Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9516938" data-attributes="member: 71699">(Emphasis mine.) So I'm saying narrating a consequence is an instance of extrapolation. Per AW's rules, it must "follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction" i.e. it cannot be anything the group would count a non-sequitur which is a determination they would make through reasoning in the fiction.(A Bakerian "always" isn't going to stop applying at some arbitrary point: it applies to setting up a future hard move.)I've observed that as groups master consequences resolution, their confidence in proposing trouble more loosely causally connected while still thematically salient increases. Some game texts help them in this direction, for example twists in TB2.They can be immediate obstacles—you’re ambushed while you dither at the door!—or something that causes trouble further down the line. Approaching pirates seems like an example of trouble further down the line. The difference [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] has illustrated is reified in the designed procedures, which generally must sayWho chooses the consequences? The rolling player? A different player or players? GM? In some play styles, players expect to know what can go wrong, and roll only if they are comfortable with those stakes. When must they choose? A common approach is to agree up front that there will be consequences (aka badness, a hard move, a twist), but defer specifying them until the roll fails. Where that is built into system, as in TB2, any roll is perforce consequential (rolling systematically entails consequences.) Notice the difference from approaches where a roll is called for only when it has a chance of meaningful failure, which implies that the consequences are in sight up front. That second requirement - when must they choose - offers designers a choice betweenIf we are rolling dice, then we are going to see consequences If we can see consequences, then we are going to roll diceProcedural differences might have arisen out of background norms or philosophies of play, but once implemented cease to represent any division in what is available to one play style over another. The choice has many implications, but differences in the resultant fiction can be rather subtleTelemere rolled for search and failed, so GM narrated approaching pirates GM narrated approaching pirates, so Telemere knew searching would call for a roll</blockquote>

Verification