Thanks for finding that. For me it clarifies that folk can be concerned for causality* as well as the concern I've noted about principled constraints on consequences.@clearstream
I'm not a party to your discussion with iserith and others. But I was a party to the discussion about the Diplomacy example. Here is the reply in question (and here's a hyperlink - I'm not using the quote function as a poster from a 10 year old discussion doesn't need to be notified of this particular conversation):
That's not ambiguous. It is exactly as I posted above. It has nothing to do with "legitimacy" given the fiction, and everything to do with a principle about how in fiction causation and fiction introduced as part of consequence narration should be correlated.
*Causality isn't a straightforward concept in TTRPG.
So what I mean is that GM has looked at the result and narrated something into the fiction that wasn't contained in the fictional positioning up to that point. Cases where that works could includeThree things:
* It is not retroactive to introduce it starts to rain - that is purely forward looking. It's just that instead of a random weather check, the GM has responded to the failed Diplomacy check.
- The rain is colour
- GM has an adversarial agenda and it's part of their job to exacerbate or create problems based on the result of checks, and the rain is trouble of some kind
- Player says how their character succeeds or fails, and they're not obliged to put performance at issue (I'm interested in strong readings of "player says what their character does" which include how their character succeeds or fails)
- GM says how characters succeed of fail (which is one way the basic pattern is normally read) authorising them to narrate rain just as much as they are authorised to narrate a goof
That's certainly a risk I see with going too wide. Players could feel forced to query every aspect of their environment. So if rain matters (is not just colour) going forward players might start asking about clouds, and they might with justice feel that rain from a sunny sky wasn't on the table for inclusion in results.* In AD&D, and I suspect in 5e D&D, narrating birds on the cliff at the opening of the climb check is an invitation to the players to describe how their PCs chase away the birds or put on bird-proof gear or something similar that engages with the granularity of the situation - and all that stuff is low- or no-stakes. So in effect, every time a possible consequence is flagged it invites the players to deal with it. Narrate clouds and they bring their umbrellas. As a result the space for failure narration is winnowed down more and more. In another recent thread @Manbearcat called this sort of thing, when initiated by the players ("Are there birds?" "Are there clouds?" etc) a "conversation trap" used by players to manipulate obstacle ratings.
One concern I have with that is how legitimate it feels to the table that checking for rain should successfully persuade the chancellor!* 4e D&D would permit a "weather watching" attempt as part of a skill challenge to give a successful oration outdoors - a check on Nature, say, to affirm that no rain is expected - and depending on framing it might be a primary or a secondary check. This is different from both the above as a technique, but it locates the attempt within the resolution process, so it just feeds through to the outcome without any disruption or bogging down or "conversation traps".
I could use your insight on a problem I have to hand relating to the Czege principle. What I'm aiming for players to do is include the seeds of adversity in their authoring of bonds and location descriptions (so in the envisioned play, drawing inspiration from The Ground Itself, players have strong world authoring power.) The MC role then controls that adversity. Does that feel like it breaches the Czege principle? If so (or anyway) what might be more successful?