thread: 2005-05-06 : Brainstorming from the Core
On 2005-05-11, Eric Finley wrote:
Ooh. IIEE. Building on Christian's suggestion of the scale of a roll...
Somebody has the right to request the next scene. This is mechanically established, right, based on the institution scores. When they call for a scene, they must specify whether this is to be a Hope scene, a Fear scene, or an Anger scene - per our three scratch lists. Someone (maybe same someone, maybe different) then has to frame something which will manifest within that category. Hope scenes, f'rinstance, should have the PC as the active agent, an institution as responsive, and suggests a possible positive outcome. Fear scenes have the PC as receptive/responding, an institution as active, and suggests the threat of a negative outcome.
Anyway, the insight is let's use imagery to establish stakes. The player (or maybe someone else, hang on a sec) describes the still tableau which constitutes "end of conflict" with the PC victorious. The opposed-institution's-player describes a different still tableau which constitutes the other possible outcome, institution victorious. The constraint upon stakes is simply that it is only the image that is binding. So a stakes that is so large in scope or complexity that it can't be captured by a single image, is impermissible. The city on fire - that's good. Looters in the town hall - alternate and also good. "The city government toppled" - impermissible. [I am so stealing this concept for something else, if this game stays in example-land.]
So intent is open discussion mode during the scene framing and scene setup. Initiation is the description of tableaux. We're now in conflict and resolving. We do some back-and-forth stuff... I'm leaving this as a blank right now. At some point the GM rolls the dice versus the player's scratch value (poss. modified by positioning etc). The dice tell us which tableau will bring the end of the scene; that's effect. Naturally at this point it's a fun collaborative storytelling exercise to cap the scene with sequences which end in the designated image.
The blank spot above I left on purpose. Harkening back to our "anatomy of conflict" stuff, the big thing we're missing in this design is some tools for stretching the uncertainty. We could make the roll right at the beginning and have the entire scene be done in "we know where this ends" mode, but frankly that would suck. It would have no tension. What we're missing is a phase of things where in-game events are happening, and (whether related or unrelated) the resolution odds are being shifted by the players. It could be that this is as simple as a sort of Baron Munchausen / PTA-style thing wherein a cool contribution to the narrative gets applauded in the form of bennies which go towards the single roll. It could be as complex as several applications of the scratch list mechanic, with the conflict resolution established by the cumulative results. Whatever.
But there's our IIEE. Scene call (incl. Hope/Fear/Anger), scene frame, conflicting tableaux, back-and-forth events, roll, free narration to tableau, cut. Makes me think that the procedural imagery here (for me) is one of indie cinema, something by Naomi Klein or the like.
- Eric
