Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 8614784" data-attributes="member: 75787">But if the GM is deciding what is a consequential moment, and what is not, isn’t that exactly working to a pre-existing agenda? isn’t that exactly what PbtA is supposed to hate with a passion? If I decide that when Pippin kicks a stone down a well, it’s not a consequential decision, haven’t I imposed my vision of the story on the players?I might even argue that deciding what is consequential or not is a stronger tool for imposing an agenda on players than the choice of which move to require them to make.I honestly do not believe that any good GM, in any system, does not actively try to stay in genre, to make the game fun — to give characters equal time; the choice of whether an action has consequences is informed by their vision for the game — their agenda. PbtA stresses that you should err on the side of randomizing outcomes as much as possible, and that’s cool. But trying to suggest that PbtA prevents the GM from applying their vision to the game just ends you up in definitional knots, trying to explain how the GM deciding a move is not consequential is not actually the GM imposing their viewpoint on the game.PbtA is a highly opinionated game. Whenever it says “always” it means “default to this”. When it says “never” it really means “rarely”. Or at least, that‘s the way I’ve seen it run when it’s been run well.</blockquote>