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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7107208" data-attributes="member: 16814">You shifted from discussing the play example you presented to discussing how you would do things if you were running, which wasn't the point of the question -- ie, I did not ask for an explanation of how you would run things.  That's not what happened, so it's relevance to the situation is moot.  In fact, when you failed the scavenging check, the GM did not choose to present a complication in the vein you provided, he instead provided orcs.  It stands to reason that if you failed the homestead-wise check, the result would also have been orcs.Which goes straight back to my statements about Illusionism in Story Now games.  The DM, in the capacity of narrating failure, can introduce the thematic elements and resolutions he wants to -- in this case, orcs.  In your description, he further pushed this by framing the elf scene as the elves trying to get you to hunt orcs.  Strangely, even though you failed your check, you still seem to have gotten your intent -- to ignore the orcs and return to your home.  The elf accompanying you was collateral damage you were willing to sacrifice to forge a different path.  The DM could have easily narrated your failure as the elf informing you that such a request was impossible -- this band of orcs burnt your home to the ground and scattered your order just last week.  That both frustrates your intent and frames the result in terms of your beliefs while still also being about the story the GM wants to tell.  That you managed, through experience, to evade this by declaring a check and then getting the result you wanted anyway is beside the point.  A determined and skilled GM can manipulate even Story Now games to be about what he wants while, at the same time, hiding this from the players.  Is it harder to do?  Yes, the mechanics are adverse to such things.  Impossible?  Not even remotely.But, to get back to the scenario, I'm still not convinced there's an actual difference between requesting the DM to give you more backstory and exploring the setting.  Perhaps this was just a poor framing, but you didn't put forward any stakes when you declared your roll other than the desire for the GM to tell you more information.  I was under the impression that you should have declared an intent for the roll more along the lines of 'I make a check to confirm that the homesteaders were chased from their homes by some evil against my faith' rather than 'I make a check to find out what happened here.'  The results on failure for the first (or even success) are radically different, and more in-line with your post facto 'I wouldas' than what you presented (which is why I asked for clarification, as I had though you left something exactly like that out, turns out you didn't).  The just asking has backstory as a success and... no backstory as a failure?  I mean, if you find something that indicates the homesteaders were heathens, that's still backstory telling you what happened.  Without the marker of what you think the story is, it's hard to frustrate that intent effectively without an equally blank 'you can't tell.'  Again, the lack of actual stakes in that roll strike me as very odd.In a later post, you mention that the other PC isn't a PC, but a companion of yours under your control.  But you built this companion to explicitly support your main character, with only a few points of contrast -- mainly that she has some different motivations that may come in conflict with your PC motivations.  I bring this up to ask why, when you state that you will have to make a check against your companion because she is angry with you for leaving the homesteads unresolved, this didn't come up when you declared the intent to leave the homestead area?  Should not the companion have forced a check at that point, to prevent the leaving?  I thought that you were supposed to call for checks when something happens that someone else doesn't like, but it seems that this contest was left for when you want your armor fixed and she's angry with you rather than at the point you made her angry with you.And, again, discussing personal play accounts isn't my preference, as, inevitably, questions or criticism (especially the sharp kind) is taken personally rather than furthering the discussion, but you continue to insist.</blockquote>

Verification