Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7599281" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think you need to re-read the quote from Vincent Baker: he's putting forward that example as an example of why he doesn't like task resolution. And I'm saying that I, personally and speaking only for myself, agree with thim.I should add - the example he gives, where the PC fails at the task to gain information but the GM feed in success anyway - is one that I have seen in more than one published adventure module. It's very common for those modules to have "backup" options for if the players fail to take, or to succeed, at the steps needed to get the requisite information.Like Vincent Baker, I find this to be bad RPGing because it undermines the sense of stakes and consequences. And to borrow [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s terminology, it introduces "false action" - in this case, false failure.Well, for the reasons that I gave in my post, it was clear in the context of play that spilling the fluid was a bad thing. For the GM to turn that around would be tantamount to cheating, or at least very poor play.I'm not a Dungeon World GM and have only a bit of play experience with that system, but I can describe what resulted from the fluid spill using some DW terminology:* I was thinking offscreen, that is, keeping in mind the spill of the fluid for future adverse revelation; * I took something from the characters, that is, used the spill of the fluid on the second PC's clothes as the basis, in the fiction, for his clothes being taken away (while he was treated for a broken leg) which meant that he lost the document he'd taken and hidden in his coat pocket; * When the offscreen came back onscreen, I revealed an unwelcome truth, as the butler PC eventually found his master, having been moved to a clinic from a basement room in the house where the spill happened, with a burn on his face and head which (i) obviously to all had been caused by the spilled fluid, and (ii) confirmed (when put together with other bits of context) that he was a were-hyena.These all honour the player's (and PC's) failure and conform to the player's understanding of what was at stake in the situation, and what the consequences would be of mishandling the fluid.Here's what I posted about this on the thread that this one is descended from:In the example of play that I provided in the OP, the immediate stakes were clear - getting the fluid out of the house threatened by fire - and the consequences implicit.</blockquote>

Verification