Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8417761" data-attributes="member: 42582">I just wanted to chime in on this point: obviously I don't know the full gamut of PbtA games. In fact I know only a tiny slice of that gamut. But in AW it's not the case that the stakes must have risen to a certain level in order to make a check. The rule for player-side moves is if you do it, you do it. So if I threaten someone with a gun, I'm going aggro whether what I'm after is the key to the vault, or a bite from their sandwich.This is why - at least it seems to me - the design of move triggers is so important. Because those move triggers are the things that will lead to rolls that in turn destabilise the &quot;default&quot; conversation of the game, and the distribution of authority that is part of that default conversation.It contrasts with a scene-framed, &quot;say 'yes' or roll the dice&quot; game. In BW or Prince Valiant (at least most of the time - some subsystems create exceptions); or 4e D&amp;D (at least outside of combat) we don't need the concept of a fictional trigger for (say) a Persuasion check or a Riding check. The players just say what their PCs are doing, and then when the stakes get to a point where the GM doesn't just say 'yes' we work out what the intent is, and what the task is, and we frame the check in light of that.In this sense, at least, AW is more of a &quot;fiction first&quot; game than those scene-framing systems, because the move from fiction to resolution is not mediated by a notion of &quot;stakes&quot; or &quot;intent&quot;.Realising this was, for me, a breakthrough in working out how I could come back to Classic Traveller after 20-odd years of nostalgic pining and actually make it work!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8417761, member: 42582"] I just wanted to chime in on this point: obviously I don't know the full gamut of PbtA games. In fact I know only a tiny slice of that gamut. But in AW it's not the case that the stakes must have risen to a certain level in order to make a check. The rule for player-side moves is [I]if you do it, you do it[/I]. So if I threaten someone with a gun, I'm [I]going aggro[/I] whether what I'm after is the key to the vault, or a bite from their sandwich. This is why - at least it seems to me - the design of move triggers is so important. Because those move triggers are the things that will lead to rolls that in turn destabilise the "default" conversation of the game, and the distribution of authority that is part of that default conversation. It contrasts with a scene-framed, "say 'yes' or roll the dice" game. In BW or Prince Valiant (at least most of the time - some subsystems create exceptions); or 4e D&D (at least outside of combat) we don't need the concept of a [I]fictional trigger [/I]for (say) a Persuasion check or a Riding check. The players just say what their PCs are doing, and then when the stakes get to a point where the GM doesn't just say [I]'yes'[/I] we work out what the intent is, and what the task is, and we frame the check in light of that. In this sense, at least, AW is more of a "fiction first" game than those scene-framing systems, because the move from fiction to resolution is not mediated by a notion of "stakes" or "intent". Realising this was, for me, a breakthrough in working out how I could come back to Classic Traveller after 20-odd years of nostalgic pining and actually make it work! [/QUOTE]

Verification