I think the main observation I have is that we have rather different conceptions of what constitute 'arrows', or maybe an alternative way to put it is what is really substantive. So, if a player states that the motivation for their character to do X is something fictional, and X is a mechanically governed procedure, and only other mechanically defined elements of the situation impact X, I wouldn't count that as "fiction being determinative of mechanics", the player could have said nothing about their motives and simply executed mechanical process X, the result would be substantively the same.
I was thinking it would be fruitful to get into the contents of arrows. Had the wail not exhausted, then character movespaces would contain other valid choices, so what they subsequently said would have differed. Had character motives differed, then the process they chose to execute would differ, thus having different results.
The complaint seems to be resolving motives and constraints in fiction, in system, but that is exactly what is implied by F > S > F. We do at times just resolve in fiction as F > F. That's more common outside combat. Remember that 5e* DM doesn't even call for combat if the outcome is inevitable. So in the comparable DW cases, its F > Hack and Slash > F.
So -
arrow contents, to get started
F > S
- Choices - that invoke one process rather than another ("I'm holding my ground for a second to see which way it goes, and then I'm diving to the side I think is safe."
- Assertions - that dial-in parameters ("I draw my rapier and fleche!")
- Colour - how the thing is done, that might turn out to be meaningful ("I'm shaking while I do it, barely controlling my fear of it") and open up or affirm narrative space
S > F
- Constraints - that change what is legitimate ("Drusilia makes a save and fails - taking her third level of exhaustion.")
- Informs - that affirm changes to what is effective ("Your hit barely scratches it") and might produce motives
- Colour - how the thing is done, that might turn out to be meaningful ("She laughs 'I didn't realise you were so weak! Why fight small man?' and couches her club") and open up or affirm narrative space
We should also detail the contents of
F > F and
S > S arrows, so that we can see how they differ. Thinking about what is in fictional position, its definition is still not complete. In
valid, I have legitimate and effective, but I also need motivated. Because the moves that a player will choose are those in the intersection of legitimate, effective and motivated. Effective is only really justified on account of it being normally a very strong factor in what is motivated! It is seldom the only factor and sometimes not the strongest factor (consider arguments over following other motives, over effectiveness!)
Suppose I say that player's fictional position is the intersection of everything that is legitimate for them to say, and everything they are motivated to say (which very much includes everything that would be effective for them to say, but helps me understand why effectiveness alone doesn't always predict the moves actually chosen.) When Clement and Drusilia are caught up in mortal battle, they have overwhelming motives in its regard. If their attack reach is 5', and they are 20' away, and they are motivated to attack, then they have an overwhelming motive to choose closing moves. Or if they fear they can't make effective attacks, they have a motive to do something else. They're unlikely to choose to flap their arms like a bird, although it would be legitimate (it's allowed), they have no motive to do so. This is to consider fictional position as predictive of player moves, which it necessarily must to be useful as a construct. (Consider the alternative, a construct for fictional positioning that failed to have any predictive power, or worse still predicted moves players never chose.)
Some things are more grey areas. If a PC attempts to convince an NPC of something, we have both RP as a potential avenue for that, or we could have a check of some sort. In the later case there isn't, in a game like 5e, a definitive way to state that all checks followed from fiction or not. I think the substantive test would be "would the check be made differently if the player described their action differently?" or more broadly, did they have to speak a specific fiction to invoke that check? Sometimes the answer could be basically 'no', basically the fiction could have merely been an indicator that the GM (or even player) should invoke a roll of the dice. Your example shows a case where the GM decides no roll is required at all, but this seems less dependent on the specific fiction spoken by a player than on the general situation and considerations of overall motive.
Had the player spoken differently, deception would not have been involved. I only needed to consider the possibility of a roll because of that deception. The player had a visible internal struggle and then confessed that the fictional truth is that Arrasmus was going to tell a white lie.
So, fiction is clearly important, and it may be that there are points here where it directly impinges on how the mechanics work, or a mechanic has to reference fiction in order to be arbitrated. OTOH I think a lot of cases might be just as easily classified as 'mechanics with color'. Do the motives of the Clement for example matter? Mechanically he moves forward and invokes a class ability (or maybe its a spell, I am not so familiar with 5e bards, etc.). Do the character's stated motives impact this action? I don't see how.
Maybe I misunderstand the bolded part. Are you supposing that 5e* DM isn't using situational advantage or inspiration? As I have said more than once up-thread, 5e* urges DM to exercise the
entire power granted to them in 5th edition RAW.
IMHO this is a characteristic of really 'ground up' story games, that the fiction actively determines what mechanics happen, and how and why, and/or the mechanics directly reference fictional conditions which must be adjudged, and aren't simply codified in a cue already. Default 5e has, for example, no grid, and thus any factors of position and such must be purely adjudged via reference to existing fiction, that is to the shared imagined state of things. So, when you play "Theater of the Mind" there is likely to be a greater linkage between mechanics and fiction, perhaps. Honestly, my core observation is that there's a fundamental difference of process between say, DW and IMHO anything that is likely to arise in 5e via practices I've ever experienced using that and similar systems. They can be fairly similar at times, but DW, in my experience, will consistently do things differently and in a way that puts the PC's fiction more at the center of play.
Agreed that DW does more work to make that so. The design intent is clearer in the text and the common structure of moves aligns well with it. Principles that help ensure they are grasped and upheld in the intended way are included in the text.
So, for instance, I cannot conceive of how you could possibly write a 'module' for DW. It just doesn't seem possible to me. Not in the sense that you could for 5e, where you could build entire geographies of elements that are almost entirely described and populated by threats that have been pregenerated without reference to anything relating to specific characters. The most a DW 'module' could do, IMHO, would be to present some loose geography, some fronts, etc. and even then it would have to be advertised as "here's a specifically themed set of elements that could be presented in the form of GM prep, assuming the players agree to the whole thing beforehand and make up characters with this in mind." I'd note that this is a bit different from the default expected DW process, though I'm sure it can be made to work with a little thought.
I think Stonetop is an example of a 'module' for DW, or have a look at "I'm on a boat!"
I find that 5th edition modules contain a few bones that 5e* can pick clean. We wanted to run ToA because of nostalgia for Isle of Dread + Tomb of Horrors. It captures the Isle of Dread part quite well (or at least, you can make it do that), but the Tomb is an over-architectured, disappointment. My next campaign - Archipelago - is my own work.
