? From some of my past history, what happens is some bitching, as each side, encouraged by the text itself to think their reaction is a global truth, both think that their 'there is a conflict'/'there isn't a conflict' reaction is the global truth and the other guys being bloody minded/stupid/malicious, etc. Certain wording can really stoke that 'how I see things is how things are' mindset. Indeed I think alot of authors stoke this mindset in their writing, because as they write they themselves are under the mindset that how they react to something is how things are. They think their perception of 'the SIS' is a real thing, not simply their own particular psychological reaction to prior spoken words.
Sorry to go on, but if such a mindset is present, then there will appear to be no problem. It'll instead feel to like "If there's a conflict, then there is, it's obvious - so I do not need to write any other rules and what is this guy going on about?". Which is to be deeply mired in the above mindset.
Assuming were past that problem, how is this handled? I gave two sketchy examples above - and there could be many more ways of doing it that could be invented. Each is based on there being a point in the procedure that says to someone 'Hey, if you choose, you can start a conflict now'. It's just a matter of which one do you want to use? I think that's the next step to take.
Ron Edwards:
You're absolutely right, Callan. As far as I know, Trollbabe is the first game written to be absolutely explicit in its rules about this issue. One might interpret the bulk of rules-sets before that to include a tacit rule that the designated GM (by whatever title) plays that role, corresponding to your first stated option, but I have found that to be troublesome in practice. In practice, lacking such a rule, groups either find their own way through this, inventing their own techniques that are not only unstated but unacknowledged as even necessary in most rules-sets, or they don't, undergoing tedious debate or other forms of funky non-play to muddle through the Murk.
So all this is to agree in asking, Dave - for this game, what do you have in mind? It may be that your answer allows for certain editing of features in your flow chart ... for instance, in Trollbabe, since either player or GM can flatly state "conflict," and that person determines the Action Type, there is no back-and-forth Action Type choosing between the "sides."
Best, Ron
dindenver:
Callan,
I think I get what you are saying. And I am not claiming it is a transparent issue.
But, what my answer was supposed to mean is this:
1) A player says, my character is walking down the street.
2) The GM says, "Their is a street thug barring your way, he says, 'You want to get past me, you gotta pay...' What do you do?"
3) So, looking at my cool, little, conflict diagram, the player has a choice, "yes there is a conflict." For whatever reason he is willing to fight to get past this thug. Or, the player can say, "You know what, you are right," and his character does a 180. No conflict. Of course the GM can still press the issue and force a conflict, but at this point, there probably is no conflict. The NPC wants to prevent anyone from passing and no one wants to get past them.
But, we can't know that until we know the minds of both the GM and the player. The GM or the player can propose a conflict, 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? This may be obvious, or this may be on an edge case. The point of this step is simply to encourage players to communicate with each other, their understanding of the current, active story elements.
Does that make sense? I know I have been very brief, so I am not sure if that brevity is negatively impacting comprehension.
Callan S.:
Hey Dave,
Man, this looks innoculous, but there are massive rip tides under the surface in what your describing. I'm not even sure I can chart them.
The best way I can describe it, Dave, is to say that your deeply mired, as I described before. You, as you say yourself, say this depends on the fiction, or fictional characters, or somehow how it depends on how 'we' know the minds of the GM or player (not as they know their own choices and just like, decide).
Let me put it this way - lets say whether there is a conflict depends on whether there are fairies living at the bottom of the garden of the house the games being hosted at.
Does this sound an absurd way to try and play a game? As in fairies are made up - you can look at a die and say whats on the top face, emperically. But faries are made up, you can't wander down into the garden and detect if any are present or not. What the fuck happens to the game as your all wandering in the garden?
I'm pretty sure you'd agree with me on all those assertions, probably even saying it's obvious.
The thing is, your trying to do the same thing here. Your trying to determine if a certain fiction 'exists' or not, to determine what to do next in the rules. Like if a rule says 'on a roll of a one, bring in a wandering monster' your trying to have a rule that says 'if a conflict exists, then do X...'. This is exactly the same as saying 'if fairies exist at the bottom of your garden, then do X...'. No, they are exactly the same as each other!
Anyway, that's the dreadful pill I offer. I'd talk about other options, but I think it best to wait to see how it sits, if at all, first.
Hi Ron,
Quote
One might interpret the bulk of rules-sets before that to include a tacit rule that the designated GM (by whatever title) plays that role, corresponding to your first stated option, but I have found that to be troublesome in practice.
Oh, my first option is incredibly blunt, I totally grant. In terms of A: clearly defining who decides what mechanical option is take, it's great, but in terms of B: Providing a shared author environment, it basically sucks (Read: It fails that shared author goal. Usually leads to lurking dictator behaviour/'good GM'ing'). You can see I try and water it down in the brackets idea, to start allowing room for other voices at the table. Anyway, atleast it gets A out of the way.
Quote
inventing their own techniques that are not only unstated but unacknowledged as even necessary in most rules-sets, or they don't, undergoing tedious debate or other forms of funky non-play to muddle through the Murk.
Even the unstated techniques make me think not of human communication and interaction, but of something like water washing against stone - either eroding or being brushed aside. The unstated and unacknowledged ones are the ones people are most insistant about / the make the biggest waves about...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page