Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8411846" data-attributes="member: 42582">Now this is where this thread gets into interesting territory!When is a check called for? In AW, there is no &quot;say 'yes'&quot; rule: if you do it, you do it. So certain sorts of choices by players - to act under pressure/duress/fire, to try and intimidate others, to try and grab things or people, etc - mandate a check, and hence create this possibility of failure which obliges the GM to make a move that follows from the fiction and is as hard as they like.Which means that the action resolution mechanics are also the pacing mechanic and the complication mechanic.This is a big difference from more wargaming-based and classic skill system designs (eg AD&amp;D, 5e D&amp;D, RQ), where action resolution may have no connection at all to pacing or complication-introduction; and also from scene-framing designs (eg HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, 4e D&amp;D) where action resolution often feeds into complications, but there is a distinct layer of scene-framing and implicit (sometimes explicit) stakes-setting. Scene-framed play needs a &quot;say 'yes' rule&quot; to avoid boring scenes and cut to the action.I think the AW approach is perhaps less different from the more classic approach than scene-framing play - because it doesn't introduce that distinct layer and doesn't need a &quot;say 'yes'&quot; rule - but it requires the GM to be ready to understand the established fiction as binding. I think that last thing can be a big deal for some RPGers whose mechanical framework is essentially &quot;classic&quot; but whose play ethos is more like late-80s/90s &quot;storyteller&quot; or the more recent but in some ways comparable &quot;adventure path&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8411846, member: 42582"] Now this is where this thread gets into interesting territory! [I]When is a check called for? [/I]In AW, there is no "say 'yes'" rule: [I]if you do it, you do it[/I]. So certain sorts of choices by players - to act under pressure/duress/fire, to try and intimidate others, to try and grab things or people, etc - [I]mandate [/I]a check, and hence create this possibility of failure which obliges the GM to make a move that follows from the fiction and is as hard as they like. Which means that the action resolution mechanics are [I]also[/I] the pacing mechanic and the complication mechanic. This is a big difference from more wargaming-based and classic skill system designs (eg AD&D, 5e D&D, RQ), where action resolution may have no connection at all to pacing or complication-introduction; and also from scene-framing designs (eg HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, 4e D&D) where action resolution often feeds into complications, but there is a distinct layer of scene-framing and implicit (sometimes explicit) stakes-setting. Scene-framed play needs a "say 'yes' rule" to avoid boring scenes and cut to the action. I think the AW approach is perhaps [I]less [/I]different from the more classic approach than scene-framing play - because it doesn't introduce that distinct layer and doesn't need a "say 'yes'" rule - but it requires the GM to be ready to understand the established fiction as binding. I think that last thing can be a big deal for some RPGers whose mechanical framework is essentially "classic" but whose play ethos is more like late-80s/90s "storyteller" or the more recent but in some ways comparable "adventure path". [/QUOTE]

Verification