Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9311391" data-attributes="member: 42582">This all seems quite similar to AW, though I haven't gone back to actually re-read and compare.But dangers grouped by general types and sub-types, seem like AW threats that are similarly grouped (eg Warlord (general type) Dictator (sub-type)), each with its sub-type specific impulse. An AW front similarly groups threats into easy-to-use clusters.The list of moves by type of danger appears to correspond to the AW list of moves by type of threat (eg Warlords include, as a move, to make a show of force).The cast of characters and custom moves are similarly part of AW fronts. The grim portents and final dooms seem to be similar to the AW countdowns and agendas/dark futures. And stakes questions I assume are the same in each case.AW (p 146) has a one-sentence discussion of &quot;overall countdowns&quot;: &quot;Use these clocks to coordinate threats and events across your fronts.&quot; Although the example of &quot;overall countdowns&quot; an the next page are confined to a single front.Again with the caveat of relying on your presentation rather than a close reading, these are the bits that seem to differ from AW and that I've not tried, on my own, to really make sense of. Maybe some DW GMs find there to be a tension between the idea of a front as &quot;episodic content&quot; that is to be &quot;resolved&quot;, while at the same time avoiding planned scenarios?I don't know, that's just conjecture.DW also seems to be missing the &quot;home front&quot;.OK, I finally went and had a look at those pages (pp 202-3 in my book).Is the contradictory information &quot;The College sends an expedition to the Gate&quot; and &quot;It was recently uncovered by the College of Arcanists&quot;? Or the tension between an impulse &quot;to disgorge demons&quot; and those demons apparently being tyrannical angels?Otherwise, the interplay seems OK to me - you would advance through the Grim Portents as makes sense in response to resolved actions and the need to make soft moves, I think.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9311391, member: 42582"] This all seems quite similar to AW, though I haven't gone back to actually re-read and compare. But [I]dangers[/I] grouped by general types and sub-types, seem like AW [I]threats[/I] that are similarly grouped (eg Warlord (general type) Dictator (sub-type)), each with its sub-type specific impulse. An AW front similarly groups threats into easy-to-use clusters. The list of moves by type of danger appears to correspond to the AW list of moves by type of threat (eg Warlords include, as a move, [I]to make a show of force[/I]). The cast of characters and custom moves are similarly part of AW fronts. The grim portents and final dooms seem to be similar to the AW countdowns and agendas/dark futures. And stakes questions I assume are the same in each case. AW (p 146) has a one-sentence discussion of "overall countdowns": "Use these clocks to coordinate threats and events across your fronts." Although the example of "overall countdowns" an the next page are confined to a single front. Again with the caveat of relying on your presentation rather than a close reading, these are the bits that seem to differ from AW and that I've not tried, on my own, to really make sense of. Maybe some DW GMs find there to be a tension between the idea of a front as "episodic content" that is to be "resolved", while at the same time avoiding planned scenarios? I don't know, that's just conjecture. DW also seems to be missing the "home front". OK, I finally went and had a look at those pages (pp 202-3 in my book). Is the contradictory information "The College sends an expedition to the Gate" and "It was recently uncovered by the College of Arcanists"? Or the tension between an impulse "to disgorge demons" and those demons apparently being tyrannical angels? Otherwise, the interplay seems OK to me - you would advance through the Grim Portents as makes sense in response to resolved actions and the need to make soft moves, I think. [/QUOTE]

Verification