Preventative Goals, and Resolving

[Hans]

Hi all:

The "Not Yet" rule text says "no player may narrate how the Conflict turns out in the story until they have successfully Resolved the Conflict in the Rules."  What happens if the resolution of a Conflict is implicitly or explicitly part of another Conflict?

Lets say there is currently an Event on the table, lets call it "The Man's Secret HQ begins to Flood".  Now I, playing The Man, make a Goal "Make my escape before the Secret HQ begins to flood".  What happens if someone trys to resolve the first event?  The Event clearly states that the HQ begins to Flood, but the Goal has not been resolved, so no one can narrate the Secret HQ beginning to flood until that Goal is resolved.  Can the resolver of the event gloat?  Note that if my goal were worded "..before the Secret HQ floods" there would be no conflict between the Conflicts, but I'm smart, so I word it very specifically.

Or you could have a Goal "Destroy Walt Disney World" (an admirable goal) and a goal "Take kids to Walt Disney World" (poor things) on the table at the same time.  Now you could succeed at taking the kids to Walt Disney World, and then someone could destroy it, but it obviously can't happen the other way, unless things get very strange, or the resolution of the first Goal is trivialized. 

Or, Asteroid Crushing Man could have a goal that says "Drop Asteroid on Bank" (because he is an established idiot), and the heroes could have a goal "Foil Bank Robbery".  As someone pointed out earlier, dropping an asteroid on the bank would, seemingly, make foiling the robbery a moot point.

This seems to go farther than what is described under Preventative Goals.  Of course, this assumes that the "trumping" Conflict is not against the Code, in which case the Resolver could just Gloat and there is no problem.

Still haven't played yet, first game is tonight.  But this came up as I was thinking through various A and B Plot ideas.   

Hans

[TonyLB]

I think you're borrowing trouble.  I'll explain why.

Your first paragraph is the only one that couldn't be resolved any which way, and that's because (as you said) you deliberately constructed the two goals to obstruct each other.  You've got no motivation to do that (unless your goal playing the game is to break the game, which I agree is a possible goal).

The other ones ... you say "Hey, that couldn't resolve in this order," now, but when it actually does resolve in that order you'll think of something.  It's genuinely not hard.

Now, every time I give examples of the principle above, people think I'm attacking the examples they've given about how to make impossible-to-resolve pairs of conflicts.  So let me be utterly frank:  You can do it, as you've demonstrated.  In order to do so you must make it perfectly plain, in the instant you create the conflict, that you're doing it ... usually by using the exact same wording as an existing conflict.  So the following examples are to show the potential for creativity, and how it lets you resolve accidental conflicts.

"Destroy Walt Disney World" followed by "Have a great time with the kids at Walt Disney World."  Take your choice:  Do you use your super abilities to reconstruct the Magic Kingdom, or are you such a spectacular parent that your kids have a good time in the smoking rubble?  Personally, I think the latter is way cooler, but it's a matter of personal preference.

"Drop Asteroid on Bank" followed by "Foil Bank Robbery"  Well, by the very nature of the Not Yet rule, the asteroid itself cannot foil the robbers.  So the robbers are (ipso facto) unfoiled ... in the remains of the smoldering bank, they still plot their nefarious deeds!  Go foil them!


So, there are some examples, purely for fun.  The phenomenon you are talking about is theoretically possible.  I have not heard it reported often as a problem in practice.  Go play the game, then see what you think.

[Hans]

Now, every time I give examples of the principle above, people think I'm attacking the examples they've given about how to make impossible-to-resolve pairs of conflicts.  So let me be utterly frank:  You can do it, as you've demonstrated.  In order to do so you must make it perfectly plain, in the instant you create the conflict, that you're doing it ... usually by using the exact same wording as an existing conflict.  So the following examples are to show the potential for creativity, and how it lets you resolve accidental conflicts.

[snip, snip]
So, there are some examples, purely for fun.  The phenomenon you are talking about is theoretically possible.  I have not heard it reported often as a problem in practice.  Go play the game, then see what you think. 

Heh, my hope was to be attacked, so no worries.  I get what your saying about breaking the game.  I was being purposefully provacative with my examples, just to help understand things.  I am a bit surprised you haven't heard it reported more often, but you would know.   I think I get the idea of accidental versus purposeful conflicts as well.

Having actually played the game now (report elsewhere), I have a much better feel for how it goes.  Suffice it to say at this point that, you, TonyLB, provide good value for the money and may be a freaking genius.

[TonyLB]

I am a bit surprised you haven't heard it reported more often, but you would know.

I think that people underestimate how imaginative they can be if they are forced to it.

If you ask me "Could you make a dramatic scenario involving Hitler, cell phones, spirit photography, thai noodles, the season autumn and the Detroit Tigers?" I will probably say "No."

If you tell me "Make a dramatic scenario with all those elements, or else we can't play the game," then I'll think of something.

So when I'm examining sets of conflicts in theory, I am asking "Can I make this work?" and (as above) I'm likely to answer "No."  When I'm playing the sets of conflict in the game, I am being told "Make this work.  Now."  So I dig deeper.