Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Adam Cerling, December 25, 2005, 03:35:24 AM
Quote from: Adam Cerling on December 25, 2005, 03:35:24 AM[li]Is this text clear enough to explain Conflict Resolution to people who only know Task Resolution?[/li][li]Ends and Means is a LARP system. Players will often need to use these rules without a GM around to stop the buck. Does the text seem strong and clear enough for that?[/li]
Quote from: Adam Cerling on December 25, 2005, 03:35:24 AM[li]I place a high value on having significant creative authority over your own character. I have enshrined that idea in these rules. Do my rules for Minor Stakes do a good job of that? Am I being so overprotective that good stories can't be told, or will my strategies for proposing Major Stakes keep it dynamic?[/li]
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on December 26, 2005, 03:16:38 AMOne thing that worries me is that any sort of social challenge is a major stake. So if I want to persuade you or make you like me, I generally have to offer you Story Tokens. I wonder if there's a way of separating influencing someone's emotions from restricting their choices: so that influencing someone's emotions is a minor stake but doing something that restricts their choices is major?
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on December 26, 2005, 03:16:38 AMOn the Major Stakes: would it be worth expressing them as contracts, with a specified end condition? So instead of saying "I want to tie you up", you could say "I want to tie you up until another PC unties you" or "I want to tie you up so you're out of the game for 15 minutes". You've done this to an extent with "I want to enchant you so that you never tell me lies ever again" and I wonder whether it's worth formalising that an end condition should be part of the stakes.
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on December 26, 2005, 03:16:38 AMCould I check a couple of things? If I win the Major Stakes "I enchant you to tell me no lies ever again" against you, is there any way to remove that enchantment? Can it be done with another set of Major Stakes from another PC? Or can I remove it, once I've decided the enchantment has served its purpose?And from your final example: what happens if there is a PC who is part of the Press Corps? There'd have to be a set of Major Stakes against that PC, wouldn't there? Just checking.
Quote from: TonyLB on December 26, 2005, 09:14:08 AMI think the self-determination thing is nice precisely because it will prompt people to think of these phrasings, the ones that encourage a certain emotional reaction, but don't require it.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on December 26, 2005, 02:25:15 PMAdam, is death of their protagonist the end of the game for a player? What happens do a dead Protagonist's plot points?
Quote from: Adam Cerling on December 26, 2005, 05:25:13 PMThis is interesting. Why do you see bribes of Plot Points as being the only viable strategy for selling someone on a Major Stake? I list three other ways of doing it. Why focus on the first?
Quote from: Adam Cerling on December 26, 2005, 05:25:13 PM[li]It respects self-determination. A Minor Stake does not determine the choices another protagonist makes. It may affect a protagonist's emotions, but not so strongly that those emotions override her reason.[/li][/list]
Quote from: Adam Cerling on December 26, 2005, 05:25:13 PMI'm leaning toward the idea that if an end condition is important, it'll be part of the Stake: if it's not, it won't. Perhaps I should add it as another strategy for pitching Major Stakes:Specify an end condition. If your Stake affects a protagonist in the long term, you can make it more palatable by specifying a manageable end condition. For example, adjust the Stake "I turn you into a frog" by adding "until someone kisses you" or "until midnight."
Quote from: Adam Cerling on December 26, 2005, 05:25:13 PMMinor Stakes "avoid long-term changes." Is that too fuzzy? What does "long-term changes" mean to you?
Quote from: Adam Cerling on December 26, 2005, 05:25:13 PMI guess the question is -- do I make the rules say the enchantress must be involved with all later follow-up Conflicts about her Stake? How to handle that when she's not available (a real concern for LARPs)?
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on December 27, 2005, 07:39:02 PMSo, as I understand it, "I persuade you to like me" is a Minor Stake, but "I persuade you to vote for me" is a Major Stake. I like that.
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on December 27, 2005, 07:39:02 PMPerhaps it should be agreed as part of the Major Stake? So that if the enchantress says "I enchant you to tell me no lies ever again, with an enchantment only I can remove" then the enchantment can't be removed. If she just says "I enchant you to tell me no lies ever again", then the enchantment is fair game to be removed.
Quote from: TonyLB on December 27, 2005, 10:49:46 PMI suppose it gets to the fundamental question of what the game is about, what choices are the pure province of the players (in order for them to express their part of what the game is about) and what choices are just support structure for the important stuff, and can be taken away when necessary without compromising anyone's fun.