Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8137498" data-attributes="member: 5142">That's not what &quot;fail-forward&quot; is about, nor is &quot;success-plus-complication&quot; synonymous with &quot;fail-forward,&quot; but this misconception has been explained to you ad nauseum by now. I'm not sure why this requires 10+ posters regularly correcting you on this through 10+ posts each on the matter in 50+ threads where this has come up. It's like if someone tells you that their name is &quot;Jack,&quot; and you keep calling them &quot;Bob.&quot; After what point are you being rude by continuing to call them &quot;Bob&quot; after they (and others) correct you that their name is &quot;Jack&quot;? The point is that critical fumbles do not necessarily flow from the fiction or more about humor/humiliation. Some GMs try to be &quot;fair&quot; by rolling from a critical fumble table, but this may result in a consequence that is detached or disassociated from the preceding fiction. It's fair if it's not your cup of tea, but I don't think that it's fair to say that PbtA is particularly concerned with a &quot;hurry-up style of play,&quot; but, rather, it's emphasis is on a fiction-first style of play. It's more interested in what's the next state of the fiction. It's not interested in each and every granular swing of the sword. It's interested in how a scene plays out more on a more holistic and fluid level. It's interested in character choice in the fiction, i.e., &quot;what do you do?&quot;, rather than the questions of skilled play in a tactical skirmish game. I don't think it's in a rush, but I think it is interested in maintaining forward momentum and pacing. PbtA can go tortoise: slow and steady, but constantly forwards.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 8137498, member: 5142"] That's not what "fail-forward" is about, nor is "success-plus-complication" synonymous with "fail-forward," but this misconception has been explained to you ad nauseum by now. I'm not sure why this requires 10+ posters regularly correcting you on this through 10+ posts each on the matter in 50+ threads where this has come up. It's like if someone tells you that their name is "Jack," and you keep calling them "Bob." After what point are you being rude by continuing to call them "Bob" after they (and others) correct you that their name is "Jack"? The point is that critical fumbles do not necessarily flow from the fiction or more about humor/humiliation. Some GMs try to be "fair" by rolling from a critical fumble table, but this may result in a consequence that is detached or disassociated from the preceding fiction. It's fair if it's not your cup of tea, but I don't think that it's fair to say that PbtA is particularly concerned with a "hurry-up style of play," but, rather, it's emphasis is on a fiction-first style of play. It's more interested in what's the next state of the fiction. It's not interested in each and every granular swing of the sword. It's interested in how a scene plays out more on a more holistic and fluid level. It's interested in character choice in the fiction, i.e., "what do you do?", rather than the questions of skilled play in a tactical skirmish game. I don't think it's in a rush, but I think it is interested in maintaining forward momentum and pacing. PbtA can go tortoise: slow and steady, but constantly forwards. [/QUOTE]

Verification