Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[pemerton]

I don't find you citing a different game

What different game? The only thing I cited is The Blossoms are Falling. That's a BW supplement.

I think the focus of BW, using Traits, Ideals, Flaws and Bonds can be encapsulated pretty easily in D&D using only the three corebooks

Examples?

As far as powergaming in MHRP, have you tried it and had trouble? I'm GMing at a table where people are doing it" you gun for XP to improve your PC, and you gun for PPs and mathematically optimise your dice pools. And the character with the ability to borrow a doom pool die and then step it back does this whenever possible to make sure that the doom pool never contains two d12s.

I don't really understand your posting strategy here: you ask people questions about games with which you seem to have little or no familiarity and play experience, and then when they answer you don't believe them. So why bother asking?

 

[pemerton]

it could be, at least in part, the determination of a die roll.

But in the example under discussion it was not.

 

[Imaro]

What different game? The only thing I cited is The Blossoms are Falling. That's a BW supplement.

Sorry but that wasn't clear from your post. And to be fair earlier in the discussion you chose to cite different games as examples of BW's flexibility.

Examples?

Yes as in those things which support the assertion you have made...

I don't really understand your posting strategy here: you ask people questions about games with which you seem to have little or no familiarity and play experience, and then when they answer you don't believe them. So why bother asking?

It's not about believing them or not... it's asking posters to support their assertions and explain exactly what they mean so that the conversation is clear.

Furthermore it's what every one is doing in this thread (and you when it comes to my assertions around 5e... why don't you just accept what I am asserting about said game, especially since it's clear you haven't read the actual corebooks only the free rules?) so I'm not sure specifically why you have a problem with me asking for examples or clarity around games I may not be as familiar with as other posters in the thread. you're doing the same thing with D&D 5e. Have you read the corebooks for 5e?

And since we are speaking to posting style, I don't understand yours either. You seem pick and choose what to acknowledge in a particular post often taking things out of context or choosing the least salient (using the most pedantic means of nitpicking) points of a post while ignoring the main thrust(s)?? and/or more salient ones. Main example being this very post... why is that?

EDIT: At this point I don't think there's much more to be gained by us discussing the flexibility of D&D 5e or BW as you've made it clear earlier that nothing I've posted will convince you and when asked what would convince you... you chose to ignore the question. At this point it might be best to chock it up to difference of opinion, especially as it's degraded to questioning of each others posting styles as opposed to talking about games.

 

[Campbell]

I fail to see how the player moves of a game like Apocalypse World are in any way more constraining than the combat rules, stealth rules, spells, and special abilities of a game like Dungeons and Dragons. Right now I am currently playing in an occasional 5th Edition game with friends. I am playing a Tiefling Valor Bard with Vicious Mockery, Friends, Thaumaturgy, Bardic Inspiration, Charm Person, Cure Wounds, Sleep, and Identify. All these abilities are binding mechanisms with teeth that tell you what happens when you succeed and when you fail. Sleep does not even have a saving throw. All of these things can be used when I choose. I do not even have to establish fictional positioning to do so. They also tend to be more specific in their ability to affect the fiction than most player moves in Apocalypse World.

What there is a lack of in a game like Dungeons and Dragons is a lack of mechanisms with teeth to affect non-physical changes in the fiction from both the player and GM sides of the equation through mundane means. This is one of the classic Walled Off Gardens in most mainstream games I was talking about upthread. In this regard both 5th Edition and 4th Edition are much better than most other editions.

Let's take a look at a situation where a Dungeon World GM actually has far more flexibility in their ability to affect change in the fiction than the same GM would in 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons - Combat.

So when the player of a fighter wants to smack a Dragon with their great sword in 5th Edition they need to establish they are within reach of the Dragon. They do so through detailed movement rates and the action economy. They can than take an action to make one or more attacks. When they do so they make an attack roll against the Dragon's AC listed in a detailed stat block prepared by the GM. If they succeed they roll their damage expression. The GM subtracts that damage from the listed hit points. If the player failed in their roll all that happens is they fail to effect the fiction. There are zero consequences for doing so. To effect the player character the GM must take an attack action based on the details of the stat block they have prepared. If they are successful against the player's AC they do damage. If they are not nothing happens in the fiction. Everything is finely controlled. There is no need for judgment calls because the system takes care of everything for you.

When a fighter wants to smack a Dragon with their great sword in Dungeon World first they must be given the opportunity to act by the GM because there is no action economy in place. Then they must establish fictional positioning that indicates they are able to hurt the Dragon. They do so by explaining in detail what they are doing and why it means they can hurt the Dragon. This is subject to GM judgment. Often to get in a position where they can affect the Dragon a Defy Danger roll will be necessary. Once they successfully establish their ability to hurt the Dragon they can make the player move Hack and Slash. On a 10+ the fighter hurts the dragon and suffers no repercussions. On a 7-9 we get an exchange of blows. On a miss the GM gets to make as hard a move as they like. That might mean I separate them by having the dragon pick up the character with his teeth and fly off. It might mean I explain the consequences and give them a hard choice as them lurching forward give the Dragon on opportunity to go after one of the other PCs. It might just mean they get a nasty gash from the Dragon's claws.

Yes, Dungeon World places constraints on the GM. Yes, Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition also places constraints on the GM. We become so used to the constraints we normally operate under that we fail to see them, both when it comes to mechanics and when it comes to the social layer.

When I play 5e I am constrained by the action economy, detailed physical positioning, lack of meaningful social influence unless the GM or other players explicitly allow it, rules and a social contract that sometimes obfuscate fictional positioning, social contracts which discourage playing too hard, the social impact of long campaigns that sometimes make playing really hard untenable, and a social contract where I am not a peer with the GM. I am emboldened by the action economy, combat and stealth rules, very explicit spells and special abilities, respect for individual creativity, and a social contract that mandates the GM to provide for my fun.

When I play Apocalypse World I am constrained more meaningfully by fictional positioning, have no action economy to fall back on, must deal with social influence mechanics from other players and the GM, a social contract that favors vigorous active collaboration over individual creativity, rules that require active use of fictional positioning, a social contract that favors playing as hard as possible, expectations that are placed on me, my fellow players, and the GM. I am emboldened by clear fictional positioning, social influence mechanisms I can rely on, a collaborative and competitive atmosphere, the ability to clearly speak to my personal concerns with the entire group, being able to call for do overs when things were unclear, and clear social expectations.

When I run mainstream games I am constrained by a less clear social contract, an expectation of story advocacy, a need to provide for the other players, a need to world build and prepare encounters and stat blocks, rules I cannot trust, having to provide clarity to the proceedings, a need to design mystery, overly procedural combat rules, the burdens of authority, and having to have everything filtered through me. I am emboldened to take a more active hand, express my individual creativity, design specific encounters, not being constrained by mundane social influence or the fiction as established, amongst other things.

When I run Apocalypse World I am constrained by meaningful social influence with teeth, the established fiction, the expectation of character advocacy and curious exploration of the fiction, and the expectation that I will actively challenge the players, not softball, and advocate for the fiction. I am emboldened by the expectation that everyone will take an active interest and involve them with everyone else's stuff because they have a say, the expectation of constructive criticism, the expectation that players will actively bring it and not play passively, the lack of expected group play, really not knowing what is going to happen, real tension and social risks, mechanics that reward character advocacy, and the expectation that we can choose to step outside the rules together rather than that being my decision to make.

I am not saying you have to like the constraints that apply in other games that do not apply in Dungeons and Dragons. I am not saying you have to find the expectations that it brings as being particularly constraining to you. I do expect acknowledgement that when I say I find them constraining much of the time I am being authentic, and that when I say I find these other games socially freeing and flexible I am also being authentic. Games constrain social behavior to get us to act in ways we would not naturally act. That is what they do. I value this.

I have never said that 5th Edition and other mainstream games are bad or inflexible. We can always choose to step outside the rules and expected social conventions in any game. Mainstream games place all that power in the hands of the GM. The social contract for the games I most prefer makes that a group decision because we are all social peers. If we do not like the way something played out we simply revise or change the rules rather than manipulating things behind the screen. It's about GM flexibility vs. group flexibility. I simply prefer a different sort of social contract and trust model than some other posters.

When I tun more mainstream games I tend to utilize a more indie social contract being more transparent about things like Difficulty Class, which rules we choose to apply, and fictional ramifications of a given action.

When I play games I generally do not want to be provided for or provide for others. I want everyone to advocate for their own interests in genuine ways through vigorous and sometimes contentious collaboration. I want to be emboldened to play a game boldly. I want real tension even when I am running a game. This is no way more narrow or specific than other sorts of games. Different constraints, both mechanically and socially - not more constraints.

 

[Campbell]

I fail to see how the player moves of a game like Apocalypse World are in any way more constraining than the combat rules, stealth rules, spells, and special abilities of a game like Dungeons and Dragons. Right now I am currently playing in an occasional 5th Edition game with friends. I am playing a Tiefling Valor Bard with Vicious Mockery, Friends, Thaumaturgy, Bardic Inspiration, Charm Person, Cure Wounds, Sleep, and Identify. All these abilities are binding mechanisms with teeth that tell you what happens when you succeed and when you fail. Sleep does not even have a saving throw. All of these things can be used when I choose. I do not even have to establish fictional positioning to do so. They also tend to be more specific in their ability to affect the fiction than most player moves in Apocalypse World.

What there is a lack of in a game like Dungeons and Dragons is a lack of mechanisms with teeth to affect non-physical changes in the fiction from both the player and GM sides of the equation through mundane means. This is one of the classic Walled Off Gardens in most mainstream games I was talking about upthread. In this regard both 5th Edition and 4th Edition are much better than most other editions.

Let's take a look at a situation where a Dungeon World GM actually has far more flexibility in their ability to affect change in the fiction than the same GM would in 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons - Combat.

So when the player of a fighter wants to smack a Dragon with their great sword in 5th Edition they need to establish they are within reach of the Dragon. They do so through detailed movement rates and the action economy. They can than take an action to make one or more attacks. When they do so they make an attack roll against the Dragon's AC listed in a detailed stat block prepared by the GM. If they succeed they roll their damage expression. The GM subtracts that damage from the listed hit points. If the player failed in their roll all that happens is they fail to effect the fiction. There are zero consequences for doing so. To effect the player character the GM must take an attack action based on the details of the stat block they have prepared. If they are successful against the player's AC they do damage. If they are not nothing happens in the fiction. Everything is finely controlled. There is no need for judgment calls because the system takes care of everything for you.

When a fighter wants to smack a Dragon with their great sword in Dungeon World first they must be given the opportunity to act by the GM because there is no action economy in place. Then they must establish fictional positioning that indicates they are able to hurt the Dragon. They do so by explaining in detail what they are doing and why it means they can hurt the Dragon. This is subject to GM judgment. Often to get in a position where they can affect the Dragon a Defy Danger roll will be necessary. Once they successfully establish their ability to hurt the Dragon they can make the player move Hack and Slash. On a 10+ the fighter hurts the dragon and suffers no repercussions. On a 7-9 we get an exchange of blows. On a miss the GM gets to make as hard a move as they like. That might mean I separate them by having the dragon pick up the character with his teeth and fly off. It might mean I explain the consequences and give them a hard choice as them lurching forward give the Dragon on opportunity to go after one of the other PCs. It might just mean they get a nasty gash from the Dragon's claws.

Yes, Dungeon World places constraints on the GM. Yes, Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition also places constraints on the GM. We become so used to the constraints we normally operate under that we fail to see them, both when it comes to mechanics and when it comes to the social layer.

When I play 5e I am constrained by the action economy, detailed physical positioning, lack of meaningful social influence unless the GM or other players explicitly allow it, rules and a social contract that sometimes obfuscate fictional positioning, social contracts which discourage playing too hard, the social impact of long campaigns that sometimes make playing really hard untenable, and a social contract where I am not a peer with the GM. I am emboldened by the action economy, combat and stealth rules, very explicit spells and special abilities, respect for individual creativity, and a social contract that mandates the GM to provide for my fun.

When I play Apocalypse World I am constrained more meaningfully by fictional positioning, have no action economy to fall back on, must deal with social influence mechanics from other players and the GM, a social contract that favors vigorous active collaboration over individual creativity, rules that require active use of fictional positioning, a social contract that favors playing as hard as possible, expectations that are placed on me, my fellow players, and the GM. I am emboldened by clear fictional positioning, social influence mechanisms I can rely on, a collaborative and competitive atmosphere, the ability to clearly speak to my personal concerns with the entire group, being able to call for do overs when things were unclear, and clear social expectations.

When I run mainstream games I am constrained by a less clear social contract, an expectation of story advocacy, a need to provide for the other players, a need to world build and prepare encounters and stat blocks, rules I cannot trust, having to provide clarity to the proceedings, a need to design mystery, overly procedural combat rules, the burdens of authority, and having to have everything filtered through me. I am emboldened to take a more active hand, express my individual creativity, design specific encounters, not being constrained by mundane social influence or the fiction as established, amongst other things.

When I run Apocalypse World I am constrained by meaningful social influence with teeth, the established fiction, the expectation of character advocacy and curious exploration of the fiction, and the expectation that I will actively challenge the players, not softball, and advocate for the fiction. I am emboldened by the expectation that everyone will take an active interest and involve them with everyone else's stuff because they have a say, the expectation of constructive criticism, the expectation that players will actively bring it and not play passively, the lack of expected group play, really not knowing what is going to happen, real tension and social risks, mechanics that reward character advocacy, and the expectation that we can choose to step outside the rules together rather than that being my decision to make.

I am not saying you have to like the constraints that apply in other games that do not apply in Dungeons and Dragons. I am not saying you have to find the expectations that it brings as being particularly constraining to you. I do expect acknowledgement that when I say I find them constraining much of the time I am being authentic, and that when I say I find these other games socially freeing and flexible I am also being authentic. Games constrain social behavior to get us to act in ways we would not naturally act. That is what they do. I value this.

I have never said that 5th Edition and other mainstream games are bad or inflexible. We can always choose to step outside the rules and expected social conventions in any game. Mainstream games place all that power in the hands of the GM. The social contract for the games I most prefer makes that a group decision because we are all social peers. If we do not like the way something played out we simply revise or change the rules rather than manipulating things behind the screen. It's about GM flexibility vs. group flexibility. I simply prefer a different sort of social contract and trust model than some other posters.

When I play games I generally do not want to be provided for or provide for others. I want everyone to advocate for their own interests in genuine ways through vigorous and sometimes contentious collaboration. I want to be emboldened to play a game boldly. I want real tension even when I am running a game. This is no way more narrow or specific than other sorts of games. Different constraints, both mechanically and socially - not more constraints.

 

[Campbell]

I really should clarify that I do not actively dislike mainstream games and modes of play. I just generally prefer other sorts of role playing games and modes of play. Right now I am playing in a V20 Dark Ages game, a Blades in the Dark game, and a 5th Edition game. These are all with different play groups. I will probably start running a game or two in the near future, perhaps with different people. I am all about diversity in play, and using the right tools for the sort of play you desire.

I actually really like 5th Edition. It is very amenable to hacking in many ways, slightly more so than some other games. Slightly less so than some of the games I play. Most role playing games are quite flexible because the rules are not built around physical artifacts nearly as much as board games and the hacker aesthetic is quite strong in our shared culture.

 

[Lanefan]

Most role playing games are quite flexible because the rules are not built around physical artifacts nearly as much as board games and the hacker aesthetic is quite strong in our shared culture.

This is a key point - most (but not by any means all) RPG systems are either robust enough or flexible enough to withstand some kitbashing; thus if you don't like the way something works you can always change it to suit your preferences.

Problems only really arise when a system is so tightly designed* that changing something here is going to have unavoidable knock-on effects here, here and here...each of which then requires its own tweak to bring it back in line, thus causing further knock-ons down the line - until you find you're in fact rebuilding the whole thing from scratch.

* - some see this as a feature...which it is but only if the system as written works perfectly for everyone who wants to play / DM it. I see it as a bug, because the perfect system for everyone does not yet exist (if it did, we'd all be playing it).

3e was bad for this (I say having long-term played in a somewhat-kitbashed 3e game where the knock-on effects eventually became overwhelming) and from what I can tell 4e was also not very easy to modify other than a few very minor things....when it first came out I had a long hard look at it to see if I could modify it into anything I'd ever want to run or play and quickly concluded it'd be easier just to either a) stay with what I already had or b) start over from scratch.

1e and 5e, however, were both designed as mod-able frameworks with the kitbasher squarely in mind, and the DMGs for both call this out.

Lan-"and, vaguely back toward topic, kitbashing should be the purview of either the DM only or the DM in consultation with all the players"-efan

 

[pemerton]

At this point I don't think there's much more to be gained by us discussing the flexibility of D&D 5e or BW as you've made it clear earlier that nothing I've posted will convince you and when asked what would convince you... you chose to ignore the question. At this point it might be best to chock it up to difference of opinion, especially as it's degraded to questioning of each others posting styles as opposed to talking about games.

You've not given any example of D&D providing a BW experience.

The Inspiration rules don't do that: they provide Advantage, which is not a discrete benefit from various other features of the system, meaning that interaction between granting Inspiration and various existing class and other mechanics is not smooth, and Inspiration defaults to being a seconardy concern; Inspiration does not stack; and then there is the whole question of how it is awarded.

The DC system is not up to the task, because of the relationship between bonuses, Inspiration and bounded accuracy; the advancement system is not up to the task Iit's based either on encounters or on reaching "story" milestones); etc.

Here are some other systems that 5e can't emulate either: Runequest, Rolemaster and 4e D&D.

The systems you pointed to as examples of 5e's flexibilituy - sanity and honour - exist in BW, and the system has ample scope to develop other related systems (and you scorn the idea of "developing" these, yet point to the scope to "develop" the 5e Inpsiration rules, or DC-setting rules, as evidence of its flexibility).

I'm not expressing any view on whether 5e is a good or bad game. But it is not uniquely flexibile. It doesn't even have a proper TotM combat positioning and targetting system (contrast, say, 13th Age, BW or even Classic Traveller).

 

[pemerton]

If the stuff is already in the GM's notes, it's not ensuing. It's already there.

If I want to know what the GM thinks would make for a good story, I can just ask him/her. I don't need to play an RPG for that!

But you as player don't know that, if I'm doing it right, so how can it matter or make any difference to the at-the-time play experience?

You didn't quote the second of the above sentences, but I've requoted it because the two go together.

As a player, I can tell if the GM is following his/her notes and/or his/her conception of what makes for a good story, or is following the hooks provided by the players via the build and play of their PCs.

Most obviously, I can tell if the ingame situation is forcing me to make choices on the basis of said hooks.

I'm asking for more concrete evidence as to how you would be able to tell.

Well, if a character has a Belief "Now that I've seen my brother [who is possessed by a Balrog], I pity him" then the player of that character can tell whether or not a given episode of play relates in some fashion to the character's pity for his brother.

If my character has the Instinct "When camping, always keep the campfire burning" I can tell whether or not a given episode of play contains a campfire.

In a system without that sort of explicit signalling via elements of PC build, if a PC is a Marshall of Letherna sworn to upholding and advancing the interests of the Raven Queen, the player of that PC can tell if those interests are at play in some fashion in a given episode of play.

That's why when, at some stage upthread, someone said it's just as easy to railroad in a player-driven game as in a GM-driven one I disagreed. You can't keep it secret from the players whether or not the ingame situation, being resolved at the table, speaks to their concerns and goals for their PCs, because that is evident in the moment of play.

I am talking about the participants in the game, not the events that occur within the fiction.

Where I'm talking about both.

Upthread you were very exercised by maintaining clear distinctions between player and character. So why, now, are you insisting on running them together?

A player can be pro-active - eg establishing thematic concerns for his/her PC - but his/her PC be reactive. Eg the player build his/her PC as a fanatical devotee of the Raven Queen; the GM frames the PC into an assault by Orcus cultists.

Why does it sound like there's no clear direction

Because of this:

Maybe they've already scared off a marauding wolf or three and at some point diverted their course in order to avoid something big crashing through the trees. Party in theory have a reason to get where they're going but it doesn't matter whether they get there tomorrow or next month

The maruading wolves seem like nothing more than colour. Likewise the "something big". And although the PCs are heading from A to B, it doesn't matter when they arrive at B. And so a player makes up something new - drums sounding through the woods - to give his/her PC something to do.

if it's a game where the fiction is co-authored by the players and DM (or completely authored by the players, with the DM merely reacting to what they do) then narration of the drum beats would be very much in play.

<snip>

the game allows me to author in something different

What game do you have in mind?

Upthread [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] posted a passage from John Harper which, to me, seemed to be reiterating the Czege Principle, or something in that neighbourhood: that it's not satisfying, in a RPG, to be the one who both frames a challenge and chooses how to answer it.

I think the drum example counts as such a thing. Why is the player framing the challenge that his/her PC is called upon to answer - in effect, narrating his/her own opposition?

If there's no clear direction, that's the player's fault, not the DM's.

I've played in RPGs where the GM obviously has some sense of what is going on in the fiction, and wants the players to do something, but won't just spit it out and be overt about it, and so much of the play time is spent by the players trying to find out what the "plot" is, so that things can move forward.

Another thing that I've found can lead to a lack of clear direction is when the players are all revved up about X, and the GM - for whatever reason - is not interested in X, and through a combination of blocking and attempts at "hooking" tries to steer play away from X and towards something else.

I think this sort of issue is mostly down to GMs, not players.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I've played in RPGs where the GM obviously has some sense of what is going on in the fiction, and wants the players to do something, but won't just spit it out and be overt about it, and so much of the play time is spent by the players trying to find out what the "plot" is, so that things can move forward.

Another thing that I've found can lead to a lack of clear direction is when the players are all revved up about X, and the GM - for whatever reason - is not interested in X, and through a combination of blocking and attempts at "hooking" tries to steer play away from X and towards something else.

I think this sort of issue is mostly down to GMs, not players.

My comment was in the context of my assertion that the players are the ones writing the story. It's up to them to decide what to do, where to go, etc. If they don't have a clear direction in that situation, it's a problem of the players, not the DM.

Yes, I've seen plenty of situations where the expectation is that the DM will provide the story. And the scenarios happen frequently when DM's rely on a prepared story, because either they have to try to keep the players involved (railroading), or the PCs decide to go chasing drums in the forest, which is a story the DM isn't interested in, and tries to block it.

So let me try and explain how I run the game, in total, since it seems to be lost in multiple threads, and individual scenarios to illustrate a point, rather than describe DMing in totality.

The players and I work on the backstories for the characters.

I run a campaign in an established world, with established lore. That lore isn't 100% accurate in my campaign, but I encourage players to read as much as they want so we have a shared knowledge of that framework.

I author lore, plots, schemes, history and NPCs by starting with a simple concept, and seeing where it leads once it's "placed" within the campaign. I approach it as if I'm role-playing those characters within that world. That is, I let the NPCs take the lead, in AW terminology.

This might be prewritten, which usually consists of a few lines of description and goals, allies, organizations, etc., or it might be written on the fly. Even if it's written, it's malleable and can be changed.

Nothing is written in stone until it intersects with the campaign in some way. So if a warlord is building an army to attack a city, and the PCs are never involved in a way that affects that, then they may in fact attack the city. This might enter the campaign as news of the attack, instead of a direct connection, but might then lead to a more direct connection. It may not.

In the midst of a living world with events independent of the PCs, the players have full control over their actions and decisions. Their goals are typically related to their backstories, as well as those of their companions, but they might choose to investigate something unrelated to their backstories, or be asked to assist with something by somebody unrelated to their backstory.

In addition, some events, NPCs, and encounters will relate to their goals, backstories, and fears, based on what is prewritten (their backstories), and things they say and actions they take during the campaign.

Sometimes this means that there will be plots I introduce in reaction to them. For example, they return to town with a legendary sword, and go to every tavern in town boasting of their exploits. Amongst those that hear the story are folks that would like the sword for themselves. It might also bring attention to them to an agent of a larger organization, such as the Zhentarim, who also want the sword. So they may find themselves victims of attempts to steal it.

Most of the time, what happens is a more direct response to their actions. They enter an ancient tomb, and they encounter traps, undead, constructs, and find treasure. Typical straightforward dungeon crawls. This also applies to interacting with NPCs in towns and cities, and exploring the wilderness.

It's entirely up to the PCs to decide what it is they want to do, and where to go. I can provide an endless number of hooks not related to their history, backstories, and such. But in order to provide hooks that relate to them specifically, motivations, goals, backstory, etc, then they have to provide hooks for me.

From looking through AW/BW/DW, the major difference (aside from differing amounts of player/DM authoring of elements outside of the direct control of the PC), is that they narrow the focus to things that only relate to the motivations of the characters. The extent of the world to be defined is only what is relevant to that particular story in that particular campaign.

I prefer a much wider living world, where one campaign can have an impact on other campaigns. That like most of us, much of our daily lives is spent doing things that aren't directly addressing our motivations, dreams or goals. That sometimes you'll find yourself in the places you least expect to, and that the journey of a character's life is as important as the exciting bits.

As I'm re-reading the AW rules, I'm finding a fair amount that I not only agree with, but already do. There are a number of things I don't particularly like (starting with the entire presentation, which reminds me of the Planescape approach of loading the text with "flavor" and slang. On the surface, that's cool enough as a way to draw you further into the world (Ed Greenwood does it for the Forgotten Realms too), but it doesn't work so well if you don't care for the specific world or setting.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot here, because it's a rather complex process. So let's look at it from the AW principles:

Barf forth apocalyptica. OK, other than the lame attempt at trying to be funny/cool, yes, providing as much flavor as possible is a good thing.

Address yourself to the characters, not the players. Yes. Rules things are DM to player. Answering questions? Depends on the questions. Anything that the characters experience is directed to the characters, and I try to maintain the players stay in character, and I address them directly as much as possible.

Make your move, but misdirect. Hmmm. OK, I guess anything I do as a DM is a "move." So they are exploring a dungeon, and find a map in a treasure chest. Or they are in the tavern digging for information and hear a number of stories and rumors. Or a thug attempts to relieve them of their legendary sword. Or they defeat the thug and find out he's part of a secret society, which under further investigation determines that they are recruiting agents actively in an attempt to undermine the local government by replacing existing Lords with doppelgängers.

But to me, the majority of that falls under "barfing apocalyptica" and "think offscreen." They'll have dozens of potential things to check out. Just like I see a bunch of ads nightly for places to eat, movies to see, stuff to buy. But it's up to me (or the PCs) to act.

What I disagree with is misdirect. Even when there is something hidden to be learned (a plot to assassinate the king - or the fact the king is already dead if the criminals are attempting to cover it up), I don't ever advocate misdirecting the PCs as a DM. While I don't have a problem with ambiguity (No, you can't see the king, and you don't have the right to know why), there are clues that there's something not quite right. Something that might be worth investigating, if they choose to. It's not my job to direct them towards that, and not every situation or encounter will assist them on that task.

But to actively misdirect them, like red herrings, false clues, and things like that, is a really complicated thing. And even harder to do well. So I can't say I've never done it, but it's got to be the right situation. Puzzles and things like that are OK. And I've had dungeons designed (by the designers in world) to specifically prevent easy mapping and things like that. But those sort of things work best when it's something the players can figure out. Otherwise it's just skill checks and telling them how to solve the puzzle. Which means you really need to know your players well to be able to design a puzzle that they can figure out. The "three clues" rule combined with "reward creative solutions" that others are proponents of is something that I think applies well in these scenarios. Since I don't typically have mysteries or puzzles with specific solutions pre-planned, dropping new clues and handling creative play is relatively easy.

Make your move, but never speak it's name. Well, since I don't assign catchy names to my moves, that's not really an issue. Instead I simply describe what the PCs experience. If they can't see, hear, smell, touch, or taste it, then they don't hear it from me. If an NPC or monster acts, then they know it. If they simply make diabolical plans to destroy the PCs later, then they don't know that unless the NPC tells them about it. But it will be evident in time. Of course, if they thwart a villain but don't manage to capture or kill them, then they should expect it anyway.

Look through crosshairs. Every NPC is expendable. However, not every one is likely to be caught in a position where they will be killed. Folks like Al Capone, for example, are very, very difficult to take out, even when you are their enemy (another gangster or the feds), and more importantly, once Capone knows you're after him, he's very dangerous indeed.

Name everyone. Make everyone human. Yep.

Ask provocative questions and build on the answers. Not entirely. Related to the fact that I only address the characters - I only address the characters from within the world. In other words, it's never the DM talking to the characters - it's NPCs, or a description of what's going on. So the only time I get to ask provocative questions is as an NPC.

However, I do get to potentially put them in provocative situations. Moral dilemmas, etc., since the bad guys are, well, bad.

Respond with f-ery and intermittent rewards. Again, aside for my strong distaste for the presentation, no. I as the DM aren't trying to screw with the players/characters, and I'm not rewarding them either. The "rewards" they earn in the world are enough.

Be a fan of the PCs.Of course, the entire campaign is about them.

Think offscreen too.A huge yes. The world is a living place, things are happening everywhere, most of which the PCs don't have any direct impact. Offscreen is what provides endless opportunities for things to come onscreen.

Sometimes, disclaim decision making. Put it in your PC's hands. Absolutely, and I'll add put it in the world's hands. I try to make as few decisions as possible. I'm not trying to write an interesting story for them, nor guess what will be exciting for them. It's a smorgasbord, take what works for you. The world will continue living around you, and my decisions are always taken from the "role-playing" point of view when possible. That is, it's in the NPC's/world's hands.

If it's a appropriate to turn over to the players/PCs, then that's fine too. A countdown? If appropriate. Not in the gamey way using an external construct like the countdown clock - she's injured, and probably won't make it if you don't get her to help that you don't have right now. How long will remain a mystery (to them). I track it with established rules (which could be similar to the countdown clock), so everybody knows that it's fair and on the level (not that it's ever been a problem). I'm a big proponent for whatever happens in the world be supported by the rules. So if they are fighting a wizard with some strange spell, that spell has been defined and works within the magic system of the campaign. So fairness isn't generally a problem since they understand that.

Make it a stakes question? Yes, that's often the case. This falls within the countdown clock approach. I'm not the one deciding this, the PCs and the rules are. For example, I have rules for fatigue and exhaustion. Climbing is quite tiring - how many of us remember rope climbing in gym class? - if somebody is hanging on for dear life after a day of combat and traveling, you know you have a limited amount of time to get to them. In the meantime, getting them to drop anything to lighten their load, and working as quickly as you can. My rules always have variables, I'm not a fan of automatic failure or automatic success. In this case they'd be using the combat fatigue rules, and that means a failed save makes it worse. It won't get better until you can get a rest. But it might be several attempts before failure, and you have to go through 6 levels of failure. So the amount of time could be as little as 6 rounds, or as long as...a pretty long time. The DCs increase, and the fatigue makes the chance of failure more likely, though.

So there's very little that I don't agree with here. In another thread from a long time ago, I saw somebody indicate that D&D is players vs DM, and AW isn't. But when I look at these rules, there are specific rules that instruct the DM to make the PC's lives difficult. No, you're not trying to kill them, but you're complicating things.

I'd prefer to let them complicate things themselves. Like the time when the PCs were trying to escape from a black dragon, made it into a tunnel that the dragon couldn't enter (and the dragon was already leaving, when the bard decided to run back down the passage (chased by several others) and taunt the dragon, casting vicious mockery. Of course, the dragon wasn't amused. And it climbed back up to the passage with the bard and breathed into the tunnel. They didn't really have anywhere to go...(and were not happy with the bard). The ranger had the good sense to leap out of the tunnel and down the rope they had climbed and go hide. Which is the only thing that saved the badly injured party.