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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6801328" data-attributes="member: 42582">In the fiction, either the mace is there or it is not. But at the table, why does anyone need to know until a player declares that his/her PC looks for it?In "fail forward"-style play, the point of having (say) a high Scavenging skill is that, when you declare actions for your PC that involve scavenging for gear (like lost maces in ruined towers), you are more likely to have things turn out as you want (eg you are more likely to find said lost mace). In this way, having a high skill bonus is a player-side resource. It shifts control over the shared fiction from the GM to the player.That is the connection between the skill check and the presence or otherwise of the mace.The reason for the check is fairly straightforward: the PCs want to find the mace in the ruined tower, and the check determines whether or not they do.I'm not sure what you mean by the mace being "essential". Essential for what? From the point of view of the PC mage, it is essential that he find it because (i) he wants to learn to fight with a mace, and (ii) he wants to enchant it. For the other PCs its more peripheral (though after this event one of the other PCs promised to help recover the mace in return for something-or-other that I can't recall). But there is no pre-authored plot in respect of which finding the mace is an essential component.Are you able to articulate the nature of the advantage?The main difference I can see is that if the GM knows (and knows because s/he decides in advance, rather than allowing the decision to be shaped by player-side checks and resource expenditure) then the GM can control the plot.What mechanical system are you talking about here? What you say is not true for "fail forward" systems, where a check deals with intent as well as task.Within a system based around "fail forward", a failed check made to resolve negotiations with the king might lead the GM to narrate an earthquake, if that made sense within the narrative and dramatic context. Why not?These first of these two passages answers the second.If the GM is going to introduce complications that muck up the plans of, or thwart the desires of, players who make successful checks, then (from the player's point of view) what is the point of devoting resources to making successful checks?</blockquote>

Verification