Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8699847" data-attributes="member: 16814">To latch onto this, because I've had another thought about this example:1.&nbsp; We're in a conflict-neutral situation.&nbsp; This is something that the GM has allowed to happen.2.&nbsp; The players, without any pressure or obvious thing to address, declare an action.&nbsp; Since, again, no conflict is here, odds are good this action doesn't trigger a move.3.&nbsp; Since the players are taking actions that do not trigger moves, the GM can now make a move instead.4.&nbsp; The GM makes the move.4a.&nbsp; The move the GM makes doesn't really go to create conflict.&nbsp; Like the gyrocopter example, where the neutral player action is starting the gyrocopter and the GM move is &quot;it doesn't start and breaks.&quot;&nbsp; This doesn't introduce conflict, so it's another GM invitation to the players to do something that will likely go back to 2.&nbsp; 4b.&nbsp; The GM actually does make a move that introduces conflict, like maybe rival gangers showing up to fight over the gyrocopter.&nbsp; This, to me, is correcting the error in 1.&nbsp; This whole chain originated with the failure to have conflict in the scene, and so we're faffing about to find a place to correct this.&nbsp; To me, this reads as using a poor situation -- bordering into degenerate for AW -- to justify making a GM move that, if one squints and continues the borderline degenerate play, might be argued to defend placing more conflict-neutral content in the hopes that we'll eventually get to some conflict. This whole things, to me, is neglecting some pretty key principles of play and the agenda of play.&nbsp; Thoughts?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8699847, member: 16814"] To latch onto this, because I've had another thought about this example: 1. We're in a conflict-neutral situation. This is something that the GM has allowed to happen. 2. The players, without any pressure or obvious thing to address, declare an action. Since, again, no conflict is here, odds are good this action doesn't trigger a move. 3. Since the players are taking actions that do not trigger moves, the GM can now make a move instead. 4. The GM makes the move. 4a. The move the GM makes doesn't really go to create conflict. Like the gyrocopter example, where the neutral player action is starting the gyrocopter and the GM move is "it doesn't start and breaks." This doesn't introduce conflict, so it's another GM invitation to the players to do something that will likely go back to 2. 4b. The GM actually does make a move that introduces conflict, like maybe rival gangers showing up to fight over the gyrocopter. This, to me, is correcting the error in 1. This whole chain originated with the failure to have conflict in the scene, and so we're faffing about to find a place to correct this. To me, this reads as using a poor situation -- bordering into degenerate for AW -- to justify making a GM move that, if one squints and continues the borderline degenerate play, might be argued to defend placing more conflict-neutral content in the hopes that we'll eventually get to some conflict. This whole things, to me, is neglecting some pretty key principles of play and the agenda of play. Thoughts? [/QUOTE]

Verification