thread: 2006-01-19 : Shock: and Conflict Creation

On 2006-01-19, Ninja Monkey J wrote:

Yeah, we did. Maybe you forgot to write yours down, but I sure as fuck needed more Features. I was only on my second turn when the shit hit the fan for me and you were approaching your third, so I can see how you might have forgotten.

I can't talk about the mechanics of Shock: in detail right now because I'm not completely certain just how they're related to what we're talking about here, though they clearly are. Also, I'm cleaning up the house.

I can say this little bit, though: the Protagonist in a scene does stuff. The Antagonist does stuff against the Protag player's wishes for the Protag. The other players can chip in from a finite number of resources to bring in circumstance, the details of which have been worked out in play.

The big challenge was, in 0.2.1, the Antag was relatively powerless. The character deliberately had no will; they were just there to highlight the features of the Protag. So the characters were flat. When the Antagonist is flat, the conflicts are flat. But once the Antag Player had resources and motivation (which sie was supposed to have before, but didn't), the players suddenly have an opinion about what the *Tags are doing and start playing the environment to help out the side of the guy they want to win.

So, what I think V. is saying is that either side of the conflict can win (in fact, both sides can win), but the players have opinions about what they want to happen. Not because one side is a stupid thing to happen and the other is good, but because they actually take a stance on what the *Tags are doing.

V., is that what you're talking about?


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":