Xervous
2021-10-20, 02:32 PM
I was musing earlier on just how to map out the components of a given task (Crossing Butthurt Bay) and ended up considering what follows. In short it’s about framing tasks in a way that highlights impactful decisions, tradeoffs, and events not worth the logistical fuss.
To Engineers, I say Quality Speed and Cost. You know where this is going, compromises and tradeoffs.
Let us begin with the flowery definitions.
Surety: how risky is this approach to solving the task?
Speed: how quickly does this approach promise a resolution?
Sustainability: how much will this drain limited resources up front?
Taking the route along the coast is both Speedy and Sustainable, but the threat of pirates makes this an unsure solution.
Opting for the meandering merchant route is sure and sustainable, but it is nowhere near speedy.
Pulling out the magical Wind Knots to cut a course straight across is Speedy and Sure, but hardly sustainable.
If the players are capable of satisfying all three Speedy, Sure, and Sustainable then you’re looking at little more than a few moments of narration.
Enter the fourth S, Scope. Crossing Butthurt Bay even by the leisurely merchant route will get the party across in time for the Guvner’s wedding. But the party wants to make a detour to Intoxication Island, the merchant route would be too slow for this broadened scope. Thus they are forced to weigh the risks of the coast or the cost of the wind knots against their desire to visit II and reach the other side of BB in time.
The reverse could also be true where they have a surplus of time and can afford to broaden the scope of their crossing to include more stops.
To boil it all down, the players ask about doing X. GM considers the first three S-es and highlights if it’s uncertain, slow, and/or costly. Driving discussion towards accepting risks, accepting the time cost, accepting the resource cost, and/or adjusting the scope of their action will aid the players in understanding (and enumerating) their options and making informed decisions. Clear and obvious lowball suggestions can be a cue for the GM to inform the players that they can dream bigger (Scope).
Gibberish? Common sense? Too much of a straight jacket? Better phrasing? Let’s hear it.
To Engineers, I say Quality Speed and Cost. You know where this is going, compromises and tradeoffs.
Let us begin with the flowery definitions.
Surety: how risky is this approach to solving the task?
Speed: how quickly does this approach promise a resolution?
Sustainability: how much will this drain limited resources up front?
Taking the route along the coast is both Speedy and Sustainable, but the threat of pirates makes this an unsure solution.
Opting for the meandering merchant route is sure and sustainable, but it is nowhere near speedy.
Pulling out the magical Wind Knots to cut a course straight across is Speedy and Sure, but hardly sustainable.
If the players are capable of satisfying all three Speedy, Sure, and Sustainable then you’re looking at little more than a few moments of narration.
Enter the fourth S, Scope. Crossing Butthurt Bay even by the leisurely merchant route will get the party across in time for the Guvner’s wedding. But the party wants to make a detour to Intoxication Island, the merchant route would be too slow for this broadened scope. Thus they are forced to weigh the risks of the coast or the cost of the wind knots against their desire to visit II and reach the other side of BB in time.
The reverse could also be true where they have a surplus of time and can afford to broaden the scope of their crossing to include more stops.
To boil it all down, the players ask about doing X. GM considers the first three S-es and highlights if it’s uncertain, slow, and/or costly. Driving discussion towards accepting risks, accepting the time cost, accepting the resource cost, and/or adjusting the scope of their action will aid the players in understanding (and enumerating) their options and making informed decisions. Clear and obvious lowball suggestions can be a cue for the GM to inform the players that they can dream bigger (Scope).
Gibberish? Common sense? Too much of a straight jacket? Better phrasing? Let’s hear it.