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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thefutilist" data-source="post: 9774409" data-attributes="member: 7044566">Well you need to understand what the constituent parts are doing to use them well but more fundamentally the text can't give you an understanding of why a decision criteria is fun. Here's a practical example that comes up in a load of different games.Say you're playing A savvyhead and you're in love with the NPC hardholder. We have a scene where you go and express your love to them and at this point we're waiting for the MC to say what happens.By the rules as I interpret them the MC has two different ways of dealing with this.They can choose an MC move and make it. Establishing fiction after the fact to line up with the move. Say they decide to 'put them in a spot', they then think of some fiction that puts the character in a spot, say 'If you loved me you'd do x' or whatever.ORThey can think about what the Hardholder would do in this circumstance and then do that. Which in my experience is more akin to having a response to the fiction and going with the response. They just feel the hardholder would return the Savvyheads expression of love.The book may tell you that there are two ways of choosing and even give criteria 'if it's a question you care about then choose the second way.' In play though, you've got to kind of come to the experience yourself.Do I care? Do I know enough or feel strongly enough about the hardholder to be able to make that decision or should I default to a move? and so on.Or another example. Say the PC's are going to go and try and take over the old water works from Lojacks gang. How many gang members are there? How many gang members I decide are there has a massive impact on which way the fight will go in the same way it does in D&D when deciding how many monsters the PCs face in an encounter. The book doesn't give good advice on that at all.</blockquote>

Verification