Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8429680" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I appreciate it, but this doesn't help me.&nbsp; I've got tons and tons and tons of play excerpts from my various games on here in the format I'm looking for.&nbsp; You can refer to any of those for clarity.&nbsp; But here is what I'm looking for:GM:&nbsp; The situation surrounding your perilous journey is &lt;x, y, and z&gt;.Player:&nbsp; So if we go the x route then &lt;suite of possible consequences&gt;...but if we go the y route then we're moving headlong into z.&nbsp; Alright, what about if we &lt;did this other thing&gt;?&nbsp; Do the weather conditions look like they'll hold or is a chill wind blowing?GM:&nbsp; &lt;decides how to mechanize if a chill wind is blowing or makes a principled decision about a chill wind blowing based more on just &quot;playing the world&quot; (because the world can be played with both chill winds and without)&gt;&nbsp; Looks like a chill wind is blowing!Player:&nbsp; Alright, well, we're going to &lt;do this thing that seems like it needs either a group check or contest of some kind against the elements or some kind of trekking move resolution&gt;.GM:&nbsp; Alright, everyone roll &lt;whatever&gt; and I'll roll &lt;whatever&gt;.&nbsp; If you get &lt;however many&gt; successes against my roll, then you succeed (why are we going this route to resolve this conflict?).&nbsp; If you don't, something goes wrong.Players:&nbsp; &lt;Fail to get the necessary successes&gt;&nbsp; Sucktacular!GM:&nbsp; Alright &lt;this thing happens&gt; (what is the thing and why does it happen vs some other thing happening - ANSWER THIS WITHOUT SAYING &quot;PLAY THE WORLD&quot;...because the world can be played with multiple possible results).[HR][/HR]That is what I'm looking for.&nbsp; That level of post-mortem is instructive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8429680, member: 6696971"] I appreciate it, but this doesn't help me. I've got tons and tons and tons of play excerpts from my various games on here in the format I'm looking for. You can refer to any of those for clarity. But here is what I'm looking for: GM: The situation surrounding your perilous journey is <x, y, and z>. Player: So if we go the x route then <suite of possible consequences>...but if we go the y route then we're moving headlong into z. Alright, what about if we <did this other thing>? Do the weather conditions look like they'll hold or is a chill wind blowing? GM: <decides how to mechanize if a chill wind is blowing or makes a principled decision about a chill wind blowing based more on just "playing the world" (because the world can be played with both chill winds and without)> Looks like a chill wind is blowing! Player: Alright, well, we're going to <do this thing that seems like it needs either a group check or contest of some kind against the elements or some kind of trekking move resolution>. GM: Alright, everyone roll <whatever> and I'll roll <whatever>. If you get <however many> successes against my roll, then you succeed (why are we going this route to resolve this conflict?). If you don't, something goes wrong. Players: <Fail to get the necessary successes> Sucktacular! GM: Alright <this thing happens> (what is the thing and why does it happen vs some other thing happening - ANSWER THIS WITHOUT SAYING "PLAY THE WORLD"...because the world can be played with multiple possible results). [HR][/HR] That is what I'm looking for. That level of post-mortem is instructive. [/QUOTE]

Verification