If the player invents everything from whole cloth, well, that may be alright. But it's also quite possible for there to be abusive uses of such freedom, the "well my backstory says..." thing. I'm sure you've read the hilarious CoC story about Old Man Henderson, for example. But if the player knowingly ties their character to something another player (including the DM) added to the world, they'd better be ready for moments where they'll hear "you would know X."
I fail to understand what this means. That is, it
seems to only have meaning in terms of a game where the paradigm is testing the players against a series of GM delineated 'tests', or where there is a necessity to navigate a story line designed by the GM. What, in Story Game (and particularly Story Now) play would be 'abusive'? No such abuse seems possible IMHO because there isn't some sort of 'testing' going on. I mean, OK, players could theoretically engineer the story to only achieve certain outcomes and try to subvert 'play to see what happens'. However, I don't think they can really succeed, and even if they can, isn't this just sort of an example of degenerate play? I mean, what is the alternative, that the GM is now in charge of the whole story! Or at the very least that the player's input is highly restricted and is never allowed to impinge on the GM's freedom to make up whatever challenging situation he wants.
I mean, lets use a classic example. What if a DW PC acquires the ability to fly telekinetically as a move. This is of no real consequence in DW terms. The GM can still frame scenes and bring pressure to bear on the PCs goals, beliefs, whatever. In classic D&D OTOH this is a big thing. It means many tests which the GM has devised are now moot, the player can simply describe the PC as bypassing them. While the GM can make up different challenges, this is going to impact their existing prepared material, etc. It may negate entirely plotlines which they have prepared. In DW it would be inconsequential if the player declared a 'ring of flying' as an heirloom, but it would be totally unacceptable in classic D&D! At most one might criticize it in DW terms as possibly invalidating some tropes, or something like that. It certainly has no significance in game process terms.
i) The GM or other players. Surely you've had games where two players collaborate on a shared backstory element, like attending the same school, growing up as best friends, or being family members? That inherently induces moments where someone else can invent backstory your character would know, but that you didn't generate yourself.
ii) Who said everything is 100% pre-established? I literally said it wasn't such, that some things are intentionally left vague or not explored because perfectly nailing down literally everything would be tedious.
iii) That....wasn't the point. I was just giving an example of "if you grew up in <this culture> you would know <random but relevant fact>." But if you need it to benefit the player, perhaps they decide to blend into a funeral procession and thus need to get some white duds stat.
I don't think anyone objects to framing a challenge in terms of needing some specific clothing. Then the question is "Hey, you're a guy with a very strict moral code, here's a robe you can steal that will do the trick, do you rip it off and use it, or..."; something like that... As for one player's backstory stepping on another's, let them work that out! They're all adults, maybe they'll ask you to clarify, which is fine too. Since no one person at the table OWNS the backstory/setting, there's no toes to step on. It is just a logistical/process issue.
Things being unmoored from fictional tethers is just...if the player says they're from the Shield Dwarf clan, that creates tethers. Either I as DM am allowed to build new stuff about the Shield Dwarf clan, or I'm not. If I'm not, the player now has carte blanche to make the Shield Dwarf clan whatever they want, whenever they want, which sounds hella abusive to me.
Again, what is this 'abusive' of which you speak? Abusive of what? The prepared backstory? I mean, remember, this is about the characters and their beliefs and goals and whatnot. Sure, maybe the player CAN invent some backstory that gets him out of a jam, but how does he even deploy that in DW? DR, nope! SL, nope! The GM can ask him a question, but then its on the GM. No real abuse can exist in any practical sense, AFAIK. The worst that happens is the GM thought he was going to frame scene X next, and now maybe its going to be Y instead due to some factor that the player invented in the meantime.
If I am allowed, then necessarily things I invent after the game starts can't be something the player knows to begin with, so I have to tell them. If I'm allowed to do so, but am absolutely forbidden to tell the player any of this, then they can invent whatever they like no matter how it might contradict past experience in play, hence, unmoored.
DW doesn't permit the players to contract existing canon, which is to say all the fiction which came before. At most they might recontextualize something. Again, the GM would have to have at least opened the door here.
I'm...not sure what my confusion is supposed to be, so...I can't really respond to this.
I think there's still a sense in which GM ownership of the milieu is an active concept in the way you describe play and game process. As DW is envisaged, this should be impossible. At the very worst a player might say something and the GM or other players might respond with "huh, that would step on what happened last week." or there is the other possibility which is like "no, laser guns are not genre appropriate in Dungeon World." Aside from those cases, which are just about "narrative hygiene" there isn't really any sense in which the GM owns the milieu at all, and anything a player asserts when asked a question should be sacrosanct.
My players have responded positively to maps so I'm trying to use them. A player had also given feedback from some random-gen stuff we did a while back, saying he felt there was no tension nor merit to the choices to navigate around, when he knew that whatever we generated would be in whatever direction they travelled.
Right, and this kind of sentiment seems to arise from the playing of a game who's agenda is exploring geography. That's not a bad agenda for a game, it is just not what DW was really primarily intended to focus on (IMHO, feel free to disagree). If the agenda is exploring character concept instead, then the map and key stuff would seem unmoored and undirected to many, because it isn't really ABOUT anyone (it could become about some character, and DW isn't against having maps, just against having CANONICAL maps that specify everything).
So, with this map, it's...pretty damn abstract (a big circle with loose blob neighborhoods marked on it). It gives loose descriptions like "Palace District" or "Hydroponic Gardens," so that (to address the above feedback) there truly is a real difference between going north vs south or the like, but only at a very high conceptual level. The characters have only gotten a loose idea of what's present in the city, so "their" map identifies all neighborhoods adjacent to one they've been to.
What I would say is that this is fine, it is pretty much how maps are defined in DW's rules (leave spaces, I think that generally means not to be overly specific). The question then is what character traits and drama is driving the characters? Why does it matter where the Palace District is vs the Hydroponic Gardens? I would say that there should be some sort of moves that the GM has made/is making that are going to MAKE that matter, and in terms of something that relates to the character's bonds and alignment! It could be related to moves like 'divide the party' or something like that. Certainly different PCs might be wanting to go to different areas at the very least.
Play may reveal new information (like that the right-at-the-gates market square they started in was actually a slave market) or cast new light or a variety of other things, but the map exists so that there actually is a fact of the matter about the result of travelling in various directions. Again, this is like the "murder caper" thing: if there is no fact of the matter about who's guilty, there's no merit in discovering guilt, because it'll be either whoever the players decide is so, or whoever the dice-whims point to. If there is no fact of the matter about where things are located, then there's no merit in choosing north vs south, because things will appear in either the illusionism-based order the DM wants, or whatever the dice happen to produce.
Right, and I agree, and the point of DW, as-written, doesn't appear to be 'solve a murder mystery' or 'map out a ruined city'. Those may be episodes that take place in play, but the subtext is what is important, like "How does the Bard cope with the realization that his mentor committed a heinous murder?" or "Why did my Uncle try to forbid me from visiting these ruins, did he have an ulterior motive? When it is revealed how will it impact my loyalty to my family?" etc. The actual layout of the city, or the process of REALLY SOLVING a murder are not the stuff of DW, as-written. At least that is, again, IMHO.
I would generalize this too. While some Story Games will allow for a GM to map out a complete plot such as a murder mystery, the formulation and mechanics would inevitably lead to some sort of exploration of dramatic themes of some kind. That is what makes these sorts of games what they are. They don't share much in the way of character with games like D&D in terms of being ABOUT the physical environment or facts in the fictional world. Those are a scaffold, or more like a stage upon which the business of play takes place. Without the fiction there cannot be dramatic tension, but play is about the tension and how it is resolved, much like Hamlet is about the consequences of murder in a royal court on those living there. It isn't ABOUT the murder, it doesn't even happen during the story!
This, however...could be a thing. I take expansive views of alignment, but it doesn't trigger consistently every session. Probably more than half the time. If it's supposed to be every time...then yeah, I'm using Force by incompetence. That's disheartening to admit, but honestly I expect some incompetence on my part.
I wouldn't consider there to be a formula here. Certainly PC's alignment is an important concept to address, but its not like the rules state how often you have to dig at it. I will note though that it is helpful to think about what is determined in a DW game. The PC's class abilities and such, and their ability scores, are pretty much canned stuff aside from a few specific choices (you do get to put your scores in whatever abilities you want, mostly for example). Where players have complete freedom, the things that ACTUALLY MATTER about the character in DW are bonds, alignment, and class features beyond the starting ones (equipment also, but I don't think of it as determinative of much). So, the GM should really be thinking front and center about the PC's bonds and alignment, every scene is really in relation to those.
