Istvan Vanoson:
Sierpinski:
Istvan Vanoson:
But I didn't say it IC because if I did, I knew someone WOULD ask, and that then it would almost certainly come back to bite Istvan, and I didn't actually want it to.
Surely we'll notice him not drinking. The hosts probably will. That seems like it would prompt a question.
That... really is not changing my mind...
I just mean that someone's likely to ask either way.
If you'd like to ensure that I don't ask, you can ask me not to ask, and I won't. Unless you're explicit about it, I might not get it.
Can I ask why you don't want anyone to ask? If Sierpinski had had telepathy going with Istvan and asked him over that, would you have minded? Or is it for narrative/dramatic reasons?
Istvan Vanoson:
Yeah. And I get that it's just a game, but that intellectual awareness (and agreement on my part as well) isn't yet changing my ingrained reaction
That's unfortunate, as it seems like it's a matter of trust between participants to give each other the game/experience we want. I hope you can come to trust that, if nothing, else I (and probably the others) would not so much as chide you for making a lethal mistake.
Istvan Vanoson:
In any other type of system, if you fail a roll, you'll probably not get the information you want as easily as you might have otherwise, or, more likely, you'll take some damage (which is bad enough).
Agreed. I'm far more likely not to bother taking action in a game with those kinds of failure modes.
Istvan Vanoson:
In Dungeon World/PbtA, I often feel like if I fail a roll to attack or defend against an ogre, A RUNAWAY CARRIAGE FULL OF ORPHANS AND PUPPIES WILL SUDDENLY COME HURTLING AROUND THAT CORNER OVER THERE HEADED STRAIGHT FOR ME AND/OR THE PARTY.
And you mark experience. And the scene gets cooler, right?
But maybe you (like other's I've played with) have a sense that it's not really "fair" (or "realistic" or other similar terms) for a failure to "result in" things getting worse in that kind of way.
I can sort of see that view, but I'm given to understand that the event isn't happening because of that roll, or anything the player or character did, but because the rules arbitrarily give the GM permission to advance the game (in arbitrary ways, possibly even unknown to the characters) not just whenever they feel like it, but also on failed rolls.
In other games, a failed roll just means a failed action, with nothing resulting from it but some related consequences. Nothing more results from a failed "action" in PBtA, but a failed roll is, I guess, different from the action itself. It's something more.
But I'm quite possibly wrong about how you see it.
Istvan Vanoson:
TL;DR I feel like Dungeon World/PbtA can often escalate very quickly, and I'm having trouble shaking that feeling and the resultant state of catlike hyperalertness.
Escalation is a good thing, though, isn't it?
Edited to add: I'm super curious about the relationships people have with game, and the mental states they get into that drive caution, or incaution, or discipline or disruption. I don't especially care to change your mind, but I'm very curious. Feel free to decline to answer or respond.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:35, Fri 24 May 2019.