Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thefutilist" data-source="post: 9519551" data-attributes="member: 7044566">I think a lot of what clearstream is saying may be applicable if you focus only on failure and ask if it's generative or reductive.Example generative: Thief is trying to open the vault to get to the gold inside. They roll a failure and so they open the vault but villain is waiting for them instead.In an intent+task game this would only make sense if the intent was to get the gold, not if the intent was to open the door.In a reductive game, failure means you don't do it and is in some way causally linked to character action(s).So in BW stuff like circles is generative but the core resolution doesn't seem to be? I'd always assumed it was reductive because it seems strange to me to have the following happen:Player: Ok my intent is to get the gold and I'm using lockpicking to open the vault.GM: On a failure the villain is going to be waiting for you instead.The strangeness coming from the fact that there doesn't seem to be a reason for the GM to state what happens on a failure.Or it could be that no one plays BW that way except when it applies to circles and wises. Which like my assumption about still getting intent on failure, would mean I'm wrong about a lot of Burning Wheel play.Opening a safe to reveal the villain might also seem stupid so I'll show a similar example.Thief has beliefs that he's the best thief. There is a villain mastermind thief who is the antagonist. Rather than waiting for him in the vault on failure, he's stolen the gold already and left a mocking note.Anyway I think that retains a lot of @clearstreams analysis without having to worry too much about the specific triggers for a roll.</blockquote>

Verification