Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9008945" data-attributes="member: 82106">I'm not entirely sure it is meaningful to even think about your #1 as 'failure'. It is a purely fictional narrative state. That is, one of the character's goals was not achieved, they didn't get some reward, etc. Its only indirectly attached to the player, and it can only be undesirable in a style of play where the operational goals of the character are projected onto the player (IE classic D&amp;D play where the goal of the player is 'skilled play' as measured by the character getting 'the gold' or whatever). In narrativist play there are none of these 'type 1' failures. &quot;Oh, we got ambushed by orcs and everyone died fighting tooth and nail to save the holy relics, except Tasha, she hid in a tree.&quot; There's nothing uncool about that, necessarily, not unless everyone was of a mind that this 'unwelcome' outcome was somehow subverting some even more cool play to come. Even in that later case I'd cast a jaundiced eye on the idea of trying to eradicate those outcomes. This is why we 'play to find out what happens' in narrative style play! Sometimes you get to find out if you will take an orc spear for your &quot;protect the holy artifacts&quot; belief or live to explore your love interest with Peter next week. Its not always a choice you're going to get! If it was, you'd be playing neo-trad, not narrativist! So think about that, the rules have a lot to say about what sort of agenda your play will be serving, although that's not really IMHO what rules are FOR, it is something they bear on and so is a designer consideration, or maybe a GM/player consideration, depending.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 9008945, member: 82106"] I'm not entirely sure it is meaningful to even think about your #1 as 'failure'. It is a purely fictional narrative state. That is, one of the character's goals was not achieved, they didn't get some reward, etc. Its only indirectly attached to the player, and it can only be undesirable in a style of play where the operational goals of the character are projected onto the player (IE classic D&D play where the goal of the player is 'skilled play' as measured by the character getting 'the gold' or whatever). In narrativist play there are none of these 'type 1' failures. "Oh, we got ambushed by orcs and everyone died fighting tooth and nail to save the holy relics, except Tasha, she hid in a tree." There's nothing uncool about that, necessarily, not unless everyone was of a mind that this 'unwelcome' outcome was somehow subverting some even more cool play to come. Even in that later case I'd cast a jaundiced eye on the idea of trying to eradicate those outcomes. This is why we 'play to find out what happens' in narrative style play! Sometimes you get to find out if you will take an orc spear for your "protect the holy artifacts" belief or live to explore your love interest with Peter next week. Its not always a choice you're going to get! If it was, you'd be playing neo-trad, not narrativist! So think about that, the rules have a lot to say about what sort of agenda your play will be serving, although that's not really IMHO what rules are FOR, it is something they bear on and so is a designer consideration, or maybe a GM/player consideration, depending. [/QUOTE]

Verification