Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8254613" data-attributes="member: 16814">None of these.&nbsp; The next time you play, and an action calls the outcome of Syranna into question, it will be resolved according to the result of that action.&nbsp; More to the point, the entire formulation here is flawed in terms of a Story Now game approach -- you don't have these things set up like this.&nbsp; The sending would actually be an action declaration that would have a resolution of success or failure (or a success with complication) and would be resolved right there.&nbsp; In reality, in most such games, even casting sending would be in question -- spells in D&amp;D are compact bits of player-side fiction introduction that are not tested.&nbsp; What I mean by that is that spells in D&amp;D allow players to change the fictional state of the situation by spending a resource chit and that don't have a chance of failure to occur.&nbsp; Some may fail to have the desired effect, but the act of casting generates no consequences for the caster except the resource chit expended.&nbsp; Many allow automatic changes in the fictional state, like sending does -- unless the GM makes a blocking move, sending sends a message without fail exactly as the PC wants.&nbsp; This isn't how most Story Now games treat such things -- the casting of a spell would likely have stakes attached and be uncertain.&nbsp; So, the very framing of the question has some issues.&nbsp; Secondly, the idea that the issue of Syranna's fate must be decided offscreen is not well framed for Story Now, either.&nbsp; In Story Now, everything happens on-screen.&nbsp; The fate of Syranna would be decided by adjudication in the moment of player action declarations for their PCs.&nbsp; The best analogy I can see to your example would be that the PCs are going to risk casting a spell, and, if successful, this will generate another test to see how their goal of getting the Thayans to do something about Syranna.&nbsp; On a success, this would establish that the Thayans are going to do something, but that resolution wouldn't be decided now.&nbsp; In fact, if Syranna never comes up again in play, it would be dropped and never considered.&nbsp; If it does come up, it will be because the action requires it, and that would then test to see what might be happening.&nbsp; Perhaps, later, the PCs are doing something that impinges on the fate of Syranna, and fail, and the GM then narrates that Syranna shows up to be a threat, having evaded/defeated the Thayan authorities.&nbsp; Until then, we need not resolve Syranna's fate, and shouldn't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8254613, member: 16814"] None of these. The next time you play, and an action calls the outcome of Syranna into question, it will be resolved according to the result of that action. More to the point, the entire formulation here is flawed in terms of a Story Now game approach -- you don't have these things set up like this. The [I]sending [/I]would actually be an action declaration that would have a resolution of success or failure (or a success with complication) and would be resolved right there. In reality, in most such games, even casting sending would be in question -- spells in D&D are compact bits of player-side fiction introduction that are not tested. What I mean by that is that spells in D&D allow players to change the fictional state of the situation by spending a resource chit and that don't have a chance of failure to occur. Some may fail to have the desired effect, but the act of casting generates no consequences for the caster except the resource chit expended. Many allow automatic changes in the fictional state, like sending does -- unless the GM makes a blocking move, sending sends a message without fail exactly as the PC wants. This isn't how most Story Now games treat such things -- the casting of a spell would likely have stakes attached and be uncertain. So, the very framing of the question has some issues. Secondly, the idea that the issue of Syranna's fate must be decided offscreen is not well framed for Story Now, either. In Story Now, everything happens on-screen. The fate of Syranna would be decided by adjudication in the moment of player action declarations for their PCs. The best analogy I can see to your example would be that the PCs are going to risk casting a spell, and, if successful, this will generate another test to see how their goal of getting the Thayans to do something about Syranna. On a success, this would establish that the Thayans are going to do something, but that resolution wouldn't be decided now. In fact, if Syranna never comes up again in play, it would be dropped and never considered. If it does come up, it will be because the action requires it, and that would then test to see what might be happening. Perhaps, later, the PCs are doing something that impinges on the fate of Syranna, and fail, and the GM then narrates that Syranna shows up to be a threat, having evaded/defeated the Thayan authorities. Until then, we need not resolve Syranna's fate, and shouldn't. [/QUOTE]

Verification