: FatB for Jason L
I'd like to read more musings about a dead horse - FatB.Nope.
First, I think you get this but: it doesn't matter when you roll the dice, it matters when the rules call upon the result. Roll 100 d10s and lock them in a time capsule for thirty years - the "F" still means when you look at the number, not when you generated it. (Because of this, KitM and KatE are exactly the same as FitM and FatE.)
So now. FitM and FatE refer to the individual decision you're making, not to the conflict or the scene or any such in-game thing. In fact, you can examine non-RPG randomized decisions, where there's no conflict and no scene, for FitM vs. FatE too. This is the crux:
Do I get pizza or Thai food tonight? I'll flip for it.
FatE: heads=pizza, tails=Thai, whichever lands up, that's what I get.
FitM: heads=pizza, tails=Thai, whichever lands up, if I'm happy, that's what I get; if I'm disappointed, I get the other.
What would FatB look like? I'd have to apply the head or the tail without having decided what heads and tails mean; without, in fact, having decided to flip for it at all.
(Per my first point, flipping and then deciding what you've flipped for doesn't change the fact - F is when in the decision-making process you call upon the head or the tail, not when the coin physically landed.)
So this procedure you're proposing - it takes a couple of particular pieces of conflict resolution (stakes setting and stage setting) and randomizes them. We can examine your randomization scheme for itM-ness or atE-ness (and we find itM-ness), but before we call upon the numbers we rolled we have to decide what we're randomizing (our answer: stakes setting and stage setting) and furthermore that we're randomizing at all.
Fortune at the beginning of a conflict? Absolutely! It'll be FitM at the beginning of a conflict or else FatE at the beginning of a conflict. The "itM" and "atE" refer to the F's place in the process of the individual decision we're making, not to its place in the conflict or the events of the game.
1. On 2005-04-16, Jason L wrote:
2. On 2005-04-18, Vincent wrote:
3. On 2005-04-18, Ben Lehman wrote:
4. On 2005-04-18, Jason L wrote:
This comment thread has an RSS feed: