Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9031994" data-attributes="member: 71699">Could GM author moves to establish the puzzle, perhaps fabricating clocks of some kind? That is, is the distinction found in the structuring of the breach in security puzzle?So here I am not positing a rule whereby mechanics are or can be made silent. I'm envisioning the possibility of lacunae, i.e. cases not covered by mechanics. Where rules do not extend, what happens?One way to address the possibility of lacunae is to say that there are none. A question still on my mind relates to the focus on action declarations. Simulationist rules often extend beyond action declarations to world processes. World processes could fall outside of feasible action declarations... so can I count on their being covered?A possible example might be where in DW players want to know what the weather is like, and no one yet has access to Control Weather (7th level Cleric spell) or Weather Weaver (Druid advanced move) so they use Discern Realities or possibly Spout Lore? Discern Realities seems straightforward as they can go with &quot;What is about to happen?&quot; The situation taken to be where we are now (say, in these foothills). To give Weather Weaver meaning I would likely want to read &quot;about&quot; as implying &quot;in the very near future&quot; in parsing the rule text. If it's Spout Lore then it's accumulated knowledge amounting to something interesting and possibly useful (10+). Either way, it seems like GM has to decide what the weather is.In a simulationist game there'd often be rules for deciding the weather (I'm thinking of the Balazaring Weather Table in Griffin Mountain), but DW lacks that. If they've succeeded on their checks (7+) it doesn't seem quite called for to treat it as an opportunity to introduce badness. How does GM decide what to say? (Or supposing they turn it back on the players, how does player decide what to say?)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9031994, member: 71699"] Could GM author moves to establish the puzzle, perhaps fabricating clocks of some kind? That is, is the distinction found in the structuring of the breach in security puzzle? So here I am not positing a rule whereby mechanics are or can be made silent. I'm envisioning the possibility of lacunae, i.e. cases not covered by mechanics. Where rules do not extend, what happens? One way to address the possibility of lacunae is to say that there are none. A question still on my mind relates to the focus on action declarations. Simulationist rules often extend beyond action declarations to world processes. World processes could fall outside of feasible action declarations... so can I count on their being covered? A possible example might be where in DW players want to know what the weather is like, and no one yet has access to Control Weather (7th level Cleric spell) or Weather Weaver (Druid advanced move) so they use Discern Realities or possibly Spout Lore? Discern Realities seems straightforward as they can go with "What is about to happen?" The situation taken to be where we are now (say, in these foothills). To give Weather Weaver meaning I would likely want to read "about" as implying "in the very near future" in parsing the rule text. If it's Spout Lore then it's accumulated knowledge amounting to something interesting and possibly useful (10+). Either way, it seems like GM has to decide what the weather is. In a simulationist game there'd often be rules for deciding the weather (I'm thinking of the Balazaring Weather Table in Griffin Mountain), but DW lacks that. If they've succeeded on their checks (7+) it doesn't seem quite called for to treat it as an opportunity to introduce badness. How does GM decide what to say? (Or supposing they turn it back on the players, how does player decide what to say?) [/QUOTE]

Verification