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: 6791943" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I'm not sure I made clear what I was after as your response answers "a question" (about your preferences) but it doesn't address what I was trying to dig down into.  I'll try another angle:1)  Gear deployment and management in climbing/mountaineering (not just belaying equipment or hand climbing equipment, but also your pack, your garb, etc) is a component of competency in these endeavors.  Consequently, from a sheer causal logic perspective, it makes sense (within the fiction) to have catastrophic gear failure or gear loss be "in play" for a GM to use as a failure-driven complication when a player misses a target number.If players aren't using belaying equipment, hammers/pitons, or pegs/crampons during a climb, then whatever other gear they are carrying (be it a divining rod/pouch of coins/weapon/healing potion on your belt, your cold-weather-cloak, or your backpack) could be "in play."Latches/leather/wool/ties fail, tear, or come free/break (of their own volition, due to impact, or getting catastrophically snagged).2)  If (1) is true, I don't see how it hinders player agency for a GM to evolve the post-resolution fiction to "gear a, b, or c, falls down the crevice...what are you going to do about it (if anything)" vs "you fall x feet."The reason why "you fall x feet or you fail to climb" was effective (and used solely) in AD&D isn't an aspect of player agency driven by causal logic.  It is a "gamist system artifact" because it interfaces directly with (a) the HP mechanics, and (b) the wandering monster mechanics (which drive the system as much as the battle for daily resource recharges and xp for gold). I'm not sure where it is in my prior post (or any other post) where you see that I put forward this position.  I presume that you're mistaking my personal preferences for my ruminating upon (and asking clarifying questions) why it is that people will have varying needs for degrees of abstraction in varying component parts of resolution mechanics.  I then wonder about how this comports with (supports with coherency) peoples' varying "agency thresholds". [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] answers my question in the way that I expected (and I agree with):This is what I was looking for.  However, I'd like to extend the question further into "how does extremely abstract resolution mechanics for the majority of the game's conflicts interact with" the "I don't have requisite agency in climbing/mountaineering (et al) if I cannot make causal-logic-driven, OODA Loop inhabiting decisions where play outcomes are a natural outgrowth of process simulating resolution mechanics" paradigm?  I have several natural questions that stem forth from the maintenance of those two, at-tension positions.  If the answer to all of them is just "because my mental model is what it is due to internalizing this paradigm for decades +", then so be it.  But let us just say that.  If it is something else, then clarity and enlightenment would be appreciated!Neither am I.  I'm not sure why you are putting that forth.  Merely discussing a technique, what dynamics it perpetuates, what system infrastructure does it interface well with is not telling you that you should use it.  This is a thread about understanding the technique of "Failing Forward."  My efforts are intended to forward that end.Or this:Agreed.  Very much.  Which is why I, directly above, asked people to start interacting with specific play examples if they were interested in having nuanced conversation about "Failing Forward" rather than the generic conversation driven by the generic example of Bob, Mount Pudding, the failed Navigation check leading to an interaction with a hazard (crevice), and the Pudding Divining Rod (which was meant to triangulate a starting point).By all means, (anyone) engage (specifically) with the detailed play posts for a detailed conversation about how the technique supports, and is supported by, system.Dungeon World is D&D.  As is 13th Age.  As is D&D 4e.  As is D&D 5e.  All of them feature "Failing Forward" as a component of their conflict resolution mechanics.No disagreement there.</blockquote>

Verification