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: 8592202" data-attributes="member: 71699">Say something that follows seems to be one of the ur-rules of the genre. Okay, I think it is reasonable to characterise the case as FitM.As such, there is an overarching intention that follows from the fiction (pursuing gnolls, cave, crossbow) and each reversion to mechanics shades its eventual resolution. (I was going to say - takes us closer to - but it seems conceivable that some FitM could take us further from.) I think what we're in dispute over is whether the FP that drives and legitimates that overarching intention also drives and legitimates the FitM declaration? And, further, I think we agree that it does legitimate, so I'll focus on the question of driving.I believe my intuition toward "yes" is informed by feeling that the trait-against-self FitM declaration arises from mechanics considerations that are connected with the overarching intention. Harguld wouldn't have reached the FitM were it not for the FP driving the overarching intention to load crossbow and attempt an ambush. On the same basis that we don't think of cases of FitM as being rather a series of discrete actions, I think of everything within the arc as being driven by the FP that drove the overarching intention. In part, because it would become inexplicable otherwise (it would be inexplicable for Harguld to decide to use Cunning against himself, were it not driven by the tie, which is a case of FitM within an overarching intention driven from the FP.)That's what I'm mulling over, anyway <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification