D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Aldarc]

From these words you wrote: "Remember, there's no 'to hit' in DW. A hard move like that will be serious damage or death."

The "will" in there tells me the move - and thus the attacker - cannot miss.

(1) I didn't write it. (2) This tells me that you should read the rules because it's getting tiring having to explain rules that are freely available on an SRD.

Cannot miss is way too strong and misunderstands what's going on. @AbdulAlhazred is saying that the reason that the attack will hit is because when you the GM use a hard move to inflict damage that you are fundamentally declaring that it hits through bypassing an important part of the resolution process: i.e., the entire player-side of the resolution process! This doesn't mean that the attacker is far too perfect. It means that you as a GM are not playing by the rules! (Which would make you a horrible referee!) Again, this is tantamount in D&D to you as a GM declaring that the sniper hits the PC without you first making an attack roll against the PC! For shame!

There is no to-hit by GMPCs, because the GM doesn't roll in PbtA games. Only players roll. Players react to the fiction that the GM frames. If the GM frames a soft move, for example, that goblins are shooting at the PC, the GM will ask the players what they do. The PC then tells the GM how they react. The player characters' actions may trigger a move roll, such as Defy Danger. In which case, the players may roll to avoid the damage in some way: e.g., take cover, raise a shield, dodge the arrows, etc. On a full success (10+), the PC likely will avoid all the damage. On a failure (6-), the GM can then make a hard move to Harm Them with damage. There is some flexibility in the results of a mixed success (7-9).

 

[Lanefan]

Really? Never ever?

So if I don't know what is at stake in an action declaration, and what in-fiction consequences might flow from it, that has no bearing on my capacity as a player to contribute to the shared fiction?

Does your character know these things - the stakes, the possible consequences, etc.? If yes, then you-as-player should know them too, to the same extent that your character does. But things unknown to your character should be unknown to you as player as well.

As you describe this scenario, it is no different from a choose-you-own-adventure book.

Except that even in a CYOA book the direction of the exit and the direction of the Ogres is already locked in. Every time someone plays that book (including the same person playing it again), choosing 'left' at that choice point will get to Ogres and choosing 'right' will get to outdoors.

In the quantum-Ogres scenario, the which-leads-to-which decision isn't made until after the players have decided which way to go, because the GM wants only the illusion of choice and intends them to meet Ogres at the next opportunity no matter what.

 

[Maxperson]

You have argued strenously on these boards tgat the DM has complete authority to disallow any races, classes and spells he wants.

And he can.

So, yes, accordingly to your world-view, the DM does author everything and only allows players to act within the parameters that he chooses to set.

And yet he has no control over what they choose. He does not author their characters any more than the rules do. Setting parameters =/= the DM authoring their PCs. Not even close.

I mean this seems like a ridiculous argument to me. You are literally arguing that if the game has even a single limitation, the players cannot author anything. By that logic no player can author anything in any RPG that I am aware of, because they all possess built in limitations. All such "authorings" by the players are done within the parameters that the designers chose to set.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't see how "shape" and "affect" aren't synonyms in this context.

They can be; but if one uses one term to mean constructing or defining the fictional setting before the PCs get there (or before play even begins) and the other to mean what the PCs do to that setting through their interactions with it during play, then those terms aren't synonyms any more.

The difference: during char-gen before play begins, a player decides to put a tower at some position on the map and say that's her character's home. Let's call that 'shaping' the fiction, to differentiate from:

During play, the PCs find a tower (maybe even the one put there by the player!). If they have their PCs do anything to it - knock it down, build an extension on it, paint it bright pink, or whatever - they've made a material change to that fictional element; thus, 'affect'.

Worth noting that while the GM often has control over initial shaping, assuming a reasonable degree of player agency she has little if any control over later PC/player-caused affects.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is why D&D really shouldn't be anyone's first RPG, at least not in isolation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I suspect we're each reading that passage somewhat differently.

To me it's simply telling the DM "If the players want to have their characters go and do something - an adventure, a quest, an activity - that you didn't foresee or have in mind, let them". It has nothing to do with control over setting elements; instead it's simply warning the DM that curveballs can be thrown at any time - "expect it when you least expect it" - and thus to always be ready to hit them, and that's good advice.

That is what I got out of that when I ran 4e. Pleasantly interesting to me that you extrapolated an entire playstyle out of it.

 

[Lanefan]

It's a statement that reflects the power dynamics at play. This doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to defend your preferences But it does mean that you should be aware of your choice to throw the weight of your market dominance around to punch down at less popular play preferences in our hobby from any perceived slights.

Hey, maybe that held true in the 1980s but these days I got no more market dominance than you do!

 

[Faolyn]

There's a group here in town called Loading Ready Run who each November do a charity marathon around playing Desert Bus - they're usually good for keeping that damn bus going for nearly a week, playing in shifts. Info here:

Desert Bus for Hope - LoadingReadyWiki

wiki.loadingreadyrun.com

I've a friend who watches that religiously every year.

 

[Lanefan]

Artificial is not a pejorative. It just means "not real".

In fairness, I can easily enough see how "artificial" could be both used and taken as a perjorative.

 

[bloodtide]

“Be a fan of the characters”

Fan is just the wrong word, as the GM is world building. So it's a bit more like Begin God, but sure they don't want to print that.

I think "fan" gets muddled by the way people think of the word. Think of how would a fan of a superhero would write a story. If DC asked a fan to write a Batman story, what would they write? It would be this: A basic story that makes Batman look like the Demigod of all super heroes and AUTOMATICALLY wins in the end. That Batman will WIN is carvened in stone at the end of the story, the fan just needs to write out how Batman will win(again).

This is what a rule book that says "be a fan of the characters" is really saying: Be like Fictional Cinematic Media.

This is why D&D really shouldn't be anyone's first RPG, at least not in isolation.

It needs to be though.

Unlike all the other mentioned games that put strict limits on the role playing to make the game exactly what the author(s) want to to exactly be, D&D can be anything you want to make it be.

D&D can be goofy and silly; it can be casual and lite, it can be gritty and dark, it can be hard fun, it can be easy button fun, it can be a balanced part of something, it can be an unbalanced shock and awe, and hundreds of other things.