Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9262373" data-attributes="member: 82106">You are referring to PbtA moves? OK, it is hard to say, actually. I mean we don't know exactly what form the outermost layers took. That is, I accept that FF ala Baker being a wholly unwritten practice with fairly ad hoc use of cues (IE dice seem to have been at least a part of that) we cannot say how close to PbtA's move structure that was in practice. I think it is safe to say that there was no list of moves, and thus there could not have been a rule of the form 'if you do it, you do it'. That is there wasn't a set of move trigger conditions to evaluate. The uncertainty surrounding what would be evoked according to what fiction seems to me, however, to be a major contributor to the genesis of the idea of moves in a more formal way, and thus playbooks as a concept. In the FF play there MUST have been 'shticks' fictionally which PCs had. That is 'stuff that they could do that was special'. That might have arisen out of play, backstory, etc. but I would be pretty surprised, based on my own experience, if PCs didn't end up with some sort of repertoire, and probably some sort of archetype into which this roughly fit. So, I think they ARE aiming for the type of play which arose out of the FF in some sense. That is, I don't think playing AW is exactly like the FF 'AM' campaign that VB describes. OTOH I think they are both producing pretty similar dramatic character trajectories, and where AW differs it is probably more in terms of 'getting there' more reliably than the FF did. It is basically saying &quot;you have a 'thing' and in terms of the core typical tone of this game, here's how things usually go.&quot; This is not something you MUST have to play, but consider that most of the difference between AW and DW rests in the playbooks and moves, the rest is basically flavor.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 9262373, member: 82106"] You are referring to PbtA moves? OK, it is hard to say, actually. I mean we don't know exactly what form the outermost layers took. That is, I accept that FF ala Baker being a wholly unwritten practice with fairly ad hoc use of cues (IE dice seem to have been at least a part of that) we cannot say how close to PbtA's move structure that was in practice. I think it is safe to say that there was no list of moves, and thus there could not have been a rule of the form 'if you do it, you do it'. That is there wasn't a set of move trigger conditions to evaluate. The uncertainty surrounding what would be evoked according to what fiction seems to me, however, to be a major contributor to the genesis of the idea of moves in a more formal way, and thus playbooks as a concept. In the FF play there MUST have been 'shticks' fictionally which PCs had. That is 'stuff that they could do that was special'. That might have arisen out of play, backstory, etc. but I would be pretty surprised, based on my own experience, if PCs didn't end up with some sort of repertoire, and probably some sort of archetype into which this roughly fit. So, I think they ARE aiming for the type of play which arose out of the FF in some sense. That is, I don't think playing AW is exactly like the FF 'AM' campaign that VB describes. OTOH I think they are both producing pretty similar dramatic character trajectories, and where AW differs it is probably more in terms of 'getting there' more reliably than the FF did. It is basically saying "you have a 'thing' and in terms of the core typical tone of this game, here's how things usually go." This is not something you MUST have to play, but consider that most of the difference between AW and DW rests in the playbooks and moves, the rest is basically flavor. [/QUOTE]

Verification