NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8162105" data-attributes="member: 42582">Nothing that takes place in the fiction can have a causal relationship to anything in the real world.And vice versa.There is no character action that is the cause of something in the fiction which the character could truly say "I did not cause". (This is your category 2.)In the fiction, the character hopes and looks out for his former comrade. And meets him.At the table, the player - me - declares an action for his PC (namely, I hope and look out for a former comrade to help us). I make the Circles check. It succeeds. In the fiction, Thurgon and Aramina meet Friedrich.It's pretty straightforward: an event in the real world (action declaration) leads via social processes to another event in the real world (a check) which leads via cognitive processes (reading the dice, looking up the rules etc) to everyone at the table agreeing that in the fiction, Thurgon and Aramina meet Friedich.The causal processes involved are no different from when Thurgon fought some Orcs: an event in the real world (action declaration) leads via social processes to another event in the real world (a check) which leads via cognitive processes (reading the dice, looking up the rules etc) to everyone at the table agreeing that in the fiction, Thurgon fought off an Orc.You prefer an additional constraint: that there be a fairly type mapping between the resolution processes in the real world and the imagined causal processes in the fiction. This is not a causal constraint (as per my previous two paragraphs, in each case the causation is the same). It is a topic/subject-matter constraint about what sort of fiction you are willing to have determined via a process where a player declares an action and then makes a check.I'm pretty confident that no one in this thread is confused about your preference. I think most participants in this thread have read Edwards' essay that I linked to upthread, and he describes your preferences perfectly clearly. (I quoted the relevant passages a few pages upthread.)The reason that you are getting the pushback you are is because you want to insist that your aesthetic preference tracks or correlates to a causal process; and to insist that RPGing that doesn't conform to your aesthetic preference is a hindrance on roleplay. Neither of those claims is true.No one is forcing you to post in this thread. But have you noticed that no one in this thread has posted that your preferences are a burden on RPGing. Whereas, as I mentioned already in this post, a few pages upthread you posted this:Now as I've posted there are no character actions thqt cause soemthing to happen in the fiction but that the character cold say in the fiction "my action did not cause this". But you intend this description to cover Wises checks and Circles checks as I have described them from my BW play. Which is to say, you intend to tell me that RPGing is hampering my roleplaying. In part, because my characters have no reasons for the actions they perform.Not only is that a false description of my actual play - Thurgon had a reason to hope to meet and look out for an ally, namely, because he wanted help to cross the river and find Evard's tower; and Aramina had a reason to remember that Evard's tower was in the vicinity, namely, that she wanted to loot it of spellbooks - but it is a direct attack upon my RPGing.I've posted multiple times how this play of Thurgon and Aramina follows exactly the same resolution process as fighting an Orc - declare action, frame check, resolve check and establish resultant fiction. But because the fictional subject matter is not one that you would prefer to establish in that way - you would prefer that all such things be established in advance by the GM rather than as outcomes of an action resolution process - you are insisting that it hampers RPGing and coming up with bad arguments as to why.</blockquote>

Verification