Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9196575" data-attributes="member: 42582">The connection is this:How does the GM introduce complications and adversity into the fictional situation? One way is to do so when the players fail a roll. I've provided an actual play example of this (the failed Cook test).Another is for the GM to do whenever they think it makes sense. Presumably this is what those who are critical of the Torchbearer approach to adjudication favour. I hope it's fairly clear why someone - eg me! - would see this principle as pretty close to railroading.This goes back to my previous post: if someone ran &quot;trad&quot; games for players who are used to playing 4e D&amp;D, or Burning Wheel, or other non-&quot;trad&quot; games, they may not be onboard with the basic principle of &quot;GM decides&quot;. There is in my view nothing distinctive about (say) Burning Wheel or Torchbearer or Apocalypse World that requires game participants to be on board.I've not had the experience of it being counter to intuition. It's a game rule, like any other game rule.And the adjudication of the dice roll is about the result of the cooking. The cooking takes time, generates smoke and smell, etc. The result of that is that bandits turn up.The roll doesn't represent anything at all. It is an event that occurs at the table. It establishes who gets to say what next, about what happens in the fiction.What seems confused and illogical to me is your insistence that rules play a representational function that it's obvious that they don't.Well, I quoted John Harper explaining how &quot;ninjas attack&quot; is not how Apocalypse World works. And then you made a post where you suggested, as failure naration, &quot;ninjas attack&quot;. Hence why I see the confusion, illogicality and problems establishing narrative continuities as ones that you have, not ones that I have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9196575, member: 42582"] The connection is this: How does the GM introduce complications and adversity into the fictional situation? One way is to do so when the players fail a roll. I've provided an actual play example of this (the failed Cook test). Another is for the GM to do whenever they think it makes sense. Presumably this is what those who are critical of the Torchbearer approach to adjudication favour. I hope it's fairly clear why someone - eg me! - would see this principle as pretty close to railroading. This goes back to my previous post: if someone ran "trad" games for players who are used to playing 4e D&D, or Burning Wheel, or other non-"trad" games, they may not be onboard with the basic principle of "GM decides". There is in my view nothing distinctive about (say) Burning Wheel or Torchbearer or Apocalypse World that requires game participants to be on board. I've not had the experience of it being counter to intuition. It's a game rule, like any other game rule. And the adjudication of the dice roll [I]is[/I] about the result of the cooking. The cooking takes time, generates smoke and smell, etc. The result of that is that bandits turn up. The roll doesn't represent anything at all. It is an event that occurs at the table. It establishes who gets to say what next, about what happens in the fiction. What seems confused and illogical to me is your insistence that rules play a representational function that it's obvious that they don't. Well, I quoted John Harper explaining how "ninjas attack" is [I]not[/I] how Apocalypse World works. And then you made a post where you suggested, as failure naration, "ninjas attack". Hence why I see the confusion, illogicality and problems establishing narrative continuities as ones that you have, not ones that I have. [/QUOTE]

Verification