Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8999086" data-attributes="member: 71699">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.*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 include<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The rain is colour</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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</li> </ul>In all cases, our fiction is updated to include rain. I called that retroactive because a player could say something like "Oh yes, it felt like rain this morning" and that would have to be true. What happens if another player had cast druidcraft that morning? Rain has to be ruled out... so again we have to look retroactively at our fictional positioning for legitimation.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.One concern I have with that is how legitimate it feels to the table that checking for rain should successfully persuade the chancellor!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?</blockquote>

Verification