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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7499436" data-attributes="member: 4937">There wasn't so much confusion as I was pointing out how at odds this approach was to my stated aesthetics of play, namely that all adjudication of fortune should be based wholly or primarily on factors that occur in the setting (properly in the fictional positioning).  As such, I felt if you'd been paying attention you'd know that I wasn't interested in that as an approach.  But your answer shows that there is still a huge disconnect with what I'm even talking about:Whereas, I would have answered a round is about six seconds.Whereas, I would have answered that each roll resolves some doubtful proposition about how a character interacts with the setting.Whereas, I would have said the goal of the process is to resolve the action that logically occurs within the setting given the choices being made by the players in a way that had strong verisimilitude to the setting.  As such, what the roll is resolving is always a predicate to the mechanical resolution, and I can never know how many rolls that might take.  It would be like saying that before the combat started, you could assign a number of rolls that would be required to resolve it.  But combat doesn't work like that.  The number of rolls required to resolve combat is not knowable until it is resolved, nor is it knowable at the beginning of the process what rolls will be called for.  This is because each proposition and fortune test changes the fictional positioning in unpredictable ways, which changes the propositions and fortune tests available in the next cycle of the loop.Great.  But that's never a problem I had to fix in any version of the game I've played.Well, yes, exactly.  Both answers indicate you don't understand the thrust of my question.</blockquote>

Verification