Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="deleuzian_kernel" data-source="post: 9393590" data-attributes="member: 7036985">Well...[ATTACH=full]370587[/ATTACH]An MC granting your intent with the single requirement "it's going to take hours of work" (realistically, how could it be less?), while following their principle "Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards" (the in-context reward being, maybe, a response to previous fiction establishing you had already earned that time away from pressure), looking to fulfill all or a subset of their three agendas (and in particular Make Apocalypse World seem real, basically agreeing with you that your envisioned outcome is a reasonable fictional outcome at the time), gives clear mechanical support for the exact scenario you paint. It's super contextual though, same as with any example. The BIG difference in AW is that the outcome does not depend on a dice roll or a naked mechanical procedure. It's not up to the dice to decide whether you can or not craft your shield, and how it goes. The full fictional, and most importantly, NARRATIVE outcome comes from a particular orientation towards fiction that gets codified as game mechanics which rely on principled decision-making, and not exclusively on declarative applications of written rules (although sometimes, for some moves, these mechanisms also participate alongside).</blockquote>