Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 9679813" data-attributes="member: 6915329">I'm confused. Earlier you were saying that it was OK for a PC to listen at the door, hear there were guards, and then choose another way around. Now you're saying that's wrong somehow? See:Or are you thinking that if the PCs are trying to go from A to B, get stuck because of a door, and take another passage, they can't still get to B?Anyway, for whatever reason, picking here was preferable to the PCs, but they couldn't get through here, so they went over there. I don't know how you game, but my players don't get an entire map of the location, complete with the location of the inhabitants, traps, and other hazards, before they go there. Even the time they were doing a heist on one of the PC's family estates; the character didn't know all the details. They have to explore and learn those things. If they picked here, it's because here was convenient in some way: it's the front entrance, it's unguarded, it's the only way they found, the path seemed easier, whatever. They are not going to have any idea that here is preferable until they explore. The ability to make bad choices is built into fail forward design. In fact, it's a lot of its point, which is, they're not going to get a &quot;nothing happens&quot; result. Instead, something will happen. Whether that thing is good, neutral, or bad is up to the typical combination of player actions and dice rolls.That is exactly like in tradgaming. The only real difference is that it's more clearly spelled out in many modern narrative games, including when those consequences are supposed to happen, where it was more of an assumption that GMs just knew this in many older tradgames. That makes absolutely no sense to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Faolyn, post: 9679813, member: 6915329"] I'm confused. Earlier you were saying that it was OK for a PC to listen at the door, hear there were guards, and then choose another way around. Now you're saying that's wrong somehow? See: Or are you thinking that if the PCs are trying to go from A to B, get stuck because of a door, and take another passage, they can't still get to B? Anyway, for whatever reason, picking [I]here [/I]was preferable to the PCs, but they couldn't get through [I]here[/I], so they went over [I]there.[/I] I don't know how you game, but my players don't get an entire map of the location, complete with the location of the inhabitants, traps, and other hazards, before they go there. Even the time they were doing a heist on one of the PC's family estates; the character didn't know [I]all [/I]the details. They have to explore and learn those things. If they picked [I]here[/I], it's because [I]here [/I]was convenient in some way: it's the front entrance, it's unguarded, it's the only way they found, the path seemed easier, whatever. They are not going to have any idea that [I]here [/I]is preferable [I]until [/I]they explore. The ability to make bad choices is built into fail forward design. In fact, it's a lot of its point, which is, they're not going to get a "nothing happens" result. Instead, something [I]will [/I]happen. Whether that thing is good, neutral, or bad is up to the typical combination of player actions and dice rolls. [I]That is exactly like in tradgaming.[/I] The only real difference is that it's more clearly spelled out in many modern narrative games, including when those consequences are supposed to happen, where it was more of an assumption that GMs just [I]knew [/I]this in many older tradgames. That makes absolutely no sense to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification