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: 8441367" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yep. I've done this in Cthulhu Dark. I think the most significant consequence of adopting intent-and-task is that player purposes/goals loom larger in play: if checks succeed, then play follows those purposes/goals; if checks fail, then complications ensue which are complications relative to those purposes/goals. So even if checks fail, player purposes/goals are still front-and-centre.A flip side of this is that intent-and-task is probably not helpful if the plan is to run a pre-scripted adventure.Another example of cross-pollination: I don't know if it quite counts as "mixing and matching", but I've found looking at Classic Traveller through the lens of AW player moves - if you do it, you do it - very helpful. It's given me a sense of what the mechanics and all the little subsystems are for, and has helped me think about what sorts of situations to frame (ie ones where the subsystems will be enlivened and help carry play forward).EDIT:Cthulhu Dark is a nice example here. The default assumption for play is that the GM is working through a module, and so there is a strong backstory present, and hence intent-and-task probably wouldn't be apposite.But when I've run Cthulhu Dark it's been "no myth" (other than generic setting stuff: between-the-wars Boston; Victorian London) and so intent-and task has helped provide the "structure" to drive play forward in the absence of backstory.</blockquote>

Verification