Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9679371" data-attributes="member: 6795602">[USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] But also for others,I very much like your perspective on the contrast between scenarios and what is gameful in each.One thing you’ve got me thinking about is the sheer number of rolls involved using a fail forward resolution system.If players aren’t told of the potential consequence beforehand then this seems extremely similar to any other play with hidden resolution information. Thus, in many such systems players are told what the consequences will be before they roll. &nbsp;(a particularly loss averse player may drive the game to a halt at that point by asking about 1,000 different moves in an attempt to find the one with his most preferred potential consequence and highest odds for success - but this is more aside my point for now but maybe interesting on its own.&nbsp; I guess the question here would be do social pressures or game principles prevent the player from doing this and if so does the player really have full information regarding the scenario and their potential actions?&nbsp; But really this is more of an aside). Anyways, players are told the consequences of their action for a single roll, but those consequences usually push toward another roll and those toward another.&nbsp; For any given chain of rolls there’s a dependency chain there.&nbsp; As such, are the players ever truly informed of the consequences of their actions, if they only are told the immediate mechanical ramifications at the moment of the action and not any of the downstream dependencies?And for a second thought, doesn’t the sheer number of rolls and weight toward success with complication mean that nearly any consequence can be on the table at nearly any time?&nbsp; And with so many rolls and so much on the table for each roll, where is the gamefulness in that?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9679371, member: 6795602"] [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] But also for others, I very much like your perspective on the contrast between scenarios and what is gameful in each. One thing you’ve got me thinking about is the sheer number of rolls involved using a fail forward resolution system. If players aren’t told of the potential consequence beforehand then this seems extremely similar to any other play with hidden resolution information. Thus, in many such systems players are told what the consequences will be before they roll. (a particularly loss averse player may drive the game to a halt at that point by asking about 1,000 different moves in an attempt to find the one with his most preferred potential consequence and highest odds for success - but this is more aside my point for now but maybe interesting on its own. I guess the question here would be do social pressures or game principles prevent the player from doing this and if so does the player really have full information regarding the scenario and their potential actions? But really this is more of an aside). Anyways, players are told the consequences of their action for a single roll, but those consequences usually push toward another roll and those toward another. For any given chain of rolls there’s a dependency chain there. As such, are the players ever truly informed of the consequences of their actions, if they only are told the immediate mechanical ramifications at the moment of the action and not any of the downstream dependencies? And for a second thought, doesn’t the sheer number of rolls and weight toward success with complication mean that nearly any consequence can be on the table at nearly any time? And with so many rolls and so much on the table for each roll, where is the gamefulness in that? [/QUOTE]

Verification