The place that was Krumpton is still there, it's just the town has been burned down, right? So the character travels there and finds the wreckage.
Where is Sludge? Did he die, is he hiding, did he escape? That's surely to be established.
GM fiat - an illustration
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
The place that was Krumpton is still there, it's just the town has been burned down, right? So the character travels there and finds the wreckage.
Where is Sludge? Did he die, is he hiding, did he escape? That's surely to be established.
hawkeyefan
Legend
Sure… but then we’re getting into subjective territory. What feels “more real” or “better” will vary.
Words like “objective” and “real” and “really” and “actually” are what’s getting you pushback.
Wouldn’t they go to where they think Krumptown would be and only then discover what happened?
Like they don’t get ready to go and then just can’t leave…
Crimson Longinus
Legend
But that's not Krumptown is it? That is just going to pile of ash. That was not the action declaration!
He's dead. Totally dead. The prep says so.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I didn't say prep wasn't important. In fact I said planning out the details of the central mystery was essential for creating the foundation for players to investigate and actually solve it. I felt Pemerton's characterization here reduces it too much to the metaphor of the notes. Especially where he talked about the players prompting the GM to reveal them. I think it is a much more vibrant and organic process, and I think there are lots of things going on not involving the notes themselves and not tethered to the notes. But also I am just strictly talking about mystery adventures. I am not talking about sandbox or living world or any of that. But I think because of our history having debates over those styles, some of the talk drifted into applying the GM note metaphor to those as well
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
No because if you are modeling it after the fact the players aren't solving an objective mystery. I think this is very obvious.
Also to be clear I am not saying this is better. I am just saying the players are actually solving something. But if you are determining cause and effect after the fact, how was there anything for them to solve?
Crimson Longinus
Legend
Possibly. But that was not the action declaration. It was to go to Krumptown to meet Sludge, not go to pile of ash to find that Sludge is dead.
In AW there is no player-side move when you go to a place to meet a person. So if that's what the player says, the GM makes a move - typically a soft one, unless the player is handing the GM an opportunity on a plate.
In making their move, the GM will always say what prep demands.
In this case, it's not clear how Krumptown and Sludge are elements of play; or what you have in mind as bringing it about that (i) the player knows about Krumptown but (ii) doesn't know that it has bee burned down, and (iii) knows about Sludge but (iv) doesn't know that Sludge is dead. So I can't really say more than the above with any clarity.
I can add more stipulations around the episode of play, but I have no idea if that's what you have in mind.
For instance, suppose the PC in question has a gang. And it was established in the first session that the PC's second-in-command used to work for Sludge in Krumptown, but fled Sludge's service and ended up hanging with the PC.
And then, let's suppose that the GM has written up a threat, a Warlord (impulse: to hunt and dominate; moves include Claim territory: move into it, blockade it, assault it). And the GM has prepared a countdown clock for this threat, that includes Burn Krumptown to the ground and Kill Sludge.
So now, the PC is having their PC go to Krumptown to visit Sludge. The GM looks to their prep. But When you get there, Krumptown is burned to the ground looks like a pretty hard move to me! So what has happened to license that move? If the answer is nothing, then the GM can't make it. So maybe when the PC makes their action declaration, the GM responds - "You crest the ridge above Krumptown, and you can see that it's on fire. You can see <Warlord's> gang members running about, cutting people down with their machetes. Sludge's place is in the middle of town, so you can't see what's happening there. What do you do?"
Let's suppose, though that when the PC says "I go to Krumptwon to visit Sludge" this does trigger a move, because it's the PC acting under fire - let's say they're running away from a losing situation, and want Sludge to help them. And so they make their roll for Acting Under Fire. And let's suppose that ends up below 7, so the GM is licensed to make as hard and direct a move as they like. Then maybe the GM says, "When you get to Krumptown, it's burned to the ground. And Sludge's head is sitting on a stick planted in the middle of what used to be the town. You see a flash of reflected sunlight, maybe off glasses or off a gun barrel, from the ridge on the other side of town. What do you do?"
I'm asking you how you would explain it.
I've posted how I would explain it. At some length. And you think my explanation is no good. So what does a good explanation look like?
But again, suppose that's the declaration, what does the GM say in response? I think the AW procedures are pretty clear.
