Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8698653" data-attributes="member: 6696971">So we've already established that this is a charged situation.  We wouldn't need to sneak about if someone or something wasn't worth uncovering.  Now its just about what is the nature of play that we're zooming in on.Doors move from neutral framing (just color that we quickly vignette past "alright you open the door...and...") to an obstacle or a threat when its decided that "what is on other side of that door is consequential" (again, see my (1) and (3) in my lead post above).  Its not an arbitrary decision. Lots of things can lead to locked doors in the play space.  For any given door to be locked, you're (a) following Agenda/Always Say/Principles, and either:(b) you're making a Threat move (if its already been established/foregrounded)(c) putting someone in a spot or offering an opportunity with or without a cost.(d) asking questions and using the answers (ok...the blueprint says you're at Hosea's room...is Hosea the kind of guy to leave this door unlocked...if it is unlocked and slightly ajar then what the hell would your racing brain conjure up that means?)The framing shouldn't suck.  It should be more than "a locked door."  You signpost what the hell is going on.  The situation should be "grabby", dangerous, interesting, relevant and consequential, charged.  "A locked door" isn't enough.  There should be more to the GM framing or to the conversation exchange that makes this particular door (which we've established is locked) worth our collective while in spending time on (rather than brushing by until we get to a charged situation we care about).[HR][/HR]I think what might be happening with you and [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER] here is that you're imagining (i) this finite play space and/or (ii) that players actually want conflict-neutral stuff...that they don't want danger and apocalyptica...that they don't want the crosshairs on them....that they don't want to make moves and find out what happens.If you're a player and you don't want that stuff...why are you playing Apocalypse World?  Like if you want to turtle or you want conflict-neutral play that validates your preconception of your character...then why are you playing Apocalypse World?If you're a GM and you think your players might want to turtle or might want conflict-neutral play or might want validation of preconception of character...then you need to reorient everyone at the table (including yourself).Doors are breezed by in conversation about the imagined space unless its a conflict-charged situation where play-to-date or a participant at the table warrant planting a (Agenda/Always-Say/Principles observing) flag in this moment of play and find out what is on the other side of that door...and/or find out what this particular PC is all about (what will they risk/prioritize...will they actually go through with this).EDIT - Just another thought to crystalize things.  This isn't Map-and-Key play where we might have a locked door with nothing on the other side to entice a group of Adventurers to decide if they want to spend an Exploration Turn and a precious resource (Light Source duration or Spell duration or Spell like Knock) to resolve the obstacle (locked and possibly trapped door) to find out if there is something worthwhile on the other side.This isn't a "logistical crawl featuring (some measure of) conflict-neutral exploratory play" and we already know there is something worthwhile on the other side because the situation framing will foreground that.</blockquote>

Verification