Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9516520" data-attributes="member: 42582">Seeing as I'm being quoted, I thought I would post a response.My post, that you've quoted, was about reasoning in a fiction.[USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] is posting about something different, namely, what is a fair or appropriate fictional state of affairs for a GM to narrate, that is consequence on a player failing a check?In AbdulAlhazred's example, the GM introduces, as a consequence, mutant carnivorous locusts are swarming towards you. That is permissible in the fiction, in that it follows from the background assumption that apocalypse world is full of the consequences of the apocalypse, including mutated animals. The rulebook even gives examples of this.But that doesn't mean, in itself, that it is a fair or appropriate consequence narration.The relevant principle that underlies it as fair narration is &quot;barf forth apocalyptica&quot;. The question being discussed is whether another principle also applies, which might be loosely described as only narrate consequences that pertain to something the player has expressly or implicitly put at stake by way of their action declaration.When posters in the past half-dozen posts have been discussing &quot;non sequiturs&quot;, they're discussing consequences that don't satisfy that latter candidate principle.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9516520, member: 42582"] Seeing as I'm being quoted, I thought I would post a response. My post, that you've quoted, was about [I]reasoning in a fiction[/I]. [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] is posting about something different, namely, what is a [I]fair[/I] or [I]appropriate[/I] fictional state of affairs for a GM to narrate, that is consequence on a player failing a check? In AbdulAlhazred's example, the GM introduces, as a consequence, [I]mutant carnivorous locusts are swarming towards you[/I]. That is permissible in the fiction, in that it follows from the background assumption that [I]apocalypse world is full of the consequences of the apocalypse, including mutated animals[/I]. The rulebook even gives examples of this. But that doesn't mean, in itself, that it is a fair or appropriate consequence narration. The relevant principle that underlies it as fair narration is "barf forth apocalyptica". The question being discussed is whether another principle also applies, which might be loosely described as [I]only narrate consequences that pertain to something the player has expressly or implicitly put at stake by way of their action declaration[/I]. When posters in the past half-dozen posts have been discussing "non sequiturs", they're discussing consequences that don't satisfy that latter candidate principle. [/QUOTE]

Verification