Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9228300" data-attributes="member: 42582">Using GM secret backstory to break the relationship between success at the task and winning (ie achieving the goal) is (by definition) not consistent with conflict resolution.Whether a mystery with GM-authored backstory has to be adjudicated in that fashion is a further question.For instance, consider Apocalypse World. There is no player-side move When you try and crack open a safe . . .. And nor is there a GM-side move Tell them they're stymied.The GM might have prep which tells them where such-and-such a thing is located. If a player has their PC look elsewhere, and no player-side move is triggered (eg the PC is not acting under fire, and is not reading a charged situation), then the GM makes a move, typically a soft move. The point of these is to escalate, by increasing the pressure on whatever it is that the player (as their PC) cares about in the situation.Maybe the GM says "As you start mucking about with the safe, you hear voices outside. It sounds like some of Dremmer's gang have turned up." In that case, perhaps the player replies "They're still outside? Then I work the tumblers as quickly as I can!" Now that's acting under fire, and so the dice are rolled ("If you do it, you do it"). Suppose the result of the roll + Cool is 10 or more - so the PC gets the safe open. Now the GM has to make a move, again a soft move, and There's nothing interesting in there is not a GM-side move. Maybe the GM decides to offer an opportunity - there's something in the safe that is precious to Dremmer, and now the PC has leverage against the gang members who are about to burst in . . .One thing that a player knows, going into AW, is that the true crunch-points involve people, not things. This is evidenced by the basic moves, which are about threatening, manipulating or fighting people, reading them, or acting while under "fire" from them. So when breaking into a safe, the stakes are always going to be primarily who rather than what. (This contrasts with, say, classic D&D where the most basic stakes are what - in particular, what sort of loot - rather than who.)</blockquote>

Verification