Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8020859" data-attributes="member: 42582">[USER=6787503]@Hriston[/USER], nice example! It correlates pretty closely to examples in Burning Wheel how-to-play text as well as the actual play example I posted. And I would definitely consider it to be an example of player agency over the fiction. Even though the action failed, the player's framing of the action declaration played a big role in shaping that failure consequence.And reflecting further on that: In these sorts of resolution contexts it's interesting to think about how explicit the GM needs to be about the stakes of failure. BW &quot;officially&quot; advocates full explicitness every time but Luke Crane (the designer) has said that in his own games he sometimes lets the failure consequences remain implicit in the situation.I vary in my approach depending on what I feel is implicit, whether I think going explicit will increase tension or defuse it because of the &quot;meta&quot; intrusion, etc. Explicitness seems the surest way to guarantee player agency but that may not be the only desideratum in a given moment of play. On the other hand, if a failure consequence catches the player by surprise - ie they didn't see it as implicit in the fiction - then that can be an &quot;oops&quot; moment as a GM!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8020859, member: 42582"] [USER=6787503]@Hriston[/USER], nice example! It correlates pretty closely to examples in Burning Wheel how-to-play text as well as the actual play example I posted. And I would definitely consider it to be an example of player agency over the fiction. Even though the action failed, the player's framing of the action declaration played a big role in shaping that failure consequence. And reflecting further on that: In these sorts of resolution contexts it's interesting to think about how explicit the GM needs to be about the stakes of failure. BW "officially" advocates full explicitness every time but Luke Crane (the designer) has said that in his own games he sometimes lets the failure consequences remain implicit in the situation. I vary in my approach depending on what I feel is implicit, whether I think going explicit will increase tension or defuse it because of the "meta" intrusion, etc. Explicitness seems the surest way to guarantee player agency but that may not be the only desideratum in a given moment of play. On the other hand, if a failure consequence catches the player by surprise - ie they didn't see it as implicit in the fiction - then that can be an "oops" moment as a GM! [/QUOTE]

Verification