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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6789973" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Still don't have enough time to address several of the posts that I'd wish to, but this is an opportunity to briefly get at a point that I've been aiming at with prior posts.I'm fairly certain that what  [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] is getting at is that Mountaineering (which is subsumed under Athletics or Climbing), involves gear management.  Further, it doesn't just involve the expedition-preceding, logistical planning of gear, but it also involves the the deployment and management of ropes and belaying equipment (even when free climbing and just using cleats/crampons and pegs/pins) and all the rest of the gear that you're carrying (be it your pack, your cloak, your weapon belt, what-have-you).  Why would the successful deployment and management of your gear not be in play within the scope of a Mountaineering/Climbing/Athletics/Scaled Every Mountain From Here to the Horizon/Defy Danger (whatever the system involves) effort?  Because it is, indisputably, that case in real life.And this dovetails back into my post upthread (with the proposed "Basketball Game" resolution mechanics) where I'm trying to pin down the reasoning and "agency thresholds" for folks being ok with abstracting certain things (significantly) into a check (eg a combat to-hit vs armor class) but being inclined toward seriously zoomed-in process simulation.  For instance, being unwilling to abstract gear deployment and management within a mountaineering/climbing action declaration/resolution/fallout play procedure (especially odd considering the primary rulesets being invoked don't have a discrete "gear deployment/management" resolution mechanic...and that is even if you consider such a thing to not be needlessly invasive or tedious...which I certainly do!).Quick aside.  Folks are seemingly wanting to dig down much, much deeper into the resolution mechanics of the Bob > Pudding Mountain scenario and pick apart things that were not initially involved in the uber generic example.  That starts moving away from the generic conversation of the very general application of Fail Forward as a technique and starts to drive down into how it interfaces with system.  If you want to do that, then people are going to need to start interacting with play examples that go into system.  I've posted a few, very relevant, ones from my current Dungeon World game above.  Conversation about those or about  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s play examples would be helpful if folks want to start "in-filling" system details about Bobs Pudding Mountain expedition (which was rendered solely for the generic understanding of the system-neutral application of Fail Forward).  If this was Dungeon World, Bob's situation might have been (a) failed Navigation on Undertake a Perilous Journey triggering (b) the manifestation of a the crevice and (c) a 7-9 Defy Danger (✴On a 10+, you do what you set out to, the threat doesn’t come to bear. ✴On a 7–9, you stumble, hesitate, or flinch: the GM will offer you a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.) by Bob's player leading to the choice we've been mulling for dear old Bob and his player.All the time I have for now.  Happy New Years folks.</blockquote>

Verification