Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8992746" data-attributes="member: 71699">That raises an interesting thought. One could see PbtA moves as regulatory rules on the premise that the preexisting activity is the conversation, and the job of the rule is to regulate the conversation (just as red lights regulate the preexisting activity of driving a car.) The constitutive rules of PbtA games are then things like Harm and Healing, which establishes a system of hit points and damage that moves can regulate. Hack and Slash then indeed does bind that to the fiction in a quantitative way, e.g. doing your damage and choosing to do +1d6 damage. Low hit point quanta are used in order to ensure that change to hit points has clear fictional impact.Other kinds of rules include guidelines, meaning &quot;do something like this&quot; as opposed to &quot;do this&quot;, and principles, which are about what we ought to do. There is a subtle distinction between narrow and wide scope principles, which comes down to whether we feel one &quot;ought to prefer Y and do X&quot;, or &quot;if one prefers Y, one ought to do X&quot;. It might be that when folk speak about principles as preferences, that's actually what they have in mind. I mention these because a game text like DW is replete with guidelines and principles.I mention the above to say that I do not believe DW can work if all you have is generic &quot;move&quot; and 6-, 7+, 10+. Unless you assume that to imply the principle of giving momentum to the fiction? Which to enact requires additional text. Thus, coming back to your comment, PbtA moves end up being constitutive, but only because they are not generic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8992746, member: 71699"] That raises an interesting thought. One could see PbtA moves as regulatory rules on the premise that the preexisting activity is the conversation, and the job of the rule is to regulate the conversation (just as red lights regulate the preexisting activity of driving a car.) The constitutive rules of PbtA games are then things like Harm and Healing, which establishes a system of hit points and damage that moves can regulate. Hack and Slash then indeed does bind that to the fiction in a quantitative way, e.g. doing your damage and choosing to do +1d6 damage. Low hit point quanta are used in order to ensure that change to hit points has clear fictional impact. Other kinds of rules include guidelines, meaning "do something like this" as opposed to "do this", and principles, which are about what we ought to do. There is a subtle distinction between narrow and wide scope principles, which comes down to whether we feel one "ought to prefer Y and do X", or "if one prefers Y, one ought to do X". It might be that when folk speak about principles as preferences, that's actually what they have in mind. I mention these because a game text like DW is replete with guidelines and principles. I mention the above to say that I do not believe DW can work if all you have is generic "move" and 6-, 7+, 10+. Unless you assume that to imply the principle of giving momentum to the fiction? Which to enact requires additional text. Thus, coming back to your comment, PbtA moves end up being [I]constitutive[/I], but only because they are [I]not[/I] generic. [/QUOTE]

Verification