Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9318154" data-attributes="member: 42582">I have been over this it feels like a million times, in threads that I'm sure you must have been posting in .I've made the list elsewhere. Off the top of my head I can think of two - one Battlebabe move, one Savvyhead move - that are both options for those PC builds:Visions of death: when you go into battle, roll+weird. On a 10+, name one person who’ll die and one who’ll live. On a 7–9, name one person who’ll die OR one person who’ll live. Don’t name a player’s character; name NPCs only. The MC will make your vision come true, if it’s even remotely possible. On a miss, you foresee your own death, and accordingly take -1 throughout the battle. Bonefeel: at the beginning of the session, roll+weird. On a 10+, hold 1+1. On a 7–9, hold 1. At any time, either you or the MC can spend your hold to have you already be there, with the proper tools and knowledge, with or without any clear explanation why. If your hold was 1+1, take +1 forward now. On a miss, the MC holds 1, and can spend it to have you already be there, but somehow pinned, caught or trapped.Here is the way that AW allocates authority between players and GM (p 109):Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way. e players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.It's pretty straightforward.As Baker puts it (p 288), "The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards." And as I posted upthread, and as is clear if you read that essay, "narrativism" has nothing to do with "meta" mechanics. It would be like saying that simulationism is all about rolling a d20.What is key to "narrativism" is that there is no "the story", because play is about the GM framing the PCs (and, thereby, the players) into a situation that calls upon the players to make one or more thematically significant choices in the play of their PCs. This is the core of play - not something the might come up on occasion, but the whole essence of play.Doing it requires (i) a particular approach to framing, such that the framed situation provoke the right sorts of choices, and (ii) a particular approach to resolution, such that the consequences of action manifest and carry through on thematic significance.At an abstract level, that's it.At a technical design level, it turns out that it's trickier than it looks, because of the wargame legacy in RPG design: and wargame rules for framing and resolution do not, typically, foreground matters of thematic significance.</blockquote>

Verification