Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8661160" data-attributes="member: 16814">Oh, you don't have to provide a pedigree, by no means.  But, you've suddenly chosen to do so.  Such a claim would have been rather relevant in previous discussions, where you've listed other games you've played, but not these.  So, the sudden appearance of a pedigree that's very clearly a claim to experience to bolster credibility seems interesting.  You're, of course, welcome to post whatever you'd like -- I have no say on that.About the point people stop listing their geek cred as a reason to believe what they're going to say next, I guess.  I question this cred because you've not previously shown any real evidence of understanding of how these games play -- sometimes very far off -- and I find that hard to square with your newly claimed pedigree.  So, to answer your question, sure, the moment it stops being used as a crutch.  If you present actual play from these games, examples that show your understanding -- you know, like I do, and [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] does, and [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] does, and... so on -- then you'll escape the questions.  Heck, a steelmanning of how these games are expected to play would suffice.  Can you steelman the expected play of a PbtA game?Oh, no.  Plenty of people disagree with me.  My problem is that I've seen no evidence that you can make a strong argument for how these games are supposed to run.  You haven't yet.  So, if you have that knowledge, it's not something you've yet chosen to deploy.  I await with bated breath.  I'd love to have an actual discussion where we aren't argument about basic facts of how these games are supposed to work and so we can dive into differences (of opinion and play) with a solid foundation!I've certainly done that with people that show they have a good grasp of the concepts but dislike them.  You can dislike these games all you want -- I'd welcome that. So long as it's paired with understanding.Ah, you complain that I'm questioning your geek cred but now are flipping that script and saying I just must not have the depth of experience you do.  I mean, totally devoid of actual examples of such, sure, but I'm following.Nope.  Example misstated.  And, had you had experience with the games you're claiming, the oddness of the structure of the misstatement of the example should have been obvious because it would violate the principles of play.  The actual example was 1 PC and the outcome applied only to that 1 PC.  No other PCs were mentioned, and, as [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] said about his example, even considered when the example was offered.Right?The players in a D&D game have no authority or say in when a conflict resolves.  None.  If the GM is asking for their input, that's the GM sharing things out, which isn't required.  And the GM retains full veto authority over any input that they do choose to loan out, thus retaining the full authority (basically asking for opinions before making their call).  So, no, analysis of the authority of these games is different.  Which is an interesting point because there's many complaints about how the GM is constrained in PbtA games, and not in D&D, and it's primarily this constraint!  In PbtA, the GM is actually constrained to resolve conflicts in the players' favor when they succeed.  There's some wiggle room in if it might take multiple actions to do so, but that's clearly laid out in play and understood among all players, but then, you already know this with your experience, right, so I really don't need to point that out.Oh, good grief.  You've just blown your entire claim to understanding and having experience out of the water.  That's expressly NOT how the move lists work.  The players declare actions for their PCs in the fiction -- they don't mention moves but say what their character does in the fiction.  Then, if their action implicates a move, the GM calls for the move to be made.  The players aren't picking from a curated list, and nothing is out of bounds.  In fact (and, again, given your experience with these games you surely know this), the basic moves are incredibly generic.  Things like persuade to try and get your way with words or deeds, or clash, where you get into a fight, or defend, where you're defending something.  Or the one that shows up all the time, Defy Danger, which is when you act in a contested way to do something.  You Defy Danger with every one of the attributes (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha for Dungeon World, which you've claimed experience with but may have forgotten this detail, so I'll remind you).  So Defy Danger CHA can be called for if you declare an action for your PC to try and charm their way out of a dangerous situation!Example from last night's Stonetop game:  My PC, Dap, was trying to get to and heal a critically wounded person from another village.  This wounded person (fall from a horse, broken neck) was being cradled by a capable warrior from that same village who was extremely distrustful of my PC (my PC had just displayed some magical power, and this warrior was extremely superstitious).  What happened was that as I approached, the warrior rose to attack me, grabbing my shirt and cocking back a punch.  I declared my PC was going to calmly look him in the eyes, not resist at all, and say, "peace friend, the darkness holds no sway here." (The PC was superstitious about the powers of darkness.)  The GM called for a Defy Danger CHA move, which I hit (rolled a 10, +2 CHA, 12 result).  The warrior let his fist drop as he realized I was not an agent of darkness using foul sorcery, but an agent of the light (which my PC literally is).  Had I failed, the clear outcome here was harm to my PC from taking a punch without resisting.  Had I hit with a 7-9, the GM has some options, like offering reduced effect, meaning the danger is passed, but there's still no way this guy is letting me near his dying friend.This is pretty darned clear if you actually have experience with these games.  If this is how you played those games, I'm deeply sorry for your experience.  If you gleaned that from reading them, then I suggest a re-read is in order, looking for the blatantly clear direction on how the game plays.  I've played plenty of RPGs.  I've never had that happen.  Certainly not in a PbtA game, but also not in my D&D playing.  If you've done the job of setting stakes, then these things don't happen.  Where I have seen that happen is when I've assumed actions for the players in a D&D game where I've declared their task attempt for them, or a detail about it that wasn't clarified prior to the resolution (like touching something when the player just said they pushed their "investigate" button on their character sheet.  It's not an issue in games that stake conflict resolution because the stakes are known to be larger, and the failure is clear, and the result should be clearly following from the current situation.  It's where the GM, in a task resolution system, assumes actions not declared by the player.</blockquote>

Verification