NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8491193" data-attributes="member: 82106">Ah, I see. Fair enough. I'm non-picky enough that I just read all the various formulations as conditional future tense. I think what you're saying about BW is pretty much what I'm saying, which is that there isn't any possibility of a GM imposed hidden backstory kind of 'No' possible. I guess its possible that the player doesn't know the correct formulation of action? IE there's a door, I want to open it, there could be a variety of ways, so I suppose 'open the door' could precipitate "you will have to get past the lock first" which would precipitate "I break the door down", etc. This would be pretty much the DW flow, with its tri-partite branching structure of "you failed, and something bad happens", "you succeeded, but the result is complicated", or "yup, you are through to the other side and things are great." I would note however that it isn't actually clear how you would adjudicate "break down a door" in DW! I mean, its moves are more 'abstract' in many cases. So the question becomes "why are you breaking down the door?" is it to avoid some kind of danger, then DD applies. If its just a desire to get to the other side because you want to, then basically you succeed! The GM could, maybe should, 'build a dungeon filled with doors' by creating a move for that environment. Something like "when the PCs smash down a door, one of the Orcs of Gruumsh comes to investigate."</blockquote>

Verification