Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7599195" data-attributes="member: 177">Then I misunderstood the purpose of the quote, and I am not sure why it was included.&nbsp; Hopefully, he'll elucidate for me.I don't think so.&nbsp; To claim you let the players know the stakes, and then layer consequences on them later that weren't part of the proposal, is not fair.&nbsp; That's like, &quot;You lost a hand of poker an hour ago.&nbsp; Now, give me $100 more.&quot;No, it isn't.&nbsp; There's any number of times when a thing is important because it is a critical resource of the BBEG, that ultimately the PCs want to destroy.&nbsp; Maybe spilling it on the floor, ruining it, is exactly what the PCs want.&nbsp; At this stage, they don't know.&nbsp; Heck, the GM didn't know.&nbsp; How on Earth can you claim to be honestly informing the players of the stakes if you don't know them yourself?Note - I actually know what the answer to this question should be, as I've used this method before many times myself.&nbsp; I disagree with pemerton that relying on the assumptions of genre is the proper way to use this*, largely because it relies on everyone being on the same page without actually communicating about it, which is not reliable.&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;Everyone knows,&quot; is a way to ensure some people don't get the memo, as it is an excuse to not communicate with the players.&nbsp; The proper answer is that, when the player decides to help move the goo, the GM says (for example, in FATE language)), &quot;If you fail, you are apt to spill some of the liquid on the floor, or on yourself.&nbsp; This will not kill you directly, but may result in a mild consequence for your character or a similarly sized aspect on a scene.&quot;&nbsp; Since supposedly everyone knows it is important, there's no reason to avoid explicitly saying so.&nbsp; Putting a bound on how much impact it may have is setting the stakes.&nbsp; Now, the players actually have some idea of how big an issue they are looking at, and can choose their investment in avoiding it appropriately.This is *part of how* the function and importance of the goo is created in play.&nbsp; *Or at least it is not a good way to explain this. When describing a process to people who don't use it, you need to include all the formal steps, and then note which ones you later learn to elide over.&nbsp; I suspect pemerton's group has some internal unspoken agreements, because they are familiar with him, and they elide over the formal step because they have trust.&nbsp; But that doesn't apply to the folks reading the thread - they don't necessarily trust pemerton, or the process he's describing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7599195, member: 177"] Then I misunderstood the purpose of the quote, and I am not sure why it was included. Hopefully, he'll elucidate for me. I don't think so. To claim you let the players know the stakes, and then layer consequences on them later that weren't part of the proposal, is not fair. That's like, "You lost a hand of poker an hour ago. Now, give me $100 more." No, it isn't. There's any number of times when a thing is important because it is a critical resource of the BBEG, that ultimately the PCs want to destroy. Maybe spilling it on the floor, ruining it, is exactly what the PCs want. At this stage, they don't know. Heck, the GM didn't know. How on Earth can you claim to be honestly informing the players of the stakes if you don't know them yourself? Note - I actually know what the answer to this question should be, as I've used this method before many times myself. I disagree with pemerton that relying on the assumptions of genre is the proper way to use this*, largely because it relies on everyone being on the same page without actually communicating about it, which is not reliable. "Everyone knows," is a way to ensure some people don't get the memo, as it is an excuse to not communicate with the players. The proper answer is that, when the player decides to help move the goo, the GM says (for example, in FATE language)), "If you fail, you are apt to spill some of the liquid on the floor, or on yourself. This will not kill you directly, but may result in a mild consequence for your character or a similarly sized aspect on a scene." Since supposedly everyone knows it is important, there's no reason to avoid explicitly saying so. Putting a bound on how much impact it may have is setting the stakes. Now, the players actually have some idea of how big an issue they are looking at, and can choose their investment in avoiding it appropriately. This is *part of how* the function and importance of the goo is created in play. *Or at least it is not a good way to explain this. When describing a process to people who don't use it, you need to include all the formal steps, and then note which ones you later learn to elide over. I suspect pemerton's group has some internal unspoken agreements, because they are familiar with him, and they elide over the formal step because they have trust. But that doesn't apply to the folks reading the thread - they don't necessarily trust pemerton, or the process he's describing. [/QUOTE]

Verification