Quote from: FingerRod on April 19, 2024, 06:54:37 AMI just checked my watch, it is still a story game. And that mechanic is a way for others to participate in the STORY. It 100% is not used as part of standard resolution.

And when 1 is barely a success, 2 is you do it but not well, 3 you do it adequately, etc. those are called DEGREES OF SUCCESS. And again, the failure story mechanic does not change that. It is only used as a way to introduce something "more interesting". The person doing the action can always reroll, using insight, until they get their way. Annnnnd....if the player doing the action doesn't think the failure is interesting for their character or the story, then most of the time people back it out. A table etiquette thing.

I cannot believe you keep digging deeper on this lol.

FingerRod: "My GM always let me succeed with no risk of failure, because at our table it's standard table etiquette not to allow anyone to fail if they don't want to."

Dude, that may be the etiquette at your table, but that's not the standard etiquette for all tables, and it's not what the Cthulhu Dark rules say. No, I haven't played Cthulhu Dark, but I was very involved with story games in 2010 and read it when it was released. I had been a participant on The Forge and administered the Indie RPG Awards, and played lots of its siblings and predecessors like Lady Blackbird, Blowback, etc.

In general, I find it is more fun to have the risk of failure. In my groups, it was normal for the GM and others to introduce risk of failure, even if the rules allowed for the GM to grant auto-success. If I were playing Cthulhu Dark, I'd be using the failure rules to their fullest as written - the same way that I have introduced failure and adversity in other story games like Lady Blackbird, Polaris, etc. For me, it's been more fun that way.

Quote from: jhkim on April 19, 2024, 05:41:16 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on April 19, 2024, 06:54:37 AMI just checked my watch, it is still a story game. And that mechanic is a way for others to participate in the STORY. It 100% is not used as part of standard resolution.

And when 1 is barely a success, 2 is you do it but not well, 3 you do it adequately, etc. those are called DEGREES OF SUCCESS. And again, the failure story mechanic does not change that. It is only used as a way to introduce something "more interesting". The person doing the action can always reroll, using insight, until they get their way. Annnnnd....if the player doing the action doesn't think the failure is interesting for their character or the story, then most of the time people back it out. A table etiquette thing.

I cannot believe you keep digging deeper on this lol.

FingerRod: "My GM always let me succeed with no risk of failure, because at our table it's standard table etiquette not to allow anyone to fail if they don't want to."

Dude, that may be the etiquette at your table, but that's not the standard etiquette for all tables, and it's not what the Cthulhu Dark rules say. No, I haven't played Cthulhu Dark, but I was very involved with story games in 2010 and read it when it was released. I had been a participant on The Forge and administered the Indie RPG Awards, and played lots of its siblings and predecessors like Lady Blackbird, Blowback, etc.

In general, I find it is more fun to have the risk of failure. In my groups, it was normal for the GM and others to introduce risk of failure, even if the rules allowed for the GM to grant auto-success. If I were playing Cthulhu Dark, I'd be using the failure rules to their fullest as written - the same way that I have introduced failure and adversity in other story games like Lady Blackbird, Polaris, etc. For me, it's been more fun that way.

Nice resume, who cares? You got caught trying to represent a game you've never played. Simple as that.

For the record, I tried with you this time.

Quote from: KindaMeh on April 19, 2024, 04:28:21 PMI'll readily admit to not knowing much about the specifics of the conversational origins of all that. Partly as I wasn't old enough to even read in/access a forum at the time. Interesting to know, I guess. I had oftentimes heard that he hated D&D and simulationism, but didn't know that he hated even WoD, which always struck me either as neotrad or (for the railroaded adventures) trad gameplay.

Yeah, the Forge was the manifestation of the "Not Invented Here" principle for tabletop games, with Edwards as its lead priest. Everything that didn't follow GNS/Big Model principles pretty much to the letter was criticized heavily.