Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9008749" data-attributes="member: 42582">Have you read the AW rules?Their avoidance of uncertainty is nothing to do with &quot;an incredible feat of language&quot;. It's a result of an incredible feat of RPG design, that rests on all the work Vincent Baker did for many years identifying the relationship between shared fiction, participant functions, and mechanics.As I already posted not far upthread, the rules of AW are: the players declare actions, if they do it, they do it, and otherwise the GM makes a move. Often the resolution of a player-side move also requires the GM to make a move. When the GM makes a move, the game provides a list of ones to choose from.None of this is uncertain. It puts all the weight on the fiction. And as I posted upthread, if a player misunderstands the fiction and hence is taken by the GM to have &quot;done it&quot; when they didn't mean to &quot;do it&quot;, then their action can be taken back.What sorts of uncertainties do you have in mind? Uncertainty about the rules? Or uncertainty about the fiction? I've expressed my view that the rules aren't uncertain; and I've already explained how uncertainties about the fiction are handled.I think a lot of those who are &quot;suspicious&quot; are not able to think clearly about RPG rules that don't look more-or-less like wargame or boardgame rules.In a lot of discussions about AW over the past few years, I've noticed a general hesitation on the part of some posters - the ones you are calling &quot;suspicious&quot; - to take literally the AW rules. They want to import wargame-like assumptions, such as the role of maps and prep, and the associated expectation that the GM can make hard moves outside the clear rules statements in AW as to when hard moves can be made.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9008749, member: 42582"] Have you read the AW rules? Their avoidance of uncertainty is nothing to do with "an incredible feat of language". It's a result of an incredible feat of RPG design, that rests on all the work Vincent Baker did for many years identifying the relationship between shared fiction, participant functions, and mechanics. As I already posted not far upthread, the rules of AW are: the players declare actions, [I]if they do it, they do it[/I], and otherwise the GM makes a move. Often the resolution of a player-side move also requires the GM to make a move. When the GM makes a move, the game provides a list of ones to choose from. None of this is uncertain. It puts all the weight on the fiction. And as I posted upthread, if a player misunderstands the fiction and hence is taken by the GM to have "done it" when they didn't mean to "do it", then their action can be taken back. What sorts of uncertainties do you have in mind? Uncertainty about the rules? Or uncertainty about the fiction? I've expressed my view that the rules aren't uncertain; and I've already explained how uncertainties about the fiction are handled. I think a lot of those who are "suspicious" are not able to think clearly about RPG rules that don't look more-or-less like wargame or boardgame rules. In a lot of discussions about AW over the past few years, I've noticed a general hesitation on the part of some posters - the ones you are calling "suspicious" - to take literally the AW rules. They want to import wargame-like assumptions, such as the role of maps and prep, and the associated expectation that the GM can make hard moves outside the clear rules statements in AW as to when hard moves can be made. [/QUOTE]

Verification