Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8701346" data-attributes="member: 16814">Not a bit.  I've put forth my arguments, I haven't relied upon statements that I have experience, so trust me.And they haven't managed to argue against the points I've made, but rather made other points against things I didn't argue.  And then you agreed with those other points (I do as welll) and [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] did.  You're all agreeing with the things I'm not arguing, and then assuming that you've all addressed the thing I'm arguing.The principles of play.  The agenda of play.  That AW is not intended to be engaged in no-conflict play.  We see this clearly by the fact that all the moves are conflict resolution moves, not task resolution, that the GM's moves are all clearly intended to crank up pressure, not reduce or maintain, and that the examples are all about pressure situations.  The very argument about "if the players look to you, make a move" is about correcting a moment where the players aren't sure about the pressure, so add one.The principles of play. If the players don't have something to work against, and are uncertain, then the GM needs to correct this and give them some conflict to focus on or pay off the one they're ignoring.  That this rule, with the list of GM moves and the principles of play, ALWAYS moves the game into more pressure.  If the game were running as intended when the players are looking to the GM, why would we have this rule that explicitly tells the GM 'hey, add pressure!'  It would seem we'd have other things to do to keep the game in the no pressure situation, but we do not.  There's nothing for the game to do in no pressures situations.  We HAVE to move the game to pressure.No, I've said that the GM cannot block an action unless it's already established fictionally or if it's the result of a move.  This includes the 7-9 results (as appropriate), the 6- (as appropriate), and any GM moves from a golden opportunity.  So far, I haven't seen an argument that establishes that the GM CAN block actions based only on the GM's prep or thinking that haven't been fictionally established or the result of a move.  [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s gyrocopter example is rooted in no conflict, no pressure play.  When we add pressure, we also add the elements necessary to support my argument -- that moves should be called for or golden opportunities served.Do you have a cite for this?  Doesn't sound like what I'd say, so it seems like there's some missing context.  I can see saying that you aren't declaring actions to prompt the GM to tell you more about the setting.This is after the situation is described, and in the context of declaring it so to block a declared action.  Do you have support that the GM should be fiat blocking actions in AW?  I mean, I can just point to "play to find out" here.  Fiat blocking actions is not playing to find out.The techniques of describing the scene, describing the action, and describing the threat?  It doesn't do this, at all, ever?  So, then how do just moves work without setting the fiction up, and having that discussion, and then presenting the problem?  Framing isn't a hard and fast one way only.  It can be informal or formal.  AW doesn't use a formal scene framing, this is true, but there's lots of informal framing, with the same elements, going on.  This is a vocabulary argument, and I don't find it terribly useful but rather just a point to try an use a dictionary to win a different argument.Sigh.  This seems a willful misinterpretation trying to find a nitpick.  But it's wrong.  Because the term you just complained about, framing?  Yeah, that include the scenery but then also the problem.  My argument isn't that you don't describe anything that isn't a problem (because that would lead to a completely nonsense result) but that you don't ONLY say conflict-neutral things.  That there has to be a conflict.Nope, and you calling them this doesn't actually make them so.  Building a strawman just to knock it down and crow about it also doesn't mean I'm actually the strawman.Lol.  I also advice that no one take some of the statements you've attributed to me above as advice.  They're terrible strawmen, and not very useful.</blockquote>

Verification