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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8440224" data-attributes="member: 42582">Who established that the shed is on fire? How? Who established that there are canisters of water in the shed? How? When?Here's one way the dash-into-the-burning-shed-to-save-the-canisters action declaration might happen:* Through prior play that I won't try and conjecture, it is established (among many other things) that (i) the PC has a shed next to their workspace garage, (ii) that Dozer and his brother live at the other end of the compound from the PC's shed;  and (iii) that Dozer is a firebug. * A tense confrontation occurs between the PC and Dozer's brother,. They are debating what to do about Dozer. The PC tries to "read" the brother: When you read a person in a charged interaction, roll+sharp. On a 10+, hold 3. On a 7–9, hold 1. While you’re interacting with them, spend your hold to ask their player questions, 1 for 1: • is your character telling the truth? • what’s your character really feeling? • what does your character intend to do? • what does your character wish I’d do? • how could I get your character to __? The player fails the throw (ie ends up 6 down). And the GM decides to announce offscreen badness - Dozer's brother laughs - "You don't even know what Dozer's up to, do you! * The player decides that their PC opens their mind to the pschic maelstrom: When you open your brain to the world’s psychic maelstrom, roll+weird. On a hit, the MC will tell you something new and interesting about the current situation, and might ask you a question or two; answer them. On a 10+, the MC will give you good detail. On a 7–9, the MC will give you an impression. If you already know all there is to know, the MC will tell you that. That fails too, and so the GM decides to double down on the offscreen badness, telling the player All you can see is smoke and fire in your mind, and an acrid smell lingering in your nostrils. And then asks, By the way, what do you keep in your shed? The player replies - making it up - My water! and declares that their PC runs across the compound. That's not a move, and so the GM just keeps narrating: You can see your shed on fire. Dozer's standing next to it, grinning.Now we can see that the shed being ablaze isn't backstory that inputted into the scene - it's something that is established in the course of the resolution of the situation. And we can see that the player is the one who establishes the backstory that there is water in the shed.So I don't think it's true to say that the only major difference between that and D&D play (of any kind) is the specific mechanics you are using to resolve success/failure/consequences. There are kinds of D&D play, quite typical kinds, in which backstory like Dozer being out of the house burning down the PC's shed, and like the shed having water in it, are not established in this sort of fashion.And you also speak as if differences in the resolution of success/failure/consequences are a small thing, whereas that's where huge amounts of differences in RPGing happen. For instance, that's all that distinguishes a sandbox from a railroad, as best I can tell. (They use very similar processes for establishing backstory and situation.)In 5e D&D the GM can refer to backstory - including backstory that is secret from the players - in order to decide whether or not to call for a stat/skill check. That's a "difference in the resolution of success/failure/consequences" from AW - I think a pretty significant one.Backstory and techniques for extrapolating from it don't establish whether or not the water gets tainted (eg there is no use of an item saving throw table) - that's a consequence read off the resolution attempt. The established backstory of the intensity of the fire doesn't establish whether or not the PC suffers burns (contrast the standard D&D approach: make a Dex/Reflex save to avoid DX damage or to take half of DX damage). The established backstory, and extrapolation from it, doesn't establish whether the fire spreads (eg there is no % roll made to determine spread of the fire, or no saving throw made for the adjacent workspace garage to see if it catches fire).I've never seen an account of D&D play that used the player's success on an action declaration that is causally unrelated to extinguishing or spreading the fire to be used to determine whether a fire spreads - other than 4e skill challenges, which of course (i) are a type of closed scene resolution, and (ii) were hugely controversial among many D&D players because of this.</blockquote>

Verification