Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9034236" data-attributes="member: 42582">This seems to imply there could be no first RPG - but there was! And there's no reason in purely abstract principle why it couldn't have been AW!Furthermore, as Baker puts it in AW, &quot;Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way.&quot; He is not overriding pre-existing expectations (&quot;tradition&quot;). He is affirming them![No he doesn't! It's his sole focus. No. You're ignoring the what in the phrase who gets to say what.I mean, I stated a rule of AW. Here it is again: The 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.I've underlined the parts of that rule that set out the who. And I've italicised the bits that constrain the what. Players are under no other constraints as to content, beyond a general one to cohere in what they say with the already-established fiction. The GM is of course under a wide range of constraints when it comes to exercising the permissions and fulfilling the obligations that pertain to their introduction of new shared fiction.So just to be clear, you're now telling us that this post - which uses the phrases &quot;description&quot; and &quot;consequence&quot;, and talks about a &quot;matching&quot; problem with ambiguity in the gam text, and gives as illustrations PbtA player-side moves and rolling dice to determin degree of success - is also talking about rules like &quot;If you are a player, you are permitted to say this thing about your character.&quot;That rules has no &quot;matching&quot; problem (there is no problem working out who is a player). The consequence is not a &quot;fitting&quot; one (I had taken &quot;fitting&quot; to mean something like &quot;fits with the established fiction&quot;, consistent with your own extended history of posting about &quot;saying what follows&quot;.)And under this reading, D -&gt; N/R -&gt; C&nbsp; is nothing but a candidate statement of the general form of all rules: they are normative standards (what you call &quot;consequences read off from the rule&quot;) that apply to certain people in certain circumstances (what you call &quot;descriptions&quot;).Such as? Like the suggestion on the AD&amp;D character sheet that you might want to draw a picture of your PC?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9034236, member: 42582"] This seems to imply there could be no first RPG - but there was! And there's no reason in purely abstract principle why it couldn't have been AW! Furthermore, as Baker puts it in AW, "Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way." He is not overriding pre-existing expectations ("tradition"). He is affirming them![ No he doesn't! It's his sole focus. No. You're ignoring the [I]what[/I] in the phrase [I]who gets to say what[/I]. I mean, I stated a rule of AW. Here it is again: [indent]The [u]players[/u]’ job is to say [i]what their characters say and undertake to do[/i], first and [u]exclusively[/u]; to say [i]what their characters think, feel and remember[/i], also [u]exclusively[/u]; and to answer [u]your[/u] questions about [i]their characters’ lives and surroundings[/i].[/indent] I've underlined the parts of that rule that set out the who. And I've italicised the bits that constrain the what. Players are under no other constraints as to content, beyond a general one to cohere in what they say with the already-established fiction. The GM is of course under a wide range of constraints when it comes to exercising the permissions and fulfilling the obligations that pertain to their introduction of new shared fiction. So just to be clear, you're now telling us that this post - which uses the phrases "description" and "consequence", and talks about a "matching" problem with ambiguity in the gam text, and gives as illustrations PbtA player-side moves and rolling dice to determin degree of success - is also talking about rules like "If you are a player, you are permitted to say this thing about your character." That rules has no "matching" problem (there is no problem working out who is a player). The consequence is not a "fitting" one (I had taken "fitting" to mean something like "fits with the established fiction", consistent with your own extended history of posting about "saying what follows".) And under this reading, D -> N/R -> C is nothing but a candidate statement of the general form of all rules: they are normative standards (what you call "consequences read off from the rule") that apply to certain people in certain circumstances (what you call "descriptions"). Such as? Like the suggestion on the AD&D character sheet that you might want to draw a picture of your PC? [/QUOTE]

Verification