I think it's understandable and accurate and it's stakes setting.

On the example: I worry that the stakes are diametrically opposed (one is "Get information", the other is close to "Don't get information"). It might imply the stakes should always be opposed, which they probably don't.

Graham

I think that it's perfectly understandable. Mind you I think I know what stake setting is. That's going to a be a bit of an issue asking a question like this at CE (or SG, the Forge or wherever); the people you're asking will (for the most part) already instinctively grasp stake setting and conflict resolution. That will make it much more difficult to objectively say 'yeah, those paragraphs really make it clear' as if you understand something already you can grok what someone is saying about a subject even if they're being comparatively obscure.

Not that I'm say you're being obscure there mind, it's just a potential pitfall of garnering feedback here or at similar sites. Now, as I said, I think the paragraphs are fine as an explanation. Graham raises a valid point though, anyone reading about stake setting for the first time (admittedly probably not an overly common occurrence for someone playing Cold City) could well come away assuming that the stakes should always be diametrically opposed.

Perhaps a second example might be in order (can you have too many examples?)

I think your description and example are concise and clear, and I don't think it'll have any real trouble being understood by people unused to the term. I think it'll be read as "say what your character does."

However, what it might not properly convey are some of the more esoteric things you might do with stakes, as we discussed at Spodley. Things that might be obvious to indie gamers but less so more trad gamers.

Things such as having the stakes cover an entire firefight, not just a round of it. Or cutting to the heart of what the conflict is really about, such as not having it about whether you shoot the guy or not, but about whether you're heard doing so, or whether he tells you the information first. Or having your player goals at conflict with your character goals.

I'm also wrangling with describing stakes setting as I'm revising Six Bullets in light of your advice at Spodley, so these things are all at the forefront of my brain!

Hey Malc

I wouldn't have considered talking about stakes a derailment of my other thread, I think 'stakes' or 'intent' are integral parts of conflict resolution.

But to get back to the OP, I think you've fallen into what you're trying to avoid in the example Malc!

Joe, as the GM sets stakes for Wagners side of the conflict: "I want to play dumb and appear as if there is no information to be gained here".

Why is Joe talking about playing dumb? That's pre-judging the story, the stake should just be "You get no info on 'Action: Weisthor'".

Whether Wagner, plays dumb, intimidates the Major or hides in a cupboard should come out in the post dice narration. Except you don't even need that stake as it's already implicit from Gregor's stated intent that if he fails in the conflict that's what the outcome will be (no info).

I'd go with a more interesting stake for the GM, like "Wagner captures you".

You also need a clause about follow up conflicts - Gregor cannot ask for the same stake (info on Weisthor from Wagner)ever again, or the original stake is meaningless. This, as I have recently realised is the heart of Conflict Res.

I think some more guidance on framing or calling for conflicts and the scope of stakes within conflicts would also be helpful.

+++
JoE
+++

Prince of Darkness Games
Rock N' Role-Play....

One option is to consider a note on phrasing stakes always as active goals, rather than as re-active ones. "I want to stop X" tends to lead to less interesting events than "I want to achieve Y".

-Matt

Realms Publishing

I don't understand all of this crazy hippy talk ;) but my comment was going to be much like Joe's. To put a slightly different angle on it, I think you need to say a bit about what the GM says to the player. In your example it's pretty clear to the player that the NPC is hiding something - which would make sense if that's already established and the conflict is about worming out secrets, but if not it's just a case of attempting a thing and seeing whether you succeed.

In the latter case would one talk about stakes at all? It's just the GM setting a difficulty, presumably.

So the sort of conflict you describe (or the framing of it) is really only for overt things, maybe even active things. Kind of like the classic movie contest - "I challenge you to tiddlywinks, if you win I'll give you the secret plans but if I win all the hostages go free".

Tim Gray
Silver Branch Games
www.silverbranch.co.uk

Tim makes an excellent point. Beyond the stakes setting itself, you have a whole raft of other stuff that interacts with it. Are you rewriting those too?

For example, once a player states their stakes, the GM might realise there is no conflict and let the player get their goal ("say yes or roll the dice").

It's useful to mention that.

-Matt

Realms Publishing

Two minor things:

Firstly, I think it should be clearer whether the stakes are stated from the point of view of the player or the character. Just from playing in the past I think being a little explicit (even if it is saying that either is okay) would be helpful for in-play clarity.

Secondly, I would like to agree that stakes set purely in reaction to the other participant should be uncommon - in Cold City it is especially true that everyone has an Agenda (pun intended), and thus every stake should be a statement of intent.

All that aside, yes, I think it explains stakes just fine.

Shevy

Also, is it worth being explicit about the sort of things you can set as stakes? Could I have the stakes "I kill my partner", or is that too broad/powerful?