Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8994161" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Agreed.Two points. One, I do think that could actually work, but it would require rather a lot of preamble: the chasm isn't just some random place in the wilderness, it is a settled, populated area, and people cross the chasm on various bridges, ropes, jumps, etc. In that circumstance, I could see Streetwise being used for "cross a chasm" when one wishes to do so unobtrusively. But for the usual expectation of "cross a chasm," that is, in the middle of nowhere with no one but the denizens of nature nearby, sure, I could see a problem there.Two, where is this sense of "let the GM get away with" something? This makes it sound as though the GM is in fact beholden to the players--that they must do things only with player approval. I raise this mostly because it's part of why I don't care for a game embracing the "rules are just suggestions" philosophy. If the rules are just suggestions, there are no limitations on GM behavior. She may behave as she likes, and if the players protest, they must decide either to like it, lump it, or leave. If the players resort to things outside the rules (e.g., social contract, peer pressure, bribery, emotional manipulation), the GM will naturally feel aggrieved because they've had the nuclear option dropped on them. If the players do not, then the players will feel aggrieved because they got the nuclear option dropped on them and have no permitted recourse within the social space.Theoretical absolute latitude, which carries such heavy costs no one is willing to use it, vs practical quite constrained latitude, which only allows that which won't ruffle feathers. Hence why some (I think including you?) have noted the advantage of having actual rules one abides by: you're giving up the theoretical absolute latitude in order to gain practical latitude that is much less constrained. In other words, the actual meaning of "social contract" theory, which doesn't really work for IRL politics (since no one consents to the country of their birth, and thus cannot consent to the initial social contract) but works quite well here. GMs agree to give up certain freedoms that they were unlikely to exercise anyway (like the freedom to say "rocks fall, everyone dies" for no reason) in order to secure the rights to doing rather a lot of things that might have set off alarm bells in the "state of nature."I think this is where the theoretical-absolute vs practical latitude distinction is useful. In theory, the 5e D&D DM has no constraints at all, aka "the rules are merely suggestions." In theory, the DW GM has several constraints, some qualitative ("be a fan of the characters") and others quantitative (you must answer Discern Realities questions honestly.) But, in practice, the 5e DM cannot realistically use the vast majority of their theoretical latitude, because it would upset the players and/or damage the group's game to do so. Contrariwise, the DW GM not only can but is expected to use every ounce of the latitude they are given, to push the envelope ("think dangerous," "think offscreen, too"), drive the action forward ("make a move that follows," "ask questions and use the answers"), and enliven the experience as much as possible ("embrace the fantastic," "give every monster life.")Both sides have latitude, and it is latitude regardless of whether we consider it in terms of theory or practice. But it definitely looks--as someone who has played both games and run DW quite a bit--like 5e cannot meaningfully capitalize on its theoretical latitude, while DW (or any system Powered by the Apocalypse) almost perfectly capitalizes on all of the latitude it claims to have. To use a pithy business phrase, when it comes to latitude for the coordinating player (DM/GM), 5e over-promises and under-delivers.The problem with many such things is, without specific detail, the example will be (perhaps rightly) criticized for not being something anyone could actually encounter, or too general to give any information; but with specific detail, the example will be (perhaps rightly) criticized for individual details that are not salient to the discussion, or too specific to permit reasoning from it.In the spirit, then, of trying to examine salient things, perhaps we can consider other scenes that might be relevant. Picking some that have absolutely no connection whatsoever to any games I may or may not be involved with... <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😉" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" title="Winking face    :wink:" data-shortname=":wink:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> Investigating attendees at a rich-people party, in order to focus later efforts on the most plausible suspectsPersuading a group of steam-spirits to simmer down and permit the party to pass unmolestedRescuing a time dragon who has gotten "stuck" halfway materialized because of a strange barrier covering the mortal worldNavigating the politics of a foreign nation to identify the real killer in a crime pretty obviously intended to frame a dignitaryHealing a person infected with a spiritually-empowered fungus that wants to integrate her into its hive mind intelligenceConvincing a powerful businessman to come with you, without his bodyguards, to a secret location for reasons you can't strictly specifyFinding a way to pass the initiation rites of a cult of assassins that doesn't involve, y'know, murder most foulNavigating a monster-infested jungleFinding the secret room in an ancient ruinFinding, and then using, a method to destroy a succubus, rather than simply discorporating her so she goes back to HellMany of these could be singular checks or complex affairs, but importantly, with DW, the stakes are always clear and the difficulty is always set--by design. With D&D, that is far less true. The DM cannot so easily push the envelope in what and why and how, because the line between "great scene" and "damaging the game" can be perilously thin.</blockquote>

Verification