Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Filip Luszczyk, March 03, 2010, 11:09:26 AM
Quote*) Actually, since when it's common for consenting adults to agree on anything just like that? The entire history of the world seems to deny the reliability of this notion, lol.
QuoteWhen I run In A Wicked Age... negotiation takes about 2 minutes and almost no ever has to Exhaust or Injure.
QuoteAre you sticking solely to conflicts being between the fictional characters? Or are you somehow trying to use this mechanics to reconcile player-to-player real world disagreements?
QuoteCould you give an exact example of DoW that look a particularly long time? In particular can you remember what each side was asking for specifically? One or two details about what was said during the actually volleys would be helpful as well.
QuoteIn my experience, each party states their intent and the compromise ends up being a delightful surprise, something more than we thought was going to happen when we first started the DoW.
QuoteWhat occurs when the group is disagreeing on the compromise?
QuoteWhat stop-gap measure is necessary for it to be functional in your group?
QuoteSo I think we're looking at: why does it work in those other groups? Why doesn't that work in yours?
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on March 05, 2010, 12:13:05 PMThe problem I see is that as a group seems to be a massive mental shortcut, generally. All the group this, group that talk builds an impression the group is some sort of hive mind. The group, however, is composed of individuals, obviously. In practice, there is no as a group, there's always some potentially complex process involved that goes on between those individuals. Procedures referring to the group as a hive mind often leave a necessary part of the process out, or at least aren't explicit about it, assuming the group will supplement that part with a compatible component. It's certainly easier than designing instructions that would guide the individuals involved through that gap. It's not reliable, however, no more than leaving wide gaps in the rules for the individual GM to bridge, trusting that given a range of possibilities that also include wrong choices, GMs will reliably choose the way the designer intended.
Quote from: Callan S. on March 05, 2010, 06:22:36 PMJudd,It's not ambiguous if you've been instructed to come to an unambiguous conclusion with your fellow players?