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: 8340142" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree with the general tenor of your post, but did want to pick up on this. I don't know anything like the full corpus of PbtA games. But at least in Apocalypse World, the basic principles for adjudication are if you do it, you do it and to do it, do it. That is to say, if you declare actions that invoke a move then the move is resolved; otherwise the conversation continues and when it's not clear who says what happens next the GM does, typically making a soft move but making a hard move if a player presents a golden opportunity to do so.On these boards I think [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] has given the strongest analysis of how this gives AW a "feel" in play that is different from (say) Burning Wheel, or 4e D&D, the first of which expressly and the second at least implicitly advocates "say 'yes' or roll the dice". For instance, it makes player intention slightly less central to action resolution or at least gives it a different function: in BW, if the action and its intent don't bear upon anything that matters (as determined by PC Beliefs, Instincts and Traits) then that is the time to say 'yes'; whereas in AW, if my PC is trying to act in a dangerous situation or under pressure then I have to roll to act under fire regardless of what is at stake.I think in this way PbtA games are slightly less different from OSR play than is (say) Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant.</blockquote>

Verification