Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 9226383" data-attributes="member: 16586">Sure, a GM may illicit player intent and make success always mean a player realizes their intent. If done in such a way where that is the binding expectation at the table, we no longer have task resolution. We have conflict resolution. What makes conflict resolution well conflict resolution is that it directly resolves what players are attempting to accomplish in a way that binds everyone to those results.GM fiat cannot exist in a conflict resolution framework because in a game like Apocalypse World the GM has no authority besides what the game gives them. That means when Plover puts a gun to Diamondtooth's head and yells 'Get down on your hands and knees' the GM/MC has no choice but to allow the Go Aggro mechanics to take effect. Doing otherwise is explicitly and emphatically against the rules of the game. They also are duty bound to make GM Moves and not allow play to meander to conflict neutral play.Addendum: You can have somewhat binding task resolution rules as seen by what you see in something like Pathfinder Second Edition, but the key difference is that they do not actively resolve the actual stakes. It's still largely up to GM judgement to start and end scenes, decide on fallout, etc.</blockquote>