Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8347177" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think we have some difference of interpretation here. I mean, first of all, I do state that the results must comport with the agenda and principles of the GM. I think we are taking it as a given that the scene exists for SOME reason that is related to something the PCs are attempting to do. Its possible the GM designed the existence of a clue as part of a Front, but most likely it is related to something the players said, or the PCs did. The GM could certainly present the veracity of the clue as being in doubt, either as a simple observation at the time (probably more likely PCs questioning it) or later as a move of some sort. However, that would only be cool in my book if they had not already 'won' it by some successful roll.Again, I believe this is potentially, depending on certain details, a perfectly feasible example of a 'soft move', though I don't seem to have explicated that well.Hard, soft, you can debate endlessly exactly what is what in that dimension. The GM doesn't have 'secret fiction', but the GM DOES HAVE &quot;things aren't established until they are established in fiction.&quot; So, no, the GM wouldn't literally write down at the time of clue discovery &quot;This clue is false!&quot; (probably, I guess its possible if there were immediate consequences, then it is a move). It isn't OBLIGATED to be accurate though either. When it first appears it is simply the appearance of a thing. In the same way you could introduce an illusory terrain feature.I think we'll just have to differ a little bit on our interpretations of things. I don't think you are 'wrong', but I think the game allows for a bit more range of things than you're suggesting. Again, I said &quot;might turn out to be inaccurate information&quot;, that isn't &quot;this is an outright lie on the face of it.&quot; I think there's a subtle point here WRT DR. The rules say &quot;The answers you get are always honest ones.&quot; but think about that. You DR the room, and ask &quot;What is useful here?&quot; and the answer is &quot;A letter from the Trade Guild to the Duke.&quot; That doesn't mean the letter's contents are truth! It means they are useful (they will provide a +1 forward when acted upon).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8347177, member: 82106"] I think we have some difference of interpretation here. I mean, first of all, I do state that the results must comport with the agenda and principles of the GM. I think we are taking it as a given that the scene exists for SOME reason that is related to something the PCs are attempting to do. Its possible the GM designed the existence of a clue as part of a Front, but most likely it is related to something the players said, or the PCs did. The GM could certainly present the veracity of the clue as being in doubt, either as a simple observation at the time (probably more likely PCs questioning it) or later as a move of some sort. However, that would only be cool in my book if they had not already 'won' it by some successful roll. Again, I believe this is potentially, depending on certain details, a perfectly feasible example of a 'soft move', though I don't seem to have explicated that well. Hard, soft, you can debate endlessly exactly what is what in that dimension. The GM doesn't have 'secret fiction', but the GM DOES HAVE "things aren't established until they are established in fiction." So, no, the GM wouldn't literally write down at the time of clue discovery "This clue is false!" (probably, I guess its possible if there were immediate consequences, then it is a move). It isn't OBLIGATED to be accurate though either. When it first appears it is simply the appearance of a thing. In the same way you could introduce an illusory terrain feature. I think we'll just have to differ a little bit on our interpretations of things. I don't think you are 'wrong', but I think the game allows for a bit more range of things than you're suggesting. Again, I said "might turn out to be inaccurate information", that isn't "this is an outright lie on the face of it." I think there's a subtle point here WRT DR. The rules say "The answers you get are always honest ones." but think about that. You DR the room, and ask "What is useful here?" and the answer is "A letter from the Trade Guild to the Duke." That doesn't mean the letter's contents are truth! It means they are useful (they will provide a +1 forward when acted upon). [/QUOTE]

Verification