Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9519699" data-attributes="member: 71699">Thank you for explaining that further. It's worth calling out that my type A / type B analysis is about when consequences are identified and whether that itself triggers a roll, or is part of the result. It's not a broad analysis of every aspect of resolution.PbtA is very clearly type A. It doesn't affect the analysis that there is negotiation about whether a move is rightly invoked, only that a move can be triggered without consequences in sight because rolling entrains consequences.5e 2024 is very clearly type B. For styles of play common under D&D-ish designs, the admonishment to have consequences in sight up front is best implemented along the lines of the commentary you quoted from the Codex in your <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/suggestions-for-a-what-are-rpgs-how-to-play-rpgs-resources.707940/post-9519430" target="_blank">#93</a>, which continuesWhen I do announce failures before a roll, it’s often after hearing a really important intent and task from the players. Once I give them the failure result, we have everything clear about what’s on the line. Even then, I’ll keep my failure results vague, “If you fail this, you’re going to be lost.” If the failure comes up, then I embellish with details. Otherwise, I leave it unspoken.The ongoing flow of conversation continues when a roll is called because GM discerns consequences and need not expressly announce them: players know what the deal is. In high-noon situations or when players ask questions, GM will say more. I emphasised some of the text as it chimes with my observation in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/suggestions-for-a-what-are-rpgs-how-to-play-rpgs-resources.707940/post-9518742" target="_blank">#85</a> thatrather than exhaustively and inefficiently listing all scalable and forking consequences to meet the standard of informing player of the consequences of failure before the roll, GM indicates only their form or directionOther type-B designs call for an express procedure to be followed before proceeding: BitD is one example where what's riding on the roll is dialled in up front. I am not saying here that BitD uses "consequences resolution" I am saying that as to consequences, BitD resolution is type B:An action is challenging if there’s an obstacle to the PC’s goal that’s dangerous or troublesome in some way. We don’t make an action roll unless the PC is put to the test.Unreflective type B resolution has a tendency to be reductive -- using [USER=7044566]@thefutilist[/USER]'s far better framing for what I was clumsily going for with wide/narrow -- echoing sentiments expressed up thread. One axis for skillfulness in applying type B is to see how it can be generative, and groups can evolve their norms in that direction if they find it appealing.Type A is readily generative while also easily managing reductive. It's extremely efficient as player-invoked rolls propel the conversation without (in theory) any need for GM-side procedures. A simple example would be managing random encounters as exploration-move consequences, rather than via GM-side procedures such as rolling a die per "turn".</blockquote>

Verification