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: 8933381" data-attributes="member: 42582">To bring this back to the OP:This is a way in which the fiction can factor into action resolution: what is the normative/evaluative attitude of the participants towards the fiction? This question is especially important in Burning Wheel proper. (And some other systems too.)It can contrast with (say) a really by-the-book, austere approach to Moldvay Basic or Gygax's AD&D, where those sorts of attitudes are meant to have no bearing on action resolution.You can see Gygax being a bit on the fence about it in his DMG, p 110, where he canvasses the possibility of the GM adjusting the odds of finding a secret door in favour of the players, in the context where the secret door will lead to an especially entertaining part of the dungeon.Apocalypse World is interesting in using these normative/evaluative attitudes to inform framing, and consequences (eg "announce offscreen badness" or "provide an opportunity with a cost" clearly have normativity/evaluation built into them), but uses a different approach to actually calling for dice rolls: if you do it, you do it!In the past [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] has expressed the view that the AW approach creates a more "grounded in the fiction" experience, as the normativity/evaluation does not operate at the key moment of determining when to reach for the dice. I don't know if I agree with his description of the experience (and it's possible I'm misdescribing his description) but I can definitely see that there is a technical difference that he has identified, which does make things play differently.EDIT: I think Torchbearer might actually be closer to AW than BW in this particular respect. Though it's a tricky question, and Torchbearer has a lot of subtlety to it. (More than it seems at first.)</blockquote>

Verification