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: 8614523" data-attributes="member: 71699">I'm not suggesting a retcon or disingenous "forgetting". Rather I am outlining a thought experiment to help see that it is player cognitive states now that are used to judge fictional position (to agree or deny the hypothesis). People are occasionally forgetful. Someone says something like - "Wasn't there a door there?" - and everyone may nod even if as it happens, half an hour ago, it had been established there were only walls. We forgot, or perhaps we didn't care, or maybe it suited us. In the case of genuine forgetting, the narration will continue coherently for those involved. (Given we genuinely forgot, we're not in possession of any conflicting facts to produce a sense of incoherence.)I won't adress the question of whether arguing about now vs a microscopic instant ago would be splitting hairs, because that isn't what I've been arguing. To tie this back to what I was arguing, I proposed two descriptions of events. I'll update the second as follows. I've flipped the arrows to make it clearer that I agree the declarations are tests against fictional positioning at that moment.We have a pursuit fictional position which we know (have agreed) to be containing gnolls, a shadowy tunnel, H at its mouth, a crossbow.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Pursuit fictional position <- ambush declaration</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Ambush fictional position <- test = tie FitM + tied fictional position</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Tie <- spending fate declaration</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Fate = tie FitM <- fateful fictional position</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Fateful fictional position + 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 fictional position</li> </ol>At 1. the ambush declaration is validated in a fictional position evaluated at that time (the pursuit fictional position.)At 2. the fictional position has been agreed to contain an H intent on ambush, and this drives a test, which results in a tie (case of FitM.) Here I am suggesting that it is either unavoidable or very likely that - were a hypothesis put to players - their evaluations would be influenced by the tie. I observe folk narrating that sort of thing during play sessions. There is a noticeable difference versus narration around wide disparities in number of successes. The SIS changes.At 3. I believe that spending fate isn't subject to validation by the group. (Happy to be corrected if mistaken.)At 4. The trait against self declaration has to be validated by the group (per Reaching) so there is a test at this time of fictional positioning. My intuition is that it will be normal for the tied roll to be a factor in grasping how things stand beyond its provision of a system state that permits or prompts the declaration (i.e. how things stand in the fiction.) Folk will be considering the use of Cunning in light of the tie. They'll think about what D says: does it make sense where things are tight? It seems unavoidable and in fact desirable to me that the tied roll can influence their grasp of the fictional position. I also suspect that for some groups, sometimes, the "denied" fate itself will inform their sense of the fiction. (Hence fateful fictional position, to leave the door open to that possibility.)So that is what was at issue. I picture that the time between 2. and 5. will be minutes or certainly no less than seconds. Anything much over 1/5th of a second is long enough for cognition to accurately respond to information.</blockquote>

Verification