Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8661125" data-attributes="member: 42582">Campbell wasn't clarifying, just reiterating. Here's the original post:Campbell clearly used the singular "a player character", and was clearly using "they" and "them" as genderless singular pronouns.This isn't right either. The players in AW can have their PCs do whatever makes sense, given their fictional position. If what they do triggers a move, the move is resolved. Otherwise the GM does their bit, which is to make a soft move unless the player has handed them a golden opportunity to make a hard move.The players had their chance to do things when they declared actions and rolled the dice! And the soft move that sets things up will typically have already happened, when the GM had to say something earlier in the conversation.I know you say you've played DW et al, but your description of the process of play is weird to me, because you don't seem to be recognising that not every player action declaration for their PC triggers a move, and hence the role of the GM in making soft moves that build up the stakes until those stakes (or some of them) are settled one way or another when a player actually rolls for a move.This reinforces my puzzlement about how you're describing play. Where did the wall come from (in the shared fiction? in the trajectory of play?) What did the players do that made the separation of the PCs by a falling wall a prospect?Suppose that, in D&D, the PCs are exploring a dungeon that they know to be replete with traps. And they describe their PCs walking down a particular corridor. And then the GM declares that a portcullis falls, and calls for Reflex saves - whoever makes their save gets to decide which side of the portcullis they're on, and otherwise the GM makes a random roll (and anyone who rolls a natural 1 gets spiked for their troubles!). The players aren't normally entitled to dispute their Reflex roll. Maybe they can substitute something else for Reflex -say Fortitude to hold the portcullis up? But in that case they're bound by the result of that roll. They don't get endless saving throws.So in a DW game, the PCs are exploring a dungeon that they know to be replete with traps. And then the GM mentions a corridor. And one of the players declares that they search it for traps: Discern Realities. And the throw fails. Well, the player has had their turn, and they failed their check, and now it's the GM's turn: "You notice the pressure plate too late - you've already stepped on it, and a portcullis falls between you and . . ." The player is not entitled to endless saving throws. If another player declares "I roll under the portcullis as it falls, to make sure they're not alone" that sounds like Defy Danger on DEX - if it fails a proverbial spiking would seem a fair hard move!If another player declares "I grab the portcullis as it falls" I think it's fair for the GM to reply "Sorry, it's already fallen." Again, the Gm isn't obliged to permit endless saving throws. The player was prepared to take the benefits of traps being found: now they have to suck up the consequences - separation! - that are resulting instead.How are the other PCs implicated in the situation and its consequences? Did they try to help? Try to hinder? Want the advantages of the the move made by the other player?A final comment: as a player who often advocates "trusting the GM", I'm puzzled that you would make moves as an AW or DW GM that your players would regard as unfair because the stakes weren't clear.</blockquote>

Verification