NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7797346" data-attributes="member: 4937">[USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] Unfortunately, that clarified nothing.  I'm not sure you attempted to answer any of my questions.I don't know who these handful of folks are, but generally I find that there are differences in play styles based on proposition filters. That is, I know for a fact that some tables would validate propositions like:"I try to persuade the Baron to lend us troops." or "I try to use my diplomacy to persuade the Baron to lend us troops."But it is not at all clear to me that the difference in processes of play between the two tables comes down to failing to understand that actions and checks are not the same thing. On the contrary, these posters prefer to validate those sort of propositions because they suggest that to not do so would risk suggesting a that an uncharismatic player could not play a charismatic character. And in any event, given how rigorously my proposition filter excludes check declaration as a valid proposition, that can't be the source of my confusion.It doesn't seem that problematic to me. For example, I've raised a very simple question which has repeatedly been ignored. I will now phrase that question in the terms of a very simple example that harkens back to the OP's first post.Suppose we have a sleeping orc guarding a pie, and a single adventurer. The adventurer's player proposes the action, "I quietly sneak over to the orc, so that I can kill the orc in its sleep." This to me represents a valid proposition. The exact resolution method - how the check works - isn't relevant to the point. The point is that the player has proposed something in the fiction which it is believable for the character to attempt. However, suppose now that the GM determines that the orc is a light sleeper or that otherwise, there is a chance of failure. The GM then calls for a fortune test (the details of which don't matter) to arbitrate between what the GM seems as two possible outcomes to the risky proposition.A: The player successfully sneaks up to the orc and finishes him off in his sleep.B: The player makes some noise that wakes the orc, and a difficult and noisy fight ensues.Several posters in the thread, including myself, have argued that outcome B represents sufficient consequence of failure because outcome A is far more desirable.But [USER=6801328]@Elfcrusher[/USER] in his original post makes the objection that if the player didn't attempt stealth at all, that option B would happen anyway, and as such seems to imply in the post that since the failure mode of the check is the same as no check that there is some more desirable way where there is some unknown option C that is worse than not attempting stealth at all. He wants to know what that more desirable way is.But again, it seems clear to me that option B is much less preferable to option A, nor are there grounds for punishing a player for attempting to be stealthy compared to not attempting to be stealthy. Even if we advance the argument that option B maintains the status quo and as such there is "no consequences to failure", the fact is that option A does not maintain the status quo. As such, there is a meaningful consequence to success that would be forgone under failure. Not attempting stealth is in this situation in some sense like choosing to fail (perhaps the plate clad warrior knows he's not good enough at stealth to bother), but we don't in the general case say that there is no consequence to failure just because theoretically a character could choose to fail.Wait? What?? Are you suggesting that it's entirely subjective what constitutes a meaningful consequence of failure? And you are suggesting this in the context of a proposition filter that requires the player to state a goal? I don't think that's a sustainable position at all. If the player has stated a goal, it's darn tooting obvious what a meaningful consequence of failure is, and not at all subjective.Now, in theory the player could state an action which though risky (or doubtful?) does not advance the players larger scenario goal in anyway - investigating a dead end of some sort, either literally or figuratively - and as such even if the player obtains the goal it ultimately doesn't matter in the long run, but that's not quite the same thing and in any event as it pertains to this particular proposition it is still objectively clear what meaningful failure looks like.</blockquote>

Verification