Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9434714" data-attributes="member: 71699">AgreedI agree about the commitment to uncertainty and meaning (being of consequence).The timing - before rolling or after - is (as you and others imply) a balance between player authorship and agency, and fluid play. If player and DM negotiate what failure means before committing, player has better agency and depending on how they manage that negotiation stronger authorship. The former relies on a supposition that agency to pick A rather than B is only meaningful if you know what the difference between them is. "Button A could ignite the atmosphere killing all life on Earth? Whatever, I press it."But doing that negotiation assiduously at the table can slow play (increase the time at table between scene advances). Groups have different takes on how much of their time is worth paying (as do game systems, FTM.) What this becomes about is what a group gets satisfaction from at the table. Surely it's worth paying the cost of negotiation up front if I enjoy said negotiating!To me there isn't one right answer on the timing, which is interesting given that I've apparently argued that there is one right answer on rolls being consequential. So I'll weaken that latter commitment slightly and say that there is a kind of play that works pretty well where dead ends signal "try something else". The obviously degenerate case is "try the same thing again, with zero change to game state (fiction and system)". Just so long as one remembers to include tempo and information as dimensions of state.</blockquote>

Verification