Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9249604" data-attributes="member: 42582">By way of prelude: this post is not an assertion of expertise. It's a response to the quoted posts, and a contextualisation of them in terms of things I've already posted upthread of both. As the OP of this thread, I'm making this post in an attempt to identify and bring together common threads in the discussion. But not to eliminate differences of approach with an unwarranted prescriptivity.Absolutely!As per my post upthread,In terms of principles, I would identify this as one way (by no means the only way) of being a fan of the players' characters. They are the protagonists, and events follow them, not vice versa.Which leads me to this:When [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] says that, in AW, rules take precedence over the fiction, I take her (i) to be referring to the procedures of play, and (ii) to be using "the fiction"  to mean "what has been established so far, and its apparent trajectory" and even moreso "what the GM hopes that trajectory will arrive at".I see it as a different way of expressing the same point, or at least a closely related one, to my point that GM prep is not a basis for adjudicating that a player's action declaration for their PC fails. This is what I take to be implied by the contrast drawn between "trad" GMing and AW GMing: the AW GM is not expected or required or even entitled to make a call whether a situation at hand warrants using the rules or not. Does this make sense? Is this situation interesting enough? Can PC even fail here? That whole "don't roll the dice if there are no interesting consequences for both failure and success."Rather, "if you do it, you do it" and the dice are rolled and it is the GM's job to make it interesting, including by making up new fiction and perhaps taking the established fiction in some unexpected direction. Like maybed a hard move in response to a failed Go Aggro against a bound prisoner: that bastard sneakily got out of the ropes and has been biding his sweet time to escape right until now! (respond with <mischief> by taking away their "stuff").In abstract structural terms, there is a resemblance to a 4e D&D skill challenge (which also, in this respect, resembles a HeroWars/Quest extended contest, a BW Duel of Wits, or any Torchbearer 2e conflict): in a skill challenge, the GM is obliged to the scene "alive" and developing until the requisite count of successes or failures is achieved. I commonly read criticism of this: but what if the players have their PCs do <this thing> which "naturally" brings the scene to an end? The response, of course, is that there *is no such thing: the fictional resources of the GM are unlimited, and they are obliged to draw upon those resources - or, less metaphorically, to make things up! - that keeps the scene going. The same as happens in any D&D combat if no one is reduced to zero hp yet.So likewise in AW. There is no "it doesn't make sense to roll here" or "going aggro will never work on this NPC - why would Dremmer be scared of you?" If you do it, you do it, so make with the dice: and GM, get ready to think up some stuff that makes sense and is interesting.</blockquote>

Verification