Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8699072" data-attributes="member: 16814">I can't, really, grant this.&nbsp; It's a pretty big deal, actually.This &quot;you&quot; is an odd and confusing thing your doing.&nbsp; I'm not finding it helpful to following your point.&nbsp; Let's drop it in the future?Yes, if the player just quits, then you need to pay off the soft move with as hard a move as you want.&nbsp; This is the golden opportunity.&nbsp; And it's not at all comparable to the example I presented with the door, which has no lurking hard move associated.&nbsp; Change the example materially, and you should expect the response to the example to also change.Yeah, actually, you shouldn't be doing that.&nbsp; Either opening the door is a crux point, in which case the only way you should be changing the fiction for the worse is due to the result of consequence due to a check or ignoring a soft move -- which is exactly what you do above.&nbsp; The GM should not just be saying the door is locked because the GM thinks the door should be locked.&nbsp; That's not how AW plays.&nbsp; That the door shouldn't even be a point of discussion unless it's already framed in as part of a charged situation is further down the line, but no less important.Unless the door being locked is a major part of the charged situation, you shouldn't be deciding its locked to block a PC action just because.&nbsp; Look, the door example was to show how a thing that 100% perfectly normal and expected in Trad play doesn't work at all in Story Now play.&nbsp; In Trad play, play is largely about prompting the GM to reveal more information about the setting/situation by taking actions to discover these things.&nbsp; This is not at all how AW is supposed to run. You aren't trying to open the door with the expectation that this will prompt the GM to tell you more about the setting.&nbsp; IF you go to open the door and it's locked, that better be because of the result of a check or because the GM and you are still in the conversation setting up the scene to begin with.&nbsp; Otherwise, it's a trivial point and shouldn't be being used to block anything.&nbsp; If you, as the GM, need that door to be locked to do something, you should have framed it already.&nbsp; Otherwise, trust the system because it will still work out.And if anyone thinks that they they do have an error in understanding.&nbsp; I don't find appeals to hypothetical people in error to be useful though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8699072, member: 16814"] I can't, really, grant this. It's a pretty big deal, actually. This "you" is an odd and confusing thing your doing. I'm not finding it helpful to following your point. Let's drop it in the future? Yes, if the player just quits, then you need to pay off the soft move with as hard a move as you want. This is the golden opportunity. And it's not at all comparable to the example I presented with the door, which has no lurking hard move associated. Change the example materially, and you should expect the response to the example to also change. Yeah, actually, you shouldn't be doing that. Either opening the door is a crux point, in which case the only way you should be changing the fiction for the worse is due to the result of consequence due to a check or ignoring a soft move -- which is exactly what you do above. The GM should not just be saying the door is locked because the GM thinks the door should be locked. That's not how AW plays. That the door shouldn't even be a point of discussion unless it's already framed in as part of a charged situation is further down the line, but no less important. Unless the door being locked is a major part of the charged situation, you shouldn't be deciding its locked to block a PC action just because. Look, the door example was to show how a thing that 100% perfectly normal and expected in Trad play doesn't work at all in Story Now play. In Trad play, play is largely about prompting the GM to reveal more information about the setting/situation by taking actions to discover these things. This is not at all how AW is supposed to run. You aren't trying to open the door with the expectation that this will prompt the GM to tell you more about the setting. IF you go to open the door and it's locked, that better be because of the result of a check or because the GM and you are still in the conversation setting up the scene to begin with. Otherwise, it's a trivial point and shouldn't be being used to block anything. If you, as the GM, need that door to be locked to do something, you should have framed it already. Otherwise, trust the system because it will still work out. And if anyone thinks that they they do have an error in understanding. I don't find appeals to hypothetical people in error to be useful though. [/QUOTE]

Verification