Search results

Burning Wheel has a "no retry" rule - called Let It Ride. Torchbearer has a similar rule called Fun Once. By "fail with no retry" do you mean "nothing happens, but you can't try again?" And are you asking if that could be a meaningful ramification of a test in Burning Wheel? My view is...

Maybe you missed this post:

As I already posted:

I was asking how this is done in conjunction with fidelity to the setting.

I understand that you don't like it. I don't understand how it is more, or uniquely, "quantum".

The cook being startled is not unrelated to the failed attempt at burglary.

Right. I have tried to address this in my posts to @FrogReaver. "Fail forward", to work, depends upon other "infrastructure" of play: trajectories of threat and promise, hopes for what success will deliver, etc.

If there is no standard of fidelity by which the portrayal is to be judged, then it makes no sense to say the portrayal is faithful. When I play Aedhros, and choose to have him wander, singing, into the higher quarter where he might hope to meet some Elves, I am not being faithful to Aedhros's...

Would you say a bit more about this?

What does it mean to represent a chance? The PCs are travelling through <wherever>. It has a certain population density, and those beings that populate it have a certain degree of aggression/inquisitiveness/other traits that make them prone to interact with travellers. This all sets the chance...

I was replying to @The Firebird, who (at least as I understood things) used the word "gamist" in the sense of playing for winning/achievement (what has also been called "Step on Up").

I'm not familiar with the Anthology Engine, just the In A Wicked Age rulebook. My comment about talking is based on this from p 12: Roll dice when one character undertakes to do some concrete thing, and another character can and would try to interfere. Every player with a character involved...

This seems right to me, and seems pretty close to what @AbdulAlhazred posted upthread about Discern Realities, looking for something useful, and finding a secret passage.

@FrogReaver, I am not sure where you are hoping to go with this. If you are trying to work out whether or not your D&D play is narrativist, I don't know if that is something that anyone else can help you with, in the absence of significant accounts of actual play. If you're unclear why...

Here's another well-known game procedure: the Gm asks the player something about the world, and the player answers. I expect that everyone in this thread will be aware of it, given the repeated discussion of it (mostly by reference to John Harper's blog). And here's another one: "fail forward"...

Here is my perspective on this: I have done a lot of pretty hardcore simulationist RPGing. Mostly using RoleMaster, but also using RuneQuest and other BRP(esque) systems. My favourite current system, Burning Wheel, has PC sheets and combat resolution mechanics that could be straight out of one...

Again, you are equating It is not the case that I have an agenda of making the characters' lives not boring with I have an agenda of making the character's lives boring. But they are not equivalent. Make the players' characters' lives not boring is a particular component of the GMing principles...

I don't think this is true. (1) That's not an account of expectations. It's an account of hopes. (2) The plans for increasing the "monetisation" of D&D have nothing to do with making the game more mathematically complicated, and thus shrinking the player base. They have to do with creating more...

You are asserting that there is a town entails there is a farrier. But this is not true. Some towns, at some times, don't have farriers, for any number of reasons: the farrier died, the former farrier died childless, the farrier ran off or was kidnapped, etc, etc.

@Campbell didn't say what you are attributing to him. Just because he pointed out that P=>Q, it doesn't follow that he said that not-P=>not-Q.