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="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8416010" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Don't you think that is a haaaaaaaaair bit of a false equivalence?  Inspiration is a bolt-on piece of exception-based design tech that can be trivially (and overwhelmingly is) ignored.  Climbing rules are a fundamental piece of the rules chassis used to negotiate what happens when a very typical conflict emerges within the game.Its like comparing a car's drivetrain to its infotainment system HUD.I'm putting these two together because I didn't get an answer that is helpful to me in my understanding.  You added some caveats here as Snarf did (maybe in this particular conflict the GM knows something that the player doesn't...maybe this "event isn't what the game is about").  The bottom paragraphs are helpful, however, so thanks for that.Let me go back to what I was trying to suss out:1)  No caveats.  The obstacle is the obstacle and no fundamentally unknowable thing is happening.  Beating the obstacle is sufficiently "what the game is about" such that you need rules to resolve it.  Its THE CLIMB OF WALL SUCKINGTON TO REACH THE PLACE OF IMPORTANTITUDE.2)  In order for the climbing player to orient themselves to the challenge such that they can navigate a "climbing-coherent decision-point", they need some kind of rules structure to buttress that cognitive loop of orientation > navigation decision-point > act that they are undertaking.  If the FKR GM composes a rules structure that fails to buttress (or perhaps actually does the opposite), what happens?  Does the climber player say "how about x, y, z?"  Is that an episode of "the edifice of trust being established through conversation" or is that an episode of "the situation is fraught and the trust is broken?"  Assuming CLIMBS OF WALL SUCKINGTON isn't an aberration and is sufficiently common (maybe once a session-ish?), does whatever spins out of this instantiation of climbing rules now get enshrined as "go to" climbing rules?  It seems your answer is either:* "negative, next time we encounter a climbing obstacle of consequence we instantiate something else and potentially have another trust establishing/eroding conversation with the climber because there is no encoding of rules in FKR."or* "play has now encoded these rules for future use through the negotiation with climber person and trust has been established/preserved/grown."Is it the former or the latter (I feel like maybe the latter?)?</blockquote>

Verification