Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8648105" data-attributes="member: 6696971">What you’re describing above is an already well-understood technique for action resolution:Fail ForwardYou’ve captured paradigmatic Fail Forward in your formulation and unwittingly renamed it “Consequence Resolution.”I remember contrasting 5e with 13th Age as they were both being conceived /designed at the same time. I think the problem with “5e as Fail Forward action resolution” (which 13th Age is) is that it leaves “say no”  both (a) on the table and (b) at the discretion at the GM (and the cognitive workspace that resolves this discretion is, again, a host of things both potentially conflicting and potentially converging).The other problem with Fail Forward that isn’t intensively nailed down in terms of procedures/principles (like 13th Age…which was one of my major critiques of the system) is that it leads to a pretty steep increase of GM-directed play because “when does the scene end/resolve is entirely not nailed down (contrast with Fail Forward in 4e whereby “when dies the scene end” is governed by codified scene resolution parameters; The Skill Challenge).So 13th Age’s noncombat action resolution machinery (as is) situates play toward    paradigmatic, GM-directed HCS play. In order for it to yield Story Now play, you’re going to need more tech and/or more clear constraints built into the resolution architecture.</blockquote>