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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8005293" data-attributes="member: 177">Don't worry so much about what I seem to think, because you have missed the mark terribly there.  I asked some questions, that lead each other into each other pretty logically - the point was simply to consider social situations vs. combat situations, and let people determine how they felt about whether they are all just challenges, or they are somehow fundamentally different.Yep.  And much of the early part of the thread already recognized that, and counseled talking to them about it, and expectations, and such.  As already noted, the typical mechanical systems don't give you explicit events that result.  They only tell you whether the players succeed or fail (perhaps with degrees).  The GM has to figure out what that means in the context of the narrative.  So, as a GM, you're deciding consequences anyway.And, with respect to the desire for mechanics - while I understand the point in general, for this example it is not clearly relevant.  As has been noted already, mechanical systems typically have the clause, "don't bother using the mechanics if success or failure is clear to you, the GM". The GM already ruled that the failure was clear.  IF the game had relevant mechanics, it would have been reasonable for the GM to not invoke them, and just jump to consequences.  That's why I think the "...but, mechanics!" is a bit of a misdirection.That leaves us with the more general question of "When and how do we pull PC's bacon out of the fire?"</blockquote>

Verification