Vincent:
Everything is pretty clear now, thank you for your time and effort.


Last small personal question:

In your first reply, you wrote:
The lists of MC moves are there to remind you to say more things, a wider variety of things, not to limit you to saying a strict set of things.


On the other hand if I look at your examples how you play both in the book or here in the forum, you use them like hell.  And of course you twist them and combine them and use them with different targets and content, but generally you always mark them bold to be visible in your examples.


So I assume this is more like your favorite/recommended style of play? How often do you - in your games - do you ad-hoc play a move that is not from lists or derivation of something from the lists?

Hi Vincent,

thank you for your quick replay to Sirien.
Unfortunately, I am afraid, that his question didn't move us any closer to resolve our debate because it is not targeting the differences in our understanding the game. So, I would like to ask a slightly different way to clear this up.

I'll try to explain the way how I play AW as MC. I am sorry, that my post is a bit longer, but I'd like to understand the game as close as your intentions were, when you wrote it. Would you be so kind and correct me if I do something wrong or if I understand something wrong (or apply some rule to strict, etc...)


As I understand the game rules, there are different levels of how MCs autority over the game is limited.



Without the interference of the rules the game is a normal conversation like in any other RPG game. The players say what their characters do, I say what the NPCs do. I describe them the environment, they ask me follow up questions, I ask them provocative questions. We roleplay some conversation with NPCs or I describe straightforward reactions of the NPCs.

I call this "players are on the move", even though it isn't described like that in the book because its mainly about players and their actions. My tasks, as MC, are limited. I do provide players with support, information, maybe moderate their spotlight, etc.  I also watch for any events, that might trigger a player move. I Help them to choose right move for their situation in game fiction or to chose the right description for the move they want to play. If some player move come into play, we resolve it with dice and if it's a hit, we make choices, answer the questions or describe the outcomes and the conversation continues.

Last but not least, I am also watching for any impulses or triggers for me to play my move.

During this conversation I shouldn't force my player to do any moves, unless they come out of their own actions in the game world and I should refrain from taking over the control over the game. I play like my authority over the game is limited to NPC actions and description of the environment.



Very often during the conversation, the players ask me for something, maybe a reaction of some NPCs or the game world itself, maybe they just look and wait what I do next or what the NPCs does next. This is a trigger for me to play my move - "MC makes a soft move". Now it is my task to direct the game somewhere: to setup some situation for players to deal with, to show opportunities or to present a danger. I can also softly push some player moves. But there are still some limits, I shouldn't cross - I should refrain from doing definite, irrevocable actions. "Soft moves" are just setups and I should immediately offer my players an opportunity to react or act accordingly: "What do you do?" so our conversation continues with "players on the move".



Sometimes during the conversation, I'am allowed to do even more than that. The player rolls 6- and there is "Prepares for the worst" written in the move. Or there was some "soft move" setup, but the players decided to ignore incoming threat and they let it happen. Or the players willingly hand the opportunity to me. This is the time for "hard move" - some definitive, irrevocable action from me, where I can do (almost) anything I want, as long it goes with principals and makes sense in the game fiction. But again, immediately after my move, there comes: "What do you do?" and our conversation continues with "players on the move".



Of course, this process is not "taking turns" like in the boardgame. There are some distinguishable moments (like 6- on the dice, or "What do you do?" question or PvP, where MC moderates the order), but apart from that, it is all happening during a normal conversation. From one player to another, from player to MC to another player, everyone does his actions in some natural order, only sometimes we throw dice or I look into my papers with threads and moves for answers.

That's why I'd like to call this structure semi-formal. It is very subtle and a player unaware of this structure might not see any difference from conversation in any other RPGs. But once I am playing as an MC, I follow this structure as a strict rule. Not a formal one - I am not telling players "It's my turn" or "It's yours", but as my internal MC rule, that I always follow, as AW agenda wants me to do. And if I know this structure as a player, I can use it in my advantage a bit (like not asking MC the question for which I don't want to hear their answers).



So, my question is:
* Do I understand correctly that MC should use these rules regulary?
* Or am I too strict, MC can do whatever he wants and these are mere guidelines he can use, if he doesn't know what to do himself?

Thank you very much for your clarification.