Recent content by pemerton

I'm not sure where this came from. Multiple posters upthread have expressly affirmed the "validity" and utility of "nothing happens" - you try to pick the lock, fail, nothing else happens, so you have to find another way in or else give up on getting into that place. As I've already posted...

So why are you using it to show that "fail forward" can't work?

Why was it ever in doubt?

I'm not talking about the word. As @Campbell has repeatedly posted in this thread, I'm talking about what play is about. What it is like. You keep posting as if Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World aspire to produce an experience comparable to AD&D play, except using slightly different rules for...

How do you envisage this being different from soft move => hard move?

White Plume Mountain is a module. Tomb of Horrors is a module. Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth is a module. They all involve maps and keys, and they work on the premise that the players will, via their PCs, explore the map - that is, declare actions for their PCs that prompt the GM to reveal the...

Are you ignoring that, in Apocalypse World, acting on the answer to Read a Sitch grants +1 going forward? And likewise, in Dungeon World, for acting on the answer to Discern Realities. EDIT: The same question can be asked in relation to this post: And this one:

Why do bears wander in your world, but cooks never do?

I agree with their "it's often better". As opposed to always better. Sometimes the character does fail. But sometimes events conspire against them. Going back to Aedhros - his failed attempt at kidnapping is on him; the fact that harbour officials, guards etc keep harassing him, is the world...

Right. The "refutation" of fail forward by presenting examples of it being done badly - fully-staffed kitchens in the middle of the night; cooks introduced although all prior fiction suggests there is no cook in the house; etc - is bizarre.

If a player wants their PC to hunt, their PC can go hunting. What exactly are they doing? What's their intent? Then we set an obstacle and resolve it. If you aren't hunting, you won't be rolling your hunting skill. You'll be rolling whatever other skill maps to the task that you're attempting.

This is pretty different from my experience.

This last claim seems to me to be false. Or rather, to be true only if the GM is bad - that is, if in response to the info-gathering moves the GM says <this stuff>, and then when the time comes to follow through with a hard(er) move, the GM ignores all <this stuff> and instead introduces the...

This goes to @Campbell's point. Someone who doesn't like "fail forward" gives an example of clumsy GMing - narrating the cook in the kitchen with no foreshadowing/soft move/other rationale, and when it makes little sense due to it being the middle of the night - and this is supposed to show that...

Agreed. Upthread I think I posted this play example: The encounter with the harbour official is not an "obstacle" that Aedhros has to overcome in order to succeed at "an adventure". Nor is it a puzzle to be solved. It's not something on the way to the real point. It is the real point.