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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8028138" data-attributes="member: 16814">I think, then, you're missing something absolutely fundamental.  Again, let's look at the Burgomaster scenario.  Let's assume play, for whatever reason, has reached the same (or very similar) situation in both games, however that works.  So, what we have is a negotiation with a local power figure, and one player has chosen to escalate to threats and insults.  There's been some information passed that the Burgomaster does not tolerate such from townsfolk, but nothing yet established in play (not notes) as to how the Burgomaster will react.In AW, the GM has two options -- let the insult work outright (say yes) or challenge it (roll the dice).  That's it, they can't look at any notes they may have (and prep can be a thing in AW) and declare an outcome.  The player, by dint of the action chosen, has constrained the GM to either agree or let the mechanics take it.  If the GM choses the mechanics, then we have three outcomes.  First, on a success, the GM can only choose to have the Burgomaster capitulate or to not capitulate but instead suffer whatever harm is part of the action.  In this case, a likely set of options would be that the Burgomaster backs down and proceeds accepting his unfit to rule or he resists but in doing so, the PC takes him hostage.  Play can proceed from here.On a partial, the GM must accept one of the partial outcomes, which the player chooses.  The GM can then proceed with play, but this outcome is fixed.On a failure, the GM is free to make however hard a move as they want, which would easily fit calling for the guards (show future badness).  Regardless, the GM is tightly constrained as to what the result will be, and only has the option to follow through on whatever prep exists if he first challenges the action declaration and then the check fails.In 5e, the GM just decides what happens.  They can decide to follow something that looks like the above, or they can decide to follow their notes.  The GM is unconstrained and can outright negate the intent of the action, either by fiat or because of secret notes that detail how this interaction will play out.  The best cast here for agency is that the GM decides to allow for it to exist.  A quite often outcome, especially in a module that does what this one did and pre-scripts outcomes without the benefit of the input fiction, is to not allow for agency to exist and instead direct play to the predetermined outcome.Again, I love to play 5e.  It's just a different game and handles agency in a different way from games like AW.  I'm not, at all, trying to say that play in AW is better for any reason.  I'm just answering the claim that it's the same in regards to agency.  It is not.In 5e?  Sure, so long as we're agreed the mechanic is "GM decides."No, that's a bad outcome, and an immediately apparent use of Force.  It's apparent because the 'suck it up' choice results in the target refusing the demand but suffering a negative outcome.  Calling in reinforcements is not a negative outcome.  There are a wealth of possibilities, but none of them should be the BM sucking it up and getting an advantage out of that.  The choice to refuse the request on a success is to accept a different, but meaningful, penalty.  This is the agency inherent in the AW way of doing things -- the GM is constrained on a success to either have the NPC accede to the demand or suffer for refusing.  That the GM has the agency to choose between these two choices, and has some leeway on what harm is suffered if not clear from the fiction, does mean that the situation is the same as in 5e where the GM has no such constraints imposed by the player action. It's one of those hurdles you have to leap.  If a player declares an action and fails, and it would make sense in the currently established fiction and the genre that a door being used in the failed action is trapped, then announcing a trap is perfectly valid.  Randomly applying traps to doors that aren't part of a failed action is poorly done, and could be broken play, especially if it becomes a secret note against a future action.Fundamentally, there's never a case in AW or DW where a door is secretly trapped before an action.  A trapped door is either established in previous fiction, such as information gained in prior sessions about this door, or in scene framing.  Never as something that the players have to check for or they fall victim to it.  This is the nature of PbtA play.  You're finding out that that door was trapped all along with the players, not determining it before play.  Prep, in this case, would be notes for a possible failed roll to have things quick to hand, not as a planned or necessary part of play.You're absolutely misdirecting if you're making one of those moves but not saying it's name.  And, no, it's not antagonistic.  One of the core principles of PbtA play is to be a fan of the PCs.  You should root for them, and enjoy their successes.  But, PCs can't have successes unless put into danger, so it's also your job to put the PCs into tough situations and see what happens.  This is what we do when we root for a character in a movie -- we don't want to see that character having a boring but happy home life where nothing happens.  We want to see that character put into bad spots and succeed!  Think about John in Die Hard -- it's a boring movie if the terrorists don't show up, or if John doesn't lose his shoes and run around barefoot.  John gets beat up, put in desperate situations, but everyone cheers when he comes out of it, battered but successful.  This is what you have to do in PbtA.  You don't jerk characters around, you faithfully play the bad situations they find themselves in, and then enjoy the hell out of them dealing with it.  Using the mechanics to tell when you should up the ante, and the principles of soft and hard moves, really put this into a very good framework of play where you're not arbitrarily being a jerk, you're adding pressure and problems due to the PC's own actions.  Simplifying this as antagonistic play or being a jerk to the players is completely not understanding the framework.Again, I put my players through the wringer last weekend, and they loved it.  Doesn't sound like me being a jerk or being antagonistic.</blockquote>

Verification