Denied right

The Rights and rules thus far do seem to leave for a lot more ambiguous space in the resolution mechanics than AW does. If anything, it seems to be calling attention to these points of "conflict" traditionally resolved by rules, and purposefully leaving them without any sort of concrete, mathematically determined outcome. I have to assume this is intentional, though of what intention I cannot say. Of course, stating said intention directly would probably spoil the fun, right Vincent? ; )

If you want to play a knight, that's cool. If you want to play someone who falsly claims to be a knight, that's cool too.

It is clearly different situations, but I don't see what the problem would be.

For me, it's that being a knight comes with the opportunity cost of not having picked +1 Strong instead, and RPGs in general have a long and frustrating history of offering choices between the evocative and the functional.

Now, I'm not saying this is such a choice: in the context of AWDA, being a knight might turn out to be functional. I'm not sure. I haven't played yet, and Vincent's designs sometimes work out in subtle ways.

But both as a player and as a GM, I'm finding there's a significant aversion I need to overcome to even play around with these mechanisms to try them out, because they recall so many frustrating experiences from other games.

I see, thanks!

Is it the same for you in general with choices that weigh fictional resources against mechanical resources? I'm trying to think of an example from regular AW, but I can't think of any instance of fictional resources that don't carry mechanical weight as well. Hm.

I'll have to go check my players sheets to see what my group did however... I run a lot of con games and one shots.  This might be something I'm interested in doing.  I wonder if the players desire for power or at least cool game mechanics will prevent them from choosing the rights that would otherwise make and drive new story.  I also wonder how many players will choose game mechanic moves with advances Vs. rights without game mechanic. 

I have my players trained pretty well, but when you're running a con game with people who are new to indie games I think you'll be hard pressed to find players that are willing to sacrifice story for mechanic.

I feel like there is nothing to stop people from just picking the mechanic moves because they're more fun and not experiencing a GREAT part of this game.  I'm a fan of forcing people to have fun (it's a flaw... I know) and I don't have a problem forcing people to take SOME amount of narrative rights or even giving them an extra point so they don't have to feel like they are sacrificing mechanic for something a little bit different than their normal RPG experience.

Just throwin' this out there.

As it happens, everybody gets 2 extra points. If I were to cut out all the non-mechanical rights, I'd also cut everybody down to choosing just 2.

But the game's philosophy is: players should choose the rights they want, for their own reasons. Any combination of rights is perfectly good. If people choose only the rights with rolls or mechanical implications, that's what they choose, and it's fine! There should be nothing to stop them.

-Vincent

Here's a move that's implicit in all PbtA games (and most other RPGs as well).

Move Zero: When you want something to happen that's logically supported by the established fiction, describe what's going to happen and how and roll+0. On a 2-12, the MC chooses one or more:
* Some or all of what you wanted to happen, happens; the MC explains how.
* Something else happens, expected or unexpected; the MC explains why.
* The MC incorporates suggestions from other players at the table.

There, presto, your narrative abilities are mechanical abilities.

Here's a move that's implicit in all PbtA games (and most other RPGs as well).

But what if somebody else wants to assist the roll?

Here's a move that's implicit in all PbtA games (and most other RPGs as well).

Move Zero: When you want something to happen that's logically supported by the established fiction, describe what's going to happen and how and roll+0. On a 2-12, the MC chooses one or more:
* Some or all of what you wanted to happen, happens; the MC explains how.
* Something else happens, expected or unexpected; the MC explains why.
* The MC incorporates suggestions from other players at the table.

There, presto, your narrative abilities are mechanical abilities.

Is that really something implicit? My groups have always taken a different approach. If you want to do something that is logically supported by established by the fiction, that no move exists for, it just happens. It only doesn't happen if there is a reason for it not to happen, which almost always triggers another move, in this case, denied your right.

Is that really something implicit? My groups have always taken a different approach. If you want to do something that is logically supported by established by the fiction, that no move exists for, it just happens. It only doesn't happen if there is a reason for it not to happen, which almost always triggers another move, in this case, denied your right.

Exactly: that's the MC taking the first option.

As it happens, everybody gets 2 extra points. If I were to cut out all the non-mechanical rights, I'd also cut everybody down to choosing just 2.

But the game's philosophy is: players should choose the rights they want, for their own reasons. Any combination of rights is perfectly good. If people choose only the rights with rolls or mechanical implications, that's what they choose, and it's fine! There should be nothing to stop them.

-Vincent

I know I should let people have choice... but if I'm running this at a con (and I kinda see it as my responsability to run something like this as a demo of what makes this game great) then I might just go the 2 and 2 route for that kind of game.  I know I shouldn't do these things... but if they have fun my way they'll have more fun... I'm sure of it.... I always have been...

It does seem like people look at the rights without numerical components and think "oh, well that doesn't have any mechanical component, so I can just mess with it or ignore it or deny it whenever I want." I think a similar thing happens when people look at the MC principals and agenda and think "oh, well those are just words/suggestions - they don't have any 'mechanical' components to them, so I can just ignore them and do my own thing." But their not "just words." They are there for a reason, purposefully placed and crafted. And they are rules, just like the numbers are rules - we just seem to feel more comfortable with the number rules because they tend to be ignored less often.

Given two characters with Strong +1 vying for the crown, I'll put my money on the one whose gods are outraged or who will not rest until vindicated. Given that we're talking a human sacrifice at Midwinter, I'd be really really worried about someone whose gods are outraged.