Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8653754" data-attributes="member: 29398">I don't see much difference.The second '1.' - the event - can be a part of the first '1.' - the environment, but can't exist completely on its own.&nbsp; An event without a surrounding environment and-or context (which may well have been described earlier) takes place in a vacuum.&nbsp; (see below)The two '2.'s are exactly the same thing, worded differently: the player determines and then relates what the character does, or tries to do, in response to '1.'.There is a difference between the two '3.' points as worded: one has the GM describing changes while the other has the table determining narrative fallout.&nbsp; However, wording it like this is a bit disingenuous in that in the first '3.' you fail to note the GM is expected to adhere to mechanics and principles* in order to arrive at that description; while in the second '3.' someone at the table still has to describe what changes and-or happens.&nbsp; End result: they're pretty much the same.* - principles here being quasi-universal things like internal consistency, fairness, integrity, etc.Even if AW treats the setting like a background set in a movie, someone (probably the GM) at some point still has to describe what that setting is and-or looks and feels like. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; That description is then assumed to be built in to your second '1.' above when an event is brought forward.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8653754, member: 29398"] I don't see much difference. The second '1.' - the event - can be a part of the first '1.' - the environment, but can't exist completely on its own. An event without a surrounding environment and-or context (which may well have been described earlier) takes place in a vacuum. (see below) The two '2.'s are exactly the same thing, worded differently: the player determines and then relates what the character does, or tries to do, in response to '1.'. There is a difference between the two '3.' points as worded: one has the GM describing changes while the other has the table determining narrative fallout. However, wording it like this is a bit disingenuous in that in the first '3.' you fail to note the GM is expected to adhere to mechanics and principles* in order to arrive at that description; while in the second '3.' someone at the table still has to describe what changes and-or happens. End result: they're pretty much the same. * - principles here being quasi-universal things like internal consistency, fairness, integrity, etc. Even if AW treats the setting like a background set in a movie, someone (probably the GM) at some point still has to describe what that setting is and-or looks and feels like. :) That description is then assumed to be built in to your second '1.' above when an event is brought forward. [/QUOTE]

Verification