Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7604272" data-attributes="member: 6696971">DW and AW work off of the &quot;shared intuitions/understandings of the fiction&quot; model above, very much.&nbsp; However, a couple things work in concert to constrain GMs very much:1)&nbsp; The explicit, focused, clear Principles, Agenda, and Move structure.2)&nbsp; The fact that the game will push back against you if you deviate from (1).3)&nbsp; The fact that if you just follow (1) devoutly, the game works beautifully!I think 1-3 cannot be understated, in particular 3.&nbsp; If a game works, just flat works, and produces the experience it was designed for...then just play it that way!&nbsp; There seems to me to be an inherent assumption in the TTRPG community that 3 is a bit of a unicorn...or perhaps a fleeting phantom that doesn't actually exist.&nbsp; I obviously disagree with that.&nbsp; However, I do agree that some/most systems can mature over time and can be subtly improved in ways that (a) decrease edge cases that aren't as beautiful as the rest of the system (even if extremely remote like in DW) while (b) not causing any negative downstream effects.&nbsp; Hence why importing a few potent components of Blades tech into DW would do just that (while simultaneously subtly changing the overall cognitive workspace of the players without increasing the workload or adding undue handling time).&nbsp; It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Adam Koebel was writing DW now (or iterating a 2nd version) if he didn't include the tech/procedures I mentioned.Interestingly (to your last bit, regarding Force), this would shore up the very tiny space out there where DW/AW is vulnerable to Force (though barely, bare so); the soft/hard GM move on a very few instances of player moves where the locus of the action is significantly (though not fully...because they are interacting with a world and with forces within that world) internal perception.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7604272, member: 6696971"] DW and AW work off of the "shared intuitions/understandings of the fiction" model above, very much. However, a couple things work in concert to constrain GMs very much: 1) The explicit, focused, clear Principles, Agenda, and Move structure. 2) The fact that the game will push back against you if you deviate from (1). 3) The fact that if you just follow (1) devoutly, the game works beautifully! I think 1-3 cannot be understated, in particular 3. If a game works, just flat works, and produces the experience it was designed for...then just play it that way! There seems to me to be an inherent assumption in the TTRPG community that 3 is a bit of a unicorn...or perhaps a fleeting phantom that doesn't actually exist. I obviously disagree with that. However, I do agree that some/most systems can mature over time and can be subtly improved in ways that (a) decrease edge cases that aren't as beautiful as the rest of the system (even if extremely remote like in DW) while (b) not causing any negative downstream effects. Hence why importing a few potent components of Blades tech into DW would do just that (while simultaneously subtly changing the overall cognitive workspace of the players without increasing the workload or adding undue handling time). It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Adam Koebel was writing DW now (or iterating a 2nd version) if he didn't include the tech/procedures I mentioned. Interestingly (to your last bit, regarding Force), this would shore up the very tiny space out there where DW/AW is vulnerable to Force (though barely, bare so); the soft/hard GM move on a very few instances of player moves where the locus of the action is significantly (though not fully...because they are interacting with a world and with forces within that world) internal perception. [/QUOTE]

Verification