Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8134881" data-attributes="member: 7016699">Yes. This is pretty basic GMing (in games that have something like a GM).The question "Who is in control here?" contains an implicit component of "now." Once the PCs change that, it's changed. I never said (at least I don't think I ever said--I'm not going to scroll back and check) that the GM should just do it; I said the GM should/could do it if it fit: While I was thinking as a consequence for however the PCs suborn Pup, having it happen when the PCs get something other than an unqualified success on a relevant check would be mechanically sound, as I understand PbtA.I'm not talking about "regardless of the outcomes of action resolution." I'm really not. I might be open to the idea of "because of the PCs' decisions" but once the PCs succeed at something, that's part of the established fiction, and what happens next has to be consistent with that.I had a thought--and it's escaped somewhat, and I'm trying to recapture it--that we are probably thinking about action-resolution, and/or success, at a different zoom-level (for lack of a better convenient metaphor). That you want/expect an action-resolution to resolve something more or different (probably not less) than I do. If I'm right (or if I was, in the thought I had before, which this might not be the same thought) then I'm not sure we can really communicate about this.That last seems like a reasonable way to GM the situation. As I've said, I make a sincere effort frame things that are consistent with previous fiction, which includes the PCs' actions.</blockquote>

Verification