Search results

Most of the people who run in a race lose. Nevertheless, they make it to the finish line. In @hawkeyefan's example, the character failed to make the climb in time.

I don't think there are any such people, are there?

The rules is not addressed to you. It's addressed to GMs of Apocalypse World.

And who has made that claim?

I don't understand this emerging view that it is unreasonable for a RPG to set out principles for players and GMs. It's not a new thing. It can be found in quite early RPG rulebooks, like Gygax's AD&D books and Moldvay Basic. I believe it is also found in recent D&D rulebooks (eg the DMG). I've...

I play multiple RPGs where players, in the play of their PCs, are bound in the sorts of ways that @Hussar describes. In Classic Traveller, players have to make morale checks for their PCs, and are bound by the outcome. In Burning Wheel, PCs can be bound by the result of a Duel of Wits...

But it's not actually 10 seconds, is it? Implied in this dialogue is a whole lot of other stuff: maintaining lists of gear and of money, to begin with. And that's before we spend time on whatever is going on with Jocasta.

I think the notion of "additional requirement" is misplaced. See this post: That is exactly the sort of thing that could be said! "The film sets out to have rising action, but gets distracted by lingering shots of military hardware."

See the edit to my post that you quoted.

If you look through the first couple of pages of this thread, you'll see plenty of examples of this usage.

Apocalypse World works around a soft move/hard move structure. Burning Wheel works around intent + task resolution. These are ways of establishing an implicit trajectory of threat and promise. They are also what makes "fail forward" work in those RPGs.

Of course. I quoted Edwards talking about pages detailing military hardware. I drew the analogy to Warhol's Sleep. I have repeatedly talked about a significant amount of time being spent on matters such as logistics, inventory management and the like. I'm not sure what 10 seconds of inventory...

The idea that situations have a trajectory - implicit threats and promises - is fairly key to play in which "fail forward" is used. In its bowdlerised version, rather than implicit threats and promises the trajectory is the GM's railroad.

"Fail forward" or "no whiffing" is a technique developed in the indie design space, to respond to what was seen as a couple of problems with received approaches to action resolution: *That failure leaves the fictional situation unchanged (at least in any meaningful way) and hence tends to...

Jonathan Tweet is the link between 13th Age and Over the Edge. I don't get the impression that he coined the phrase just to use it in those rulebooks, though. This makes a lot more sense! Edwards's term is "no whiffing", as far as I know. The concept was bowdlerised early on, yes, as part of...

Not really. I don't see how rising action is to be analogised to a car. The latter is a machine, that has parts. Rising action or rising conflict is not a machine. It's a sequence of events. It's components are events. Put in an event like Andy Warhol's Sleep, or an hour of two of play focused...

What encourages risk-taking is player knowledge that failure won't bring the trajectory of play - or the PC - to an end. "Fail forward" can be a component of that. The underlying idea is that the players are ready to take risks in advocating for their PCs, and the failure as a consequence of...

It is also called "no whiffing". And given the term is found in Over the Edge 20th anniversary edition, which is a 2012 publication and did not coin the phrase (it was sufficiently well known that it could serve as a heading in that book), Stackexchange is wrong.

I can name you multiple RPGs that don't have PCs who adventure. Apocalypse World. Wuthering Heights. I believe Monsterhearts. I can name at least one RPG that does not involve monsters or neat places: Wuthering Heights. That's not what the principle says. It doesn't say Make sure the game is...

4e D&D has Zovvuts (former angles that have become elemental-type demons). The angels of Mal Arundak have also become demons. So it seems that there could be angels that once were elemenal genies.