Sorry, but just declaring you are right repeatedly isn't discussing. As I alluded to in my post we can disagree while actually discussing or we can disagree and just agree to disagree. Looks like it's going to be the later.
What would you like to discuss? I’m not just saying I’m right over and over… I’ve explained why I think so.
There are degrees of agency. This seems obvious to me. Look at the matter of the background features for an example. Many others have been provided in this thread. Different methods of play or different games provide more agency to players. Again, many examples have been provided.
I’m not going to accept the idea that agency is binary, or inapt comparisons to the real world, or a failure to differentiate between the character and the player in order to keep discussing.
So if you want to talk, let me know what you want to discuss. Ask whatever questions you want. But don’t ask me to pretend I haven’t stated my case and I’m just declaring myself right. That’s simply not true.
Why is the amount of agency I enjoy while filling in my tax return, or topping up my rail travel code, or waiting in line at the supermarket, possibly relevant to the amount of agency I should enjoy in playing a RPG?
RPGing is a creative outlet, a voluntary leisure activity. It should grant me greater agency than those work-a-day chores!
And it can, if you want that and you play at the right table. But it doesn't have to, and people who don't want it to are playing a game with the amount of agency they want, just like you are.
And it can, if you want that and you play at the right table. But it doesn't have to, and people who don't want it to are playing a game with the amount of agency they want, just like you are.
I think we will have to agree to disagree here. (Note: I'm not just blaming you either, I've done the same. I just don't want us to continue doing that).
There are degrees of agency. This seems obvious to me. Look at the matter of the background features for an example. Many others have been provided in this thread. Different methods of play or different games provide more agency to players. Again, many examples have been provided.
Me: How did the matter of background features show there are degrees of agency.
You: It was shown that DM's wouldn't give players the agency to use their background feature in certain circumstances.
Me: It was shown that players still had agency despite not being able to use their background feature in certain circumstances.
You: That's not true
Me: Yes it is.
REPEAT!
IMO, this is because instead of actually finishing a single part of the discussion we just jump to the next piece and before long we are stuck because neither of us have any common ground to use as a foundation to fall back on.
I’m not going to accept the idea that agency is binary, or inapt comparisons to the real world, or a failure to differentiate between the character and the player in order to keep discussing.
So if you want to talk, let me know what you want to discuss. Ask whatever questions you want. But don’t ask me to pretend I haven’t stated my case and I’m just declaring myself right. That’s simply not true.
Here is Apocalypse World (p 117) and Dungeon World (p 163) on the GM's obligation, when making a move, to make a move that follows from the fiction:
Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.
When you make a move what you’re actually doing is taking an element of the fiction and bringing it to bear against the characters. Your move should always follow from the fiction. They help you focus on one aspect of the current situation and do something interesting with it. What’s going on? What move makes sense here?
As far as the Falcon's Claw, which @mamba mentioned, here are the posts in question (and some were in reply to you):
I'm not seeing how it fails to follow from the established fiction - a rogue wizard, returning to the tower where he was an apprentice under his brother, searches for the nickel-silver mace, the Falcon's Claw, that he was in the process of enchanting when their tower fell to an assault by Orcs and his brother became possessed by a balrog as a result of a failed attempt to conjure a Storm of Lightning.
Based on the above definitions I think it does 'follow from the fiction'. For me following from the fiction entailed much more than what it seems you mean by it. I would have said that following from the fiction meant you would only use elements already introduced in the fiction. Apparently that isn't the case. The player introduced the falcon claw to the fiction without even it's existence being established beforehand.
I think we will have to agree to disagree here. (Note: I'm not just blaming you either, I've done the same. I just don't want us to continue doing that).
Okay, IMO this is going to go something like:
Me: How did the matter of background features show there are degrees of agency.
You: It was shown that DM's wouldn't give players the agency to use their background feature in certain circumstances.
Me: It was shown that players still had agency despite not being able to use their background feature in certain circumstances.
You: That's not true
Me: Yes it is.
REPEAT!
IMO, this is because instead of actually finishing a single part of the discussion we just jump to the next piece and before long we are stuck because neither of us have any common ground to use as a foundation to fall back on.
Okay, would you accept anything?
Okay. Let's find what common ground we have in this agency discussion?
Just so I'm clear. You are saying that midgame inventing Bonds do not need to follow from the fiction? They can introduce people/places/things/specific locations and fiction around those things that have hitherto not even been mentioned in the broadest of terms within the fiction?
I don't know if that's how inventing new bonds midgame in DW works so that's why I'm asking.
No. They still need to follow from the fiction. But they are drivers for how new fiction will be created. I'll give an example from a game where I was a player, rather than GM.
Ozruk the Halfling Fighter started out as what D&D would call "chaotic neutral" (mostly "chaotic"). One of his bonds was with my character, a very LG-but-mostly-G style Human Paladin; "Abraxxis is soft; I will make them hard, like me." That's a standard bond from the Fighter class. Over the course of our early adventures, Ozruk came to realize that what he mistook for wide-eyed idealism was, in fact, a tragedy-hardened commitment to doing the right thing, for the right reason, because he had already lost everything else, and never wanted others to experience that loss. As a result, that bond resolved, because Ozruk came to see Abraxxis as an inspiration, not as a fool needing a lesson. The next bond was something like, "I will become strong, so I can protect others" (implicitly, the way my character did). Later, he acquired some magic items, which he grew proud about, and that bond changed ("resolved" into a new form), something like, "I have taken a Wizard's power, and I will use it against my enemies." Except that led him to do something he deeply regretted, so that bond again changed to something else, I no longer recall what.
In the end, that particular bond changed many times, each time pushing the fiction toward some new goal or target. Bonds do not need to be reciprocal. That famous scene from the Street Fighter film is a good demonstration: "For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday." Chun-Li has a Bond with Bison, but Bison (even if he were a player character) does not have a Bond with Chun-Li.
It can be either. Usually you pick an alignment move from a given list (mostly because they are thematic and relevant to the playbook you've chosen), but the books specifically support selecting more generic moves or coming up with your own, so long as they fit within a loose guideline. More or less, an alignment move needs to be an action, not just an airy statement of principles; it should be reasonably common but not a literally all the time thing (e.g. the text says "when you gain treasure" is a bad fit, but "when you gain treasure through lies and deceit" is great), and For example, the Paladin playbook has, "Protect someone weaker than you" for the "Good" alignment move, and "Deny mercy to a criminal" for the Lawful alignment move.
A character truly changing their alignment completely is not a common event, but quite expected. Generally this would reflect slow build up to a really major shift in their personality, or as the text says, "a gradual move toward a decisive moment." To reference back to Ozruk above, after his epiphany regarding my Paladin, it's possible he could have changed his alignment to something like, from the book, "Ignore danger to aid another," which reflects Ozruk's often Chaotic personality. A custom Alignment move I might design today, with more experience with the system, could be, "Take risks to empower the weak," as that was in fact a thing Ozruk did on multiple occasions (much to the party's chagrin!)
I think Spout Lore is probably the most controversial and hardest to nail down. Sometimes when I ask about that move it can essentially let the player author a specific tower being nearby.
It does not and cannot do that. Whoever said otherwise is wrong. The exact text of the move, and the explanatory text that follows:
Spout Lore
When you consult your accumulated knowledge about something, roll+Int. ✴On a 10+, the GM will tell you something interesting and useful about the subject relevant to your situation. ✴On a 7–9, the GM will only tell you something interesting—it’s on you to make it useful. The GM might ask you “How do you know this?” Tell them the truth, now.
You spout lore any time you want to search your memory for knowledge or facts about something. You take a moment to ponder the things you know about the Orcish Tribes or the Tower of Ul’dammar and then reveal that knowledge.
The knowledge you get is like consulting a bestiary, travel guide, or library. You get facts about the subject matter. On a 10+ the GM will show you how those facts can be immediately useful, on a 7–9 they’re just facts.
On a miss the GM’s move will often involve the time you take thinking. Maybe you miss that goblin moving around behind you, or the tripwire across the hallway. It’s also a great chance to reveal an unwelcome truth.
Just in case it isn’t clear: the answers are always true, even if the GM had to make them up on the spot. Always say what honesty demands.
This is followed by two examples of the move in action.
Fenfaril: The floor was illusory? Damn those gnomes. Damn them straight to wherever gnomes go when they’re dead.
GM: Heh, yep. You’re in a murky pit, and there’s a shadowy humanoid shape, mottled and eyeless, moving towards you, mumbling.
Fenfaril: Mumbling shape, huh? What is that thing? Is it going to attack me? I’m sure I’ve read about them somewhere before, maybe at school?
GM: Could be. Spout lore!
Fenfaril: Bestow your knowledge upon me, brain. I rolled an 8.
GM: Well, of course you know of these things—the name escapes you but you definitely remember a drawing of a creature like this. It was in a hallway, standing guard over something. You know there’s a trick to get it to let you pass but you can’t quite remember. Why not?
Fenfaril: Obviously I was hungover that day. I was a terrible student. A trick, you say? Hmm
Vitus: I got a 10 on my spout lore about this gilded skull.
GM: You’re pretty sure you recognize the metalwork of Dis, the living city.
Vitus: and? I did get a 10!
GM: Right, of course. Well, you recognize a few glyphs specifically. They’re efreeti, marks of a fire spell, but they’re different, a kind of transmutation magic. I bet if you cast a spell into the skull, it’ll turn it into a fire spell.
Vitus: Magic missiles of fire—hurrah!
The first has the GM ask the player a follow-up question, in this case, why Fenfaril doesn't remember what the trick is, just that there is one. The second scenario could have the GM ask, "So, how DO you recognize the metalwork and langauge of Dis, the living city, Vitus?" And Vitus would need to explain that--but that explanation would be backstory, not somehow inserting a special tower immediately before the party. The most you could get out of it would be something like a character observing that there is already a tower ahead, rolling on Spout Lore, the GM telling them that it is a bastion of the Order of the Black Quill, a sect of necromancer-scribes, and the character then saying that the reason they know this is that they were apprenticed to the Black Quill as a teenager, but flunked out, escaped, or some other reason why they aren't currently a peeling, desiccated corpse shuffling papers in a library somewhere.
Other times I ask about it everything it does must follow from the fiction AND the DM is still authoring and only asks players some questions. I think we could devote a whole tangent to that one move and still wouldn't get it nailed down. So I'm going to skip it for now.
Fair enough. Following from the fiction is a rule that applies to everyone, and as stated, players must follow the rules (just as much as GMs should), so that really shouldn't be a concern. But I will spoilerblock the above answer, in case you do not wish to engage further on that topic.
This I can do easily, as, per the above, I played a Paladin for something like a year and a half!
This is the text of the Quest move. I have modified it slightly to replace the spaces with underscores, as the original HTML uses underlined spaces for its "fill in the blank" lines. (There are also some "advanced moves"--class-specific bonuses you can pick up as you gain levels--which improve its effects, but those just make it better, they don't change the fundamental process.)
Quest
When you dedicate yourself to a mission through prayer and ritual cleansing, state what you set out to do:
Slay ___________, a great blight on the land
Defend _____________ from the iniquities that beset them
Discover the truth of _____________.
Then choose up to two boons:
An unwavering sense of direction to _____________.
Invulnerability to _____________ (e.g., edged weapons, fire, enchantment, etc.)
A mark of divine authority
Senses that pierce lies
A voice that transcends language
A freedom from hunger, thirst, and sleep
The GM will then tell you what vow or vows is required of you to maintain your blessing:
Honor (forbidden: cowardly tactics and tricks)
Temperance (forbidden: gluttony in food, drink, and pleasure of the flesh)
Piety (required: observance of daily holy services)
Valor (forbidden: suffering an evil creature to live)
Truth (forbidden: lies)
Hospitality (required: comfort to those in need, no matter who they are)
Note, as I said, the inherent back-and-forth here; I will also note that I, personally, would allow the player to suggest other possible quest goals, though those three are pretty broad and thus should work for most situations. The player chooses what the quest is (which, in all likelihood, will be in response to relevant conditions), and the GM has no say in that--again, as long as the player follows the rules, which includes that the quests must follow from the fiction. Declaring that you wish to slay Sauron in a game that simply does not have Sauron is not following from the fiction. Then, the player selects two boons--and one of those boons, the immunity, can theoretically be quite powerful. In turn, however, the GM must then state which vows apply.
For a useful example: My character, Abraxxis, had lost his wife, Hannah, when they were both quite young. They grew up in a little middle-of-nowhere hamlet with a church of Bahamut, hidden from the eyes of the world, and were childhood sweethearts. His wife died after a girl, experimented upon by wizards, sought refuge in their house, and the wizard who had experimented upon her came to claim the girl. The two fought, Hannah and the girl died, and Abraxxis slew the wizard in retaliation--and then took himself to the temple and dedicated his life to championing righteousness. (Learning that this was Abraxxis' backstory was the catalyst for Ozruk changing is mind about the former's strength.) However, midway through the campaign, we learned that Hannah was not completely gone--her soul had been stolen by necromancers, traded from one to another for years, not knowing its connection to him.
Upon learning this, and having recently discharged a previous quest (to cleanse a holy sword), Abraxxis immediately dedicated himself to "defend my wife from the iniquities that beset them," hoping to resurrect her, but at the very least to set her soul free to Bahamut's aery. He chose as his boons "invulnerability to enchantment" (because we were about to go amongst a great many enchanters) and "an unwavering sense of direction to my wife's soul." IIRC I got a third boon because of one of the aforementioned advanced moves, but I don't think that one was ever relevant.
The GM said Valor, Truth, and Honor were the vows required of him. These are particularly sticky wickets when one of your allies is a very talented sneak-thief, but Abraxxis had practice in handling that, so I had no problem with those vows. This would come to complicate my life rather a lot later on! But the boons were unequivocally useful. The GM ruled that, because I had said "enchantments" and these are enchanter wizards, their spells could not touch me. Even their magic missiles. This is, of course, hugely helpful. But the even bigger help was when we got stuck in a shifting labyrinth of twisting corridors. It was meant to be an extremely difficult challenge to navigate our way through to the exit--but I had my "unwavering sense of direction," better than any compass, for orienting us through. It was still a difficult journey, fraught with peril, but that mystical guidance made the maze no challenge.
As noted, those Vows came to haunt me later, however, as we had a difficult spot where there were wizards running away from us, who could reveal our position, potentially resulting in everyone's deaths. I chose, knowing it would be a risk, to strike down the last of those fleeing wizards. This suspended my powers for a time, not just the boons but most of my Paladin abilities, until I reconciled with Bahamut and atoned for the lack of Honor. It wasn't crazy hard to (my character had clearly shown his unequivocal faith), but it did require reflection and a re-dedication to always doing the right thing, not the easy thing.
Hopefully, this illustrates how both sides are active participants in creating the fiction. The player sets the parameters for the Quest, and even the benefits gained from it, while the GM sets the costs paid. Both the parameters and the costs then push toward new fiction, toward testing the player. As another example, on a quest prior to the above (which ended up being the last quest Abraxxis embarked upon--we never quite finished that story), one of the vows involved was Hospitality. That adventure involved a red dragon--among the hated enemies of Bahamut!--that was enslaved by dwarves to power their furnace, its children tortured or even slain to keep it docile. All hell ended up breaking loose later on (due very specifically to Ozruk, no surprise there), but this specifically tested the character, forcing him to show comfort to a being that should be his bitter enemy, because the vow is comfort no matter who it is that is in need.
So the group (group Z) is wandering around looking for the dragon to slay. They find a cave with a gnome workshop. And they attack!
So the character is a golioth barbarian warlock. A gnome NPC casts a spell that makes an iron anvil appear ten feet above the character head.
So the player wanted to take a bonus action to move out of the way and avoid/dodge the falling anvil.
I just had the anvil fall on his character and do damage.
====
So now after the game....he sends the e-mail about how he did not like my "taking away his agency" by having the Anvil "fall and hit and damage his character no matter what".
I responded with the quick "it's a spell effect....your character can not "just dodge" a spell effect just because you want them too."
He says "It's just an anvil so he can automatically roll to dodge it."
I pointed out "It's a spell effect. Just because it "looks" like an anvil means nothing(and gnomes think it's funny). In effect it is no different then say the spell ice knife. And your character can not "just dodge" a cast ice knife spell.
So the group (group Z) is wandering around looking for the dragon to slay. They find a cave with a gnome workshop. And they attack!
So the character is a golioth barbarian warlock. A gnome NPC casts a spell that makes an iron anvil appear ten feet above the character head.
So the player wanted to take a bonus action to move out of the way and avoid/dodge the falling anvil.
I just had the anvil fall on his character and do damage.
====
So now after the game....he sends the e-mail about how he did not like my "taking away his agency" by having the Anvil "fall and hit and damage his character no matter what".
I responded with the quick "it's a spell effect....your character can not "just dodge" a spell effect just because you want them too."
He says "It's just an anvil so he can automatically roll to dodge it."
I pointed out "It's a spell effect. Just because it "looks" like an anvil means nothing(and gnomes think it's funny). In effect it is no different then say the spell ice knife. And your character can not "just dodge" a cast ice knife spell.
