Search results

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...

I may or may not. I mean, as has been discussed, failure on a climb check could mean a number of things. So, if a PC falls, they may want to know why. In many cases, saying "you grabbed a handhold that then crumbled once you shifted your weight to it" may be just as good as saying "a trickle of...

Considering that the GM is the one who makes up all the factors that may be considered when coming up with the timing, they may as well just make up the timing, too.

Yes, it is a change. It's not a direct violation of the integrity of the roll, though. This is a perfectly valid way to handle the situation and your resistance to it is just an example of the thread title.

I know that’s what you said… but I took it to mean you were saying it about trad games, and implying that narrativist games work differently I was saying that the narrativist games I’m thinking of generally don’t work differently. The player affects the fiction by declaring actions for their...

Well, my point was that players don’t often change the fiction without involving their characters. Change meaning the fiction is A, and then the player makes it B, with no involvement of their character. That’s not typically how most RPGs work. Considering he’s claiming that many of my games...

These sound like some quantum crumbling rocks to me!

I don’t know if that’s true. Most rolls in the games I’m thinking of are made by a player and are about their character affecting the world. They often may also indicate some consequence to the character in response to their action. What rolls are you thinking of that “skip that buffer”? And...

It’s also unnecessary and more complex than needed, and very different from typical expressions of this sort.

This honestly doesn’t sound like any kind of random encounter roll I’ve ever heard of. I’ve never seen a breakdown of the timing according to the overall space of the location and determining where else they are. It’s just are they in the location of the PCs or not. Y’all are working on some...

Sure, but if swimming came up you could just refuse to have the character try it. Or if it was unavoidable (like if the PC somehow fell into the water) you could request to roll with disadvantage because of the flaw. Something like that.

“Inappropriately”? The player action is rolling dice. Do players not typically roll dice to affect the fictional world? A player got what they wanted because of a good roll?!?! Lunacy! Absolute lunacy, I say!!! Well it’s obvious to me that it’s Jell-o because I view it as Jell-o...

Sure… whether such bundling is good or not is a matter of preference. But it’s very present in 5e. I suppose you could at least take a Flaw that you can’t swim… and grab Inspiration when swimming comes up… but they did away with BIFTs, didn’t they?