Is AW meant to be prescriptive? (for MC)

  • 17 Replies
  • 2097 Views
Re: Is AW meant to be prescriptive? (for MC)
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2020, 09:04:02 AM »
It always seemed to me that Vincent "just" wrote down all the practices / answers / kick-offs he and GMs in general use/say in the game and which he finds good and productive and wrote them down as as-much-comprehensive list as-possible.

Therefor the fact that Vincent always refers specific MC move is by my opinion not to show MC "should be using them", as much as a "mere" consequence of the fact that:
- Vincent already wrote down all things he does/say, so its hard to find something what is not already on the list
- pointing out which move it is is also a reference to its description (=where to find more advice on the topic)
- ...and it is kinda reminder to MCs that "advice on this with inspirational list was already given, please do feel free to use it anytime"

By the same logic the fact that most productive things any MC does/say can be classified as a move is also a consequence of the list comprehensiveness.

(Once again if I'm wrong, I'll be happy to stand corrected.)


And while I do see how it might be helpful and inspirational to see MC moves as restrictive for some (as it is known - boundaries empower creativity), there are others who find it counterproductive - it makes them "think of the moves all the time" which distracts them from the players and game and causes some anxiety ("did I played it correctly?" etc.)



Vincent: ...a friend of ours ("Jerson", if he ever showed up around here - he had some other questions on different topics, so it might happen) suggested a new possible MC move of "hit them with consequences" - the "content" of the move is that when players do something what should "obviously" cause some kind trouble in response, you do play out the trouble.

I've pointed out that it might not be that useful, since it doesn't help you to actually decide what to play. Like, for example, "split them" or "hurt them" or "take their stuff" all tell you what specifically to do next, while this kinda feels to me like just "do something" or "if they acted, play the reaction", which is sort off too fuzzy advice to give (compared to the rest of MC moves). Plus basically most of the other MC moves already listed are the possible consequences, so "hit them with consequences" is somewhat redundant - like "hit them with some other MC move".

But that being said for cases when the consequence / reaction is obvious, this move can be a good reminder to "just play it out". And of course if it helps somebody to lead the game, than it is good move for them. (Or not?)

*

Munin

  • 411
Re: Is AW meant to be prescriptive? (for MC)
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2020, 10:55:43 PM »
To me, the MC moves generally are the consequences. "Hit them with consequences" seems really empty to me, like saying "make a move." And if it's a general admonition to make life difficult for them, well, that's what put someone in a spot is all about.

Honestly, the list of MC moves feels pretty comprehensive to me. I've never felt like I wanted to do something that couldn't be explained in the context of a particular MC move.

*

lumpley

  • 1293
Re: Is AW meant to be prescriptive? (for MC)
« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2020, 11:47:25 AM »
Sirien, Munin: Yep! I agree.