During the Day in a Rural environment 14 or better on a 1d20.
Is this checked per hex? Or by travel time? If an encounter is indicated, how is the encounter then determined?
It was a timeline encounter. The young couple were travelling south from Woodford. The party didn't delay their departure or get sidetracked along the way. So they met at the location marked Campsite on the night of Day 2. The couple left Woodford the afternoon of Day 2.
Because the young couple left Woodford on the afternoon of Day 2.
So this is essentially a set encounter? I mean, I suppose that if the party delayed it may have changed the nature of the encounter... perhaps they'd have come across the aftermath or something similar?
Given that there doesn't seem any other reason for the characters to even exist other than to engage with this job, I don't see why they would delay. So, this just seems like the plan all along.
Now, again, I imagine that this is the nature of a one-shot. I don't think that this is indicative of what you've been describing as part of your living world approach. But I don't think that selecting a one-shot with a clear goal set out is the best example to choose to highlight that.
So just to clarify, you’re saying that PbtA moves are essentially no different than ability checks in 5e? That something like “do something under fire” or “go aggro” is functionally equivalent to a player describing what they do and then rolling Perception or Athletics?
From what I’ve read in PbtA (specifically Apocalypse World 2e), moves are specific mechanics that only trigger when something particular happens in the fiction, like threatening someone, acting under pressure, or reading a situation. They’re not general-purpose checks. The outcomes are structured, with each result pushing the fiction forward in a way that fits the genre and tone of the game.
Yes, both systems involve players narrating their characters’ actions, but the mechanics that follow, and how they’re framed, are quite different. That’s not just an aesthetic distinction; it reflects a fundamental difference in design philosophy.
Honestly, if I claimed that PbtA moves and 5e skill checks were equivalent, I suspect many PbtA players would strongly disagree. I’d be curious to hear if others familiar with both mechanics see them as functionally interchangeable, as you stated.
I'm saying that players in PbtA games mostly just say what their characters do and say, as you described for your game. They don't tend to speak in the language of moves and the like. So for instance, the player of the knight would say "I think I can get there before there's any harm to the woman... I charge!" Then the GM would say "okay, that sounds like a clash move... roll + Strength".
It's not really any different than what you would describe for your game, except that the attack has a label in the form of a move.
The format of moves is indeed different than 5e style skill checks... but still, they are triggered by a player saying what their character says or does.
He was able to get within 50 yards before charging and a horse in my Majestic Fantasy Rules can move 60 yards a round (180'). Moreso he was knight , a class specific to my Majestic Fantasy rules and thus trained as a mounted warrior. In short he felt he had he situation covered and acted accordingly. But things could have go wrong he could rolled a nat 1. He could have missed one or both ruffians he acting. The odd were in his favor but not certain.
Sure, I expect his knowledge of the rules played a strong part in that. As described, without knowing exactly how the rules work, I would have hesitated. But knowing the rules lets a player act with clear expectations.
Not sure what you getting at. you did understand I was discussing the times I was running the adventure and generalizing the results.
I was just asking why you never used any social rolls of any kind. Was there anything uncertain in any of the interactions between the party and the couple? You explained how different groups reacted to the couple.... but it seems the couple just reacted to every group the same?
You made little to no comment on:
- The roleplaying at the court.
- The roleplaying among the players before they left.
- The interaction with the pilgrim at the tavern
Instead, you focused almost entirely on the mechanical resolution in one scene (the lovers) and the aftermath. Your comments on the mechanics showed a lack of engagement with the way first-person roleplaying shaped the situation. And your question about forgery didn't account for the fact that I was discussing how different groups handled it across multiple sessions.
The only remark I made about the roleplay was about your requirement that everyone speak in first person. I find that an interesting choice and I am curious about it. If you care to elaborate on that.
Otherwise, I didn't make any comments about this because I understand how it works. The procedure, such as it is, is pretty easily understood.
Looking at your reply, it seems you approached my actual play write-up like a system analysis document, filtering everything through the lens of mechanical triggers and resolution structures. That’s fine as a preference, but it misses what the session was actually showing: that first-person declaration, consistent world logic, and continuity of events were doing the heavy lifting in how play unfolded.
Given your knowledge and participation here on the forum, I’m surprised that didn’t come through more clearly.
I don't think this example shows what you claim it does. The continuity of events seems predetermined. Consistent world logic isn't really a strong factor as far as I can tell.
Again, I think it's the one-shot nature of the scenario... there are always going to be limitations when that's the case.
The fact that different groups handled the situation in different ways does show some of the player freedom you've highlighted about the living world style... but I think that's about all that came through.
