Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8238385" data-attributes="member: 16814">Not [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER], but I hope he doesn't mind if I offer my answers to these -- his may differ.1)&nbsp; It's up to the GM, within some constraints.&nbsp; Usually, this won't at all be prep, because the way these games work, by the time your here, any prep you may have had is likely way out the window (or at least that's my experience), but it might be related to some prep.&nbsp;&nbsp; The GM has the authority to narrate the consequence, but, as I said, this is constrained by the game.&nbsp; The failure must run counter to the intent and goal of the action declaration -- if they need the Baron before a deadline that's 2 1/2 months away, the, yes, 3 months is probably required.&nbsp; If it's just an immediate need, the GM is free to ad lib this within the established fiction and the genre of the game.&nbsp; Genre is very important to these styles of games, because it provide a framework to the logic used in success and failures.&nbsp; If it's a game that has tropes of medieval times, for instance, travel is usually extended for nobility, so 3 months seems appropriate, genre-wise.&nbsp; If none of this applies, it's just up to the GM to make as hard a move as they want to.2) No, unless lots of effort is put into it.&nbsp; One of the key things to approaching games like this is that successes and failures stand.&nbsp; You don't let players easily walk back a failure, and the GM doesn't similarly walk back player successes.&nbsp; If the players put together a plan to get the Baron to return early, and put effort into it, then, sure, that's something that they can do.&nbsp; They cannot, however, just incorporate this ask into a follow-on action declaration and expect it to flow.&nbsp; That the Duke is gone for 3 months is now part of established fiction, and, as such, is not up for revision without taking direct action to revise it.&nbsp; And, that action should not be trivial, but painful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8238385, member: 16814"] Not [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER], but I hope he doesn't mind if I offer my answers to these -- his may differ. 1) It's up to the GM, within some constraints. Usually, this won't at all be prep, because the way these games work, by the time your here, any prep you may have had is likely way out the window (or at least that's my experience), but it might be related to some prep. The GM has the authority to narrate the consequence, but, as I said, this is constrained by the game. The failure must run counter to the intent and goal of the action declaration -- if they need the Baron before a deadline that's 2 1/2 months away, the, yes, 3 months is probably required. If it's just an immediate need, the GM is free to ad lib this within the established fiction and the genre of the game. Genre is very important to these styles of games, because it provide a framework to the logic used in success and failures. If it's a game that has tropes of medieval times, for instance, travel is usually extended for nobility, so 3 months seems appropriate, genre-wise. If none of this applies, it's just up to the GM to make as hard a move as they want to. 2) No, unless lots of effort is put into it. One of the key things to approaching games like this is that successes and failures stand. You don't let players easily walk back a failure, and the GM doesn't similarly walk back player successes. If the players put together a plan to get the Baron to return early, and put effort into it, then, sure, that's something that they can do. They cannot, however, just incorporate this ask into a follow-on action declaration and expect it to flow. That the Duke is gone for 3 months is now part of established fiction, and, as such, is not up for revision without taking direct action to revise it. And, that action should not be trivial, but painful. [/QUOTE]

Verification