Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9678277" data-attributes="member: 1008">If you would prefer to imagine me yelling at you for choosing to define something your own way, that's also OK. Go wild.You have a really bad habit of getting upset with people who don't want to argue with you, and trying to cast them as bad people for it. It's really quite off-putting.I've made it clear multiple times throughout this thread that I'm uninterested in arguing semantics. That said, if you're confused, it may be because no one has said, "there will never be situations where the GM controls events". It's always possible someone did say such a thing, but I'd be a little surprised if anyone really believes the GM never controls an event that happens in game.I was never arguing that fail forward is bad and should never be used. I made it clear some time ago what I was arguing against were two things specifically:First, the assertion that it's a key tool that all GMs should learn and use, as if there are problems that can occur in any game that can only be fixed with fail forward (or that fail forward is always the best solution for them).Second, the idea that if a game is being run without a fail forward mechanic, suddenly inserting the mechanic to get around an unexpected problem (as if to create the illusion that it was the mechanic and not GM fiat that just occurred) is somehow a better solution than just admitting a mistake was made and fixing that mistake with open communication.The other point I was making, and which I was clear about in the same post was this:There is a big difference in feel and mood between a game where the players know that if they don't take wilderness dangers seriously they might get lost and die, and one where they know that they can take any degree of risk and fail forward their way to some kind of successful outcome anyway. Neither is inherently better than the other; my point is simply that they're not equivalent and you can't just offer fail forward as a solution without recognising that you're changing the nature of the game.Nobody runs a game at 1:1 time during the session, all session, every session, not even the ACCURATE TIME RECORDS MUST BE KEPT fanatics who obsess over 1:1 time.Everyone skips things all the time; I'm not sure how you would have reached the conclusion anyone was claiming otherwise.Some people have said they would allow people to roleplay their time in the cell for as long as they players are enjoying doing so; no one has claimed everyone has to sit around contemplating the characters' poor decisions in real time until either all the PCs die of starvation, they come up with a plan, or the cell door is opened.</blockquote>

Verification