NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8650971" data-attributes="member: 71699">This part matches the locking in that we're using. Players can work things to a point where the dirt must be in the safe, and there could still be a roll if some other complication were possible.The more difficult case is if the group simply say "Sod it, let's break in and check the safe. Maybe the dirt is there, maybe not." No work done to get things to a locked in state. Player intent in this case is to prove that the dirt is or is not in this safe (as indicated by "maybe the dirt is there, maybe not"). If they can't open the safe (fail), they can't satisfy that intent. If they can open it (succeed), then they do satisfy that intent, even if the safe is empty.But suppose a player dug their heels in and said - "I'm cracking this safe with the firm and specfic goal / intent of finding the dirt inside" despite having done nothing at all to lock that in!? I asses this as a degenerate case that puts the player in the position of spoilsport. It can also happen as an inadvertant instance of inept play (an antithesis of skilled play) in which case reminding that they've no clues as to what could be in the safe, so the declared intent toward it is ill-formed, gets things back on track. They adjust, maybe crack it, with renewed faithfulness as to what they can say that follows. To see how it's a kind of reaching, imagine instead they say "I'm cracking this safe with the firm and specfic goal / intent of finding a +3 defender sword inside" or something that is normally nonsensical, like finding the safe inside itself!Right, albeit to count the bracketed part as a concern is really to shift the analysis to the question of - are GMs trustworthy? I just add "In the case that GM is trustworthy,..." and the assessment is worked out from there.I might misread this. You mean that in HCS, GM reserves all right to what's true about the world at large from moment to moment. That's how I see it, also. Locking in can mean finding out what was in prep. The character pumps an informant and finds out that no, the dirt isn't in the safe. No safe cracking required. But prep is held lightly and we're working together in an iterative process to learn what is true. It strikes me that folk get that there is an FKR method for task resolution, but I think there is also one for conflict resolution. I need to think on that more.</blockquote>

Verification