A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Numidius]

Never played it, but I've read it and there's absolutely no way I'd even get close to calling Dogs a heavy GM prep game. I'm curious if you'd care to expound why you say it is.


This is oddly formed. Your saying that only in cases where there is a possible fie present that SYORTD neans the GM outright allows your plan to succeed or combat ensues? That's not even close to what SYORTD means.

As an exercise, in an OD&D game, a player declares that they're going to find tge secret door into the guarded treasure room, bypassing the guards. The map key the GM prepared shows no secret door into the treasure room. How does this adjudicate?

My answers:
[/sblock] In OD&D, the action declaration fails; no secret door is found and no mechanics engaged (except for obfuscation). The answer is no.

In a SYORTD game, the DM can say yes, there is a secret door here, and set a new scene, or they can challenge the declaration by calling for a check. But, success on the check means the player intent is realized, while failure means it is thwarted in some way.[/sblock]

No, the GM can decide the result is trivial and say yes to the declaration without engaging the Move mechanics at all. You can always say yes.


Again, you seem to have a strange seperation of action declaration and content introduction. It's legit in DW to search for a secret door, which introduces the fiction that a secret door is present. The GM must honor thus by either saying yes, or calling for a check. This is what SYORTD means -- it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an action declaration involves fiction introduction or not.

I find it really odd that you cheer for [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] but still maintain this thinking. It's antithetical to how he plays.

Dogs is heavy prepped. I run it, and I found it very difficult to prep properly, following the structure provided in the book by the author. Heck there is even a flow chart to follow for the Sins of the Npc involved. It is like an investigation rpg with guns&sins to judge, so plot and relationships must be prepped in advance and in detail.

In Dw I encourage my players to bring content and ideas, nonetheless there are no rules for dice to roll in those moments; "only" the principle for the Gm Ask Questions and Build On Answers. (So say yes or roll can not apply, anyway, who cares, it's just my opinion)

In my games I don't really care about minutiae (like secret doors or where to find people), I try to foster meaningful decision making at the table with hard choices that might change the setting (not an easy task btw and seldom achieved).

All that is said with a light heart and for the pleasure of conversation, so please don't antagonize me

 

[Numidius]

Making a choice between alternatives doesn't engage with SYORTD at all. Your confusion here is, again, mistaking a GM tool for something the players have to engage to choose between alternatives.

The only way SYORTD would come into this is if the players make action declarations. Choosing between options isn't an action declaration. If the declared something other than choosing an option, then SYORTD would apply, and it would be a valid tool, here. Frex, if the players decided to mount an offense against the Gods of Fate instead of choosing, that could be handled by SYORTD or not. The answering a riddle, though, doesn't go there; it's orthogonal to SYORTD.

I think we agree on this. I made a similar example in an earlier post

 

[Maxperson]

Making a choice between alternatives doesn't engage with SYORTD at all. Your confusion here is, again, mistaking a GM tool for something the players have to engage to choose between alternatives.

The only way SYORTD would come into this is if the players make action declarations. Choosing between options isn't an action declaration. If the declared something other than choosing an option, then SYORTD would apply, and it would be a valid tool, here. Frex, if the players decided to mount an offense against the Gods of Fate instead of choosing, that could be handled by SYORTD or not. The answering a riddle, though, doesn't go there; it's orthogonal to SYORTD.

The choice the players picked was their action declaration. They were declaring that they act to answer the riddle with the answer they came up with. The Say Yes or Roll the Dice Tool doesn't apply to that action. It's okay to admit that not every action is appropriate for that tool.

 

[Numidius]

It's legit in DW to search for a secret door, which introduces the fiction that a secret door is present. The GM must honor thus by either saying yes, or calling for a check.

AFAIK searching for a secret door in Dw does introduce nothing to the fiction. If the Gm likes the idea and thus decides to use it on the fly, why not, but there is no rule, nor indication whatsoever to do so, and moreover there is no check involved.

The other way round might be legit: the Gm may asks the Thief if there are supposed to be secret doors present and how they work etc and build on that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The choice the players picked was their action declaration. They were declaring that they act to answer the riddle with the answer they came up with. The Say Yes or Roll the Dice Tool doesn't apply to that action. It's okay to admit that not every action is appropriate for that tool.

So, Max, when the players choose does the GM say no to that declaration or do they say yes?

You're right, SYORTD doesn't apply to everything, and that's okay. I'm not claiming it does, and, when I run 5e, I don't use it as a maxim. I say "no" because that's what tgat gane calls for on occasion. However, this example isn't a good one to show hiw SYORTD doesn't apply, because you can actually apply it. Don't confuse my argument for how SYORTD works and can be applied here for any statement it always does.

SYORTD may also not be applied to this example. Largely, my point here is that how you ise a GMing tool like SYORTD really doesn't apply at all to how players make decisions. It's not a player tool. SYORTD is a GM tool for adjudicating action declarations, period. Any duscussion of other gane elements just diesn't engage SYORTD, including players making choices.

 

[darkbard]

[MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION], your broad descriptions of your DitV and DW play don't match any of my experiences or descriptions by others I've encountered over the years. It seems you may be operating from a very different principle than standard implementation of those games?

 

[Numidius]

[MENTION=6972053]Numidius[/MENTION], your broad descriptions of your DitV and DW play don't match any of my experiences or descriptions by others I've encountered over the years. It seems you may be operating from a very different principle than standard implementation of those games?

Well, I don't know what to say...

I own both rulebooks and I know for a fact that in Dogs there is the chapter for Gms to prep adventures (that are called Towns because every session involves a different town) along with Npc, ralationships, events and the infamous hyerarchy of sins flowchart.
I can show the pictures later on.

About Dw, of course the first session Gm and Players are supposed to build the setting together, but I don't know of any rule that allows Pc to produce new content on the fly during the game and no check involved. Yes there is the Move called Spout Lore, but the info is given away by the gm.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Dogs is heavy prepped. I run it, and I found it very difficult to prep properly, following the structure provided in the book by the author. Heck there is even a flow chart to follow for the Sins of the Npc involved. It is like an investigation rpg with guns&sins to judge, so plot and relationships must be prepped in advance and in detail.

There is prep in Dogs, yes, but not like a D&D module. You chart out details to engage the PCs, but also have to be ready to ditch it all if the players run off script. There's more prep than in, say, DW, but it's still not a heavily prepped game.

In Dw I encourage my players to bring content and ideas, nonetheless there are no rules for dice to roll in those moments; "only" the principle for the Gm Ask Questions and Build On Answers. (So say yes or roll can not apply, anyway, who cares, it's just my opinion)

As I said to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], if you're not adjudicating an action declaration, SYORTD is moot. You're talking about a different facet of play, here, namely finding out what's important to your players so you can use that to frame scenes. This, however, isn't the only way to introduce new fiction. New fiction (like the presence of a secret door not previously introduced) can be brought on through action declarations in DW, and should then be adjudicated using SYORTD as a maxim.

In my games I don't really care about minutiae (like secret doors or where to find people), I try to foster meaningful decision making at the table with hard choices that might change the setting (not an easy task btw and seldom achieved).

I don't follow. If the presence of a secret door is brought up in an action declaration and is minutia, then SYORTD says to say yes and move to a point that is important. If, however, it's not minutia, then call for a check and use the results for the action snowball. This is the exact kind of play that PbtA leverages to create meaningful moments in play.

Dismissing this argument, which showcases SYORTD and fiction introduction by saying that it would be universally trivial is just sidestepping by hand waving. If you can't imagine how the presense or absence of a secret door can be meaningful and impactful to play, okay, but it's pretty easy -- chases where being captured risks a PC goal; access to a resource a PC needs to accomplish a goal; as a shortcut that would allow a PC to rescue a hostage; etc, etc.

The systems that employ SYORTD do so in pursuit of creating dramatic story moments. The SY part is to move past trivial moments to get to the dranatic bits.

All that is said with a light heart and for the pleasure of conversation, so please don't antagonize me

Any antagozing is on your side?

I disagree with you, but I've also been very clear as to where, why, and how, so you can engage my arguments, if you choose.

 

[Numidius]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]
(Briefly) in Dw new fiction cannot be brought thru action declaration (apart from the action of pcs themselves of course)

 

[Numidius]

There are rpgs in which players can and are supposed to provide new fiction improvising on the fly.
A couple that come to mind are Donjon by C. R. Nixon and Houses of the Blooded by John Wick...