Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7769232" data-attributes="member: 29398">See below...As soon as you say &quot;a player opting...&quot; and thus implying that players have the meta-ability to overturn dice rolls, my hackles go up.&nbsp; Not at you for saying it, of course; more at the idea that I'd ever take a system with that degree of meta-play seriously.&nbsp; So, moving on...I'm trying to separate any and all consequences (which really can be anything on any result) away from the simple succeed-fail binary underlying them.This is interestingly different to how I've seen fail-forward explained before in here.&nbsp; There it was more success is &quot;Yes&quot; and failure is &quot;Yes, but...&quot;.&nbsp; &quot;No, but instead...&quot; wasn't mentioned.Unfortunately, what it ends up with is that the most common consequence in reality is in effect banned or strongly discouraged in the game: &quot;Nothing happens&quot;.Precluding narrative inertia is problematic when one realizes that for many players and DMs the narrative only moves in one general direction - forward - and that the only way to change its direction is to first bring it to a relative stop. (though rarely do any of them likely ever think in through in those terms)&nbsp; Or, when it's apparent that it has stopped, everyone sees it as an opportunity to change direction if such is desired.It's like driving a car.&nbsp; You can go 80 mph down a straight highway but you're not going to take the right turn at the lights at that speed, are ya? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Sure, but you're again conflating consequence with decision point.Sure it does, if you don't look any further.&nbsp; Ignore consequences.Action resolution at its core is (almost always) binary, for better or worse - even in real life.&nbsp; Consequences are (almost always) completely open-ended, much more so in the game than in reality I think.&nbsp; Trying to conflate the two just leads to confusion.This perhaps points to another issue - and OS-NS difference - entirely: the expectation of continuous action.&nbsp; Very much a NS thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7769232, member: 29398"] See below... As soon as you say "a player opting..." and thus implying that players have the meta-ability to overturn dice rolls, my hackles go up. Not at you for saying it, of course; more at the idea that I'd ever take a system with that degree of meta-play seriously. So, moving on... I'm trying to separate any and all consequences (which really can be anything on any result) away from the simple succeed-fail binary underlying them. This is interestingly different to how I've seen fail-forward explained before in here. There it was more success is "Yes" and failure is "Yes, but...". "No, but instead..." wasn't mentioned. Unfortunately, what it ends up with is that the most common consequence in reality is in effect banned or strongly discouraged in the game: "Nothing happens". Precluding narrative inertia is problematic when one realizes that for many players and DMs the narrative only moves in one general direction - forward - and that the only way to change its direction is to first bring it to a relative stop. (though rarely do any of them likely ever think in through in those terms) Or, when it's apparent that it has stopped, everyone sees it as an opportunity to change direction if such is desired. It's like driving a car. You can go 80 mph down a straight highway but you're not going to take the right turn at the lights at that speed, are ya? :) Sure, but you're again conflating consequence with decision point. Sure it does, if you don't look any further. Ignore consequences. Action resolution at its core is (almost always) binary, for better or worse - even in real life. Consequences are (almost always) completely open-ended, much more so in the game than in reality I think. Trying to conflate the two just leads to confusion. This perhaps points to another issue - and OS-NS difference - entirely: the expectation of continuous action. Very much a NS thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification