Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Grendel_Khan" data-source="post: 8417670" data-attributes="member: 7028554">This is very useful. One of things I'm picking up is that, given how open-ended some aspects of FitD (and by extension, PbtA) are, different people will of course have different takes on what the &quot;right&quot; approach to a given sequence or scene might be. I was leaning toward the approach you presented--that a bit of warning could be followed up by events that just happen in the fiction, PbtA-like, even if FitD doesn't have GM moves in that sense. But I think what others have responded with is important, which is that consequences (as a result of action rolls, whether they're failures or successes with consequence) are basically the FitD equivalent of GM moves. So by not directly and obviously tying these consequences to those rolls I was sort of inherently slowing (or killing outright) the roll-consequence-roll action loop.It's possible that pulling off a FitD Star Wars game will mean reeling back some of the story now principles just a tiny bit. Maybe it'll never be a perfect fit. But from what little I played it seemed to work so well that I want to keep at it (even if a FitD purist might ultimately--and reasonably--balk at the slightly trad end-result).However I'll no doubt be back on these boards with more questions once I get more testing in, especially when I get a full group going, and more edge cases to deal with.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Grendel_Khan, post: 8417670, member: 7028554"] This is very useful. One of things I'm picking up is that, given how open-ended some aspects of FitD (and by extension, PbtA) are, different people will of course have different takes on what the "right" approach to a given sequence or scene might be. I was leaning toward the approach you presented--that a bit of warning could be followed up by events that just happen in the fiction, PbtA-like, even if FitD doesn't have GM moves in that sense. But I think what others have responded with is important, which is that consequences (as a result of action rolls, whether they're failures or successes with consequence) are basically the FitD equivalent of GM moves. So by not directly and obviously tying these consequences to those rolls I was sort of inherently slowing (or killing outright) the roll-consequence-roll action loop. It's possible that pulling off a FitD Star Wars game will mean reeling back some of the story now principles just a tiny bit. Maybe it'll never be a perfect fit. But from what little I played it seemed to work so well that I want to keep at it (even if a FitD purist might ultimately--and reasonably--balk at the slightly trad end-result). However I'll no doubt be back on these boards with more questions once I get more testing in, especially when I get a full group going, and more edge cases to deal with. [/QUOTE]

Verification