Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7324192" data-attributes="member: 29398">Familiar with the concept?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; Enamoured with the concept?&nbsp; Not really.There's two* mechanical ways of arriving at a narration** of what is in effect a partial success e.g. you find the map but it's behind 6&quot; of glassteel, or you find it but immediately set it on fire by accident.&nbsp; One is fail-forward, where in effect a failure is often mitigated into a partial success.&nbsp; The other is (and if anyone has a better term for this, I'm all ears) more like succeed-backward, where it's a success that's mitigated by other circumstances rather than a failure - which remains a flat failure.&nbsp; Of these I prefer the second approach as - and again I can't think of the best term for this - it in effect makes the game a bit &quot;harder&quot;.And why is this good?&nbsp; Because without some failure and frustration now and then to measure the successes against the successes become ho-hum, and then become expected.* - well, probably way more than two; but here my point is to highlight the difference between just these two options** - this narration could be from the DM's pre-done notes, or made up on the fly, or whatever - here the method doesn't matterAnd from your next post:Er...your bias is showing. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I don't demand the &quot;Lanefan method&quot; (whatever that is), but when I see my and many others' style of gaming being slighted - and some posters here are very good at slighting something and implying it's wrong without actually coming out and saying so - then yes, I'm going to push back.Me, I'm not that diplomatic.&nbsp; Within the quite reasonable constraints of forum rules and etiquette I try to just say what I mean.&nbsp; That said, I'd far prefer to be having these discussions and arguments face to face over a beer or three in the pub: way more fun! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Lan-&quot;and the pub option would be way more efficient, too - this whole thread, for example, would have taken about 2 pints worth of time&quot;-efan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7324192, member: 29398"] Familiar with the concept? Yes. Enamoured with the concept? Not really. There's two* mechanical ways of arriving at a narration** of what is in effect a partial success e.g. you find the map but it's behind 6" of glassteel, or you find it but immediately set it on fire by accident. One is fail-forward, where in effect a failure is often mitigated into a partial success. The other is (and if anyone has a better term for this, I'm all ears) more like succeed-backward, where it's a success that's mitigated by other circumstances rather than a failure - which remains a flat failure. Of these I prefer the second approach as - and again I can't think of the best term for this - it in effect makes the game a bit "harder". And why is this good? Because without some failure and frustration now and then to measure the successes against the successes become ho-hum, and then become expected. * - well, probably way more than two; but here my point is to highlight the difference between just these two options ** - this narration could be from the DM's pre-done notes, or made up on the fly, or whatever - here the method doesn't matter And from your next post: Er...your bias is showing. :) I don't demand the "Lanefan method" (whatever that is), but when I see my and many others' style of gaming being slighted - and some posters here are very good at slighting something and implying it's wrong without actually coming out and saying so - then yes, I'm going to push back. Me, I'm not that diplomatic. Within the quite reasonable constraints of forum rules and etiquette I try to just say what I mean. That said, I'd far prefer to be having these discussions and arguments face to face over a beer or three in the pub: way more fun! :) Lan-"and the pub option would be way more efficient, too - this whole thread, for example, would have taken about 2 pints worth of time"-efan [/QUOTE]

Verification