Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="piou" data-source="post: 9144102" data-attributes="member: 7042024">It's worth noting that the 4 FATE actions are really different in their philosophy. In FATE, if you're trying to do something where "an interesting opposition" (sic) is present, then you need to roll the dice, and to roll the dice you have to choose one of the 4 actions. You're essentially saying "I'd like to do something, I think I should roll the dice for that, what box does it fit in?". There's nothing wrong with that approach, but it's very different from a PbtA.In PbtA games, the interaction is reversed. First your character does the thing in the fiction, you need to describe what the character does ("I sneak behind the guard to hide behind the chest."). This can trigger a mechanical result: a move ("When hiding in shadows roll 2d6…"). If it does it generates an outcome that is then reflected in how the world reacts to the action ("5, it's a miss, as you walk behind the guard your dagger catches on his cloth and he turns arround suprised. There is a long second where you look at each other in disbelief, but you know it is only fleeting. What do you do?").In this case the specific way you describe your action informs whether a move is triggered and what move is triggered in this case. You're not trying to fit actions within a box, if no move is triggered by your action then no dice are rolled and the result flows from fiction alone. ("I sneak behind the guard –You realize that there is no shadow here, your Hide in Shadows move won't activate, right?" "Yeah, that's ok." "As you walk behind the guard, he notices your shadow and turns arround, surprised to see you here."). (I'm sure most games would have a way to sneak without shadow, this is for the sake of example). That's a bit of a different dynamics.Is it better than FATE actions? I like putting fiction first, I like the "you have to do it to do it" principle, and this flows well with the failing forward principle. On the other hand the GM generally makes the determination of what move is triggered by the fiction, and sometimes that can surprise players: "Alright, this is a Volley move, roll for it –Really? I thought it would be called shot.". The bad side of this is that it can lead to some frustration to fit your description to the move you want to enable. But on the other hand such negociations only happen if there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the fictional situation between the GM and player, and identifying and fixing that misunderstanding is a really good thing IMHO. At the end of the day, what matters to me is the story we build together, and that makes it all the more important that fiction remains the driving element.Ok, but for real, is it better than FATE actions? I don't know. It's different that's certain, and different enough that the comparison isn't clear cut IMHO.</blockquote>

Verification