Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7336426" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think so.The first qualification: &quot;saying 'yes'&quot; is an alternative - so the fiction just evolves in accordance with the player's evinced desire. This is for low-stakes stuff, for establishing the narrative connections necessary to get crunch-moment A linked to crunch-moment B, etc.The second qualification: system makes a difference here. Eg 4e uses treasure parcels for loot. If the players declare a low stakes &quot;Is there loot?&quot; action (eg they've beaten up on some hobgoblins and now want to search them) or &quot;Is there a secret door here&quot; (where they don't really care one way or the other, they're just wondering and engaging in generic D&amp;D behaviour) then I'll say &quot;nothing to see here&quot; and move things on.For the second case, that's a version of what I was talking about upthread as &quot;The GM tells the players some more fiction.&quot; Basically what I'm saying is &quot;I've got nothing interesting to give you here that involves secret doors; let's move on to the good stuff.&quot;For the first case, becaus treasure is on a system-determined feed there is no deprivation of treasure by saying &quot;Can we skip the hobgoblins and get on to something more interesting?&quot; (Other systems which don't use treasure parcels are different in this respect; eg in my BW game looking for treasure is almost always high stakes.)Because the above is all about assessing stakes, degree of buy-in, etc in framing, interpreting action declarations, etc, there's scope for error! One does one's best.The third qualification (or gloss, rather): action resolution, fictional positioning etc, are all system-relative. Marvel Heroic/Cortex+ Heroic is very liberal in how the players engage fictional positioning, establish new elements of it (via creating assets), etc. So lots of hijinks in that system. Burning Wheel is more gritty, at least as I experience it, and so what counts as a permissible action declaration and hence outcome will probably be more constrained (as far as the gonzo-ness is concerned) but more intense.4e D&amp;D is gonzo but probably not as liberal as Cortex+ Heroic. So rather than the players establishing the extra fictional positioning they might need by creatig assets, at least as I experience it there is a lot of informal negotiation between players and GM about what is or isn't possible (using things like &quot;the tiers of play&quot;, particular PC abilities, etc to guide that).Hopefully this answer plus qualifications/glosses helps!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7336426, member: 42582"] I think so. The first qualification: "saying 'yes'" is an alternative - so the fiction just evolves in accordance with the player's evinced desire. This is for low-stakes stuff, for establishing the narrative connections necessary to get crunch-moment A linked to crunch-moment B, etc. The second qualification: system makes a difference here. Eg 4e uses treasure parcels for loot. If the players declare a low stakes "Is there loot?" action (eg they've beaten up on some hobgoblins and now want to search them) or "Is there a secret door here" (where they don't really care one way or the other, they're just wondering and engaging in generic D&D behaviour) then I'll say "nothing to see here" and move things on. For the second case, that's a version of what I was talking about upthread as "The GM tells the players some more fiction." Basically what I'm saying is "I've got nothing interesting to give you here that involves secret doors; let's move on to the good stuff." For the first case, becaus treasure is on a system-determined feed there is no deprivation of treasure by saying "Can we skip the hobgoblins and get on to something more interesting?" (Other systems which don't use treasure parcels are different in this respect; eg in my BW game looking for treasure is almost always high stakes.) Because the above is all about assessing stakes, degree of buy-in, etc in framing, interpreting action declarations, etc, there's scope for error! One does one's best. The third qualification (or gloss, rather): action resolution, fictional positioning etc, are all system-relative. Marvel Heroic/Cortex+ Heroic is very liberal in how the players engage fictional positioning, establish new elements of it (via creating assets), etc. So lots of hijinks in that system. Burning Wheel is more gritty, at least as I experience it, and so what counts as a permissible action declaration and hence outcome will probably be more constrained (as far as the gonzo-ness is concerned) but more intense. 4e D&D is gonzo but probably not as liberal as Cortex+ Heroic. So rather than the players establishing the extra fictional positioning they might need by creatig assets, at least as I experience it there is a lot of informal negotiation between players and GM about what is or isn't possible (using things like "the tiers of play", particular PC abilities, etc to guide that). Hopefully this answer plus qualifications/glosses helps! [/QUOTE]

Verification