Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9032184" data-attributes="member: 82106">I don't know. Frankly all this 'lusory' this and 'prelusory' that and whatever whatever whatever is not all that relevant to me. I KNOW this for a fact. You sit down at the table and play Dungeon World, there is only one game process that happens. It is a discussion about what the next part of the fiction will be, and the rules define how that discussion is held, and constrain the various participants to saying things which comport with various statements labeled 'agenda', 'principles', and 'techniques'. This discussion never wavers, it never ceases, it never breaks down, it is definitionally the play of Dungeon World. That's what I know. Anything can be discussed, there is no point at which the participants will ever just throw up their hands and say "well, we cannot discuss that, its simply impossible to apply the rules" because the ONLY core rule is "discussion is play." And this is NOT my idea, it is clearly and unequivocally spelled out in exactly these terms by Vince Baker! All the other machinery of DW layers on top of that. So we get moves, which are a mechanic and associated refinement on what is then supposed to be said by whichever party. We have things like damage, gear, tags, hold, forward, etc. which also layer on top and allow us to trigger certain moves based on mechanical considerations (IE you lost all your hit points, the Death's Door move now happens). But none of those layers that go on top displaces the core, they are literally added layers that provide genre/milieu/agenda specific color to the core conversational loop, which always exists beneath them. If one of these mechanics fails, if it cannot be determined how to use it in a given situation, then you fall back to the conversation and decide. If no moves/mechanics/etc. apply, then the raw conversation itself serves to move things forward without any issues (the core GM moves framework is so general that it is already robust against any such failure). THE only breakdown in play that can really happen in Dungeon World is a failure of the participants to speak to each other and come to an agreement as to what the fiction will be next. There could be any range of possible reasons for that, though I will admit at this point that you can formulate that in terms of lusory and prelusory goals or whatever you want. For me, talking about actual rubber meets road game play at tables those formulations have limited value. I might say to a GM who insists on violating the agenda and principles of DW on his side of the conversation something like "I don't think X is a principled thing for the GM to say, and my argument is Y." I expect a response along the lines of either "oh, OK" or "wait, here's my counterargument." or POSSIBLY "OK, I agree, but I think it behooves us to cheat a little in our DW game for reason Q. Do you agree?" Obviously anything happening from there is really no different from a disagreement about how to play 5e, someone's view prevails or the game ends.</blockquote>

Verification