|
Jimbozig posted:Wait, so you're saying that between the constantly bleeding wound, and the taking off of shoes to relax, it's the constantly bleeding wound that is intended to be the harmless flavor and the shoes off that is supposed to be the interesting complication?! Are you guys even thinking about what you're writing? Stigmata aren't like, an unheard of new concept. Maybe a little weird for a D&D guy but poo poo, perfectly fine if you're playing some White Wolf nonsense or a Nightbane character. Great way to throw a little weird fantasy edge on your warlock or whatever. Honestly though it doesn't matter what that flavor poo poo is, if you say it's just some trapping, any kind of punishment ever is bad. "Oh, small flavor note: My character likes to flip a coin when he's thinking, just a visual descriptor." "You lose all your coins and can't make decisions, -5 to smarts rolls til you find any coin." Just bad faith gameplay, basically. The one exception would be obviously if the player ever tried to use the flavor for raw advantage. Like I guess if this guy kept saving that blood for something. But the solution to that wouldn't be some convoluted series of forced rolls, it would be a conversation.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 06:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
The difference is in the GM actions more than anything else; it’s also the difference in player actions. I thought I was transparent, but I’ll be more axiomatic: unless the player proposed it, the GM should never unilaterally impose penalties for a character’s concept that make the character just plain worse than otherwise. A chronic penalty or a player forced to jump through hoops to play their concept* is, yes, worse than someone getting caught out one time in a way they can overcome that lets them look cool. Character concepts shouldn’t undermine character viability as a protagonist in the system unless that’s also the player’s intent. Broken glass one time doesn’t do that, even if the GM is being a jerk about it, while ‘you must keep making rolls and I will screw you over this way can.’ Now, if the player explicitly signaled wanting that to happen, or there was a lever to make the interaction temporary and reward the player (Chronicles of Darkness has Flaws provide extra exp when they come up negatively, and boy does that soften the blow; if a player wanted a permanent wound without a flaw then I would rule it doesn’t do poo poo to them because they weren’t interested in that) that’s one thing, but clearly that wasn’t the case. So, yeah, there’s a clear difference here. Not to mention that it would be fine to have the wound come up as a temporary problem like the glass, maybe even often - “ok, a difficulty has arisen - after getting jostled by the guards your wound is bleeding through your evening wear and you need to be careful or you’ll draw attention.” Or “they’re tracking you by drops of blood on the tile - you need to find a way to hide your trail despite the damnable wound.” My solution for said wound would be ‘ok, that wound is why your clearly strong and seasoned character has starting stats like everyone else, they’d be even stronger without it’ and done. *theres always nuance; let’s assume the concept doesn’t undermine other player concepts or represent an obnoxious power-play from the player in question. Joe Slowboat fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 06:59
|
|
|
Coincidentally, one of my current characters has a wound that won't be healed until me and another player finish playing out our story arc about friendship and obligation. I'm even taking a minor penalty for it because it fits what we're trying to portray. This was a discussion between both players and the GM, and isn't covered by rules because it's a game where wounds are usually just a dice roll or two to heal.Joe Slowboat posted:Not to mention that it would be fine to have the wound come up as a temporary problem like the glass, maybe even often - “ok, a difficulty has arisen - after getting jostled by the guards your wound is bleeding through your evening wear and you need to be careful or you’ll draw attention.” Or “they’re tracking you by drops of blood on the tile - you need to find a way to hide your trail despite the damnable wound.” What I'd be doing would look more like reminding the player that the wound exists, so that if it would be cool for it to be a problem in this scene, then we can make it a problem in this scene. Just "Hey Joe, is that gonna be a problem for/with your wound?" and then go with the answer. Or in your tracking example, I'd probably want to give them the option of the spotlight - "How are they tracking you? Are you making noise? Do they have dogs? Oh poo poo, Joe! Is it your wound dropping blood?" e: Hyphz, do you see what's happening here? I'm a fan of Joe, who if I had to describe to a new viewer would be "the badass guy with the stigmata", and I'm working with Joe's player to see what exactly Joe's current problems are and what he's going to do to overcome them. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 07:03
|
|
|
OpenlyEvilJello posted:I just want to note here that the House of Bourbon ruled France for almost exactly 200 years before the Revolution kicked off. to think about alternative framings of revolution that aren't strictly class war, the tokugawa shogunate lasted about 200 too, but i'm not sure how that would fit into a spire game besides hamburger loving dwarf airships
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 07:33
|
|
|
I don't think pointing to historical realities will make hyphz change his opinion. Like any of the histories of all of Chinese dynasties. Or the settling of the American colonies. Or like o god all of Rome. Both of them. Or the Holy Roman Empire or... Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 08:25
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:i agree with like 95% of Apocalyse World's system-agnostic GMing advice but I hate this, don't do it, and wouldn't want my GM to do it There is no point at which going "you failed so I am using the GM move separate them to separate you" is better than tying the narrative results of the failed roll to the current narrative situation. It's dumb clunky poo poo on the same level as players just going "I attack" over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 08:34
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:There is no point at which going "you failed so I am using the GM move separate them to separate you" is better than tying the narrative results of the failed roll to the current narrative situation. It's dumb clunky poo poo on the same level as players just going "I attack" over and over again. I'm suggesting you use both, not that you replace one with the other. You can justify what's happening however you want in the fiction (and should) but it is completely pointless and counter-productive to hide what is going on, mechanically, from the players. Also, frankly, "I attack" is perfectly fine if the mechanical interactions involved in attacking are interesting enough on their own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 08:34
|
|
|
I think in this case the advice is different depending on the level of experience the players and the GM have with the game. Experienced groups will know that "Separate them" is a hard move the GM can take, so when the GM separates them they don't need it spelled out that the GM is taking the "Separate them" hard move. Likewise losing a gun, or whatever. Same applies to the players - the GM and players might know there's a move called "Rock and roll" for shooting people, so a player in a new group might say, "I take aim with my nine millimeter, using the Rock and roll move", while a player in a more experienced group might not mention the move 'cause it's obvious by that point. I do think not invoking the rules with every narrated action is something to strive for in a narrative game. I'd say it's different in minis-with-a-map type games, you generally want to be as explicit as possible in combat there. This advice is mostly for PBTA-type games where the rules for something like an attack are generally on the lighter side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 09:38
|
|
|
Players in AW ideally should not be aware of even the existence of GM soft/hard moves. Mechanically (ie in terms of numbers) they don't have any impact on the game, and they are meant to be used more as a cheat-sheet for the sort of stuff that you should be challenging the player with when there isn't much happening (soft moves) or when they screw up a roll (hard moves). Calling them by the name that they are referred to in the rules is counterproductive IMO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 09:52
|
|
|
theironjef posted:Stigmata aren't like, an unheard of new concept. Maybe a little weird for a D&D guy but poo poo, perfectly fine if you're playing some White Wolf nonsense or a Nightbane character. Great way to throw a little weird fantasy edge on your warlock or whatever. Honestly though it doesn't matter what that flavor poo poo is, if you say it's just some trapping, any kind of punishment ever is bad. Nerdlinger and Slowboat also hit the nail on the head with their comments, but jef did a good job of summing up the spirit of what happened too. This wasn't a "Hey we negotiated a hook and the GM used the hook and I felt bad because I wasn't a bad rear end" it was flavor being treated like rules as physics and the GM forcing a player through hoops for it, including wasting limited resources and including mechanical penalties, then throwing in gotchas right out the gate. The same way it would be BS if because I describe my grizzled veteran character as having an eyepatch, so the GM constantly makes me take penalties to perception or ranged attacks. Unless the player gains commensurate benefits, and everyone is on board it with, it's a dick move. Just like the perennial bad GM maneuver "Well you decided to play a paladin, that's a tacit agreement and expectation I'm going to throw in a situation where you have to fall. If you didn't want me doing it you should've rolled a fighter -which is the class you're playing now, but shittier FYI" theironjef posted:Hey here's something besides watching a robot fight the learning of emotions in real time for six pages: I really think the problem is Wick's a product of different times, like his shtick works in the late 90's and could even be groundbreaking, but most of us have grown up. He just hasn't. I hope everyone just getting into RPGs now doesn't go through the 'be an adversarial dick" phase a lot of us who got into them as teens went through. Especially since looking at some grognards and even Gygax through the 2000's some people never outgrew it. Coolness Averted fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 10:05
|
|
|
Gort posted:I do think not invoking the rules with every narrated action is something to strive for in a narrative game. I'm not sure I agree even then, but do note that this was explicitly in the context of "take the GM advice from Apocalypse World and apply it to every RPG you run."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 10:05
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Players in AW ideally should not be aware of even the existence of GM soft/hard moves. Mechanically (ie in terms of numbers) they don't have any impact on the game, and they are meant to be used more as a cheat-sheet for the sort of stuff that you should be challenging the player with when there isn't much happening (soft moves) or when they screw up a roll (hard moves). Calling them by the name that they are referred to in the rules is counterproductive IMO. To me, it's important that the GM moves are the moves that the GM may make during play rather than an incomplete set of guidelines or examples. It's helpful for the players to know what those moves are because they form part of the expectations of play. I'm not gonna name my move, and I don't want my players to name their moves either, but as part of the conversation I'd expect both GM and players to occasionally discuss which, if any, move is being made, and I'd expect that to work both ways. For example: As the GM, I don't get to just rocks-fall-you die a player because I want to. I'd have a hard time faulting a a player for saying that that's not a move or for feeling cheated if I insisted it happened anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 10:06
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:To me, it's important that the GM moves are the moves that the GM may make during play rather than an incomplete set of guidelines or examples. It's helpful for the players to know what those moves are because they form part of the expectations of play. I'm not gonna name my move, and I don't want my players to name their moves either, but as part of the conversation I'd expect both GM and players to occasionally discuss which, if any, move is being made, and I'd expect that to work both ways. I think the reason why AW sticks more to "Help players and say, oh that thing you're doing it sounds like [defy danger] is so everyone is in agreement about stakes and appropriate rolls, and I also think the advice for naming player moves as they're done was also so folks can learn the flow of AW, then once they're comfortable you can stop. I think the reason it suggests not naming the GM moves is to avoid it feeling like an obvious formula, or forced into how you use them. Though hell I think those expectations issues I'm having currently might stem directly from players not knowing what my rules are, so operating off other frameworks. So you might be right at least reviewing them and saying "Hey folks, remember I have soft and hard moves, and these are the tools in my kit"
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 10:14
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:So you might be right at least reviewing them and saying "Hey folks, remember I have soft and hard moves, and these are the tools in my kit" If you're coming from other TTRPGs, then it'll almost certainly help the players to know that you're following rules. Just give them the MC sheet to look at. Ask them to help you follow your agendas. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 10:36
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:To me, it's important that the GM moves are the moves that the GM may make during play rather than an incomplete set of guidelines or examples. It's helpful for the players to know what those moves are because they form part of the expectations of play. I'm not gonna name my move, and I don't want my players to name their moves either, but as part of the conversation I'd expect both GM and players to occasionally discuss which, if any, move is being made, and I'd expect that to work both ways. Having conversations about expectations should ideally still happen, and what kind of consequences are within the limits of the game and which ones are not, I just don't think it's productive in the context of soft/hard moves because I'm not sure how productive it is to say "these are a list of moves that I can do as a GM but they aren't exhaustive and ideally I should just come up with stuff that fits the narrative" really is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 10:48
|
|
|
I think part of what softens the blow of a GM's hard moves in PBTA games is that the GM didn't cause them to happen, the player did by choosing to make a move, and then getting a bad result on that move. It's not like D&D where the GM rolled a 20 so you get to suffer. (though I've reversed that in my own D&D 4e game by making my players roll to defend against attacks instead of me rolling to attack them)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 10:52
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I'm not sure how productive it is to say "these are a list of moves that I can do as a GM but they aren't exhaustive and ideally I should just come up with stuff that fits the narrative" really is. This is the bit I'm disagreeing with. I don't see the GM move list as a set of incomplete guidelines that I can use, I see it as a list of the moves that I may when another rules tells me to make a move.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 11:03
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:This is the bit I'm disagreeing with. I don't see the GM move list as a set of incomplete guidelines that I can use, I see it as a list of the moves that I may when another rules tells me to make a move.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 12:06
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:The book in question is full of GM advice of the "if they don't specifically say they check for traps under the chest then a blade cuts their legs off lmao" style. So like that time my psion had his int reduced to 10 right before the major battle against the big bad and didn't get it healed by any of the clerics in the temple because "you didn't ask correctly"? He's gotten significantly better as a DM since 2007 but now the problem is I absolutely hate playing D&D from a mechanical perspective
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 12:51
|
|
|
Len posted:So like that time my psion had his int reduced to 10 right before the major battle against the big bad and didn't get it healed by any of the clerics in the temple because "you didn't ask correctly"? here's a free preview
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 12:59
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:i agree with like 95% of Apocalyse World's system-agnostic GMing advice but I hate this, don't do it, and wouldn't want my GM to do it
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 14:14
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:But there isn't any part of the rules that is player-facing that tells you to do a hard/soft move. Player moves don't tell you 'make a hard move on a 6- result', it tells the player 'prepare for the worst', so the expectation that something bad is going to happen is built-in, they just don't know exactly what is going to happen. There isn't a single player-facing rule that directly references hard/soft moves. And the rules for soft moves are even more narrative-based, because there isn't a strict rule on when you should make soft moves, just guidelines that you should use them in situations where the narrative is at a standstill and you want to move things along. OK, but that hasn't got much to do with the list of moves you can make, and you're not gonna lose anything from your experience if the players know what that list says. Splicer posted:The unspoken assumption is that you have a narrative reason for choosing that move, The AW rulebook literally says "Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 14:29
|
|
|
xiw posted:
I quite like this and it's in line with what Scum & Villainy speaks about on not making the players look incompetent. If a player fails an action then it's not because they were clumsy buffoons but instead the situation was just beyond their control or they started off well but were faced by something unanticipated. However this sort of thing, along with concepts like making up rooms on the fly has always felt a little daunting to me. I worry that if I establish some sort of in universe fact for the locale (Expert Security has done a good job on this facility's locks) then I'll forget and go back on that accidentally a bit later. Unimportant detail doesn't matter to me (How many chairs a room had) but I never like giving the impression of inconsistency because it feels obvious I am just making this all up. I appreciate the obvious direction is just some quick note taking in the end but still.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:OK, but that hasn't got much to do with the list of moves you can make, and you're not gonna lose anything from your experience if the players know what that list says. To be fair, this rule isn't about obfuscating the rules the GM is working under. It's about how rookie GMs' natural response under pressure will be to just go "uh, you're separated now" and reminding them to give a more flavorful description for separating them. (And also because going "which I'm doing because of GM move X" after every action ruins the mood a bit. Ignoring this rule every now and then to make sure your players don't feel like you're being an arbitrary dick is fine.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
There is no such thing as inconsistency, only as-yet-unexplained consistency. Yes, Expert Security was here doing some work on the locks. And yes, this lock was pretty easy. Becaaaaause...
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 15:40
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:However this sort of thing, along with concepts like making up rooms on the fly has always felt a little daunting to me. I worry that if I establish some sort of in universe fact for the locale (Expert Security has done a good job on this facility's locks) then I'll forget and go back on that accidentally a bit later. Once I forgot the volcano on an island the players were on was erupting. Afterwards the players were all, "Ha! You dumbass." It's really not that big a deal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
lol https://twitter.com/gshowitt/status/1252505926042628097
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:There is no such thing as inconsistency, only as-yet-unexplained consistency. This is the big one. There's no such thing as a GM rear end-pull. As long as you can justify whatever detail you're making up on the spot by tying it to past or future plot/setting details, you're in the clear. What matters is internal consistency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/gshowitt/status/1252505929091776513 this is giving me schizophrenia
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:The bad GMing in that example isn't dead parents, it's killing the parents to punish the player. If the player WANTS to be a tragic figure then it makes perfect sense. Well, yes, I was kind of stuck there because theironjef used Batman's origin story as an example, and of course if the player is up for playing Batman then it's fine, but that's also where the story has been prearranged ahead of time. Whereas what I'm asking about is stuff that happens in play, where you are actually "playing to find out what happens". Which, if we try to shoehorn that event from Batman into that framework, means that the player signed up to play a billionaire industrialist and playboy called Bruce Wayne with a wider civil streak than typical for that and a strong relationship with his parents. In that circumstance, killing off his parents by fiat is a much different reaction. I mean, ok, I guess a way to explain how I think of it is like this (and if you think my regular posts sound robotic, this is going to be even worse, but it's just the easiest way I can think of to explain it, not how I actually think all the time  )a) Saying "Rocks fall, everyone dies" sucks. b) Saying "Rocks fall, everyone's parents die" also sucks. [PC death isn't the key issue - any meaningful IC cost sucks in the same way.] c) Saying "Rocks fall, save or die" also sucks. [Adding a dice roll does not make things better.] d) Saying "You see a bunch of rocks hanging in the air overhead." beforehand doesn't improve things unless the PCs can do something about it. e) Saying "To get where you're going you have to climb a mountain where there are frequent rockfalls." is the same as d), just with different words. f) In d), letting the PCs say what they are doing then deciding it is wrong doesn't count as the PCs being able to do something about it. g) In d), letting the PCs say what they are doing then requiring a static and inevitable dice roll to do it is the same as c). h) In d), letting the PCs say what they are doing then deciding it is right means it was no threat at all, and if this is the only route for this not to suck, then nothing can ever threaten the PCs, because the a)-h) argument will apply to every negative event in the game. i) The only way to be able to show the players that neither f), g) or h) are in force this is to decide in advance how the PCs can avoid the rocks, which means they must be pre-prepared. Which step here is wrong? (Btw, Howitt above was tweeting about the Iron Sky Kickstarter and the twitter thread is hilarious.) hyphz fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
Christ, all of them. But from D on they go from "occasionally incorrect" to "is this even an RPG any more what the heck"hyphz posted:d) Saying "You see a bunch of rocks hanging in the air overhead." beforehand doesn't improve things unless the PCs can do something about it. What's going on in your game where you describe a situation and the players can't change it in any meaningful way? You may be describing a novel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:https://twitter.com/gshowitt/status/1252505929091776513 Is there, like, a thing under these 'Awesome Points' that says 'under Pulp Horror flashlights are strictly forbidden to spend for?'
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:22
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:OK, but that hasn't got much to do with the list of moves you can make, and you're not gonna lose anything from your experience if the players know what that list says.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
Dawgstar posted:Is there, like, a thing under these 'Awesome Points' that says 'under Pulp Horror flashlights are strictly forbidden to spend for?' Marc specifically says that? Under pulp horror, you can't fill in equipment you forgot to list with the points. (I don't know anything about what that example of play is from, but that particular thing is addressed in it)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:Marc specifically says that? Under pulp horror, you can't fill in equipment you forgot to list with the points. (I don't know anything about what that example of play is from, but that particular thing is addressed in it) Fair, but it leads to more questions. I'm still not sure what it adds that you can't be prepared in Pulp <anything>. Pulp is generally about larger than life heroes. "Sorry Doc Savage! You forgot to bring illumination! You stub your toe for... let me roll D1000.... two points of damage but there are nine success shifts so your foot falls off." Maybe the system is giving me Rolemaster flashbacks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
Mystic Mongol posted:What's going on in your game where you describe a situation and the players can't change it in any meaningful way? You may be describing a novel. Um, that's not what happens in games, that's what I'm trying to avoid happening in games. At the moment I avoid it happening in PF2 because the falling rocks are a Hazard with stats that was part of a module, but that's quite restrictive and slow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
I just hit the "Senses + Sense" roll, on which the player has a +2 (or a +2 Shift?) and needs to roll a... 252? Or possibly a 500, since the +2 Shift is negated? Are shifts like 10ths in Synnibarr and secretly multipliers? what the gently caress is going on EDIT: quote:Marc: That translates to -2S, but don’t forget you’re allowed a Bump if you would have succeeded with an average of -1S. what
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Um, that's not what happens in games, that's what I'm trying to avoid happening in games. At the moment I avoid it happening in PF2 because the falling rocks are a Hazard with stats that was part of a module, but that's quite restrictive and slow. Well your rocks thing, you go "You look up the cliff, it looks climbable, but some parts of it look unstable." if they want specific mechanical details, you say, "If you fail, rocks fall and bad thing happens *" They can then decide if the risk is worth bad thing, if they have ways to mitigate the risk, or if they just give up on the climbing the cliff plan. * Bad thing probably graded to how badly they failed, could be anything from You fall and take damage, or the noise of the rocks alerts whatever you were trying to avoid, or what ever is relevant to what they were trying to achieve by climbing a cliff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Um, that's not what happens in games, that's what I'm trying to avoid happening in games. At the moment I avoid it happening in PF2 because the falling rocks are a Hazard with stats that was part of a module, but that's quite restrictive and slow. I feel like this must have been asked before, but I'm not seeing it: How do you imagine players at the table with a module designer can play the game, if you see modules as the only solution? The module had an author who presumably ran it, how could that have worked when the point of a module (according to your model) is to have an external referent and a distinct pre-existing play base?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
hyphz posted:Um, that's not what happens in games, that's what I'm trying to avoid happening in games. At the moment I avoid it happening in PF2 because the falling rocks are a Hazard with stats that was part of a module, but that's quite restrictive and slow. "You reach Mount Mountain, your goal is at the top." "The plan is to climb it, yeah? I want to scope out a safe route." "Roll nature or perception" "I got a 12" "The way up is pretty obvious, but you make no garauntees to safety" "I guess we start climbing!" "After a short while you hear a rumbling. It's a rockfall!" <rockfall mechanics happen> "Right, so, everyone who survived that is now halfway up the mountain and the path diverges..." OR "I got a 15" "You notice a few areas which look... worrying." "Can we avoid them?" "It will take considerably longer if you do." "We start climbing, but be careful at those spots." "You reach one of the dicey areas and discover it to be even dicier than expected. What do you do?" <appropriate rolls, possibly triggering the rockfall anyway but the players would have bonuses for being prepared> "Right, so, everyone who survived that is now halfway up the mountain and the path diverges..." OR "I got a 25" "You notice a few areas which look... worrying. More importantly, you notice a shortcut that takes you past those areas." "Oh we go up that way then." "Right, so, everyone is now halfway up the mountain and the path diverges..." In a FitD: "You reach Mount Mountain, your goal is at the top. It's a four segment clock." "The plan is to climb it, yeah? I want to scope out a safe route." "Make a Controlled Survey roll." "I got a 2" "The way up is pretty obvious, but you make no garauntees to safety." "I guess we start climbing!" "Make a Risky Team Prowl roll. Failure is going to be rockslide related." <team prowl mechanics happen> "Right, so, everyone who survived that is now halfway up the mountain <ticks clock twice> and the path diverges..." OR "I got a 4" "You notice a few areas which look... worrying." "Can we avoid them?" "It will take considerably longer if you do." "We start climbing, but be careful at those spots." "You reach one of the dicey areas <ticks clock once> and discover it to be dicier than expected. What do you do?" <appropriate rolls, possibly triggering the rockfall anyway but the rolls would be Controlled> "Right, so, everyone who survived that is now halfway up the mountain <ticks clock once, maybe twice> and the path diverges..." OR "I got a 6" "You notice a few areas which look... worrying. More importantly, you notice a shortcut that takes you past those areas." "Oh we go up that way then." "Right, so, everyone is now halfway up the mountain <ticks clock twice> and the path diverges..." Splicer fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 19:01
|
|