Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9678280" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Not really. I'd prefer that if something profoundly confusing, where I have pointed out a clear divergence between things that, up to this point, have been argued by you and others pretty consistently, that...some kind of explanation is forthcoming? Rather than being told "there's no problem here and I won't discuss it with you".Okay. Then the repeated and frequent insistence on several things in this thread has been...what? Complete non-sequiturs?Because sure, that precise string of ten words might not have been said. But it's pretty clear from things said by [USER=6747251]@Micah Sweet[/USER], [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER], and numerous other posters that the GM exerting any control over those events for any reason was utterly unacceptable.But perhaps I am wrong? Perhaps GMs forbidding some events and permitting others is actually acceptable? I'd love to hear their thoughts on this. It would...make almost the entirety of this conversation completely baffling to me, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.Well then you're already arguing against something I didn't say, either. So if you're correct that I was completely mistaken about "GM put her thumb on the scale" being an absolute no-no in "traditional GM" sandbox-y campaigns, we're 0/2 here.I do think it should still be taught as one possible solution to a common problem, which is literally what I said. I also went to great length to say that it's perfectly fine for a GM to literally never once, in a "storied" career of GMing, feel even the slightest need to use fail forward. I still think it should be taught. Much as, for example, I think various methods of estimation should be taught, even if many people IRL will literally never use estimation since we have pocket calculators to give us precision to the Nth degree.Now you're just making up nonsense. Fail forward is not GM fiat, plain and simple. And, furthermore, it's not fail-forward advocates who are wanting a context where the GM doesn't admit they made a mistake.It's the "traditional GMs" that want to avoid such admissions. Because that's letting the players into the black box. That's admitting that the whole thing is a game, not an immersive fantasy. It's putting the fact that we're people at a table--people who make mistakes--right out in the open.You are quite literally arguing against something nobody here has said, nobody here would say. Where is this argument arising from? Who said these things? If you're going to take me to task for not being able to precisely quote anyone on the ten-word phrase above, why should I not do the same to you with this argument that you literally made up without any reference to any post in this thread?Given that has...literally nothing whatsoever to do with fail forward, I'm not sure why you felt the need to make such an argument.It is, 100%, completely, utterly unrelated to fail forward. Fail forward has literally nothing whatosever to do with "protecting" anyone from anything.As Lanefan has (repeatedly) done, you intentionally pervert the concept of fail forward into "always succeed". It literally has FAIL in the name! It's about failure! You do, in fact, FAIL with fail forward!How much more do I need to do to reveal this straw man for what it is?Well...Isn't that exactly what this argues? You never know what MIGHT happen...so you have to roleplay through everything. I challenged this post for precisely that reason.I mean it seems to me that that is precisely what is required from Lanefan's "you never know, down the road..." standard. You never know what might happen from every single event, no matter how small. Does that not mean you need to play through them all, unless-and-until the players explicitly state otherwise?</blockquote>

Verification