Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 8417443" data-attributes="member: 6915329">I am not trying to insist an investigation looks like anything. I'm trying to find out how AW does it.So why won't you tell me how they're run? How do people look for clues in AW? Do the PCs make the clues up? You keep bringing up Monopoly and Risk, but what I really want you to bring up is how you do it. This'd be, what, the fourth time I've asked? Is there a reason you won't answer? You say "people investigate things in AW all the time." How?When you break the limits of how a game is "supposed" to be played, I find it becomes more fun. Which is probably why somebody on Reddit invented <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/1l5ct4/riskopoly_combination_of_risk_and_monopoly/" target="_blank">Riskopoly</a>. (And someone else invented <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/27604/settlers-riskopoly" target="_blank">Settlers of Riskopoly</a>.)From what I can tell, in AW, the book tells you how NPCs react to your actions. The only difference is that you get to pick from a list of reactions, right? One of this is you roll 7-9, or 3 if you roll 10+. How is this actually different in the long run? You may get to choose from a list of options, but it all boils down to how well you rolled. Does this mean you'd be happy if D&D had a rule where if you roll above a certain DC, you get +1 renown?In probably most games, the player can and will say "I'm going to try to intimidate him so he'll move out of the way/give me the thing/tell me what I want to know/tell his friends I'm really scary."I dunno. Maybe all the other games you've played have been, the GM tells you what's up and only lets you do certain actions when it's your turn. But that's certainly not how I've ever played it.That's so weird. The only time I've played in games where the GM was the sole authority was in this one Changeling: the Dreaming game where the Storyteller was a terrible railroader (because of which, the game lasted one session). Two or three sessions ago in my current D&D game, the players went on a completely different path than anything I prepared for. I certainly didn't stop them. They took authority there. I had to improvise like mad to keep up, but I went with them. As a DM, I tell my players what the world is like and let them do what they want with it.You can say "don't credit D&D with your work," but that sounds like you're saying that if I ran a good game with AW, I shouldn't credit that system either. If I'm a good GM, then it's not because of the rules I'm using. It's because I'm making a good world to play in and having good players who engage.So basically, don't do anything unless there's action. No background stuff, nothing to indicate a bigger world unless it directly affects the PCs, no trying to figure out what's going on, no having anything that the players actually have to figure out on their own, no letting characters just talk to each other unless there's a possibility they'll roll dice at each other. It has to be conflict conflict conflict all the time. See, this is really pissing me off. Instead of just answering my questions, you're telling me "no." Just flat-out no. And when I ask why not, you say "because." You aren't providing me with examples of proper ways to play. You aren't even telling me what sort of adventure would be best for AW.This is not how you convince someone to play AW.It is, however, how you convince me not to try to play AW, and to think twice about playing other PbtA games.</blockquote>

Verification