Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8598231" data-attributes="member: 82106">As I said, this line of discussion arose from your assertion that Fiasco, specifically, could not be story now, and Fiasco doesn't work that way, so are you now changing your mind on that? If so, then we are in agreement. As for the sequence described above, I don't understand why it would not still be 'consensus story telling' if there was fortune interjected. At that point each player can simply attempt to achieve their character's intentions (which presumably relate to premise etc.). The premise might be, say "Bad things happen to good people." and perhaps Joe's intent is to hurt the Princess for whatever personal reasons. Bob OTOH has an interest in saving her from harm that arises from his character's motivations. So, Joe and Bob both declare their intents. Now, in the purely diceless 'no mechanics' outline you give each player gets PART of what they wanted, the Princess goes over the cliff, but Bob grabs her. She's still in danger, Bob hasn't achieved his full intent, nor has Joe, but they have each fully addressed the premise and acted suitably with intent. Frankly I don't think there's a problem here, and this is exactly what I said about 'non zero-sum' before. You can fully advocate for your character, and still achieve a consensus story. The participants simply need to accept that one of the constraints on the outcome is, it has to be a 'good' story (for some definition of good, which admittedly could be a sticking point at times). I mean, I do understand where you are coming from. I just think that in fairly likely play scenarios that such a process can work, though I have other problems with the whole 'no mechanics' formulation, I think mechanics, not just 'process of play' are a pretty important part of most RPGs. Your above scenario is likely to only arise in a minority of attempts at this sort of play without some more structure.</blockquote>

Verification