Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8008424" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I appreciate the feedback but I don't understand why that's not an acceptable success state in the &quot;fictional success&quot; model.&nbsp; In such a model the success determined the baron would be amenable and the DM narrates how that occurs.&nbsp; Now I'm not saying it would be a particularly good success state to choose but to claim it's inconsistent with that methodology is hard for me to see.Never done a PbtA game.&nbsp; But I'm just not seeing what keeps such a methodology from being wide open - other than my already stated support for the notion that it's typically best when such a methodology is grounded in causal relationships with your action being the direct cause.If I was to go down the path of defining I would suggest a kind of hierarchy where a 1st order causal relationship is one where your action directly causes the success state to be reached - directly convincing the baron to change his mind with your words.&nbsp; Then there would be a 2nd order causal relationship where your action causes something that happen that then directly causes the success state to be reached - your action triggering the call for guards whose actions then move you into the success state.&nbsp; Then I would say that there are 3rd order causal relationships, ones where the success state is reached even more indirectly than that.&nbsp; Then there would be actual non-casual relationships which your meteorite example would fall under.So I think using the word non-casual before was probably not accurate on my part as in every case but the last there was some in-fiction chain of causality that could be traced.&nbsp; What I really meant when I said non-causality is non-1st-order causality.&nbsp; Thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8008424, member: 6795602"] I appreciate the feedback but I don't understand why that's not an acceptable success state in the "fictional success" model. In such a model the success determined the baron would be amenable and the DM narrates how that occurs. Now I'm not saying it would be a particularly good success state to choose but to claim it's inconsistent with that methodology is hard for me to see. Never done a PbtA game. But I'm just not seeing what keeps such a methodology from being wide open - other than my already stated support for the notion that it's typically best when such a methodology is grounded in causal relationships with your action being the [B]direct[/B] cause. If I was to go down the path of defining I would suggest a kind of hierarchy where a 1st order causal relationship is one where your action directly causes the success state to be reached - directly convincing the baron to change his mind with your words. Then there would be a 2nd order causal relationship where your action causes something that happen that then directly causes the success state to be reached - your action triggering the call for guards whose actions then move you into the success state. Then I would say that there are 3rd order causal relationships, ones where the success state is reached even more indirectly than that. Then there would be actual non-casual relationships which your meteorite example would fall under. So I think using the word non-casual before was probably not accurate on my part as in every case but the last there was some in-fiction chain of causality that could be traced. What I really meant when I said non-causality is non-1st-order causality. Thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts. [/QUOTE]

Verification