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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 9852005" data-attributes="member: 6993955">Again, I think that you're making a kind of category mistake. The result of a mechanical moment - a failed roll, for example - does prompt a re-engagement with the fiction but it's working in terms of a prompt. In your example, where there is a table of specific outcomes, then I'm not going to argue with you, however AW and Blades don't provide any such list. They give the GM a list of possible mechanical effects to hang resolution on but make no gestures toward the specifics of the changes to the fictional state. Some trad games don't really link the mechanical parts specifically to the game state at all. There's some kind of assumption that this happens, but the rules are far more focused on mechanical elements, like skill rolls, that provide a binary pass/fail without diegetic connection, which is left up to the GM and is also quite often completely ignored.That's the difference I was trying to explain upstream - AW and games like it keep everything very focused on the conversation and current game state in a way that trad game don't. In some games you might not notice a huge difference if the conventions at a D&D table include evocative action declarations and GM is reliably changing the fiction as a result. What is quite obviously different are those D&D games where the players declaration is 'I sneak' and then rolls her sneak skill. The addition of partial success reinforces the design goal of having player actions change the setting, pass or fail, as do the way fail states are framed mechanically.</blockquote>

Verification