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: 9228315" data-attributes="member: 42582">I posted an example, just upthread, in reply to FrogReaver. Here it is again: <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/torchbearer-2e-actual-play-of-this-awesome-system.691233/post-9183845" target="_blank">https://www.enworld.org/threads/torchbearer-2e-actual-play-of-this-awesome-system.691233/post-9183845</a>That session of Torchbearer 2e used conflict resolution to determine (among other things) (i) what happened when the PCs tried to make their way to the Moathouse, and (ii) when the PCs fought the killer frogs, and (iii) when the PCs attempt to camp was interrupted by the Dire Wolf, and (iv) when the PCs negotiated with the Dire Wolf, and (v) when the PCs fought the bandits who disturbed their camp, and (vii) when the PCs tried to trick the bandits at the Moathouse.In each of these cases there was hitherto-unrevealed backstory: (i) all the details of the Moathouse; (ii) the jewel "carried" by one of the frogs; (iii) the Dire Wolf having come from the Moathouse, and everything it knew about the Moathouse; (iv) ditto; (v) the situation of bandits at the Moathouse, and everything they knew about the Moathouse; (vi) dittto.The way you don't veto player action declarations based on those facts is to not veto player action declarations based on those facts. As per my hypothetical example of AW upthread, and as per this actual example, if the game is well-designed it will ensure that its action resolution framework, and its system for prep, do not generate contradictions or otherwise make things hard.As a simple example, GM prep in Torchbearer does not include things like This NPC cannot be tricked, which would then preclude the success of an action declared with the goal of tricking that NPC.Conversely, GM prep in Torchbearer might include things like This house used to be owned by the wizard Pallando, and there is no provision, in the action resolution rules, for a player to establish as the stakes of their action declaration That Pallando was never the owner of this house.Burning Wheel is a system where, on some of the margins, collisions are possible, because the game features an open-ended framework of Wises, which can be used - via player action declarations - both to prompt GM narration of backstory, and to establish backstory. The game designer has a discussion of how to handle this (Adventure Burner, pp 300-6), which includes a combination of rules and etiquette. The etiquette advice includes the GM (if appropriate) saying "Sorry, I've got something planned in respect of <whatever it was that the proposed Wises check pertained to>", and the player than accepting that and (say) declaring so as to prompt GM narration rather than establish their own conceived-of backstory.</blockquote>

Verification