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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8146959" data-attributes="member: 42582">How is that a simple enough mistake to make? What even is the mistake? If the GM doesn't call for a check because s/he thinks there's nothing at stake, and the player doesn't call for a check because s/he thinks there's nothing at stake, or perhaps doesn't want to stake anything, what has gone wrong? What's the mistake?If it turns out that the stuff in play starts to escalate, and in the back-and-forth between player(s) and GM it becomes clear that there is some conflict or crisis that is emerging, then at that point checks can be made.I honestly have no idea what you think the "mistake" is that you're describing. Are you able to give an actual play example, where in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" game the GM didn't call for a check but it was important and the GM realised that later and it mattered?What you describe is exactly what happened in my Traveller game. No one was interested in finding out what might happen if Lady Askol didn't accept von Jerrel's lie, and so that issue wasn't put to the test.The way in which this differs from fudging a dice roll has been explained upthread already:(1) No dice was rolled;(2) No system procedure was ignored or lied about - as I've posted multiple times, there is no when you tell a lie move/subsystem in Classic Traveller, and in our game we are extrapolating the Reaction rules and also using INT checks whereby I am calling for checks within a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" framework;(3) As nothing has been staked, and nothing resolved, there is no finality here - just ongoing fiction that can be built on down the track ([USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] has explained this clearly over multiple posts);(4) The player was a participant in the process and everything was fully transparent to him. This seems a particularly apposite difference in a thread about player agency!There have been multiple posts explaining why finality matters when "playing to find out" and why, in the episode of von Jerrel's lie to Lady Askol, there is no finality.Well if you use a different set of techniques from "say 'yes' or roll the dice", "let it ride", "fail forward" etc then you might get problems. But they're not problems associated with the techniques I'm using.And if you use a different set of techniques, whereby players can achieve finality without having to put it to the test, then players might not bother to put things to the test. To me that sounds like it might produce insipid play. But anyway that's not an issue for me as I don't use those techniques. I use the ones I've described in this thread.</blockquote>

Verification