On 2006-10-04, Ian Burton-Oakes wrote:
Okay, let me see if I got this. The post is premised on the sans stakes talk, which I am assuming plays out like this: when you take out stakes talk, leave in conflict resolution, the results are more dynamic, and you have less control over them. The story may lose some thematic unity, but trades that for surprising and powerful transformation.
Dice/randomness are mentioned as a key element of this, but it seems that they are not necessarily where the ‘real action’ is. Without stakes, the conflicts get a touch more fine-grained—one thing stakes risk doing is ‘jumping ahead’ of the dice, and guaranteeing some pretty big story elements which, sans stakes, conflict resolution parcels out into smaller conflicts, each of which can change a character’s narrative velocity and direction.
Sans stakes, you zoom in, take small steps, each of which can (by randomness or feedback from other people at the table) lead to profound changes in direction.
Close or am I veering?