Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Threadsplitting
Forked from this thread on Vincent's blog.
Stakes and Price are different.
Here's how I see it. Stakes must exist for the conflict to even start. If nothing's at stake, then no dispute exists. And if the stakes are unclear, or mutable, then that has a serious effect on the conflict. (If we're arguing about who gets to shoot the hostage, and then suddenly the hostage escapes, that's just not the same conflict anymore. We've been preempted without resolution. This form of "resolution" of conflict probably deserves its own discussion; it's very cogent to working on Conflict Resolution systems. Digression, save for later.)
Price happens as a result, but it doesn't have to be on the table up front. The things which could be affected by Price might be on the table implicitly (you're physically present and thus might get injured, but that's not the point), explicitly (you suddenly find out that your sister is physically present and in danger, but while keeping her safe is good, it's not the point), or initially not at all (coming out of the conflict with a demonic son wasn't on anybody's list, going into the scene).
The point is the distinction between "necessary" and "desirable". This came up in my Project Management course, which makes me wonder what else in that could be mined for Conflict Resolution goodies. (Aside: I stand accused by Star of being a geek polymath, for using Maslow's Hierarchy from our foster parent training to build a reward system for Heresy. Adding my project management training to that probably just makes it worse.) A given project requirement should always be examined up-front for whether it's necessary for the project to be considered complete, or merely desirable. It's a big difference, because "is it done?" is one of the questions that the course urges you to make WAY sharper than we normally do when thinking sloppily. Which is Conflict vs. Task resolution in a nutshell, right there.
In my multi-role Heresy setup, delineated in the previous post, I split Stakes and Price apart. Different duties. That's deliberate and I'd stand by it.
So in Dogs, I would contend that Fallout is not Stakes in analytical terms. That's why it's handled separately. Taking or not taking Fallout is irrelevant to completion of the Conflict itself. Fallout is simply Price. Vincent thinks Fallout is part of Stakes... my analysis says that Vincent's just smarter than he thinks he is, and has already done the Stakes/Price distinction in his design without acknowledging it in his model.
Let me assert this parallel, then: If you want player collaboration in your game, if you want a robust group-based "conflict resolution" model, then the possibility of Price has to be clearly on the table, just like the Stakes do.
The game where the GM decides, secretly, that your sister's gonna bite it tonight... that's the parallel, but not the same, as the game where the GM decides that you're gonna get caught sneaking into that encampment even if he has to make you roll Stealth all night to do it. In both cases he's taken that element of conflict off the table. Not always a bad thing! But not collaborative.
Stakes and Price are different.
Here's how I see it. Stakes must exist for the conflict to even start. If nothing's at stake, then no dispute exists. And if the stakes are unclear, or mutable, then that has a serious effect on the conflict. (If we're arguing about who gets to shoot the hostage, and then suddenly the hostage escapes, that's just not the same conflict anymore. We've been preempted without resolution. This form of "resolution" of conflict probably deserves its own discussion; it's very cogent to working on Conflict Resolution systems. Digression, save for later.)
Price happens as a result, but it doesn't have to be on the table up front. The things which could be affected by Price might be on the table implicitly (you're physically present and thus might get injured, but that's not the point), explicitly (you suddenly find out that your sister is physically present and in danger, but while keeping her safe is good, it's not the point), or initially not at all (coming out of the conflict with a demonic son wasn't on anybody's list, going into the scene).
The point is the distinction between "necessary" and "desirable". This came up in my Project Management course, which makes me wonder what else in that could be mined for Conflict Resolution goodies. (Aside: I stand accused by Star of being a geek polymath, for using Maslow's Hierarchy from our foster parent training to build a reward system for Heresy. Adding my project management training to that probably just makes it worse.) A given project requirement should always be examined up-front for whether it's necessary for the project to be considered complete, or merely desirable. It's a big difference, because "is it done?" is one of the questions that the course urges you to make WAY sharper than we normally do when thinking sloppily. Which is Conflict vs. Task resolution in a nutshell, right there.
In my multi-role Heresy setup, delineated in the previous post, I split Stakes and Price apart. Different duties. That's deliberate and I'd stand by it.
So in Dogs, I would contend that Fallout is not Stakes in analytical terms. That's why it's handled separately. Taking or not taking Fallout is irrelevant to completion of the Conflict itself. Fallout is simply Price. Vincent thinks Fallout is part of Stakes... my analysis says that Vincent's just smarter than he thinks he is, and has already done the Stakes/Price distinction in his design without acknowledging it in his model.
Let me assert this parallel, then: If you want player collaboration in your game, if you want a robust group-based "conflict resolution" model, then the possibility of Price has to be clearly on the table, just like the Stakes do.
The game where the GM decides, secretly, that your sister's gonna bite it tonight... that's the parallel, but not the same, as the game where the GM decides that you're gonna get caught sneaking into that encampment even if he has to make you roll Stealth all night to do it. In both cases he's taken that element of conflict off the table. Not always a bad thing! But not collaborative.
<< Home