I feel like this is going a bit off topic, but I feel like I should point out that the D&D toolbox actually provide a huge number of components for this "simple" solution that enables the suggested way to resolve it both highly effective to communicate, and much richer in gameplay opportunities than what might be immediately related. I think this might still be relevant for the topic, as it demonstrates how D&D not only give their DMs a lot of powers, but actually empowers them to create a cool experience a lot more easily than if you had just had a rulebook stating "Chose a guy. Do what that guy tells you to do". This is further of importance when seeing how this empowerment is hard to retain if you try to distribute some of that power away (as I believe was supposed to be the core discussion of this thread)
IMHO Messerspiel is just about exactly like my 'blank PbtA' example, it is technically a playable PROCESS, but it won't do much for you as a game. You will want to add specific elements. Heck, the core rules even hint at where you would focus that effort first! For example: there is a rule "add a die when you are trained" which kind of begs us to elaborate on what sorts of training might exist, how to obtain them, etc. Likewise you can be an 'expert' and get another die (presumably expertise is CUMULATIVE with training, but that's not actually spelled out). I don't believe that adding more 'roll one die if' conditions would be creating a new game, nor adding elaborations on what training/expertise are possible, nor would elaborating on what bad, mixed, or good outcomes entail. Clearly the game might potentially benefit from including the rules for Position and Effect from FitD as well (an obvious one). None of these things would alter any of what is there already, but they would allow for more reliable adjudication, for example. One could also clearly elaborate on the process in some other respects, such as introducing some sort of recovery mechanics. Again, I don't think any of this stops your game from being 'Messerspiel' any more than adding a move to your PbtA game makes it a whole new game.
This is a bit surprising. To me it seemed obvious most "tighter" systems are specifically designed to compensate for potential GM's weaknesses. Listing some examples:
My thought was to differentiate between adding, such as adding "roll one die if" or adding Position and Effect, and hacking... which I was picturing to be a change to what is there. In hindsight the distinction is tenuous.
I think an interesting point here is that combat is the odd one out. Indeed D&D can be seen as having 2 modes. When we are talking about DM having complete control, we are mainly talking about the mode of play that happens outside combat. Once combat needs handling D&D try to take almost as tight control over the game as a board game. It is said that the golden rule trump any rule, but I would say if a DM is to significantly alter the combat mode, you are effectively playing a different game. Hence if the social contract is to play D&D the DM might not break the rules, but rather the social agreement by adjusting combat. And it is trough this social agreement the DM derives their power over the game.
I don't think it is vastly different. There's one clear difference in that we really deal much more in intent in games like DW (although DW itself doesn't quite put it that way). So, in 5e you either jump a sufficient distance to get across the chasm (and what that distance is has some rule associated with it). If you don't get across, well, you presumably fell into the chasm, though the GM might follow some of the suggestions in the DMG and have you clinging to the edge or whatever. In Dungeon World the reasoning is more like; you rolled a 7, clearly you are on the other side, but at the same time, not all is well. Its a bit more natural, but what about 6-? The GM could have you fall in, or the GM could even think about what you wanted to achieve, which was perhaps to chase after the bat which just stole your last sandwich. 6- you leap across, but you had to really back up and get a huge running start, by then the bat had disappeared into the darkness, looks like your sandwich is probably gone for good! You got across, but failed your goal. D&D just has no mechanism for dealing with that, but DW does. This is because its mechanics relate to the narrative and the character's intent and actions vs relating more to some imagined setting details.
I had great trouble with 5e in that regard. So, for example in our first campaign my character wanted to establish his own 'kingdom'. When he got to the crumbling castle in Phandelver, he immediately decreed he was now its lord by virtue of conquest (nobody disputed him on this). I kept at this, having him send materials, henchmen, guards, etc. to this castle, which the GM ruled was on the edge of civilization. Actually the GM was mostly helpful here, but 5e wasn't particularly. There's just no conceptual framework at all here to build on, beyond "make some ability checks". How many is enough, and what do they accomplish? In a Dungeon World game I would expect that this is less of a problem because, as long as I can describe my goals, I can make a move! Or at worst the GM can frame a more specific scene if she wants to and I can make moves in that. Granted, there's no specific number of these scenes/moves that are required to accomplish a specific thing. Even in DW the 'granularity' is pretty much up to the GM.
