Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7769267" data-attributes="member: 5142">Then why is the challenge being constructed this way? (1) This seems like a feature and not a bug. (2) Nothing precludes you from running it as "two (or more) discrete rolls" in Fate. The GM has a tremendous amount of latitude here. Or just one: "can I climb over the wall with the gold?" Or maybe five: Can the PC reach the top? Can the PC climb quick enough? Can the PC climb without being detected? Can the PC keep the gold in the process? Can the PC keep their shoes? You end up making an arbitrary amount of rolls based upon what you think is transpiring in the fiction. And if one roll can accomplish the same result as many while adding clear stakes, then why not streamline things a bit? But as a GM you may want, if not demand, discrete rolls from the player to put on pants, make coffee, feed the cat, lay out bowl, pour cereal, pour milk, check to eat said cereal, clean dishes, and then find the car keys. But other GMs may simply want a single roll for "getting ready in the morning" or opt for no roll at all. Why should the player have a choice if "<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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> happens" and they lose the gold through their own bungled climbing as per (a) or (c)? Doesn't that break the simulationism of chance? You don't get a choice if you lose gold, you just do? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> Why is it necessarily bad that falling has been taken off the table when the fiction establishes that the character would not have necessarily needed to roll for climbing the wall to begin with under other circumstances? You clearly want falling to be perpetually on the table. That's fine. But that is not the problem that you imagine it to be. That is a matter of preference. But I would also note that the noise factor was never under consideration in the original scenario, though it can be easily added: Overcome Stealth check or Create an Advantage with Stealth.* Furthermore, spilling some of the gold was already baked into the dice resolution system of Fate: ties. If you roll the same as your opposition, then you tie. This results in either you getting what you want with a minor cost or you getting a lesser version. It seems like spilling some of the gold doesn't so much fall into that category as much it folds and lays itself gently into that category. * The Book of Hanz, a compilation of essays written by Hanz about Fate, has a good example of multiple rolls for emulating the fiction of the scene. What perhaps is not clear from reading this is that when the spy then makes the Fighting roll, they can invoke both "In the Shadows" and "On the Pipes Above the Door" for each a +2 bonus to their Fighting roll. If you "hit," then damage is the difference in result. I think there is a lot getting in the way here. For starters, I'm unsure what you mean by a "Yes" or "Yes, but..." model. Secondly, as a principle fail forward is neutral about direction. So if I ignore key words in my latter and then rearrange the words then they mean the same thing? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> It seems as if word choice and order are important for constructing meaning. So looking at that instead of trying to edit my words into what you want them to say seems more appropriate, no? By what reasonable metric? This article would scarcely pass as a sixth grade writing assignment.</blockquote>

Verification