Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8598192" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, we all agree that there's fictional position AND intent, which both feed into some sort of resolution process for the conflict at hand. If either of them is changed, then you have a different trajectory for the fiction to take, you get a different story out of it. I've always liked, honestly, the PbtA process in the sense that it makes this VERY VERY CLEAR! You describe your actions, what you are attempting to achieve, and the GM tells you what move you made. Very clear, you've got distinct mechanics that the resolution process gets channeled through for each general type of thing you were attempting. Now, it may still be there's more than just the move, Hack & Slash could leave a lot of choices, but in PbtA those have already been made! You said "I'm shooting the gnoll" and then the GM says "OK, that's Volley" and you roll your 2d6, add up whatever bonuses or penalties might apply, and read off where things go next. Either the player or the GM may have further input at that point, depending on the result (I think only the player gets to make any choices with Volley). Anyway, I think we're all on the same page, [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] isn't way off in the woods, he just has what I consider an odd definition of Fictional Position that combines it with intent.</blockquote>