Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7587795" data-attributes="member: 16814">Full stop, right here.&nbsp; The player has stated an action with a goal and approach, the GM is now obligated to narrate the results of that action.&nbsp; If the GM decides there's no uncertainty, the GM still must narrate the outcome.You continue to imagine the game stops because dice aren't rolled, which is wrong.&nbsp; No, everything above would never happen because the GM either calls for a check and narrates the outcome or just narrates the outcome if it's certain.&nbsp; Firstly, this situation wouldn't ever happen in my game because, as presented, it apoears as a social challenge so it would be in my game, but this example isn't.&nbsp; I don't have long question and answer periods with ambulatory exposition.&nbsp; However, assuming it did, and the clerk isn't lying and there's no consequence for failure (&quot;no answer&quot; isn't a consequence), then I'd narrate that close attention during the exchange reveals the clerk is earnestly trying to help.&nbsp; If the clerk is lying, and I think the approach shoukd autofail (which I do not, I'd ask for a check in this situation with a consequence appropriate to the approach) I'd narrate that there's no indications in the clerk's body language that indicates falsehood.Regardless, the argument you imagined would never, ever, happen. Cool, what happens on a failure when the ckerk isn't lying?&nbsp; If the clerk is lying? I, and ithers, have brought this up numerous times that there's a big difference in style on failure, but you keep only presenting success.&nbsp; What does failure look like in your game for this example?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7587795, member: 16814"] Full stop, right here. The player has stated an action with a goal and approach, the GM is now [b]obligated[/b] to narrate the results of that action. If the GM decides there's no uncertainty, the GM still [i]must narrate the outcome.[/i] You continue to imagine the game stops because dice aren't rolled, which is wrong. No, everything above would never happen because the GM either calls for a check and narrates the outcome or just narrates the outcome if it's certain. Firstly, this situation wouldn't ever happen in my game because, as presented, it apoears as a social challenge so it would be in my game, but this example isn't. I don't have long question and answer periods with ambulatory exposition. However, assuming it did, and the clerk isn't lying and there's no consequence for failure ("no answer" isn't a consequence), then I'd narrate that close attention during the exchange reveals the clerk is earnestly trying to help. If the clerk is lying, and I think the approach shoukd autofail (which I do not, I'd ask for a check in this situation with a consequence appropriate to the approach) I'd narrate that there's no indications in the clerk's body language that indicates falsehood. Regardless, the argument you imagined would never, ever, happen. Cool, what happens on a failure when the ckerk isn't lying? If the clerk is lying? I, and ithers, have brought this up numerous times that there's a big difference in style on failure, but you keep only presenting success. What does failure look like in your game for this example? [/QUOTE]

Verification