Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9142304" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is picked up in [USER=87792]@Neonchameleon[/USER]'s "fudge" mechanics, or informal equivalents, when these are regulated on the GM side. The GM permitting a player to retrospectively update their PC sheet ("I would have remembered to bring some rope!") is consistent with overall simulationist sensibilities, provided it doesn't become the norm, because it is still the GM "playing" or mediating the world. We could almost say that, in this situation, the player lets the GM temporarily play their PC, and the GM plays the PC as having remembered rope.If we formalise that sort of system into "fate tokens" or whatever - the player gets so many do-overs or retries or retrofits - but the GM maintains an overall veto over outcomes, again provided it doesn't become the norm it can be accommodated within many simulationist sensibilities.But flashbacks in BitD abandon any pretence that it is the GM who is playing the world. That's what marks the line, in my view.EDIT to address this too:The difference from knowledge checks in typical D&D (cf Wises in Burning Wheel) is that those knowledge checks still have the GM playing the world.</blockquote>