Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Sure!
Oh, you mean I should drop it while you keep doing it. That's disappointing, thought there might be some movement here.
Oh, you're still on it. I mean, I recognized this, called it out in the post you're quoting, but here you are, telling me this is what you're saying about what I'm saying while telling me to stop talking about who said what. It's an interesting approach -- what did you give it as odds for success?
Oh, you're talking to a moment when the PC just luff one up and don't really do anything. Yeah, that's another moment where you get to deliver on your promises with as hard a move as you'd like. This, though, is just another way of saying that the players have offered a golden opportunity by ignoring a promised consequence, so we aren't covering new ground here. Is this your argument? That a subset of the thing I've already acknowledged wasn't specifically called out, even though it's absolutely part of the thing I've already acknowledged, and have from the start?
Tomato, tomato. This is a quibble about vocabulary and not actual meaning.
Yes, this is part of the framing conversation. The GM is having the conversation with the player to establish the framing by agreeing where the problem may be. If the PC decides to keep looking for another way in, this doesn't offer anything. It's the GM's invitation to say "is this the conflict you're looking for?"
I've covered this. Often framing is a discussion.
Um, yes, when it's time for you to talk is a pretty key phrase that you seem to be glossing over. When the GM gets to talk is not whenever the GM wants, but when the play tells him to talk. That's in scene framing, or in reframing, and in narrating results from moves. Nothing here gives the GM the authority to just declare a door locked because the GM thinks it should be locked.
The GM doesn't have a turn, really. There's no "okay, it's my turn" in the rules. The GM speaks when the system says they do. That's framing and in resolving actions and then in reframing. You're drifting pretty wide from the simple example I gave -- that a GM cannot just say a door is locked because they decide it's locked but only when they're framing the scene or when a move outcome gives them the opportunity to make it part of their move. There isn't some other moment in the game where it's the GM's turn to just do whatever -- if you think there is, show it to me. The GM gets to make moves at pretty specific points -- and the system generates those points with awesome regularity, but even then the GM is constrained to the principles of play and to follow the fiction. Nothing here gives the GM the plenipotentiary power to just declare things locked because a player tries to open a door.
I feel like you're looking for some narrow crack to declare victory in the discussion rather that actually discussing how the game works. What is the victory condition here, for you? What allows you to feel like you've gotten what you want from this discussion? Mine is the recognition that AW doesn't work like Trad games, and what's trivially obviously the GM's authority in a Trad game is glaringly not in AW.
I've covered what's going on here.
There was no action, yet, the GM and player were still negotiating the scene framing. It's the GM's job, but it's not unilateral, there's a conversation. The player indicated that they wanted an alternate way into the fortress. We've established that it's a fortress, which entails lots of tropes. The GM offers a door as a possibility to frame the conflict, the player accepts, and the GM frames the conflict as "here's you alternate way in, but it's locked tight, what do you do?" Like most examples that you can pull out for AW, these toy examples are too light in other details. The door being locked, for instance, is dreadful as a conflict unless there's something pressuring the PC, which is not in the example. What happens if the PC keeps looking for another way in? There's no established threat for the GM to pay off as a golden opportunity, so the best they could do here would be to frame another conflict with a better opening soft move. A locked door is a terrible soft move on it's own, as this example shows.
I don't know who. your. period. talking. to. with. this. I haven't said anything at all about fictional positioning. Heck, in this example we know it's a fortress, which carries locked side doors as a default to the already established fiction. Which is exactly what I'm talking about when I say "part of framing."
Yup.
Yeah, that's part of framing. It's establishing the conflict. We know there isn't a conflict already because the player can just waltz around looking for doors without having a golden opportunity hit him in the head. The establishing of the door is exactly the kind of initial framing I'm talking about -- where we're moving into the play loop from some free play prior position, or after we've resolved a previous conflict and we're reframing into a new one. The is also "ask questions, use answers." The GM wants the PCs to have input for how they tackle the fortress, so asked them, considers is, and uses that to frame in the new situation. The door is established as part of that framing, along with the fiction inputs of it being a door into the fortress. I think play is pretty dull here in the examples that this is done and then we have some exploratory "tell me more" stuff. The GM should have framed this in already into conflict, or added something to drive play. As it is, it's pretty conflict neutral and, I think, a pretty bad example.
