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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9087892" data-attributes="member: 42582">Really? Meaningless in all RPG systems? And you know this how?[USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] has already discussed the idea of engaging the fiction, and credibility tests (which [USER=59]@Citizen Mane[/USER] and I also posted about way upthread), and so I don't need to reiterate that.But suppose that a character declares (9) and it passes the credibility test. What skills and attributes are brought to bear to establish the player-side effort? What is the difficulty? If the test succeeds, what does this tell us about the overall situation? Suppose the test fails, what consequence follows - it seems obvious that it will be different from, say, the consequence that might flow from a failed attempt at (4).Here's an actual play example that is in the neighbourhood:In a Cortex+ Fantasy Hack game that I GMed, the PCs had been teleported deep into a dungeon by a Crypt Thing. Mechanically, the doom pool had grown to include 2d12; I spent those dice to end the scene, and open a new scene with the PCs in an unknown dungeon room. I also declared that each of the PCs was subject to a Complication (d12 Lost in the Dungeon); and I narrated, among other things, strange runes on the walls of this room. One of the players declared that his PC read the runes to see if they provided clues as to a way out of the Dungeon; mechanically, he put together a pool of dice to try and eliminate his Lost in the Dungeon Complication. The roll succeeded, and so it was established that the runes did, indeed, provide such a clue. Had the roll failed, a different sort of consequence would have followed.What I've just said, including an actual play example, shows that this is nonsense.This question has been answered above, and will be further answered below.You are assuming here that good choice vs mediocre choice is something that flows from the GM's decision-making about the fiction. But it needn't. Choices can be good and bad because of the way the system allows the player to build a dice pool (as in Burning Wheel, or Torchbearer, or Agon 2e, or MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic) or to adjust their dice roll (as in the choices made in a  4e skill challenge). They can also be good or bad in an aesthetic sense, in so far as they reveal or establish something about the character or the situation.The example I just gave of reading the runes illustrates both possibilities. So does this example, from a 4e skill challenge:I don't know what you mean by "fail forward" here. You're not using it in the way that those who coined the term (Ron Edwards, Luke Crane) used it.And you know this how? In this thread I've provided multiple actual play examples, via links, quotes and retellings. Many illustrate adversity occurring. For instance, I posted an example of a PC, in Traveller, crawling through a tight space and tearing their protective suit in the process, thus being exposed to the world's corrosive atmosphere (mechanically, consecutive failed Vacc Suit throws). The PC then had to try and find a way into the enemy's installation before dying from the effects of the atmosphere. Where is this mooted lack of adversity?</blockquote>

Verification