Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9106321" data-attributes="member: 42582">This doesn't seem accurate for Apocalypse World.In Apocalypse World, certain action declarations enliven a mechanical procedure - a player-side move. Others do not, in which case it is the GM's job to make a move in response (generally a soft move, unless the player has handed the GM a golden opportunity on a plate).The quality of the design - if one accepts that it exhibits a reasonable, or even high, degree of quality - consists in the relationships between what sorts of action declarations trigger player-side moves?, what sorts of fiction are likely to be established by the GM's soft moves?, and what sorts of player goals and aspirations for their PCs is the PC build and subsequent play process likely to give rise to? If the relationship between these things gets out of whack, then play will not be very satisfying.It's an interesting feature of D&amp;D that, while magically flying (including by human mortals) is part of the shared fiction, the ability to do it is heavily gated behind all sorts of rules constructs (including character classes, such as Fighter). This is why I think claims of &quot;You can do whatever you can imagine your PC doing&quot; are too simplistic, because clearly in the magical world of D&amp;D I can imagine my character flying to the top of the castle wall, yet in many contexts of play that is not a permitted action declaration.That's why, rather than &quot;tactical infinity&quot;, I prefer the formulation the fiction matters to resolution.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9106321, member: 42582"] This doesn't seem accurate for Apocalypse World. In Apocalypse World, certain action declarations enliven a mechanical procedure - a player-side move. Others do not, in which case it is the GM's job to make a move in response (generally a soft move, unless the player has handed the GM a golden opportunity on a plate). The quality of the design - if one accepts that it exhibits a reasonable, or even high, degree of quality - consists in the relationships between [I]what sorts of action declarations trigger player-side moves?[/I], [I]what sorts of fiction are likely to be established by the GM's soft moves?[/I], and [I]what sorts of player goals and aspirations for their PCs is the PC build and subsequent play process likely to give rise to?[/I] If the relationship between these things gets out of whack, then play will not be very satisfying. It's an interesting feature of D&D that, while magically flying (including by human mortals) is part of the shared fiction, the ability to do it is heavily gated behind all sorts of rules constructs (including character classes, such as Fighter). This is why I think claims of "You can do whatever you can imagine your PC doing" are too simplistic, because clearly in the magical world of D&D I [I]can[/I] imagine my character flying to the top of the castle wall, yet in many contexts of play that is not a permitted action declaration. That's why, rather than "tactical infinity", I prefer the formulation [I]the fiction matters to resolution[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification