Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="deleuzian_kernel" data-source="post: 8699010" data-attributes="member: 7036985">My friend, that was meant to summarize a situation. Grant me that the assurance isn't enough. Let's see:When you give Dremmer said assurance, you look at me, The MC, to see if you've convinced Dremmer: I get to make a move. My move is Put someone in a spot. I call you out on what you did to Marie (whatever that is) and tell you that I think loyalty means nothing to you and I still don't believe you. I'm still willing to wait for another kind of assurance, though. However you quickly give up and let it go: maybe what I said about Marie DOES in fact put you in your place and make you realize you kind of were disloyal back then, so you decide to just bail with "'Well, I guess you'll have to take my word'. I leave and head back to the sanctuary."You are right in that your inability to deal with the 7-9 thens open me for a hard move. The conversation is messy though, it is not neatly sequenced sometimes, yet it's coherent and organized, and it's definitely not meant to go "Ok, I decide I don't want to give further assurance to Dremmer. Does he do anything to stop me before I leave?" F$%k no! I also don't say "Wait, before you leave this is what the result of your inability to provide assurance entails." Make your move, but misdirect.You gave me "I head back to the sanctuary", I give you "In whose car?"We agree that the door should never be "locked" because of the GM's secret plans. Where we disagree is that the door NEEDS to be pronounced explicitly locked for the GM to affirm it is, in fact, locked once a PC says "I open the door." Also very different from the GM saying it wasn't before but now it is (that would be really bad).You say The door can only be locked if it's framed in as part of the situation and has stakes, and to this, I say YES, but not every element of the situation gets to be framed explicitly, that would be a waste of everyone's time. Moreover, Apocalypse World is built around a model of implicit conflict where, from the get-go, every situation is potentially filled with lots of uncertain interests and conflicts. This is why Vincent and Meguey did not go at length to define a "scene framing" protocol for his game. Scene framing happens organically through the snowballing of moves and the participation in the conversation.I think this comes from an imperfect understanding of AW model of implicit conflict. Scenes are not start points and end points of the interesting conflict this game is about. Play doesn't stop and wait for us to reframe into a new situation where we can once again make moves. AW "normal loop" is its main situational loop: the conversation.</blockquote>

Verification