Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9034516" data-attributes="member: 71699">This said, flat failure can act to derail story much as called out in [USER=7036985]@andreszarta[/USER]'s third paragraph in #1646. Not because it imposes GM's version of events, but because no one's version is made to prevail.In that sense, [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s concerns about the player experience are right. Even though I would separate it out from whether the play is that in which GM's decides the fiction. Acknowledged that historically it has very often accompanied that sort of play... it's actually deprioritising of stories players have in mind that it drives. Making it unsuitable for play prioritising player character stories.How is failure-with-setback any different? In many cases it's exactly where GM does add twists to the fiction. If that is not to also derail player stories there must be a principle relating the setbacks to such stories. Flat failure obviously lacks the resources to relate to anything. In the face of flat failure, stories crumble. GM stories are not typically subject to die rolls so wind up prevailing just by default... which is suitable for modes in which that's intended.In this case I change my mind onand am in agreement that it could be experienced exactly that way by many participants. One route away from that is to let the chips fall as they may on all sides, i.e. ensure that any stories on GM's side are equally subject to flat failure. The BBEG rolls to see if they draw the army of darkness to their side.... nope, that fails. That kind of roll can play a part in play prioritising gamism and simulationism.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9034516, member: 71699"] This said, flat failure can act to derail story much as called out in [USER=7036985]@andreszarta[/USER]'s third paragraph in #1646. Not because it imposes GM's version of events, but because no one's version is made to prevail. In that sense, [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s concerns about the player experience are right. Even though I would separate it out from whether the play is that in which GM's decides the fiction. Acknowledged that historically it has very often accompanied that sort of play... it's actually deprioritising of stories players have in mind that it drives. Making it unsuitable for play prioritising player character stories. How is failure-with-setback any different? In many cases it's exactly where GM does add twists to the fiction. If that is not to also derail player stories there must be a principle relating the setbacks to such stories. Flat failure obviously lacks the resources to relate to anything. In the face of flat failure, stories crumble. GM stories are not typically subject to die rolls so wind up prevailing just by default... which is suitable for modes in which that's intended. In this case I change my mind on and am in agreement that it could be experienced exactly that way by many participants. One route away from that is to let the chips fall as they may on all sides, i.e. ensure that any stories on GM's side are equally subject to flat failure. The BBEG rolls to see if they draw the army of darkness to their side.... nope, that fails. That kind of roll can play a part in play prioritising gamism and simulationism. [/QUOTE]

Verification