Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 9500155" data-attributes="member: 85870">This is absolutely an appropriate thing to bring up, and Star Wars has a definite bias to this kind of action---saddle up, gear up, and go in. Maybe make a recon of the area, a quick report back, but really, you know where your enemy is, you know the basic situation, either get in and do the job or drop it. Like, in Return of the Jedi, the rebel recon force doesn't spend a week hunting through the forest for every possible weakness. Once they find out about the secret entrance from the ewoks, they make a quick assessment and roll in.And if they get in trouble, they rely on their wits, smarts, firepower, and the &quot;power of the Force&quot; (i.e., getting some advantage + triumph on the dice).For non-narrative styles, I think it's driven by the residual sense that the GM is just essentially waiting for the players to screw up and not ask that one specific thing that would give the PCs the one specific advantage that would make it a breeze to solve the encounter. So that when the GM totally hoses the party, the GM can point to their notes and say, &quot;See? You didn't specifically ask about this one thing here, so that meant I totally got to burn you. Heheh, so much fun for me, right?&quot;Whereas in PbtA play, that information should be controlled by player position and activating (and winning) the appropriate move. If they fail the move, then sure, if you've set up the right hard move, then use it, but you're not gating the success (or the pain) behind an arbitrary wall of notes.&nbsp; Now, how to explain that to the players? Talking about &quot;big moves&quot; in light of the mechanical moves, maybe? Discussion of how the whole purpose of narrative style is not to gate success behind the GM's conceptions, but to follow from the system's say?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 9500155, member: 85870"] This is absolutely an appropriate thing to bring up, and Star Wars has a definite bias to this kind of action---saddle up, gear up, and go in. Maybe make a recon of the area, a quick report back, but really, you know where your enemy is, you know the basic situation, either get in and do the job or drop it. Like, in [I]Return of the Jedi[/I], the rebel recon force doesn't spend a week hunting through the forest for every possible weakness. Once they find out about the secret entrance from the ewoks, they make a quick assessment and roll in. And if they get in trouble, they rely on their wits, smarts, firepower, and the "power of the Force" (i.e., getting some advantage + triumph on the dice). For non-narrative styles, I think it's driven by the residual sense that the GM is just essentially waiting for the players to screw up and not ask that one specific thing that would give the PCs the one specific advantage that would make it a breeze to solve the encounter. So that when the GM totally hoses the party, the GM can point to their notes and say, "See? You didn't specifically ask about this one thing here, so that meant I totally got to burn you. Heheh, so much fun for me, right?" Whereas in PbtA play, that information should be controlled by player position and activating (and winning) the appropriate move. If they fail the move, then sure, if you've set up the right hard move, then use it, but you're not gating the success (or the pain) behind an arbitrary wall of notes. Now, how to explain that to the players? Talking about "big moves" in light of the [I]mechanical [/I]moves, maybe? Discussion of how the whole purpose of narrative style is not to [I]gate success behind the GM's conceptions[/I], but to follow from the system's say? [/QUOTE]

Verification