Are these two things incompatible?

[Callan S.]

Hi Sean,

Just a quick responce today: I'm pretty damn sure your talking about address of challenge Vs exploration of challenge. Please check out this post: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16117.0

And I've got a thread that's currently looking at how the two can be mixed, hope you can check it out: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16295.0

[contracycle]

Gareth: Isn't Dungeoneer a card game? How does it do this?

Yes, Dungeoneer is a card game, but it has two modes of play, one of which is quite a lot like conventional, umm, dungeoneering in the D&D tradition.

The basic PvP system is that the players have a hand of cards which include treasure, rooms, quests and monsters.  In a turn they can lay down a room, and then move their character token across existing rooms to achieve some goal (like fulfilling a quest).  However, as they move they accumulate Peril, which is a resource that can be spent by other players to screw them over.  So Bob, moving before me, might have accumulated 4 points of Peril in his turn, and in my turn I can then play a 4 point or less monster from my hand and sic it on Bob.

This works very well because each player is control of their own Peril accumulation, so you are only in as much trouble as you choose (or gamble) to be.  The form of play is competitive, with everyone attmepting to do each other over and accumulate victory points to be declared the winner.  Its pretty cool.

Now the second mode is a Co-Op mode, in the sense used in computer gaming - all players versus the AI, or in this case, the GM.  In this form only the GM has access to monsters, and can spend Peril from any player in the same room in order to invoke monsters.  This keeps the challenge scaled becuase more players in one place means more, bigger, or meaner monsters to deal with.  But the players then get the particular fun of teaming up with one another to fight the beasties, as opposed to the particular fun of the first mode, direct competition.

Anyway, Dungeoneer is well worth checking out from the Gamist perspective, I think.

[Callan S.]

Okay, quoting Tony I responded in my GNS thread, as I wanted to build on the understanding there. But it applies (IMO) to this thread as well. Here's a link to that post: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16117.msg174156#msg174156

I really recommend a read of it.

[Josh Roby]

Sean, you might look at 7th Sea for a (failed) attempt to mitigate GM fiat through resource (Drama Dice) management.  Basically, the GM had to 'spend' Drama Dice to activate supercool villain powers; these DDs went to the players, who could spend them to activate their own supercool powers.  Back and forth, and so on.

Also in the realm of 7th Sea, and I think more precisely addressing what you're on about, was a house rule we instituted: "In 7th Sea, there is always a chandelier when you need one."  In other words, if I'm GMing and I neglect to mention there being chandeliers in the building you're in, then when it comes to your turn to act, go ahead and swing from the chandelier.  This applied to whatever other elements of the setting the players wanted to conjure up -- hanging vines, barrels of powder, convenient rowboats, et cetera.  While it may seem superficial, this house rule allowed all players to add to the immediate setting however they liked.  Is that what you're after?

In Full Light, Full Steam the conflict-resolution system allows the winning player to narrate the results of the check.  Coupled with the explicit and game-wide understanding that any player can add details to the setting as they go, this results in something that sounds similar to what you're advocating.  Because I went conflict-resolution as opposed to task-resolution, the issue of 'what gets the job done' is mostly circumvented, and all of the granularity of a task-resolution system is left up to the narrating player's imagination.  In short, if you've got narration, what you say goes.  I do not have any 'safeguard' against GMs creating impossible situations, mostly because I find that to be a Social Contract issue, with the GM failing to provide her end of the bargain (obstacles that can be overcome).