Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9676495" data-attributes="member: 6690965">Right, we should be able to do better than &quot;this isn't a problem&quot; and &quot;this is the solution to problem&quot; as our only points of discussion. Take 10/Take 20 is a perfect example, or you could turn knowledge/investigation/perception into defenses that hidden stuff/information is rolled against. Less to my taste, but I've also seen a strict &quot;one roll per approach&quot; method, so players are essentially working through a hierarchy of preferred solutions. My issue with the whole fail forward framework is that it deals so casually with causality, and makes player planning much harder. You can alleviate some of that by pre specifying failure (or partial failure or incomplete success or whatever) conditions ahead of time, but that quickly shifts the gameplay into negotiation and can get unwieldy if players are actually using that information to discriminate between different courses of action. That, and it undermines gameplay around risk mitigation.You know what I haven't seen that might prove an interesting synthesis? Using some roll based prompt to introduce complications more sparingly. My experience of Blades in the Dark (for example) was mostly wishing I was allowed to stop and deal with the problems that had come up without risking new ones. I can imagine a system that telegraphs rolls that can introduce complications and makes them more sparing. Maybe something like Daggerheart's Fear currency, with strict threshold on how much has to be accumulated and expended by the GM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 9676495, member: 6690965"] Right, we should be able to do better than "this isn't a problem" and "this is [B]the[/B] solution to problem" as our only points of discussion. Take 10/Take 20 is a perfect example, or you could turn knowledge/investigation/perception into defenses that hidden stuff/information is rolled against. Less to my taste, but I've also seen a strict "one roll per approach" method, so players are essentially working through a hierarchy of preferred solutions. My issue with the whole fail forward framework is that it deals so casually with causality, and makes player planning much harder. You can alleviate some of that by pre specifying failure (or partial failure or incomplete success or whatever) conditions ahead of time, but that quickly shifts the gameplay into negotiation and can get unwieldy if players are actually using that information to discriminate between different courses of action. That, and it undermines gameplay around risk mitigation. You know what I haven't seen that might prove an interesting synthesis? Using some roll based prompt to introduce complications more sparingly. My experience of Blades in the Dark (for example) was mostly wishing I was allowed to stop and deal with the problems that had come up without risking new ones. I can imagine a system that telegraphs rolls that can introduce complications and makes them more sparing. Maybe something like Daggerheart's Fear currency, with strict threshold on how much has to be accumulated and expended by the GM. [/QUOTE]

Verification