Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7599270" data-attributes="member: 16814">I'm sure he will, but it seems obvious that the inclusion of the quote was to establish that separating task from conflict resolution leads to issues.  You make this same point in your post, so surely you also had this reason?That's another misapprehension.  The setting up of new possibilities in the fiction, in this case losing a hand of poker, may lead to future contests that leverage that lost hand, with clearly flowing consequences that both reach back to that lost hand and reflect the current contest.  It builds, it doesn't recur.That would be cool, and the players would be free to establish a new contest such that the loss of the liquid is a blow to the BBEG.  The consequence to that failure, though, may be that the liquid actually represented a weakness that could have been exploited, but is now lost and puddling on the ground.  Again, the consequence states build, they don't recur or have pre-set effects.  You still seem to be laboring under the assumption that the GM should already have all consequences mapped out ahead of time, when this style of play actively fights against this kind of planning.  It's fine to prefer more explicit stake setting, but I disagree that this is the "proper" answer.  It's your preference, and likely works best at your table, but that's far from universal.However, in your preferred presentation, it appears that you have not really established stakes past what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] did, but you critizied him for not being any more explicit in long reaching consequences.  Having a bit of familiarity with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s style, I'd wager that he was leaving the exact nature of the consequences open for the immediately following play where the players then react to the spilled liquid and try to establish new fiction in their favor.  This is akin to making a "soft" move of establishing a danger and then letting the following play address that, with a success mitigating and a failure paying off in a "hard" move related to that now established danger.  As I said previously, and which you elected to snip here, you were asking for too much horse for the particular cart in question.Also, it's fairly bad form to not only quote selectively, but to snip sentences such that a single sentence is presented and dissected absent it's surrounding context.  I'd rather not feel like I have to repeat myself because you're showing you might have disregarded or missed that context.This is more fair, but, again, I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] adequately lampshaded this by his explicit explanation of how the genre logic and tropes explained the inherent consequences to his players.  That you disagree and he shouldn't have used an actual play example and explained how things worked within it but should instead have used a different example with imbedded step by step thinking is, of course, a valid preference.</blockquote>

Verification