D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[pemerton]

You mean taking any sort of independent initiative with your character towards the plot threads you want to follow is now ‘jumping through the GM’s hoops’?

Yes. I mean, the whole idea of "plot threads" already tells me that I want to play a different game!

If you want to get revenge on the elven ambassador you need to follow them wherever they went and confront them.

Why? Why does the game not begin with the PC and the ambassador framed into the same scene?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Obviously.

If they didn't want to limit me to a list of specifics they wouldn't have put the list in there; rather, there would be more general guidelines as to how to respond to a PC action.

As a Thief, those are things I can (try to) do, knowing I'm far better at them than an average guy in the street. But I'm not a Ranger, meaning I'm pretty much out of luck when it comes to Tracking and Herbcraft. And while I can Find and Remove Traps there's nothing saying I have any extra ability to Construct Traps, so that's out too. And I'm sure the hell no good at Scribing Scrolls or Turning Undead.

Yes, there's some places where a d6 is used - surprise is one, opening stuck doors is another, listening (for a non-Thief) is another.

Then why give me a list of moves when it's presence only going to serve as an added step (that being, making sure what I'm doing conforms to a "legal" move) in a thought process that's otherwise natural?

Dungeon World says outright that the GM moves are basically what GMs have always done. I mean modulus doing PbtA stuff, so they are a good way to think about what you are doing, but note how none of them has a RULE or any mechanical element directly tied to it.

There are also moves for fronts & dangers which might be more particular and substantive but PbtA GMs don't roll dice, those are used to tell us who's version of events gets added to the story and PLAYERS do that. The GM story creation happens through scene framing and consequences.

 

[pemerton]

Dungeon World says outright that the GM moves are basically what GMs have always done.

But the principles by which they are deployed are not. The rule that govern when hard moves are to be made, and the fact that "nothing happens" is not a move, are not things that GMs have always done. (Witness this thread!)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. I mean, the whole idea of "plot threads" already tells me that I want to play a different game!

Why? Why does the game not begin with the PC and the ambassador framed into the same scene?

Because the game is not about the story of that PC?

 

[pemerton]

Because the game is not about the story of that PC?

Right. That's why I call it a railroad: it's the GM's game, not the player's.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Right. That's why I call it a railroad: it's the GM's game, not the player's.

Exactly. It's not a story about the PCs. Any story that occurs, is because the PCs happened to appear in whatever story was going to happen no matter what.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right. That's why I call it a railroad: it's the GM's game, not the player's.

See, I don't believe the campaign needs to revolve around the PCs, particularly around their dramatic needs, in order to avoid being a railroad. This is why we're never going to agree.

 

[pemerton]

See, I don't believe the campaign needs to revolve around the PCs, particularly around their dramatic needs, in order to avoid being a railroad. This is why we're never going to agree.

That's because, as best I can tell, you count it as not railroad if the players are allowed to choose what actions they declare in relation to the GM's material, even if the consequences of those actions, and what's at stake in them, is all a function of the GM's material (and the GM's "logical" extrapolations from it). This could be anything from "What's behind the door" to "What will this NPC say if we offer a bribe?"

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's because, as best I can tell, you count it as not railroad if the players are allowed to choose what actions they declare in relation to the GM's material, even if the consequences of those actions, and what's at stake in them, is all a function of the GM's material (and the GM's "logical" extrapolations from it). This could be anything from "What's behind the door" to "What will this NPC say if we offer a bribe?"

Yes, I certainly do. The players can also go off on their own and pursue personal stuff if they so choose. It's all up to them, and it's all their choice.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, I certainly do. The players can also go off on their own and pursue personal stuff if they so choose. It's all up to them, and it's all their choice.

But when you say "pursue personal stuff", who is establishing the stakes and consequences of the declared actions?