Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9196099" data-attributes="member: 4937">The point is that if it isn't somewhat obvious to the player what the stakes of a test are, then there is a risk that from the players perspective everything is cloud cuckoo land where nothing has a rhyme or reason.&nbsp; So for example, &quot;I fail at cooking, therefore bandits arrive&quot;, makes no sense and while it does propel forward events it doesn't make for a narrative or a dramatic story.By contrast, &quot;We are being pursued by bandits.&nbsp; Should I stop to prepare a meal to help us recover or strength or push on to avoid losing time?&quot; does make sense.&nbsp; It's the same test but now the stakes of the test are made clear.&nbsp; Now we actually have events tied to the narrative and we actually have a story and a dramatic choice for the player to make.But, this is the rub.&nbsp; If that's really what we are doing, then &quot;Failed at cooking, bandits show up&quot; still makes absolutely no sense.&nbsp;&nbsp; Because if you imagine this situation, even if the players is failing at his cooking, what the consequences of that failure are should ultimately be predictable to the player.&nbsp; So the player might burn the dinner, in which case they don't get the full benefit of a meal in terms of fortifying the party.&nbsp;&nbsp; Or the player might take too long to make the dinner, in which case the player gets the choice to say, &quot;Well, the hour we allocated to our break is coming to a close, we need to decide whether or not to extend the break or break camp without finishing dinner.&quot;&nbsp; The problem in my experience with the Nar perspective that too often GMs are going, &quot;What would be the fun in finding out whether or not the meal is well cooked?&nbsp; I know, we can have bandits show up!&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; And that's not actually collaborating on a story together.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9196099, member: 4937"] The point is that if it isn't somewhat obvious to the player what the stakes of a test are, then there is a risk that from the players perspective everything is cloud cuckoo land where nothing has a rhyme or reason. So for example, "I fail at cooking, therefore bandits arrive", makes no sense and while it does propel forward events it doesn't make for a narrative or a dramatic story. By contrast, "We are being pursued by bandits. Should I stop to prepare a meal to help us recover or strength or push on to avoid losing time?" does make sense. It's the same test but now the stakes of the test are made clear. Now we actually have events tied to the narrative and we actually have a story and a dramatic choice for the player to make. But, this is the rub. If that's really what we are doing, then "Failed at cooking, bandits show up" still makes absolutely no sense. Because if you imagine this situation, even if the players is failing at his cooking, what the consequences of that failure are should ultimately be predictable to the player. So the player might burn the dinner, in which case they don't get the full benefit of a meal in terms of fortifying the party. Or the player might take too long to make the dinner, in which case the player gets the choice to say, "Well, the hour we allocated to our break is coming to a close, we need to decide whether or not to extend the break or break camp without finishing dinner." The problem in my experience with the Nar perspective that too often GMs are going, "What would be the fun in finding out whether or not the meal is well cooked? I know, we can have bandits show up!" And that's not actually collaborating on a story together. [/QUOTE]

Verification