Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8237916" data-attributes="member: 42582">Adding to this: the conversation takes place under constraints.In Burning Wheel, there are certain key things the GM is expected to have regard to in deciding what to say: (i) the PCs' Beliefs, and to a lesser extent their Instincts and Traits; (ii) the intent of any action declaration; (iii) the result of every dice roll. The GM is also expected to manage scenes and their pacing, which affects what s/he says.In Apocalypse World, the constraints are not identical. There is no clear analogue to Beliefs, Instincts and Traits; but the GM is expected to ask questions and have regard to the answers to those in what s/he says. Each individual move also generates constraints, if the roll is successful (eg a successful &quot;search&quot;-type move will require the GM to narrate some new, useful thing); and if a roll fails, the GM is obliged to narrate some new complication that will follow from the established fiction.In a canonical sandbox, the constraints arise from the GM's prep. There is no analogue to Belief, Instinct and Traits - in fact the GM is expected to be neutral vis-a-vis the aspirations of the players for their PCs in his/her narration. The focus in resolution is on task, not intent: a player may make a roll to find a secret door that would succeed, if there were a door to be found, and yet fail because the GM's prep (or his/her extrapolation from prep) says there is no door there. The more that the GM is just making stuff up, without prep as some sort of constraint, the more that it makes no sense to describe the GMing as &quot;fair&quot; or &quot;neutral&quot;, and the closer the game is getting to what Lewis Pulsipher was criticising as GM-as-storyteller back in the early 80s.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8237916, member: 42582"] Adding to this: the conversation takes place under constraints. In Burning Wheel, there are certain key things the GM is expected to have regard to in deciding what to say: (i) the PCs' Beliefs, and to a lesser extent their Instincts and Traits; (ii) the intent of any action declaration; (iii) the result of every dice roll. The GM is also expected to manage scenes and their pacing, which affects what s/he says. In Apocalypse World, the constraints are not identical. There is no clear analogue to Beliefs, Instincts and Traits; but the GM is expected to ask questions and have regard to the answers to those in what s/he says. Each individual move also generates constraints, if the roll is successful (eg a successful "search"-type move will require the GM to narrate some new, useful thing); and if a roll fails, the GM is obliged to narrate some new complication that will follow from the established fiction. In a canonical sandbox, the constraints arise from the GM's prep. There is no analogue to Belief, Instinct and Traits - in fact the GM is expected to be neutral vis-a-vis the aspirations of the players for their PCs in his/her narration. The focus in resolution is on task, not intent: a player may make a roll to find a secret door that would succeed, if there were a door to be found, and yet fail because the GM's prep (or his/her extrapolation from prep) says there is no door there. The more that the GM is just making stuff up, without prep as some sort of constraint, the more that it makes no sense to describe the GMing as "fair" or "neutral", and the closer the game is getting to what Lewis Pulsipher was criticising as GM-as-storyteller back in the early 80s. [/QUOTE]

Verification