GM fiat - an illustration

[thefutilist]

Right. This is what I imagined. But @pemerton seems to think you are not allowed to do this.

Nah we're actually only disagreeing in a minor way. You're allowed to make as hard a move as you like at any time (in AW specifically) but in general you should start soft. In session one though, I'm far more likely to make very hard moves. Although I probably wouldn't do the above for a whole variety of reasons, but not because I 'couldn't do it.'

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nah we're actually only disagreeing in a minor way. You're allowed to make as hard a move as you like at any time (in AW specifically) but in general you should start soft. In session one though, I'm far more likely to make very hard moves. Although I probably wouldn't do the above for a whole variety of reasons, but not because I 'couldn't do it.'

Right. But basically the thing is that if revelation that a bad stuff has happened is a hard move, and you are supposed to not use hard moves unless the situation warrants it, then you really cannot prep anything particularly concrete about this harsh apocalyptic world. Because if you prep "this bad thing has happened" and then the players declare actions that would reveal it, but do not do anything that would warrant a hard move, we have an issue.

Which leads me to thinking that right way to "prep" for game like this is to perhaps just have some vague ideas and nothing concrete. So almost no myth. Which is the exact stance @EzekielRaiden had an issue with.

 

[thefutilist]

Right. But basically the thing is that if revelation that a bad stuff has happened is a hard move, and you are supposed to not use hard moves unless the situation warrants it, then you really cannot prep anything particularly concrete about this harsh apocalyptic world. Because if you prep "this bad thing has happened" and then the players declare actions that would reveal it, but do not do anything that would warrant a hard move, we have an issue.

Which leads me to thinking that right way to "prep" for game like this is to perhaps just have some vague ideas and nothing concrete. So almost no myth. Which is the exact stance @EzekielRaiden had an issue with.

Revelation that bad stuff has happened isn't a hard move. Although in general your prep shouldn't be 'this bad thing has happened' because by the end of session one you should have a situation in motion so there's no need to prep much else. or to the extent there is, you never need to prep revelations.

Like at the end of session one we have say: 6 groups of people, some overlapping. 12 distinct NPC's (very rough guess)

As MC I want to see them go at it. I'm not creating backstory for my players to react to because they're part of this world and they probably know the backstory. There is no adventure I'm introducing them to.

 

[pemerton]

So have we now came full circle? Are we back to Narrativist games like AW don't allow prep for most details and certainly not enough to pre-establish the facts of a mystery?

That's indeed what it sounds like. The allowed prep seems to be barely existent by my standards.* Which is exactly the stance @EzekielRaiden talked about earlier which started this whole tangent.

So, upthread I posted this imagined example of play:

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.

<snip>

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?"

Why can't the player, as their PC, at this very moment swear an oath: "I will find out who spitted Sludge, and spit them in return!"?

And then set about finding out who spitted Sludge. (Namely, <Warlord>.)

 

[pemerton]

You'd establish that as part of their clock. So let's say after session 1 you create a clock for the Pyro cult and the first tick is, burn down Krumptown and kill Sludge.

And the first scene is as follows:

MC: What are you doing Midnight?

Midnight: I'm riding to Krumptown to see Sludge.

(look at my count down clock (prep) see that Krumptown has been burned to the ground and Sludge has been killed)

MC: Hard cut to you outside the smouldering ashes of Krumptown. There are many heads on spikes and amongst them you recognise Sludge.

That's a harder move than I would make!

 

[zakael19]

Right. But basically the thing is that if revelation that a bad stuff has happened is a hard move, and you are supposed to not use hard moves unless the situation warrants it, then you really cannot prep anything particularly concrete about this harsh apocalyptic world. Because if you prep "this bad thing has happened" and then the players declare actions that would reveal it, but do not do anything that would warrant a hard move, we have an issue.

Which leads me to thinking that right way to "prep" for game like this is to perhaps just have some vague ideas and nothing concrete. So almost no myth. Which is the exact stance @EzekielRaiden had an issue with.

You can prep harsh things, but there's intervening space. When I prep a Threat for Stonetop, it ends in an Impending Doom that is likely "The town of stonetop is razed/conquered/fields corrupted/cistern poisoned/affliction spread throughout leaving all dead/" etc. And then you work backwards to the first signs, say - merchants on the Maker's Roads report Hillfolk gathering in bands, watching them just off in the plans, or something. Probably 4 or so "steps" between "here's a first warning" and "oops all dead" so that the PCs have space to comprehend and choose to take action (whatever that might be). If they dont, and it's time to make a hard move or as the fiction demands - you Advance Towards Impending Doom.

I believe Fronts in AW work in a very similar way. Once you've prepped, you're giving yourself permission to make those big (or small! some are close to home, that one guy and his gang that hate your guts and what they'll do to act on that; or a slow growing starvation; or whatever) moves to make the world real & the character's lives not boring.

The key is that once you've written in down, you're saying "absent intervening actions, this is going to get worse." And then playing the world with integrity is following through on the badness you've telegraphed.

Note that nowhere in there is straight up Fiat, really. The game itself gives guidelines in its core procedures on how to make Threats/Fronts/etc, sets of ideas, principles to run them, directions on how to give the characters the warning of what's coming; or how to make that hard move up front to kick the game off - but always with the option of the players not dealing with it and then things getting worse.

 

[pemerton]

Right. This is what I imagined. But @pemerton seems to think you are not allowed to do this.

See just upthread: @thefutilist and I have an apparent difference of opinion on how hard a move that is.

 

[pemerton]

It is not a move. It just is.

Telling the player that, when they arrive at Krumptown, it is burned down, is a GM move.

 

[pemerton]

Because if you prep "this bad thing has happened" and then the players declare actions that would reveal it, but do not do anything that would warrant a hard move, we have an issue. .

There is no prepping this bad thing happened.

As I quoted, the purpose of prep is to give the GM things to say.

Part of the apparatus of prep, as both @thefutilist and I indicated in our posts, can be a countdown clock. The countdown clock includes bad things happening. The GM says those things when (i) they make a move, and (ii) because they always say what prep demands, therefore (iii) they look to their clock and say something that it tells them to say. If it's time to make a soft move, then - as I posted upthread in reply to you - maybe they tell the player that their PC sees Krumptown on fire. If it's time to make a hard move, then - as I also posted upthread in reply to you - maybe they tell the player that they see Krumptown burned to the ground.

I'm not really getting the source of confusion - this is all set out in the rulebook.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, upthread I posted this imagined example of play:

Why can't the player, as their PC, at this very moment swear an oath: "I will find out who spitted Sludge, and spit them in return!"?

And then set about finding out who spitted Sludge. (Namely, <Warlord>.)

I'm sure they can. But their action declaration was "I go to Krumptown to meet Sludge" and that did not come to pass.

Telling the player that, when they arrive at Krumptown, it is burned down, is a GM move.

There is no prepping this bad thing happened.

As I quoted, the purpose of prep is to give the GM things to say.

Part of the apparatus of prep, as both @thefutilist and I indicated in our posts, can be a countdown clock. The countdown clock includes bad things happening. The GM says those things when (i) they make a move, and (ii) because they always say what prep demands, therefore (iii) they look to their clock and say something that it tells them to say. If it's time to make a soft move, then - as I posted upthread in reply to you - maybe they tell the player that their PC sees Krumptown on fire. If it's time to make a hard move, then - as I also posted upthread in reply to you - maybe they tell the player that they see Krumptown burned to the ground.

I'm not really getting the source of confusion - this is all set out in the rulebook.

It seems to me you're in the no myth camp. Which is fine, as too I think that is the best fit for a game like this. Except that in your response to @EzekielRaiden which started this bloody tangent you insisted that you can totally prep all sort of things and there is no conflict. But ti turns out you actually just mean you can prep some vague ideas which might happen if the situation warrants it. That is not the sort of prep ER was talking about!