thefutilist
Adventurer
None of this really captures specific action declarations by the player. My concern here is that is that the basic declaration - climb a mountain, isn't actually one that a player in any PbtA game would ever make. You might climb a wall, but a mountain climb is a whole series of things, not a single action. If you reduce the zoom to specific actions, like climbing a specific cliff face, things get more manageable.
There's another problem with the example, which is your move from 'the mountain wants to kill me' (which is actually really cool) to your positing death as an outcome for the action roll. That's also not how PbtA game actions and adjudication work. If I put death on the table as part of adjudication it's usually a signal to the players that they need to adjust their action declaration. Even if the situation was dire, my consequence is never going to be 'you die' but at worst perhaps, 'you fall' which is still something that can be adjusted based on specific die rolls and the actions of other players. That might well mean death depending on outcomes, but if we want to analyze how this all works we need to be using examples that actually match game play.
I think we play rather differently. I find scale is determined in the orchestration phase you alluded to. I can see my players saying ‘climb a mountain’ or ‘bring order to the holding’ or any number of such large scale actions. Whether they’re broken down into component parts seems to be mainly on the GM. The AW text itself gives multiple examples of this, a lot of them in the section on gigs. My line of thinking tends to be on whether changing circumstances will give rise to different stakes I’m interested in. If not then I increase the scope.
As to death being an outcome. I do use it if circumstances inspire me to use it, it’s not frequent but it’s on the table. Although, like the situation with the mountain, I’m constantly telling the consequences and asking. I’m not just having people make death saves from nowhere.

