thread: 2005-11-10 : Open House: Ask a Frequent Question...
On 2005-11-17, Vincent wrote:
Collin: Won't these two approaches often come into conflict? It seems like situations could arise where the stakes are clearly defined, but instead of success with the dice dictating actual success in the conflict, FitM could mean that the stakes are changed after the fact.
Is this a problem, or have I gotten confused somewhere? If it is a potential conflict, do you have any ideas how to try and resolve it?
Well, I mean, you're the designer, right? So don't make them come into conflict in your design.
FitM could mean that the stakes are problematically changed after the fact, if that's how you design it - but then it's on your head for designing it that way.
Too, stakes resolution doesn't require in principle that the stakes remain unchanged over the course of resolution. If you want to design a FitM stakes resolution mechanic where the stakes can change after the dice are down, go for it - just make sure that as the stakes change, all parties buy in. ("Make sure" as the designer, and that means mechanics.)
If you look across the indie RPG world at FitM stakes resolution rules, you won't see an example of your proposed potential problem. I've never heard of it happening.
This makes CMT go "Sure"
That was pretty hypothetical, so if you say you have never seen it happen in practice, I'll stop worrying about it.
