Search results

I mean that action declarations and moves are different thing. The former can be basically anything whilst the latter are limited set of things with limited set of outcomes. But certainly this is just establishing a threat in a concrete way?

You don't know what moves are?

Why?

Doesn't seem particularly outlandish to me. In any case, I think we can imagine all sort of things the player can declare their character to do that could contradict established prep. Like I totally buy that the move structure with it's flexible outcomes is such, that it is relatively easy to...

Those stipulations are correct. But it is part of the prep that Krumptown and Sludge are gone. They're not moves.

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.

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.

How? They cannot go to Krumptown as it doesn't exist any more, they cannot meet Sludge, because he's dead.

No. I mean that I understand "action declaration" to be a separate thing from the move. Like the player can declare all sort of things. like "I go to Krumptown to meet Sludge." But if the prep says Krumptown has been burned down and Sludge has been killed, then, that action declaration cannot...

So does "negation of action declaration" mean something else to you than" what the player wishes to accomplish with the action they declared for their character doesn't come to pass"? Because I am not talking about moves. Like before we argue for 60 pages about this, I'd like to clear up some...

Yes. But it is still people saying things, the system doesn't produce some independent truth apart the participants. And yes, there is randomisation who gets to say what involves. If the player rolls well what they said their character intents to accomplish happens. If they roll badly, the GM...

It was just an example, the details could be anything. And "action declaration" is not same as move. Players can declare their characters do all sort of things. Now if you claim that the moves in AW cannot produce results that could contradict GM's pre-established myth, then that's another matter.

What are flags? And yeah it is interesting to hear about the history. Some people have applauded story now games for generally being clear about how they're supposed to be played, and I have to say that I have not really found this to be the case. Not that they're unusually opaque either. But...

That's fine, and I and others have said several times that this is not about being better, it is that it is different and whether that is better or worse is a matter of taste. I certainly get your reasons for doing it in the way you do and I have done similar things myself for very similar reasons.

Why is this thread in General but the talk is mostly about D&D-like games? "Psionics" or "psychic powers" is what people in the real world started calling magic when believing in magic became too embarrassing. It is just a different name for the same thing. I don't want psionics in D&D. It...

I don't think this really changes the underlying issue. Like the prep could say "'this character can't be persuaded to confess." There are of course ways to mitigate the tension and if there wasn't the game couldn't function. But I think it is pretty clear that the tension is there, and it is...

Eh. I'm not lawful enough to think that there is a significant difference. But regardless, this really answers nothing.

There is pretty clear and obvious tension between the two. The prep says "the X is at Y", the player says "I search the X at Z."

You keep saying that, but have failed to demonstrate it.

Your solution is basically just randomisation and guidelines for who gets to decide what Y is, so it doesn't alter @EzekielRaiden's point.