Search results

No, the GM decided based on the idea the player expressed as the hope of their character… which was reasonable and didn’t contradict anything already established… and the successful roll. Is that what I said? I said life is not player driven because it is not a game. I’ve seen many...

We could classify the trad GM’s process as quantum as well. That until he writes that the Amulet of Agonar is in the chest in Room 8, it is both there and not there!

If the wished for result was contradictory to what had been established or was otherwise nonsensical. Real life isn’t a game with players, so it’s not player-driven.

I think it’s a little different than that. 1. The runes were undefined. 2. The player had his character express a hope for what the runes might be. 3. The player rolled and received a positive result. 4. In light of the roll, and that the suggested purpose of the runes seemed feasible and...

Maybe. I tend to think most of us GMs tend to need more advice on running games than we do building worlds. I personally found the Mothership Warden’s Manual to be an incredibly practical and useful guide for how to GM.

Well, there are some things to consider. Who made the decision about what the runes were? At what point in the example is the player ever in author stance?

In-universe, the character expressed an idea of what the runes may be. Ultimately, it's the GM who decides what they are... in this case, the GM took that player's suggestion and, combined with the successful roll, decided that the idea was correct. The player never had to be in author stance...

It doesn't!

Well, let’s just look at the cook example. Trad folks are advocating for the character’s action to have no effect. Nothing happens. Folks advocating for fail forward or similar methods are advocating for the player’s action to have something happen. Something seems easily recognizable as more...

Nope!

Yes, you continue to fail to understand how these things are directly related. Nothing new at all!

But why would I take an action that violated the game I was running? Don't you think it's more likely that I'm running the game such that fail forward is a valid option for the GM to use, that the participants know this, and therefore when it's used, it's not a violation of anything...

I read it again. Here's what you said: Take a look at the bolded. Note that the italics on the word "characters" was yours. That's what I was responding to. However, you can feel free to also apply what I said to the idea that the actions of the characters are less substantive. Either way, I...

Sure. Know what I've never done? Expressed that my opinion is that your GMing is poor. It's crap and if anyone of the narrativists said anything like that, you'd Eeyore all over them.

Yeah, the little "Imo" at the end doesn't really do much. "In my opinion, your way of doing things is poor DMing" isn't much better than "Your way of doing things is poor DMing". One thing I've been trying to do throughout this discussion across it's hundreds of pages is not to pass judgment...

No, you've seen plenty of clarifications on fail forward in this thread. Or at least, I would have expected you to... many were in response to your posts. A big correction that has been made is that the consequences are not unrelated to the task attempted. And the example you provide here...

I don't know, really. I have asked people to share examples of this Doylist influence a player has that would be specific to narrativist games... but no one has really offered anything other than their vague idea that this is how these games generally work. If you can tell me what you mean, then...

Sure, I'm not disagreeing with that. But with the wider implication that this is all that's always needed, and is always provided. No GM will provide everything ahead of time. They will need to come up with details on the fly. And there's nothing wrong with that. See that's awfully...

This is fail forward. You continue to ignore clarifications on what fail forward means and instead continue to work with your flawed definition of it. That's why the player failed. Why did the character fail? Depending on the game, yes, I may need to provide a reason why an attack misses...

Yes, I find that equally ridiculous. The characters in most of my narrativist games tend to be at least as substantive as any in my trad games. I mean, the game is much more about the characters... it wouldn't really work if they were not substantive. Oh I'm sure there are times where I fail...