Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8940464" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm only going by the posts I read - yours and others, and the direction they are taking the conversation.My goal is to bring the discussion back onto an accurate foundation, which recognises the distribution of authority, and the significance of actions declarations triggering player-side moves, or simply obliging the GM to make a (typically soft) move.This is a fundamental feature of AW as a system. It makes it different from Burning Wheel - where any declared action can trigger a role, regardless of what description it satisfies (so very different from AW), but only if something that relates to a PC's Belief, Relationship or similar character element is at stake. So whereas AW is &quot;if you do it, you do it&quot;, BW is &quot;say 'yes' or roll the dice&quot; (a slogan taken from DitV).Both systems require the GM to respond to evaluation/normativity, but as per my post 707 upthread in AW this is about making moves (announcing badness, putting people in a spot, being very sensitive to salient irrevocability&nbsp; - &quot;hardness&quot; - etc); whereas in BW it's about framing scenes in which Beliefs etc are put into question, and narrating failures primarily by reference to intent rather than task.Both systems are also different from one in which the GM is permitted to call for a roll, or declare an automatic success, based on a view abut the degree of uncertainty in the player's declared action - which is how I understand at least some people approach 5e D&amp;D.And the system that [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] is presupposing - where the GM is free to make soft or hard moves as desired, but is expected to work up to these by proceeding through &quot;granular&quot; details of who does what, with some of these action declarations triggering checks or saving throws on a somewhat ad hoc basis - is different again.This is not primarily an issue of &quot;jargon&quot; - its about acknowledging the actual differences of technique, and carefully describing those differences.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8940464, member: 42582"] I'm only going by the posts I read - yours and others, and the direction they are taking the conversation. My goal is to bring the discussion back onto an accurate foundation, which recognises the distribution of authority, and the significance of actions declarations triggering player-side moves, or simply obliging the GM to make a (typically soft) move. This is a fundamental feature of AW as a system. It makes it different from Burning Wheel - where any declared action can trigger a role, regardless of what description it satisfies (so very different from AW), but only if something that relates to a PC's Belief, Relationship or similar character element is at stake. So whereas AW is "if you do it, you do it", BW is "say 'yes' or roll the dice" (a slogan taken from DitV). Both systems require the GM to respond to evaluation/normativity, but as per my post 707 upthread in AW this is about making moves (announcing badness, putting people in a spot, being very sensitive to salient irrevocability - "hardness" - etc); whereas in BW it's about framing scenes in which Beliefs etc are put into question, and narrating failures primarily by reference to intent rather than task. Both systems are also different from one in which the GM is permitted to call for a roll, or declare an automatic success, based on a view abut the degree of uncertainty in the player's declared action - which is how I understand at least some people approach 5e D&D. And the system that [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] is presupposing - where the GM is free to make soft or hard moves as desired, but is expected to work up to these by proceeding through "granular" details of who does what, with some of these action declarations triggering checks or saving throws on a somewhat ad hoc basis - is different again. This is not primarily an issue of "jargon" - its about acknowledging the actual differences of technique, and carefully describing those differences. [/QUOTE]

Verification