thread: 2012-06-25 : "Conflict" "Resolution"
On 2012-06-25, Kit wrote:
OK, so I'm thinking about Brave. Note: I really didn't like it, but I really wanted to. It was three things that each were really cool but together got in each other's way.
Brave's coolest element was just that: they resolved by finding common ground. But there were other things that were uncertain?it wasn't just her mom who wanted her to marry one of the clans, but the clans themselves. So they resolved one thing, and pretended that they resolved the other. I just wasn't convinced of the clans' acceptance of her "I'm not gonna marry y'all".
But that's really a tangent about Brave. What's it have to do with RPGs?
I think it has this: your game should have conflicts (or whatever we're calling them now) that you can resolve (in sense 1). And the mechanics for resolution (in sense 2) that you have can strongly shape how resolution(1) happens. In as much as they're mismatched, it can be painful to watch.
This makes GW go "And then: what if they don't resolve? What if they simmer? (I promise I'll stop doing these now.)"
This makes JC go "The story isn't finished if the conflicts are still simmering."
This makes VB go "I loved Brave."
If you watch it again, notice how in that scene she (1) establishes their greater common interest in avoiding war, (2) puts forward convincingly that they can avoid war without adhering to traditions that are no longer required, and (3) presents a strong new course of action they can take together instead, to replace their old custom. Yes, it's convenient how easily they're swayed, but it's not unbelievable THAT they're swayed. She made a good case.
This makes Kit go "Sure, we'll talk about that elsewhere"
That's not the extent of my problem with Brave. But I don't think that marginalia is the place to discuss that! Let's do it elsewhere.
