Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 9008048" data-attributes="member: 5142">I'm not trying to spin it. "Git gud" is derogatory. I'm trying to explain it because I thought you misunderstood the point she was making with the phrase. I'm not sure if I follow what you are saying here. I'm also not sure if I understand how this is more preferrable than the alternative. I would add that just because you know that the GM will make a hard move against you in Dungeon World, for example, doesn't mean that you necessarily know what they will do: (1) GMs are instructed not to name moves they use, (2) GMs are instructed to begin and end with the fiction; however, (3) the hard move can be obvious if the GM had already established the threat in advance. For example, the GM tells you that the red dragon is readying itself to breathe fire in your direction. You try to Defy Danger to get out of the way of the impending threat. You fail. You can probably guess what will happen next in the fiction without knowing or caring that the GM must make a hard move. I think that your attitude here does actually jive well with a lot of narrative-focused game principles: e.g., "play to find out what happens," "begin and end with the fiction," etc. There are a lot of narrative-focused games that are pretty anti-fudging since that's "GM Force," which is a pretty big no-no. GMs can't fudge dice in PbtA games or BitD because GMs can't roll. Cam Banks (Cortex Plus/Prime) is a big advocate of openly rolling opposition rolls in front of the group. Sorry. I understand what you were asking for. I am asking you if you would prefer either (1) an actual play that keeps rules references to a minimum or (2) an actual play that explains when rules interactions occur. I'll see what I can find and get back to you.</blockquote>

Verification