Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8592657" data-attributes="member: 71699">I realised this question might help me understand something else I've been puzzling over. In the below, "=" will mean results in, "-" will mean legitimates, and ">" will mean drives. Mechanics are in bold, required narration is italicised. Our fictional position is underscored.I posit a pursuit F containing gnolls, a shadowy tunnel, H at its mouth, a crossbow.Here is one analysis<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Pursuit F -> ambush declaration</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Ambush test = tie FitM</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Tie -> spending fate declaration</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Fate = tie FitM</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Tie -> trait-against-self declaration</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">No one calls bull</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">T-A-S = tie breaks against H, H gains two checks</li> </ol>Here I've made it that each mechanical step sufficiently legitimates and drives the following action. No legitimating or driving information is carried forward from pursuit F. In this case, I believe Dro can use the same T-A-S declaration in every case of a tie, seeing as no one is referring back to pursuit F in determining bull. Bull is determined solely in consideration of the mechanical fact of a tie.Here is another analysis<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Pursuit F -> ambush declaration</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Ambush F + test = tie FitM + tie F</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Tie -> spending fate declaration</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Fate = tie FitM + fateful F</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Fateful F + tie -> trait-against-self declaration</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">No one calls bull</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">T-A-S = tie breaks against H, H gains two checks, outcome F</li> </ol>Here I've made it that the pursuit F translates to an ambush F, which in turn translates to a tie F. That maps change along the second of Baker's two timelines. Our pursuit F (pursuing gnolls, a shadowy tunnel, H at its mouth, a crossbow) is changed by an ambush declaration into ambush F, which in turn is changed by test results into tie F, which is then nuanced by fate into fateful F (rerolling wyrms a character might come to have a deeper understanding, or rerolling 6s they might laugh or shudder in the face of the grimdark.) Our fateful F distinguishes this tie from other tied situations, so that a declaration that might be deemed bull elsewhere, works here.Unsurprisingly my intuitions lean toward the second analysis. Pursuit F alone is necessary, but not sufficent to drive Dro's T-A-S declaration. On the other hand, if I say that fateful F is necessary and sufficient then I can simply write out a discrete action with fateful F as my new starting point.I posit a fateful F containing a shadowy tunnel, a gnoll and H at its mouth, a crossbow, an ambush that could go either way.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Fateful F -> trait-against-self declaration</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">No one calls bull</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">T-A-S = ambush tie breaks against H, H gains two checks, outcome F</li> </ol>If I don't want to do that, then I feel that I am saying that pursuit F matters to the whole arc. Otherwise fateful F is just the outcome F of an earlier discrete action. My choice feels like one between deeming it a genuine case of FitM, or saying that it's not. Choosing the latter, I'd want to also feel sure how I can exclude this case without calling into doubt the notion of FitM altogether. However<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Fateful F + tie -> trait-against-self declaration</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">No one calls bull</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">T-A-S = tie breaks against H, H gains two checks, outcome F</li> </ol>Is probably more accurate. Timeline one (the tie system state) is supplying the sinew binding the action into one arc and sustaining the T-A-S declaration as FitM. Does one then suppose that sinew to be sufficent, so timeline two (fiction) needn't be perturbed by results of interstitial mechanics... and there is no tie F or fateful F? If so, one commits to a lacuna, after which the fiction blips forward to catch up with the system state. One has the same problem distinguishing tied situations for determining bull as I described above... as it ought to be impossible to say what happens in fiction between pursuit F and outcome F.Seeing as I think it is possible to say what happens - in fiction - I end up suggesting that fiction is both updated and it is carried and changed by system elements. Salient information is continuous even if in diversified form.</blockquote>

Verification