Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9331513" data-attributes="member: 42582">Which games do you have in mind?I can't comment on BitD, but what you say here is not an accurate description for Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World.In BW, the player declares what their character is doing and what their character hopes to achieve by doing that thing. As per [USER=7044099]@zakael19[/USER]'s post not far upthread, if the goal/intent is unclear then the player and GM discuss it until it is clear. The GM then establishes the difficulty, using the very extensive heuristics provided in the rulebooks, and the player then rolls the dice. If the test succeeds, then the PC's succeeds at their task and achieves their goal/intent. Otherwise the GM narrates what happens, having particular regard to ensuring failure of intent and building on what is implicit or explicit in the fiction about what a failure will look like.This is quite different from "choosing a success outcome". It begins with action declaration. So, for instance, Aedhros has no power to control the weather and so I can't, when playing Aedhros, choose a "success outcome" like "it starts raining heavily, thus hiding Aedhros and his tracks". But I can declare as an action that Aedhros tries to skulk unnoticed by watchers; and if my check fails, the GM could include the weather as part of the narration of the failure (eg the sun comes out from behind a cloud, and shines on Aedhros for all to see) - this would be particularly apt if Alicia was also in the scene, as Alicia is a weather witch.In AW, the player declares what their player is doing and then, if that action does not trigger a player-side move the GM makes a move (typically a soft move) and if that action does trigger a player-side move then the dice are rolled. And the move then says what happens on a success and (sometimes) on a failure (but by default a failed roll permits the GM to make as hard and direct a move as they like). The player doesn't "choose a success outcome" and then roll.So this is why I'm curious what games you have in mind, in your description.Well, I'm pretty sure I've quoted the BW rulebook already in this thread, which states that the job of the GM is to frame scenes that address player-determined priorities. So that would be a RPG where the players unilaterally establish what is at stake, at least in general terms.The fact that the GM gets to narrate failure doesn't affect this. The GM's narration of failure is expressly expected to address the intent of the action, and the intent will - in turn - be connected to one of those player-determined priorities.In AW, too, the GM's moves are defined by reference to what the player takes to be at stake for their PC - that's why they are framed in normative terms like "announce badness" or "put them in a spot" or "provide an opportunity".Again I'd like to know what RPGs you have in mind.The only "no weasels" rule I'm familiar with is in the Burning Wheel family of games, and what it means is that once an obstacle has been framed, the dice have to be rolled. The player can't withdraw their action declaration just because they don't like the odds. This is not a rule that has any bearing on what is at stake. I mean, in BW the dice are only rolled if something is at stake, and as I already posted that is determined by reference to player-determined priorities.</blockquote>

Verification