[Ingenero] Dramatic conflict resolution- help with definitions.
stefoid:
Quote from: SteveCooper on February 06, 2011, 01:29:01 AM
Just some quick thoughts;
The two examples you give are different kinds of things;
The first -- kill the captain -- is a very high-level goal, which says nothing really about method. Because the method isn't included, *how* it happens goes to narrationThe second -- synchronized cannons -- is a low-level, *how* type of action, and says nothing about the high-level goal. .
Shouldn't the two kinds of things be the same? 'kill the captain in personal combat' and 'breach the hull of the oppositing ship' (both goals) or 'cut down mooks' and 'synchronize cannons' (both methods)
Hi. These are examples taken from a playtest. These are goals set by the players in response to the Pirate Captain announcing one promotion spot was available to the best performed crew member - thats the overall 'why' of the goals in this specific example. So in that sense they are both task resolution that say nothing about whether they achieve their ultimate aim.
And Im Ok with that. In my game, players are explicitly rewarded with when their characters achieve explicit player set goals, and my aim is that the decision of whether they accomplish that should come down to a dice roll, which is something that task resolution is suited to.
Your point is a good one thought because that hadnt occurred to me until you brought it up -- that conflict resolution isnt well suited to player set goals being decided by a dice roll , because conflict resolution generally requires some narrative interpretation to arrive at a concrete result. Unless you set the granularity to encompass the entire process I suppose - 'Is the captain impressed enough with the way you kill the captain/ synch the guns to award you the promotion?' but thats a little anti-climactic, and also in this example, you have a couple of players with the same mutually-exclusive ultimate aim. Thats a problem for conflict res, isnt it?
Quote
There's also a question of the granularity of goal-setting. A player who is more comfortable making bold statements of intent will become effectively more powerful. Imagine, for instance, a vital clue left in a desk drawer. A character who says 'I'll search the house for clues!' will, it seems, find the clue very quickly. A character who likes to do everything in detail ('I look around the room / I examine the desk / can I see anything on the outside of the top drawer? / Is it locked? / Can I dusty hangings / Can I smell anything in the room?') will perhaps make more checks, and so risk failure more often, and so be less effective. It could penalise careful players.
I see what your saying, although the searching for clues example is not the best. that kind of activity is best left to the 'story phase', unless there is a dramatic confrontation or similar that is supposed to occur during the exploration/investigation, in which case cutting to the confrontation at the next challenge phase will occur, and the 'clues' will not be the focus of goals anyway.
But having said that, again, your point is a good one. And thats why rules of drama and dramatic pacing need to be explicitly laid out, once I work out what they all are. without further context, the second player is going through a fairly tedious process that doesnt require any dice rolling at all. If there was some other element of drama involved in the second example that made it tense, then sure, dwell on that scene, but otherwise the GM is encouraged to narrate through such activity, even if it is conflict activity, to get to the dramatic parts.
That doesnt mean that the whole scene cant be played at the specific players preferred pace -- it might be particularly atmospheric.. everyone might be digging it. however, the GM wont break out the dice or interrupt the narrative from either side.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page