Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9691290" data-attributes="member: 7025577">Ouch me bad, sorry! My laziness got the better of me in that second instance. It was supposed to read the action of the characters there as well. Then I feel sufficiently understood, and have nothing to add other than that I am a bit curious if you could manage to articulate a key thing this reasoning appear to be missing that make it deviate from your experience? (But no pressure, I fully take you on your word here!)Yes I at least can fully agree that the tone has at times been harsher than what I think might be warranted <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Yes, as I have said, I think it works out just fine in isolated incidents. But a) I would like to be able to give an honest answer that is not disapointing anyone if they ever ask, and b) if extensively using this technique, I am pretty certain it will be recognised eventually. (Edit: by &quot;this technique&quot; I am not talking about Fail forward in general&nbsp; but rather the caricatured version where the complications are almost fully unhinged from the narrated action)I think there are a lot of different ways of doing it. Actually doing extensive prep at least seem like a technique that could be helpful. But I have tried both, and actually think for me a the best approach has been to mostly prepare the big picture, be very conscious about established fiction, and limit the constraints these put on my improvisation. Again nothing I would be ashamed to bring up in middle of play, it just doesn't naturally come up. I guess in the games you play there are a bit more meta channel communication going on during play than in my D&amp;D campaigns though? That would explain how you would find it more natural to talk trough your processes during play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim, post: 9691290, member: 7025577"] Ouch me bad, sorry! My laziness got the better of me in that second instance. It was supposed to read the action of the characters there as well. Then I feel sufficiently understood, and have nothing to add other than that I am a bit curious if you could manage to articulate a key thing this reasoning appear to be missing that make it deviate from your experience? (But no pressure, I fully take you on your word here!) Yes I at least can fully agree that the tone has at times been harsher than what I think might be warranted :D Yes, as I have said, I think it works out just fine in isolated incidents. But a) I would like to be able to give an honest answer that is not disapointing anyone [I]if[/I] they ever ask, and b) if [I]extensively[/I] using this technique, I am pretty certain it will be recognised eventually. (Edit: by "this technique" I am not talking about Fail forward in general but rather the caricatured version where the complications are almost fully unhinged from the narrated action) I think there are a lot of different ways of doing it. Actually doing extensive prep at least seem like a technique that could be helpful. But I have tried both, and actually think for me a the best approach has been to mostly prepare the big picture, be very conscious about established fiction, and limit the constraints these put on my improvisation. Again nothing I would be ashamed to bring up in middle of play, it just doesn't naturally come up. I guess in the games you play there are a bit more meta channel communication going on during play than in my D&D campaigns though? That would explain how you would find it more natural to talk trough your processes during play. [/QUOTE]

Verification