Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9034611" data-attributes="member: 71699">I see this rule as deconstructible, like thisIf a player declares an action for their PC, and then makes a roll to determine the outcome of that action declaration, and the roll fails,So this fits what I have loosely called "description" (I acknowledge a burden to find a better term.) What did we hear and see? It should be called attention to that at least one other rule is implied here. I don't think that is of importance to the discussion at hand. If it is, we can pick it up later.the GM must say something about what happens next,Where the description matches the rule it invokes it: functionally, GM must now say something about what happens nextand the thing that the GM says must clearly defeat or set back the goal the player was hoping the action would achieve for their PC.The rule will fail if the description does not include the goal the player is hoping to achieve. Therefore it applies that criterion retroactively to secure that the description contains a goal. You can see how that could go in play. With that in place, the rule supplies an explicit statement relating to fitting consequences: if whatever GM says does not defeat or setback the goal, then they have failed to choose a consequence that fits.I can make the assumption that defeat or setback is unwanted, given that the rule solicited player goal and one assumes goals are things that players want, while defeat of goals is something they don't want. If that assumption is a good one, then this rule alone is an appropriate lusory means that can secure the unwelcome and the unwanted. Suppose that defeat did not debar further attempts? In that case the unwanted will come down to inefficient means (I have to spend an hour when I wanted to spend a minute, or perhaps must pay the costs all over again.)There's more that can be said, but this seems like a good place to pause and take stock.</blockquote>

Verification