Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9008686" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is not like the example of cocked dice. You are now talking about how to resolve a situation in the fiction.The rules of AW are clear on how this is to be done: the players declare actions for their PCs, and if they do it, they do it (ie roll for a player-side move) but otherwise the GM responds by making a move, which is a soft move unless a declared action hands the GM an opportunity on a plate, in which case the move can be as hard and direct as the GM likes.The difference is this: AW has very clear rules on how the GM should respond to any declared action for a PC; whereas D&amp;D doesn't. There's no analogue, in AW, to the &quot;courtly intrigue&quot; blind spot you are pointing to in D&amp;D.Well, I don't think there are rules uncertainties in AW. Has anyone pointed to any? The rulebook provides examples of rules application - pertaining to player-side moves - and these assume that all participants are responsible for correlating fiction and moves. It's clear, for example, that player &quot;take backs&quot; are permitted if a player was confused about whether a particular action would count as &quot;doing it&quot; (one example I'm thinking of involves a player describing their PC as pushing past a NPC, the GM saying &quot;OK, so you're going aggro&quot;, and the player then clarifying &quot;No, if they really don't want to let me past then I'll go the other way&quot;).I'm not sure what you mean by &quot;internal conflicts in world building&quot;. Do you mean &quot;internal to the group of participants&quot;? Or do you mean contradictions in world building? AW has reasonably clear procedures for the former. As far as the latter are concerned, it takes for granted that the participants will conform to the established fiction and thereby, in general, avoid such contradictions; and it doesn't specify any particular procedure for rectifying contradictions that inadvertently occur and then come to light. But the examples given throughout the rulebook, which involve (among other things) take-backs like the one I described above, and provide numerous examples of the GM asking questions and building on the answers, strongly suggest that this would be resolved via some process of table consensus.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9008686, member: 42582"] This is not like the example of cocked dice. You are now talking about how to resolve a situation in the fiction. The rules of AW are clear on how this is to be done: the players declare actions for their PCs, and [i]if they do it, they do it[/i] (ie roll for a player-side move) but otherwise the GM responds by making a move, which is a soft move unless a declared action hands the GM an opportunity on a plate, in which case the move can be as hard and direct as the GM likes. The difference is this: AW has very clear rules on how the GM should respond to any declared action for a PC; whereas D&D doesn't. There's no analogue, in AW, to the "courtly intrigue" blind spot you are pointing to in D&D. Well, I don't think there are rules uncertainties in AW. Has anyone pointed to any? The rulebook provides examples of rules application - pertaining to player-side moves - and these assume that all participants are responsible for correlating fiction and moves. It's clear, for example, that player "take backs" are permitted if a player was confused about whether a particular action would count as "doing it" (one example I'm thinking of involves a player describing their PC as pushing past a NPC, the GM saying "OK, so you're [i]going aggro[/i]", and the player then clarifying "No, if they really don't want to let me past then I'll go the other way"). I'm not sure what you mean by "internal conflicts in world building". Do you mean "internal to the group of participants"? Or do you mean [I]contradictions[/I] in world building? AW has reasonably clear procedures for the former. As far as the latter are concerned, it takes for granted that the participants will conform to the established fiction and thereby, in general, avoid such contradictions; and it doesn't specify any particular procedure for rectifying contradictions that inadvertently occur and then come to light. But the examples given throughout the rulebook, which involve (among other things) take-backs like the one I described above, and provide numerous examples of the GM asking questions and building on the answers, strongly suggest that this would be resolved via some process of table consensus. [/QUOTE]

Verification