Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9331176" data-attributes="member: 42582">No one thinks looking for a thing makes it appear. Similarly, when the GM narrates a failed climb check in AD&amp;D by mentioning a crumbling hand-hold - even though crumbling hand-holds were not previously part of the fiction - no one thinks the PC's attempt to climb is what caused this particular wall to have loose, crumbly bits of rock and mortar.The actual matter at hand is, How is it decided that an attempt to look for a person succeeds or fails?I've already talked about how it works in Classic Traveller, and in Burning Wheel. So let's talk about how it works in Apocalypse World. In AW, there is no player-side move When you look for a person, . . . * So if the player declares that their PC looks for a peson, the GM makes a soft move. That move has to follow from the fiction. So the obvious examples are *to announce badness - the person isn't there, they seem to have (been kidnapped, eloped with the PC's girlfriend, locked the door so no one can visit them, etc) - or to provide an opportunity, with or with a cost - the PC comes upon the NPC doing whatever it is they're doing, and play unfolds from there.Does this count as &quot;meta-acausal&quot; too?&quot;Meta-acausal&quot; is a red herring. The point is that the GM doesn't have the unilateral power to decide consequences in a fashion that is irrelevant to, or runs roughshod over, whatever it is that the player is wanting to put at stake. Classic Traveller and Burning Wheel achieve this by using the generic conflict resolution mechanism. AW achieves this by shaping the rules for what the GM says happens next around player-concern-centred soft moves (&quot;badness&quot;, &quot;opportunities&quot;, &quot;being put in a spot&quot;, etc)Who decides?That's all this is about. I mean, if the player really thought it was impossible that their PC's attempt to overthrow the tyrant might succeed, they wouldn't declare it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9331176, member: 42582"] No one thinks looking for a thing makes it appear. Similarly, when the GM narrates a failed climb check in AD&D by mentioning a crumbling hand-hold - even though crumbling hand-holds were not previously part of the fiction - no one thinks the [I]PC's attempt to climb[/I] is what caused this particular wall to have loose, crumbly bits of rock and mortar. The actual matter at hand is, [I]How is it decided that an attempt to look for a person succeeds or fails?[/I] I've already talked about how it works in Classic Traveller, and in Burning Wheel. So let's talk about how it works in Apocalypse World. In AW, there is no player-side move [I]When you look for a person, . . . * So if the player declares that their PC looks for a peson, the GM makes a soft move. That move has to follow from the fiction. So the obvious examples are *to announce badness[/I] - the person isn't there, they seem to have (been kidnapped, eloped with the PC's girlfriend, locked the door so no one can visit them, etc) - or [I]to provide an opportunity, with or with a cost[/I] - the PC comes upon the NPC doing whatever it is they're doing, and play unfolds from there. Does this count as "meta-acausal" too? "Meta-acausal" is a red herring. The point is that the GM doesn't have the unilateral power to decide consequences in a fashion that is irrelevant to, or runs roughshod over, whatever it is that the player is wanting to put at stake. Classic Traveller and Burning Wheel achieve this by using the generic conflict resolution mechanism. AW achieves this by shaping the rules for [I]what the GM says happens next[/I] around player-concern-centred soft moves ("badness", "opportunities", "being put in a spot", etc) Who decides? That's all this is about. I mean, if the [I]player[/I] really thought it was impossible that their PC's attempt to overthrow the tyrant might succeed, they wouldn't declare it. [/QUOTE]

Verification