Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="deleuzian_kernel" data-source="post: 8699107" data-attributes="member: 7036985">Like I said on <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/help-me-get-apocalypse-world-and-pbta-games-in-general.689967/post-8698700" target="_blank">#66</a>, &quot;I could imagine a situation...&quot; The kind of situation is precisely the one you hold as a requirement: That the door being locked matters dramatically. There is NO argument there. In those situations where the door is incidental to the action...why should we waste our time with it? No! Let's get to what matters. (This however has NOTHING to do with the point I was trying to make then which had to do with player's legitimacy in declaring actions.) However, you are limiting the situations where a locked door matters, only to those where said door was declared locked from the get-go; as part of some sort of &quot;initial stakes&quot;. This is were I'm arguing you are not correct and I'm pointing at examples where the book suggest you might be wrong.The locked door doesn't exist in a vacuum. The door belongs to someone. Someone in conflict with you with regards to what you want, which obviously is behind that door. Otherwise &quot;the door&quot; wouldn't be a conflict to you.That &quot;someone&quot; can be a something in this case, a landscape threat of the fortress type, whose impulse is to deny access and it has the move Bar the way.If play leads us to a situation where the player wants to infiltrate Dremmer's House, a fortress, and we describe them walking around it trying to find another door. When they say &quot;Aha! There's a door. I open the door.&quot;, the MC is in full capacity to respond to the player's expectant eyes with &quot;You go to push against the door, only to find that it's locked. What do you do?&quot; Bar the way, misdirect, ask what they do.The fortress raises the stakes. Are they willing to force themselves in instead?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="deleuzian_kernel, post: 8699107, member: 7036985"] Like I said on [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/help-me-get-apocalypse-world-and-pbta-games-in-general.689967/post-8698700']#66[/URL], "I could imagine a situation..." The kind of situation is precisely the one you hold as a requirement: That the door being locked [I]matters dramatically[/I]. There is NO argument there. In those situations where the door is incidental to the action...why should we waste our time with it? No! Let's get to what matters. (This however has NOTHING to do with the point I was trying to make then which had to do with player's legitimacy in declaring actions.) However, you are limiting the situations where a locked door [I]matters[/I], only to those where said door was declared locked from the get-go; as part of some sort of "initial stakes". This is were I'm arguing you are not correct and I'm pointing at examples where the book suggest you might be wrong. The locked door doesn't exist in a vacuum. The door belongs to [I]someone[/I]. [I]Someone[/I] in conflict with you with regards to what you want, which obviously is behind that door. Otherwise "the door" wouldn't be a conflict to you. That "[I]someone" [/I]can be a [I]something[/I] in this case, a landscape threat of the fortress type, whose impulse is [I]to deny access [/I]and it has the move [B]Bar the way[/B]. If play leads us to a situation where the player wants to infiltrate Dremmer's House, a fortress, and we describe them walking around it trying to find another door. When they say "Aha! There's a door. I open the door.", the MC is in full capacity to respond to the player's expectant eyes with "You go to push against the door, only to find that it's locked. What do you do?" [B]Bar the way[/B], [B]misdirect[/B], [B]ask what they do[/B]. The [I]fortress[/I] raises the stakes. Are they willing to force themselves in instead? [/QUOTE]

Verification