I don't quite get the question, in part because I don't think I fully understand your reverse order.
I will talk about AW rather than DW because I know its player-side moves better. (There are other posters in this thread - eg @Manbearcat - who know the DW moves inside out.)
In AW declaring I climb a cliff does not, per se, trigger a move. In some circumstances it might be Acting Under Fire, but let's suppose that it's not.
So the player says, speaking for their PC, I climb the cliff - maybe they think they can find some pre-apocalyptic oasis at the top of it, or on the other side of the mountains.
Now the conversational momentum/expectation shifts to the GM, who is thus expected to make a move. Generally, this should be a soft move. Nothing in what I've described so far sounds like handing the GM an opportunity on a golden platter, so there's no reason to depart from the default. So the GM narrates that giant birds fly down from the top of the cliff, and start harassing the PC.
Now there are a lot of things the player might do in response: try and scare the birds off; or offer them some food to placate them; or shoot them; or find a cave to hide in until nightfall; or etc, etc. Let's say that the player declares "I'm not going to be put off by these birds: I keep climbing!" Now the PC is acting under fire, so the GM calls for the appropriate check. Let's suppose the player's result on the check is 6 or down. Now the GM is entitled to make as hard and direct a move as they like. This might be that a bird grabs the PC and carries them off. (Depending on the context, this might be Separating the PCs, or Putting someone in a spot, or even Providing an opportunity with a cost.)
If your question is, how would the PC come to be at a cliff? Well, there could be myriad ways. Maybe there was a cliff on the map drawn up during the first session. Maybe a character Opened Their Mind to the Psychic Maelstrom and had a vision of a cliff. Was learning of the cliff a good thing, or a bad thing? In the abstract it could be either - it could be a good thing, that paradise is possible if only we can scale the cliff; or a bad thing - the only possibility of paradise is almost impossible to obtain, being at the top of that cliff!
This is where @Ovinomancer's remark upthread, that I gently teased him about, becomes apposite:
From the point of view of the process of authorship, and the way the game structures this, the cliffs could equally well be an ocean, the giant birds equally well be sharks. Of course the colour matters a great deal to the actual experience of play, and it establishes fictional positioning (a rope and pitons are much more useful if your PC is intending to climb a cliff than if they're intending to sail an ocean), and it may have thematic or emotional significance.
But in the structure of play, the questions are the same: what has prompted the need for the GM to make a move? is this a soft move or a hard one? is it a threat or a cost or an opportunity? if the player succeeded on their move, am I honouring that success?
In the fiction, the PC may be engaged in a great expedition or journey, to the top of the cliff or the middle of the ocean. But the player is not, even metaphorically, on a comparable journey. They are not moving their game piece across a map, neither literally nor even metaphorically. They are engaged in a process for structuring the acts of authorship by reference to those key concepts: why is a move being made? if it's the player, did they succeed or fail? if it's the GM, is it soft or hard? is it a threat or a cost or an opportunity?
I've repeatedly posted the reason. Its the contrast between "backstory first" and "situation first". I've unpacked this in terms of steps in the process of framing and of adjudication.
It's not very mysterious! It only becomes mysterious if you don't take seriously that "backstory fist" and "situation first" is a genuine contrast.
Last edited:
