NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9681532" data-attributes="member: 6795602">It actually doesn't.  What it does is have a mechanic that generates a prompt for the GM to describe one of many possible fail forward states that the GM must then choose.  The actual choice of fiction isn't dictated by that mechanic at all.  But it's not just you.  Most narrative proponents seem to elide this fact as well and instead substitute the notion that their narrativist 'mechanics are what generates the particular fiction'.  But all those mechanics don't actually tell the GM what precisely that fiction should be.  And again, that's perfectly fine and has many pros to doing it that way, but let's be clear about what precisely is going on.Ideally the results all make sense on the random table and if one doesn't in a particular scenario then the GM should reroll on his table. Not at all.  I said "2) extrapolated directly from established and preauthored facts."So the GM has enough established and preauthored facts to determine what happens next without a table.  Great.  We've just added to the established facts of the session, which then can be used in future decisions and then repeat this process hundreds of times.  Video games don't do that.  Video games have gotten better about giving players more choices, but it's always from a far more limited list than a ttrpg provides.  Maybe this changes with gen AI in the future, but we aren't there yet.The issue here isn't the plausibility.  I agree fail forward can provide always plausible fiction.  But that's rather beside the point and the issue.Again, the issue is how, not whether it make sense when held up after the fact.That's fine but in terms of the issues I'm discussing there's no difference in whether the player or the Gm does that.See above.</blockquote>

Verification