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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9846565" data-attributes="member: 42582">To an extent, yes. That's why I've given examples from a few different systems. There does seem to be a significant dissensus, though, over whether or not generative resolution is (or should be) a thing in Apocalypse World.I don't think this is fully accurate. One known consequence of a failed roll in TB2e is a twist. And a common sort of twist in town phase is a twist that brings the town phase to an end. And the player knew (as did their PC) that it was two PCs releasing a cinder imp that had led to the Hedge Witch's establishment being burned down. So the risk of retribution for that - with a twist as the method of bringing it to bear - was known.This is one of the things I've been discussing with [USER=7044566]@thefutilist[/USER]: to what extent does fictional position include implicit elements? [USER=7044566]@thefutilist[/USER] doesn't much like generative resolution (that may be too simplistic; he will correct me to the extent necessary). It's one reason, I think, that contributes to his dislike (maybe that's too strong? again, I can be corrected as necessary) of Burning Wheel.The objections/concerns are:My sense is that two is perhaps the strongest? And that one is a concern mostly because of its implications for two. (Again, corrections welcome.)I want to come back to this:So, in TB2e, every roll is acting under fire. If there's no fire, no roll (it's a "good idea") but I've never seen a good idea used to acquire stuff: my players rely on their Resources attributes, and that calls for a roll.It's a bit less clear in TB2e than Burning Wheel, so I'll switch to that. In Burning Wheel, what establishes "under fire" (or risk) is that a Belief (or similar PC build element) is at stake. Which is not fully separate from fictional position, but is partly separate - eg a PC wants to acquire a magic item to help deal with their balrog-possessed brother, and an angel feather presents itself, and so reading that feather's aura clearly requires a roll (because the Belief is at stake) - but the consequence of failure isn't necessarily clear at the moment of action declaration.The parameters for consequences are clear - the PCs salient build elements - but that's not the same as the sort of situational/positional clarity that [USER=7044566]@thefutilist[/USER] prefers. (The aura-reading/feather example is from my actual play: <a href="https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/burning-wheel-first-burning-wheel-session.736425/" target="_blank">[Burning Wheel] First Burning Wheel session | Roleplaying Actual Play</a>)Personally, I like the BW heuristic - stakes => risk => roll. I recently GMed Mythic Bastionland, which uses the heuristic risk => stakes => roll; and I found that quite hard to do, given that Mythic Bastionland is relatively low myth. Prince Valiant (which as I posted upthread doesn't use generative resolution much if at all) is different, because it relies on prep of reasonably concrete situations that engage the PCs because of the whole premise of the game (namely, Arthurian knight errantry).The previous paragraph shows the connection, I think, between [USER=7044566]@thefutilist[/USER]'s concerns about generative resolution and his concerns about low-/no-myth play. (Again, I am very happy to be corrected where I've got [USER=7044566]@thefutilist[/USER] wrong.)</blockquote>

Verification