Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8137068" data-attributes="member: 29398">The debate is whether that agency is warranted.My assumption is that as agency increases a point arrives at which said acengy is no longer warranted, and therefore not good.  For me that point arrives when players' agency goes beyond their own characters (and obvious outcomes of their actions) and starts affecting setting elements which are the purview of the GM.Example: players being able to create setting elements out of thin air on a successful action declaration = unwarranted agency.Agreed here.  Fudging is generally bad; and if the players aren't allowed to do it the GM shouldn't be allowed to either.My view is that such a high-level non-granular resolution system mixed with a desire for a binary end-result is where the problem lies.  If all those sub-rolls actually took place, each on a more-or-less binary level, then the macro-result might end up looking like success-with-complication (or fail-forward) but the integrity of each binary success-fail point within that sequence would be maintained.  Example: combat.To me the obvious solution is to take the time, break it down, and do the sub-rolls - even if the system tells you not to.</blockquote>