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="robertsconley" data-source="post: 9639730" data-attributes="member: 13383">A f<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/gm-fiat-an-illustration.712258/post-9639693" target="_blank">ew things in response to @pemerton's latest post</a>, especially since he is trying to shift the framing of the discussion. My response is a clear comparison between two distinct approaches to adjudication, Torchbearer's procedural-first narrative vs. my World in Motion fiction-first adjudication. [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s response attempts to reframe it as a discussion of "techniques" rather than "philosophy."This attempt at reframing is a dishonest technique in a discussion like this. Techniques don’t exist in a vacuum. When a system consistently privileges one kind of resolution structure over another, that's not just a method. It's an expression of values and assumptions about play. That’s exactly what people mean when discussing a “philosophy of play.” If we pretend this is just a toolbox discussion, we obscure what we’re trying to analyze.1. “Aetherial Premonition doesn’t alter fate.”It may not strum the Skein like Destiny of Heroes, but its mechanics undeniably alter the probability space while the party is camping. It reduces the odds of bad outcomes via the camp event roll, and if something dangerous still occurs, it improves the odds of mitigating that danger with +1D to avert disaster.Now let’s look at the narrative text of the spell that [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] quoted:This narrative suggests a magical early warning system, something that alerts the party when trouble is coming. But the actual mechanics do more than that. They shape what kind of trouble can arise and how hard it will be to deal with, before the danger has even been narrated. That disconnect is important. It makes no narrative sense that an alarm spell, magical or not, would lessen the severity of the danger. It warns; it doesn’t soften the blow.If that's what the narrative is saying, I have no issue with +1D to avert disaster as a mechanical expression of readiness or preparedness. But in this case, the mechanics overreach what the fictional description supports.Again, the key point is that mechanics shape the fictional outcome before the fiction is even established. That’s the heart of the distinction I’m making.2. "Torchbearer’s procedures are just like classic D&D wandering monster rolls."On the surface, yes, both involve rolling on a schedule to determine whether an encounter occurs. But the similarity ends there.In Torchbearer, the roll happens first. Then the fiction is constructed to explain the result. The outcome is driven by mechanics, and the GM narrates backwards to fit it.In World in Motion, the fiction comes first. Who’s nearby, what they’re doing, and why they might intersect with the PCs is already established—whether through prep notes, faction timelines, or a location-specific random table. The roll doesn’t generate the situation; it resolves uncertainty within a situation that already exists.That’s not a cosmetic distinction. It determines where agency, coherence, and uncertainty reside in the system. In one case, the world drives the mechanics. In the other, the mechanics produce the world. That’s the fundamental difference.3. "This is a discussion about techniques, not philosophies."That’s a rhetorical dodge.The way a system resolves action, what gets rolled, when, and what comes first, directly expresses its philosophy of play. If the GM waits for player action, checks world state, and then rolls, that expresses one view of how outcomes emerge. If the system rolls first and builds fiction after, that’s another. We can call them techniques all day, but pretending they don’t embody fundamentally different assumptions about what RPGs are doing is very inaccurate.4. "D&D does include mechanical effects, so Alarm could be more like Torchbearer."Sure, it could, but it isn't. And that's the point.Alarm works as a reactive trigger: something must happen in the fiction to activate it. In Torchbearer, the danger emerges from a roll, and then the fiction is adjusted accordingly. The current D&D implementation puts Alarm's usefulness in the hands of the GM’s world model. Torchbearer abstracts that entirely. Again, direction of causality matters.5. "We both agree there's a difference in approach."That difference runs deeper than just table technique. It shapes how risk, control, and player impact are handled at the table. If I were to silently shift from a World in Motion campaign to a Torchbearer-style camp roll resolution, my players would feel that shift immediately. That’s not a matter of just “using a different rule.” It radically shifts the feel of the campaign.Wrapping it up.If we’re going to have an honest discussion about what these techniques produce in play, then we need to stop pretending they’re just interchangeable tools. They reflect fundamentally different answers to how RPGs should handle fiction, uncertainty, and consequence.Furthermore, the repeated attempts to reframe this debate and nitpick language while sidestepping core points need to stop. If this conversation is going to remain productive, the evasive tactics must end. I’m well-versed in rhetoric and debate, and I will continue to call out @pemerton’s dishonest argumentative techniques when I see them. As an academic, he should know better. Frankly, it’s disappointing that after all this time, I still have to point out this pattern of behavior.</blockquote>

Verification