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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8441057" data-attributes="member: 42582">You said that, in living sandbox play,In BW, the GM is expected to frame every scene having regard to the player-authored PC priorities. These should be put under pressure by the framing - the action declarations and resolution determine how that pressure resolves. (In AW language, this is a version of soft move/hard move sequence.)In my BW play, you can see that (i) either the GM does this, or (ii) where I feel that the GM is drifting away (eg like with the Elves) I use the mechanisms the game gives me to pull things back into a focus on my priorities for my PC. This is something the game tells me to do (Revised edition, p 269):Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test . . . Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving! . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.With the Elves, I invoked a Duel of Wits to try and persuade them to come with me (Thurgon) to Auxol. I used Circles checks to meet Rufus. The GM used the appearance of Rufus in the situation to put pressure on my PC - which in the end resulted in failure for Thurgon, but began the process of Aramina's change of disposition.I don't really see how this seems "very similar" to play where it's not up to the GM to frame having regard to player priorities for their PCs and there is no guarantee of such scenes at all (ie it "isn't instant").To me it seems radically different.</blockquote>

Verification