NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8496752" data-attributes="member: 16814">Perhaps, and please forgive, you had an illegitimate child with a previous lover and had no idea of the child's existence?  You would then not be correct, and not know if this turned out to be true.  However, if it turned out to be not true, then you would have been correct.  In SYORTD approaches, the veracity of your belief you had X children might be called into question, and a roll made, and a new truth discovered -- meaning it was wrong at all times prior.  Your construction is that everything is entirely fixed, only new additions make changes.  This isn't it at all -- what's known is known to the same degree we might be able to know something, but that leaves vast space for things we just don't know yet.  This is fundamentally the same between SYORTD and other approaches, the difference is that no one at the table knows what might be found out with SYORTD while with the GM centered approaches, the GM knows (or decides and so knows before the players do).If the door was there, the door was there.  It's not a new fact, it's a discovered truth -- the fact is that the door was always there.  This isn't different from normal D&D play -- if the players go through a dungeon corridor, they have a set of facts.  It might turn out a later search reveals a secret door there, and the difference is that the GM put it there and hid this fact from the players whereas in SYORTD, no one knew until the dice say so (or the GM says yes, in which case the door is just flavor).I think you're trying to conceive this in a framework were everything is resolved at any given time, but this is not a sound conception.  It's not that things are thus until an event arrives that changes it, it's that things are as they are, and we imperfectly perceive them.  This is a key part of a roleplaying game, in my opinion, the navigation of the fiction with imperfect perception towards discovery.  What's eligible for discovery is one major distinction between games. (Frex, D&D doesn't feature discovery of character as a part of play, this is left entirely to the player to imagine on their own because perception of your character is never imperfect from within the game, whereas other games put character at risk to enable discovery of character within the game instead of as a meta exercise.)  Another, and the one we're talking about here, is how a game operationalize and instantiates both the fiction and how discovery of that fiction operates.  5e and a PbtA game do this differently -- the fiction is instantiated in a different manner (created by the GM vs created through play, respectively) and how that fiction is discovered is also different (taking actions to get the GM to describe the fiction vs taking action that create the fiction for everyone at the same time, respectively).  Neither is better, except for preference, they are just different.You misunderstand.  The mysteries in The Between are not stochasticly generated ones, but actual mysteries, that are investigated and solved.  The manner of investigation differs, in that successful actions can generate clues, which are statements of facts but cannot ever conclusively answer one of the important questions (like what is this threat, where does this threat come from/lair, what does this threat want, what is this threat's weakness) but instead provides a detail that goes towards it.  The players collect these clues, and then can put them together in a way that makes sense to them and answers one of the questions with these in hand (they can also choose to disregard a clue if it doesn't fit their conceptions).  The number of clues used goes as a bonus to a special roll that, if successful means that the player's conception of how these clues fit together is true and they can now act using this truth.  On a hit (success with complication), the answer is true, but carries an additional problem/complication.  On a miss, the GM can be as mean as they like, but it's going to cause a serious problem for the players -- all of their earned clues are now spent and they have to continue investigation plus the threat will react hostilely.   This isn't really a stochiastic mystery -- in that it isn't random or a creation of die rolls -- but rather a structured mystery and investigation that involves lots of danger, the need to investigate, but also pairs well with SYORTD by providing a framework but not preconceived fiction to be followed.</blockquote>

Verification