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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8593854" data-attributes="member: 82106">I am of the opinion, and I think RE's essay supports this in a general sense, that FitM is a pretty generalized pattern. That is, the participants together describe a situation and approach (with in TB2 the GM being pretty much the exclusive 'setter of the stage'), at which point we have established the ELEMENTS of the situation, and the INTENT to be resolved (IE in this case Dro wants to slow down the gnolls and the elements are the PC, the gnolls, the crossbow, the cave with the turn at the end, and the relative positions of the two parties). AT THAT POINT no fiction beyond this has been established. We know in a general sense that Dro's character is going to use his crossbow to slow down the gnolls, and this seems plausible, when they encounter his fire they will likely take cover, at least long enough to assess the situation/mass up to all charge him at once, etc. The point is this 'pre-Fortune' stage is when the GM has decided that valid elements of a challenge exist, and the player has committed himself to action, etc. NO FICTION HAS HAPPENED YET beyond in initial establishment. There's nothing beyond the basic situation to hang narrative upon. Now the 'Fortune' happens. AFTER THAT the GM and/or player (some set of participants) will narrate some kind of appropriate fiction. In this case Dro fails the check, so he knows some sort of narration is coming which nullifies his intent, in this case it means CLEARLY that the gnolls are not going to be delayed. He thus invokes another mechanical option in an attempt to swing the result to a success. Had that happened, his intent would be achieved, although the exact effects (IE is the gnoll hit by the bolt or merely frightened enough to take cover and thus cause his allies to also pause) would still need to be narrated. In fact, the check still failed, and now Dro decides it is more worthwhile to get checks than to succeed (this seems a purely gamist/mechanical consideration, earning a type of currency in return for a less favorable fictional position). Note that what the fiction actually is STILL HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED, so it is clear it could be ANYTHING and Dro isn't reacting to that specifically, there's no 'cloud' at this point to start from!Finally the second half of the fiction comes in which Dro justifies, in the fiction, where his invocation of Cunning is coming from and how it manifests, that he waits too long to take the shot and loses the moment.There are some interesting questions here about how things should proceed from that point, but I don't think they're germane to your argument. They are more in terms of following framing options and how the GM should respond to any additional action declarations by Dro which appear to essentially relitigate the situation (IE what if he takes up another choke point further on and again attempts to delay the gnolls?). In a task based system this kind of question doesn't arise, you can simply establish that you have another opportunity to carry out your task and do it. In a game where intent is being adjudicated this doesn't make sense, you already failed! Thus I would probably frame the next scene something like "Dro sees the whole pack bearing down on him swiftly! Can he turn and flee before they are upon him?" At this point I might simply apply a twist to the previous failure, saying that he's dropped his crossbow and he's now fleeing, with the gnolls literally nipping at his heels! I suppose, alternately, if the player wants to acquire the dead condition, maybe I'd let him have a "good idea" and be eaten, surely the gnolls will be slowed by THAT! lol. Even that might deserve another check though, they could just run past and leave him for the gnoll cubs... lol.</blockquote>

Verification