Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9117733" data-attributes="member: 42582">The Arakani thing you describe, in Burning Wheel, would be a Wises check (Arakani-wise, or Spider-wise, or even Taboo-wise) which is the sort of codification you are not a big fan of. Thus the question of whether the GM rolls with it, or instead plays on a misunderstanding, would be settled by the outcome of the check (success or failure) rather than the GM's own decision.I think background elements can often have a similar structure (as in "I recall . . . "). So I wouldn't normally see them as examples of, or analogous to, "event Y occurs".Something I have reiterated in this thread, since post 211, and in many previous threads, is that a RPG doesn't needs players to have "event Y occurs" powers in order for the players to have the sort of agency I am interested in. Because the Arakani example - suitably generalised - is sufficient. Which is also why I push back so strongly on this language of "altering reality", as your Arakani example does not involve any altering of reality either in the fiction or at the table.</blockquote>