A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Maxperson]

Maxperson, what you're saying seems confused. You quote AbdulAlhazred saying that the PCs might reach a bad point. Which is exactly what the 13th Age rules provide for: if the PCs retreat, and suffer a campaign loss, then the players can try to come up with new ways to tackle this and regain momentum and even victory. But they might fail. That they might fail doesn't entail that they will fail. Just as that they can fix things doesn't entail that they will fix things. How do we learn whether or not the lost is "unfixable"? By playing the game. In this sort of RPGing, that's the whole point of play - to find out what can or can't be done.

I'm not confused. I'm simply going by the rule you posted. How do you know via game play if things are unfixable? By getting to other failure points. Except that rule you posted says that if they run away from failure points, they can fix it another way. Where's the 13th Age rule that says that things eventually become unfixable?

Look at your own example of the orcs eating the children. Suppose the "terrible price" of retreat is that all the children get eaten. You now seem to be saying that you wouldn't feel any pressure from that. Yet eaerlier on in this thread you were putting that forward as one of your most memorable moments of dramatic pressure in play.

This is a False Equivalence. I know that in my game things are often unfixable if you fail. That's the point. In my game the pressure is real, because the failures are real. They don't just result in "fail, but that's okay, you can just fix it a different way." Often things in my game can be fixed another way, but they often can't.

Had I in my example stopped having the orcs eat the children just so that the PCs now have another way to fix things, say by infiltrating the orc village, it would be an example like those in the 13th Age rule you posted.

And seem also to betray a lack of actual experience with play that follows the techniques described in the 13th Age and BW rulebooks.

I can only go by the rules that you post.

 

[pemerton]

How do you know via game play if things are unfixable? By getting to other failure points. Except that rule you posted says that if they run away from failure points, they can fix it another way. Where's the 13th Age rule that says that things eventually become unfixable?

You don't need a rule for this. If you have rule for action resolution - which 13th Age (mostly) has - then you can find out whether or not the PCs succeed.

If things get to the point where the players can't think of things their PCs might do to try and achieve their goals - perhaps because it's obvious that there aren't any such things (eg the world has been conquered by demons and the players have no abilities useful for defeating armies of demons) - then the campaign is probably over with an unfixable loss!

I know that in my game things are often unfixable if you fail. That's the point. In my game the pressure is real, because the failures are real. They don't just result in "fail, but that's okay, you can just fix it a different way." Often things in my game can be fixed another way, but they often can't.

But with the children example, can they be restored to life? Or not? That may depend on whether or not the PCs have, or can obtain, access to a Rod of Resurrection. Which (presumably) can't be known outside the actual context of play.

Had I in my example stopped having the orcs eat the children just so that the PCs now have another way to fix things, say by infiltrating the orc village, it would be an example like those in the 13th Age rule you posted.

<snip>

I can only go by the rules that you post.

I think you need to re-read those rules if you believe that having the orcs stop eating children is an example of a campaign loss!

 

[Maxperson]

But with the children example, can they be restored to life? Or not? That may depend on whether or not the PCs have, or can obtain, access to a Rod of Resurrection. Which (presumably) can't be known outside the actual context of play.

No they can't. 95% of PCs in my games never get restored to life. Death means something in my games. It doesn't happen often, but when it does the PC is gone. If PCs don't come back, and they're the fated, special ones, then some kids don't have a chance in hell of making it back.

I think you need to re-read those rules if you believe that having the orcs stop eating children is an example of a campaign loss!

You brought it up as an example of a terrible price for a campaign loss, so I went with it. If it isn't an example of a terrible price, not only was it a False Equivalence to bring it up, but it was a Red Herring as well.

Which leads me to this question again. Are you able to have a valid discussion with people? Because it seems like every one of your responses, or nearly every one, contains a Strawman, False Equivalence, or Red Herring.

 

[Kurviak]

I'm not confused. I'm simply going by the rule you posted. How do you know via game play if things are unfixable? By getting to other failure points. Except that rule you posted says that if they run away from failure points, they can fix it another way. Where's the 13th Age rule that says that things eventually become unfixable?

Where in 13th Age’s quoted rules says the situation can be solved in another way? I think you misinterpreted the text.

 

[Maxperson]

Where in 13th Age’s quoted rules says the situation can be solved in another way? I think you misinterpreted the text.

"Cannot be solved by just killing the creatures they ran from", means that they can solve it another way. The just cannot solve it by killing that one group. Had they meant that it cannot ever be solved if they run, they would have said that. There is no misinterpretation on my part. There may be another rule that says that it can't ever be solved, but if there is [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] won't share it.

 

[pemerton]

Had I in my example stopped having the orcs eat the children just so that the PCs now have another way to fix things, say by infiltrating the orc village, it would be an example like those in the 13th Age rule you posted.

I think you need to re-read those rules if you believe that having the orcs stop eating children is an example of a campaign loss!

You brought it up as an example of a terrible price for a campaign loss, so I went with it.

I gave, as an example of a 13th Age campaign loss, the orcs eating children. You then said that you would have to have the orcs stop eating children. And I said that if you think the orcs stopping eating children is an example of a campaign loss then you are wrong and should re-read the rules that I posted.

"Cannot be solved by just killing the creatures they ran from", means that they can solve it another way. The just cannot solve it by killing that one group. Had they meant that it cannot ever be solved if they run, they would have said that. There is no misinterpretation on my part. There may be another rule that says that it can't ever be solved, but if there is [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] won't share it.

Your quote is wrong. The word "just" appears nowhere in the rules I quoted. And you have misinterpreted:

13th Age rules for fleeing and for refreshing (pp 166, 171, 187):

a campaign loss. At the GM’s discretion, something that the party was trying to do fails in a way that going back and finishing off those enemies later won’t fix. . . .

<snip>

a campaign loss. At the GM’s discretion, the party fails to achieve one of their goals, and they fail in some way that simply defeating the bad guys the next time around with your healed-up party won’t fix.

<snip>

the situation in the campaign gets noticeably worse for the party. Ideally, the campaign loss can be traced to the decision to take the heal-up​

A campaign loss is something that can't be fixed by going back and beating the enemies who were retreated from. That can't be fixed simply by defeating the bad guys next time. It is the situation getting noticeably worse for the party. Children being eaten by orcs would be a clear example of such a thing.

Whether the children being eaten can be fixed some other way - via a Rod of Resurrection, or a Wish spell, or doing a deal with the gods of death, or any other of the indefinitely many ways that players might decide to have their PCs pursue, should they be so inclined - is something that only play would reveal. Perhaps it can, perhaps it can't. 13th Age, like [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s HoML, is oriented towards "fail forward" and "play to find out", so does not need any sort of rule for prior determination of whether or not some loss is or isn't reversible.

 

[Maxperson]

I gave, as an example of a 13th Age campaign loss, the orcs eating children. You then said that you would have to have the orcs stop eating children. And I said that if you think the orcs stopping eating children is an example of a campaign loss then you are wrong and should re-read the rules that I posted.

They could not continue to eat them without the campaign loss being unfixable.

Your quote is wrong. The word "just" appears nowhere in the rules I quoted. And you have misinterpreted:

Take the word out and it remains the same meaning. It cannot be fixed by killing the creatures, still means that it can be fixed some other way.

A campaign loss is something that can't be fixed by going back and beating the enemies who were retreated from. That can't be fixed simply by defeating the bad guys next time. It is the situation getting noticeably worse for the party. Children being eaten by orcs would be a clear example of such a thing.

The children being eaten would be something that in my game can't be fixed, period. The limiter in that rule is beating the orcs, not making it completely unfixable.

Whether the children being eaten can be fixed some other way - via a Rod of Resurrection, or a Wish spell, or doing a deal with the gods of death, or any other of the indefinitely many ways that players might decide to have their PCs pursue, should they be so inclined - is something that only play would reveal. Perhaps it can, perhaps it can't. 13th Age, like [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s HoML, is oriented towards "fail forward" and "play to find out", so does not need any sort of rule for prior determination of whether or not some loss is or isn't reversible.

There could be no play to determine. Both I and the the players would know it's an unfixable situation as soon as it happens.

 

[Aldarc]

Take the word out and it remains the same meaning. It cannot be fixed by killing the creatures, still means that it can be fixed some other way.

I disagree. I don't necessarily think that this is true. If something cannot be fixed by killing the creatures, it does not mean that other solutions are available; it only suggests that it cannot be fixed by killing the creatures. The toaster cannot be fixed by killing the creatures who broke it, and moreover the toaster can be damaged beyond repair and incapable of being fixed through other ways.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree. I don't necessarily think that this is true. If something cannot be fixed by killing the creatures, it does not mean that other solutions are available; it only suggests that it cannot be fixed by killing the creatures. The toaster cannot be fixed by killing the creatures who broke it, and moreover the toaster can be damaged beyond repair and incapable of being fixed through other ways.

A toaster would have to be run over by a semi or something to be damaged beyond repair, and even then it could probably still be fixed. It just wouldn't be worth the effort or price to do so. The same applies to almost everything we build.

Had they meant that the failure was to be unfixable, they would not have limited that statement to the creatures. They would just have said that retreating causes an unfixable campaign loss. They didn't do that, because there are other means to fix the loss.

 

[Aldarc]

A toaster would have to be run over by a semi or something to be damaged beyond repair, and even then it could probably still be fixed. It just wouldn't be worth the effort or price to do so. The same applies to almost everything we build.

The point being is that other solutions are not inherently implied in saying that one method will not work.