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: 7695547" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, quite. My claim is that he is going further, though, and pointing out that - once you try and do that - you find that you have to narrate "bad things" that, in the fiction, are not causally downstream of the failing character's action.Because obviously I've got nothing better to do with my time that post purposeful misstatements of Monte Cook on the interwebs!You haven't really given me the benefit of the doubt - you've accused me of purposefully misstating Monte Cook's stance! But anyway, I'll repeat, again, the key passage from Monte Cook's blog, and will bold a key phrase:[T]he Cypher System rules don’t say that a 1 is a fumble. It’s the trigger of a GM intrusion. An intrusion is a complication, but it’s not necessarily a complication arising from someone doing anything wrong. In a combat situation, a GM intrusion can range from the opposing creature gaining an additional chance to attack for a round, to reinforcements for the opposition showing up. It could mean that the character accidentally shoots a friend, or drops her weapon, or slips and falls, but those should be rare. Far more often, it should be some external circumstance that arises, and not something “wrong” that the character did.Here we see Monte indicating:(1) That a nat 1 is not just a fail. It's a trigger for something more than a failure - what, upthread, I called a "big" or distincitve event. Something other than "nothing happens". (2) That typically, even primarily, such events ought not to be due to major screw-ups by the failing character (not something "wrong" that the character did). (3') Following on from (2), that far more often these events should be external circumstances such as reinforcements, rather than events that (in-fiction) are causally downstream of the failing character's action.And I am asking the question: why (3')? My conjectured answer (not an assumption) is that there are simply not enough events that are possible within the fiction that satisfy (1) and (2), yet nevertheless are causally downstream of the failing character's action.This is his reason for affirming (2), yes. But on it own it tells us nothing about (3) or (3'). And that is what I am interested in.I'm not even talking abot his reason for wanting to reduce ineptness-driven fumbles! I'm asking why, given that he wants to do this, is he moved to say that they should be mostly external circumstances?What do you think, then, is the meaning of the phrase far more often it should be some external circumstance? Which is used to contrast with such screw-ups as accidentally shooting a friend or dropping a weapon?But this is a secondary point (as  [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has pointed out not very far upthread). Even if he thinks that incursions should, typically, be major screw-ups, he nevertheless contrasts major screw-ups with external circumstances that are not, in-fiction, causally downstream. Why? Why are these the two options he puts on the table?I think you misunderstand what I mean by "big event". I used the phrase in post 302 upthread, which was a reply to you:if the idea is that a nat 1 result should, in some way, stand out from a typical failure, then something bigger and more distinctive has to happen on a nat 1.Otherwise, what is the point of the intrusion-triggered-by-nat-1 mechanic?Can we please move on from semantics! In post 302 I made it clear what I am meaning by the phrase "big event" - I mean something different from a normal failure, that stands out enough to make the mechanic worth having at all. If you don't like the phrase I've chosen to use, fine - I'm not wedded to it, I just wanted something to pithily express the point.But I'm pretty sure my choice of phrase isn't the most interesting thing to talk about - as opposed to Monte's reasons for saying that incursions should, far more often, be external circumstances. I'm interested in why his rejection of major screw-ups leads him to this particular claim. It's not self-evident, and in fact - in light of the whole "dissociated mechanics" debate - I would have thought is very controversial. There are certainly many posts upthread which have rejected Monte's suggestion, on grounds that "external circumstances" mean the GM is making things up out of thin air, etc.In the post you have quoted I am not stating reasons. I am interpreting Monte Cook's blog, and offering a conjecture as to why he says the things that he says. In the post of mine that you quoted, (1) to (3) are not reasons but properties/attributes of narrated events. I am conjecturing that there are not very many possible in-fiction events that exhibit all three properties, and that this is why Monte - in affirming that intrusions should satisfy (1) and (2) - is led to say that, far more often, they will not exhibit (3) but instead (3') - that is, will be events which, in fiction, are not causally downstream of the failing characer's action.OK, so this is the sort of thing I actually was hoping to talk about!What does the equipment failure flow from, in in-fiction causal terms?If it flows from the PC's misuse, then we are getting back into the territory of major screw-ups or a compication from someone doing something wront.So presumably we are talking, here, about failure that follows simply from use.Is there an important difference between (i) the GM deciding, on a nat 1, that a piece of equipment has worn out or malfunctioned from use even though the cause of that (eg metal fatigue, drained power supply, etc) was not a hitherto-established element of the shared fiction, and (ii) the GM deciding, on a nat 1, that another enemy turns up even though the presence of that enemy just slightly off-screen was not a hitherto-established element of the shared fiction?If (i) draws support and in-fiction plausibity from the idea that, in Numenara, technology is poorly understood and jury-rigged, can (ii) be given support and in-fiction plausibility by having the GM emphasise that , in his/her gameworld, things are often not as they seem and foes rarely show their hand all at once?And conversely, and relating this to some of the concerns express someway upthread: if (ii) becomes a less plausible move in a game in which the PCs do a lot of scouting and other intelligence gathering, what happens to (i) if the PCs have very high repair skills, spend a lot of time emphasising how well they are maintaining their equipment, etc?</blockquote>

Verification