Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9515038" data-attributes="member: 71699">To check my understanding, I assume that you are not picturing any non-sequiturs, but rather that the standards for what will count as a sequitur differ. So breaking down the moves in the fiction from a starting point to a conclusionP wagers her car on a roll to drive P's roll to drive means she loses her car Losing her car means P cannot escape the locusts - this is what matters What P is staking on her drive roll is whether she will/will-not escape the locusts, or to break that down in terms of consequencesP puts at stake on her roll to drive whether she will escape the locusts - this is what matters P's roll to drive means that she cannot escape the locusts - she loses what she put at stakeHere is another illustrative exampleP wagers whether she can make progress up a wall on a roll to climb P's roll means she doesn't make progress up the wall Failing to make progress up the wall means the guards catch her - this is what mattersWhat P is staking on her climb roll is whether she will/will-not escape the guards, or to break that down in terms of consequencesP puts at stake on her roll to climb whether she will escape the guards - this is what matters P's roll to climb means that she cannot escape the guards - she loses what she put at stakeNeither reveals any causal disconnect: both lay out a chain of fictional causality where the result of the roll updated the players fictional position in a way that justified what was said next (about locusts and guards). The distinction may lie more in how consciously the game fiction is managed as a dramatic story.What reasoning is permissible from a starting point to a conclusion in fiction was touched on in a <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/be-a-game-master-not-a-director.706381/post-9466259" target="_blank">previous conversation</a>Fiction, like counterfactuals, involves disciplined/non-arbitrary reasoning despite denying truths and asserting falsehoods. The reasoning involves inferring from an asserted (but not doxastically asserted) starting point, to the conclusion, by drawing upon permissible background assumptions that are not themselves excluded by the entertaining of the initial falsehood. (This is a version of Nelson Goodman's co-tenability requirement for counterfactual reasoning.) The key question, in RPGing (and perhaps fiction more generally) is, what background assumptions are permissible. The reason I cite this here is that I hopefully accurately take a related key question to be, what moves from starting point to conclusion are permissible. I am not aware of any common modes of play in which the move from starting point to conclusion can be a non-sequitur. P's succumbing to locusts was, as it turns out, explained by P's losing her car when she lost the race.Resolution in TTRPGs has evolved, and quite possibly methodical "consequences resolution" was overtly evidenced first in game texts associated with "narrativism". To show something of the adoption arc, it appeared in the 2014 DMG and now in the 2024 PHB, marking a shift from what could be characterised as an "advanced" rule, to a basic rule. Consequences resolution doesn't set aside norms for justifying moves in fiction from a starting point to a conclusion.I'd agree that some cultures of play, in being more intentional about the fictional fabric, are more willing to experiment with where and how the focus is inserted into or travels along the chain. If labels like "narr" and "trad" are useful, then I believe that the latter has evolved: texts continuing its traditions are better labelled "neotrad"... and consequences resolution is as key to them as to "narr".</blockquote>

Verification