Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6798060" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I answered your query with my reply to pemerton from directly above.  I don't think "fail forward" is antithetical to process simulation.  I still hold (firmly due to both empirical and theoretical backing) that losing gear (or something on your person) as a result of defying climbing related dangers or navigating hazards is entirely coherent with a process-sim mindset.  However, some folks have (a) different mental models for the world than my own and (b) have internalized an RPG paradigm as orthodox which I roundly contest.What is central to failing forward is that "the demands of play" be prioritized in the outcomes they produce.  This will inevitably mean that the resolution of player action declarations will not include outcomes that do not comport with that premise/theme.  Burning Wheel has a process-sim chassis in its conflict resolution mechanics.  Nonetheless, a good BW GM will always eschew outcomes that don't propel play inexorably toward further "Belief Testing."  Some folks will decry that as "inorganic".  Presumably, "organic outcomes" means the GM has 0 game-defined directives that does away with certain outcomes of which they deem important for an "immersive experience" (eg - premise-neutral outcomes that don't snowball directly back into the games defining conflicts).</blockquote>