Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Firebird" data-source="post: 9694138" data-attributes="member: 7015803">I think this is largely the source of the discontent. If the game forces you to strongly distinguish between these two it is hard to immerse yourself as if you were the PC.Sorry [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]--I'm with [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] , you've not understood the difference we are drawing with the orc case. The difference you suggest here is one such difference, but it is not what we are interested in.The important difference for us is that the player setting the stakes (deciding what is at stake).Consider a third case: the players are trying to assassinate Lord Farquaad. The system is free form so they get to define the move. They say: "we'll break into his manor. On a 10+, Lord Farquaad appears and we slay him. On a 7-9, he's there, but there are guards and we have to fight. On a 6-, he is out of town and the guards are there."In this case, a successful roll (i) causes everyone to agree Lord Farquaad is dead and (ii) in the fiction the PC kills Lord Farquaad", as your orc case.However, it differs from the orc case because the player was allowed to set the stakes of the roll. It doesn't reference fixed aspects of the world, like the orc the GM described and its GM-facing stats, or that the GM wrote Lord Farquaad was out on campaign for the next month. It is a lottery where the players got to choose what to play for. Like the rune case.I suppose you could be saying -- 'well, the event 'Lord Farquaad is in the castle' is caused by the player's roll but not the PCs action and that is the disconnect'. If that's what you have in mind, then I am confused by why you see our take on it as missing the point. Because clearly the causality is broken because the player gets to set the stakes in that way.</blockquote>

Verification