Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9201672" data-attributes="member: 42582">Really?So by this measure, it is not distinctive to Dread that it uses a jenga tower as its resolution method? Or there is no difference between the uncertainty of blind declaration and simultaneous resolution, compared to declaration in full knowledge?My view is that the way a RPG fosters emotional states at the table that correlate to, or resemble, those in the fiction, is an important feature of the RPG. And I agree with Vincent's idea that just narrate it, or (in this case) just imagine and feel it, is not a good game rule.I don't fully follow all this - you seem to be asserting that a player can declare I go aggro with no establishing fiction or clear purpose. I don't see how that is so: apart from anything else, the player has to make it clear what their PC wants or else the GM can't adjudicate the result of a hit.What Go Aggro is for is finding out what happens when a protagonists uses violence against another to get them to do what they want. The game chooses to make this a player-side move because the game cares about the instigation of violence. (Compare, for example, the absence of a basic move When you start your vehicle - the game is not focused, per se, on the starting of vehicles.) The game rule tells us that, when a protagonists acts violently in this way, violent consequences are always a possibility. That is one of the things the game says; a consequence of this particular currency rule, which allows using effectiveness (Hard) to generate position (and/or resources or effectiveness, depending exactly what is being demanded from the victim).If someone doesn't want a game that makes such a statement - that allows violence to be introduced without violent consequences being in the offing - then they should not play with Go Aggro.</blockquote>

Verification