Not sure how far I'll get witht his right now, but here goes...
It didn't exist at all (that is, it wasn't an established part of the fiction/play conversation) until the Elf fell in. The snowbridge-covered crevasse didn't exist until the Scout roll was failed on the Undertake a Perilous Journey move.
It wasn't an established part of the fiction as nobody had yet interacted with it, but was it on the DM's map? Or was the complex even pre-mapped at all? (if not, you're so far away from anything I can relate to you might as well be speaking Russian of Swahili or some other language I don't know a word of)
Earthmaw did exist as a result of action resolution in a prior scene (as I noted in the initial post I linked you). The players were heading across the dangerous frozen wilderness to resupply and beseech the Hobgoblin King for aid and audience with the Blizzard/White Dragon Averandox that claimed the highlands as its domain.
So while the rest of the group made it to Earthmaw proper after getting out of the crevasse pickle, the elf splashed down in a freezing underground river that led to Earthmaw's garbage basement. This course was fraught with serious peril (exposure/monsters/being thrust right into the middle of the "Aliens" trope siege of Earthmaw) and threatened to put a serious monkey-wrench in future parley with the Hobgoblin King.
So...he did make to Earthmaw...just not how he had intended (and with serious complications/obstacles to deal with/ovrercome). This is classic Fail Forward.
My terminology might be more Fail Sideways in this case, but this all seems like normal run-of-play stuff where someone hit what amounts to a chute trap and has to find their way back to the party via some dangers. But, a bit more info (or clarification) needed:
1. Was the trap (for such it is) already on the DM's map or did it suddenly spring into existence at the moment you needed to come up with a failure result? If pre-present, see next question. If spur-of-the-moment, the you're into "GM Force" territory...probably not in a bad way, but it's there.
2. If the trap was a pre-planned thing, then (to cover what some others might be thinking) was there some warning given of it so the party knew to be careful? If not, you're into "gotcha" territory, which I personally have no issue with but others - for whatever reason - do.
If you're wondering "why isn't this Fail Forward an instance of GM Force(?)", then this would be a perfect point to have a conversation about the nuance of GMing techniques, GMing principles, and play procedures. If you do get why it isn't, then good deal!
We could have such a conversation but I think it would almost immediately become over-analysis...we're proabaly there already, for all that.
Games like DW are good with, and actively encourage, stuff that is pretty much just mechanical markers that are indirect proxies for other stuff (HP are whatever the hell they are...Adventuring Gear, Ammo, Bag of Books, etc are just a number (typically 1 - 4) to reflect an abstract resource) to be made transparent. Strike(!), 13th Age, and 4e is the same way although 4e is a bit more "do whatever you want but here is the advantage of doing it this way" about it.
Beyond that, just on a personal note, I have long...long...long since made system artifacts like HP that just serve as mechanical markers transparent to my players.
At massive cost of immersion and realism. The character, as the character, has no way of knowing how tough that particular foe it until well into a combat with it, and even then only in general terms. From a standpoint of character knowledge = player knowledge there's no way I could ever get behind your method, and were I in your game I'd lobby hard for you NOT to tell us such things.
(1) It decreases table handling time in action/scene resolution and (2) the PC would understand in the game exactly whatever it is supposed to mean in the fiction. So I want my players to be oriented in that same way/occupy that same head-space. Otherwise, they're filtering their OODA Loop through me in a side conversation game of "how do I extract this information that my character would have but I, the player, can only engage with these system artifacts".
Except the character doesn't have that information. This isn't a video game where the opponents go around with little green/red bars over their heads showing their health status...particularly opponents where the characters alomst certainly don't even know its physiology (as in, the Aboleth) and thus would likely have a hard time knowing whether what they were doing to it was having much effect or not, until it started to fall apart.
Basically...D&D gave us the elegant mechanical marker of HPs to deal with (along with turn-based combat rounds and initiative, action economy, Armor Class, etc etc). The machinery is what it is. System architecture to orient players (not PCs) and more easily facilitate action resolution. It isn't the fiction and it can't translate directly to the fiction.
Well, some of it can if you let it; and if you don't let the mechanics dictate everything. What's realistic? The black knight foe is wearing heavy armour thus will likely be harder to damage - fine. But that doesn't tell the characters what else the knight might have going for it...or not...so there's absolutely no reason to tell anybody its AC.
Strict turn-based combat rounds where everything else freezes while one participant acts are awful. Combat is fluid, and where this can be reflected by the mechanics it should be even if it takes a bit more time (e.g. rerolling initiative each round). Action economy...yeah, that's a new-age thing.
Happily, Dungeon World doesn't have loads and loads of HPs! It doesn't have Initiative! It doesn't have Action Economy! It doesn't have AC! It has fiction. It has elegant action resolution mechanics. It has very clear play procedures. It has tightly integrated reward cycles and resources. It has a coherent agenda and principles.
I have to take your word for all this.
If that would have been a B/X scenario, then there would have been much more prep. B/X requires multiple fully prepped (mapped + stocked + keyed + Wandering Monsters) dungeons of varying levels/settings/themes. Players figure out where they want to go in the Town phase of play and off we go.
Depends on style. Me, I've usually got one adventure in the can and maybe one or two others in mind (but by no means fully prepped) in case they throw me a curveball. If I've got three adventures fully prepped that means I've got a scenario in mind where they're going to hit all three.
Dungeon World prep is not just extremely lighter, but in its own lightness it is different than B/X prep.
However, it occurs to me there's a counterbalance you might be ignoring: a system where much is made up on the fly is going to require meticulous note-taking both at the time and afterwards in order that consistency be preserved down the road...far more so than B/X, where much of that is done during prep and the only recordkeeping later needs be what the PCs actually did; and for this often broad-brush strokes will do. So, in a DW-like system I suspect there's almost as much work involved, but back-loaded as opposed to B/X where it's front-loaded.
I'm not one at all for taking notes during a game unless I absolutely have to - I can't talk (or listen) and write at the same time, so for me to take notes everything grinds to a halt.
Well, that is B/X for you. Its actually extremely easy to GM. The mechanics are elegant, intuitive, and extremely light-weight and coherent compared to AD&D. Its basically Exploration Turns + Rest + Encounters + Monster Reactions + Combat + Pursuit and Evasion + Wandering Monsters and the little subtle nuances therein. A GM who has run it more than once will be able to run it simply (and the rulebooks are beautifully put together and easily referencable...though you likely won't need to).
The B/X version of action resolution for something like your describing is different than AD&D (where you're rolling below Dex/NWPs). B/X handles that stuff with 1d6 and typically with a 1 (or sometimes 1 and 2) and you've got success.
I'm more used to 1e-style mechanics...which can also be (or be made to be) elegant and coherent, and can almost run itself once you've done it a few times (and the same can probably be said for 'most any half-decent system out there).
Dungeon World has a melee move for if you're actively engaged in an exchange with a worthy opponent. No exchange/worthy opponent and/or the fiction presents the situation that you should just deal your damage (or be afforded the choice to straight kill your adversary), then that is what you do.
Were it me, that's something I'd change, as I always want there to be a chance of failure (or, when something is near-but-not-quite impossible, success). Nothing's guaranteed: the held goblin could squirm just at the wrong moment, or the Elf could be distracted by the other Goblins and miss (or, in a game with fumble possibilities, cut his own thumb), or whatever.
B/X does have a roll to hit, but this goblin would not engage in combat (due to morale 2 or below), so its irrelevant.
Realistically, morale goes out the window when something is threatened with imminent death, so that captured Goblin would squirm and bite and do whatever it could once it saw the dagger coming. (and mechanics be damned)
By themselves, these little, pathetic goblin laborers aren't even the slightest threat to a level 3 Elven Arcane Duelist (or he may have been 4 at that point...can't recall) or level 3 B/X Elf (2 first level spells and 1 second).
Probably not, but if the Elf misses maybe the Goblins start thinking they do have a chance...
In B/X, time passed (due to Exploration Turns) triggering the Wandering Monster clock would do the heavy lifting in what you describe above.
In DW, I'd be thinking about the Aboleth while we play (it did come back into play later...as well as several others during the parley with the Hobgoblin King!).
As the Aboleth is a known foe (as opposed to a true wandering monster) at this point, I'd be treating it more like an NPC with its own agenda, based on whatever brains it might have. If it's smart its movements and actions would reflect this (maybe it goes and gets its buddies and they set up an ambush); if it's stupid it would move more randomly, or not at all.
The overhead for a DW GM with what you're talking about is when and how to use that Aboleth. There are two ways:
* "Soft Move": This can be the initial framing of a situation or a 7-9 result on a player move where I do something like "reveal an unwelcome truth", "show signs of an approaching threat", "grant an opportunity with a cost", or "put someone in a spot" It doesn't have immediate, irrevocable consequences. However, if the players don't respond to/deal with the situation then they've presented me a golden opportunity for a "Hard Move."
Lets go back to Aliens. Think of the trope where someone sees either signs of acid burning through fuselage/structure or they see signs of slimy goop and what looks like something just molted. The Elf could have easily come across signs of either (this happened later in the DW game), except its nasty mucous haze rather than acid.
I've never seen Aliens (not the least bit interested) so the analogy is lost on me.
* "Hard Move": This happens when the player(s) ignores or doesn't appropriately deal with my soft move. Or it can be triggered by a player move that results in a 6 or less. Now I might decide to "use a monster/danger/location move", "deal damage", "use up their resources", etc. The lurking Aboleth jumps on them from above, disorienting them with their mucous haze or burgeoning mind magic, and attempts to devour them!
Where I'd try and put myself in the mind of that Aboleth and have it act as it would naturally act, given what I-as-DM know about it. And this is (or should be) system-independent: monsters have their own intelligence, their own motivations, and sometimes their own agendae; and in all instances this is what would drive their actions once they become aware of the PCs. The PCs do what they do, the monster does what it does, and sooner or later they're either gonna interact with each other or they're not.
In light of my response, do you have any thoughts about any of those instances being GM Force?
I think that definition you quoted (and I'll re-quote here):
Quote said:
"...an instance of play where (a) the GM suspends/subordinates the action resolution mechanics to impose their preferred outcome or (b) undermines the impact on play of a/the player(s) thematically/strategically/tactically significant choices (these choices could be at build-stage or during play)."
is again too broad, particularly clause (b), as read literally it tells me that no matter what else is involved the players (and PCs) always have to win unless for some reason they intentionally choose not to. They're always right. Their choices can't be gainsaid, or be later proven foolish or wrong or to have unforeseen ill effects (foreseen ill effects would be part of the choice process at the time, one assumes).
Reading clause (b) literally it tells me that even if I-as-DM have prepped the first adventure as a stealth mission (with the specific intention of making it low-combat and thus perhaps a bit safer for 1st-level types) I can't run it if the players all decide to bring in heavy metal tank PCs as I'd be undermining their significant choices. Balderdash.
Just for quick clarity, a GM "saying yes" to a player proposal can never be a case of GM Force, even if the GM thinks the direction that play will go as a result of the player's proposal is thematically coherent or interesting. GM Force is about the mesh of system agency, player agency, and the trajectory of play being subordinate to GM fiat.
What's getting lost here (perhaps by design) is the idea that it's first and foremost the DM's game, as shown by some Gygax quotes earlier this thread. This is a philosophy I still subscribe to, both as player and DM.
Lan-"appreciative of the thought you're putting into this, even if I don't agree with much of it"-efan
