Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8698922" data-attributes="member: 16814">Moved this around, with the part most helpful to the fore.You really need to know the basics ones.  That's your core.  Everything else is going to be specific to the moment and what's been introduced.  Like, you can look at a creature or threat you've made that has it's own move and then use that, but you're not missing anything at all if you only ever use the basic moves.  Well, I mean, you're missing something, right, but it won't make the game not work or fail or not be fun at all.  The custom moves are there to add specialness, not because they're required for play.  Know the basic moves, keep them on a card nearby and re-read them to help keep you aware of all the ways you can go on a 6- and 7-9.Under all of that, remember how the game builds in circles.  At the core, you have the 2d6 roll.  On a 10+, success to the player, narrate that.  ON a 7-9, the player gets some success, but you also make a soft move.  On a 6-, make as hard a move as you want.  Again, soft moves are introducing badness but not yet paying it off, and hard moves are paying off badness and making it irrevocable -- that has happened, you don't get to do anything to unhappen it.  This is the absolute core -- if you forget everything else but this and the principles of play, you're gold.  Next circle out are the basic moves, the ones that provide more structure to the conversation and results above.  This is both the GM and the player moves, and they add specific detail or results to the 2d6 roll.  Finally, at the outside, you have the custom moves, the ones that are specific to class or monster or threat.  These generally have specific outcomes for their rolls that take the place of the general soft/hard moves or constrain and direct the scope of the soft/hard moves.  These all gracefully collapse inwards, such that if you forget the outside circle but manage one of the inside ones, play moves along just fine.And now the rest:Where is what I just said actually contradicted in the rules of AW?  You've said this a few times, but it's always left as "it does" without showing where it does.  If you're going to say this, please put up the receipts.  I'll gladly change my mind if you can show where I'm actually doing this. I have no idea what you mean by "pure" here, especially given that AW is the source of PbtA as a whole -- it's the initial presentation of the core engine that hasn't really changed and is still the core for the hacks.  MotW is an example of a PbtA game that's been heavily drifted away from AW and into a much more Trad approach to play, where the GM is creating the story and the hooks and doing much more traditional prep and execution in play and the PbtA engine is there to fill in the spaces left (and the game tells you how to leave these spaces).  Masks is a really great game that does lots of great things with the PbtA engine, but I can't say if it's more or less "pure" than AW.  Know nothing more than the elevator pitch for TSL.But, there's zero point in even trying to compare these games to find out what's more "pure" or not, or even consider one in the light of the other with regard to moves.  Each Hack is doing what it does for a reason, and there's no platonic ideal for that.</blockquote>

Verification