NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alexander Kalinowski" data-source="post: 7559859" data-attributes="member: 6931283">Now, that's a dirty word. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Force is a tool in a-many GMs' toolbox. And like any tool, it can be handled well and it can be handled awkwardly. Most importantly, I'd like you to recall what I said about MMI: when a GM abandons game world simulation, he does so out of meta-concerns. These may be well-founded or they might be capricious. I think I am aware of it. There's no accounting for taste.I think your explanation of PbtA conforms exactly with my own interpretation of it, which sees this family of RPGs for the most part as story-generation games (which is not to deny that they're RPGs; they are) with snowballing Moves as their building blocks.I think I get that. My issue with PbtA is that I wouldn't want it to be my main game because I have preference for games who model the gaming-world in greater detail and thus giving more weight to certain parts of the narration. If the GM tells me in Shadowrun that the enemy orc is 7 meters away and running side-ways, I am aware of the definite mechanical implications of that. This is what I call the physics of a gaming world because, ironically, they impose a constraint on what the GM can do. (Which, btw, a GM could overrule - in theory. But of course, the threat of players getting up and leaving might be quite real in such a case.)</blockquote>

Verification