thread: 2006-02-20 : Open House: Ask a Frequent Question, pt 2

On 2006-02-24, Vincent wrote:

Matt: Is conflict resolution always about two or more players disagreeing?

Me, paraphrased: Nope.

Here's a bit more. You probably already read my post and thread about Shock: and Conflict Creation. In that particular session, we started out with a conflict resolution system that didn't also entail conflict of interest between the players. It a) worked, but b) was a little lifeless. Midsession, we switched to a conflict resolution system that fostered (short-term) player-level conflict of interest in support of the in-game conflict of interest. That a) also worked, and b) had lots more spark to it.

Conflict resolution doesn't depend on players disagreeing, but players disagreeing can really heighten conflict resolution.

WRT me hoping to miss it: in the future, and this goes for you too Troy, I'd rather be called overtly into a discussion elsewhere than be used off-site and unwittingly to back up somebody's side.


This makes Matt S go "Just askin'!"
Um, this was not a call for back up. It was an earnest question, intended for my own interest and only AFTER what I deemed a closed conversation on the thread I linked. I wasn't saying "Hey, clear it up for these schmucks." I was saying "Hmm, I'm still not certain myself. Maybe Vincent can help me figure it out?"

This makes TC go "Sure but..."
What does WRT mean?

This makes VB go "'with regard to.'"

This makes VB go "Matt: cool!"
Sorry for my tetchiness.

This makes Matt S go "No sweat."

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

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