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: 8420076" data-attributes="member: 42582">You seem to be positing that this is something the game leaves under the control of the GM. I don't agree. I don't think that's consistent with how the game is written (pp 11-12):You probably know this already: roleplaying is a conversation. You and the other players go back and forth, talking about these fictional characters in their fictional circumstances doing whatever it is that they do. Like any conversation, you take turns, but it’s not like taking turns, right? Sometimes you talk over each other, interrupt, build on each others’ ideas, monopolize. All fine. All these rules do is mediate the conversation. They kick in when someone says some particular things, and they impose constraints on what everyone should say after. Makes sense, right? . . . When a player says that her character does something listed as a move, that’s when she rolls, and that’s the only time she does. The rule for moves is to do it, do it. In order for it to be a move and for the player to roll dice, the character has to do something that counts as that move; and whenever the character does something that counts as a move, it’s the move and the player rolls dice.This isn't an optional rule, or GM's discretion. It's at the start of the book under the heading The Basics.In <a href="https://lumpley.games/2019/12/30/powered-by-the-apocalypse-part-1/" target="_blank">the commentary</a> that I think is what you are referring to, Baker saysA crucial feature of Apocalypse World’s design is that these layers are designed to collapse gracefully inward: <ul style="margin-left: 20px"> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Forget the peripheral harm moves? That’s cool. You’re missing out, but the rules for harm have got you covered.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Forget the rules for harm? that’s cool. You’re missing out, but the basic moves have got you covered. Just describe the splattering blood and let the moves handle the rest.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Forget the basic moves? That’s cool. You’re missing out, but just remember that 10+ = hooray, 7-9 = mixed, and 6- = something worse happens.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Don’t even feel like rolling the dice? Fair enough. You’re missing out, but the conversational structure still works.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> </ul>There is nothing there about GM options either. It doesn't say if the MC vetoes the use of basic moves. It talks about generic/universal forgetting.Now if someone says, Let's play Apocalypse World, but we won't use any dice rolls and I'll just tell you what happens when you have your PC do stuff, well that's their prerogative to make that pitch but I think it's pretty obvious that we're not playing AW anymore.Again, this is a departure from what the actual rules of AW says. And if you combine it with the above, what you're positing is that the prospective GM says Let's play Apocalypse, but we won't use any dice rolls and I'll just tell you what happens when you have your PC do stuff, and I don't promise to stick to the principles either - even moreso, we're not play AW anymore.I get that, but I don't find the argument persuasive. You're positing that AW gives the GM options - to unilaterally dispense with the basic moves, and/or the triggers for moves (ie abandon If you do it, you do it), and the principles. But AW doesn't say this - in fact it says exactly the opposite - and Baker doesn't say this in his commentary either.</blockquote>

Verification