Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8996419" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The difference is, this is (very, very intentionally) exactly what it means to "play by the rules" of Dungeon World. That is, I as GM must pursue the Agendas (term for, more or less, the "goals" of running DW), follow the Principles (term for, more or less, the "rules" of being a GM), and obey the rules (e.g., the specific text of a character's move, if it requires specific GM actions.)Essentially, Dungeon World was designed so that the rules themselves ARE the "best practices" expectations of playing D&D, because it's pretty much literally from a group of people who said, "Hey, wow, this Apocalypse World thing is pretty cool...wouldn't it be great if we could play the D&D of our childhoods with this? Oh...hey, we can. We just have to write it out."These rules have been very carefully constructed to ensure that there is, in essentially all cases, a 1:1 correspondence between "play by the rules" and "exercise wise GM judgment, best practices, and mutual trust and respect between player and GM." This is not simply turning the invisible rulebook into a visible one. By having these things actually structured, present, accounted for, the players are emboldened to do as they like (within the limits of following the fiction and respecting the concept/premise), and GMs are likewise empowered to push things to their limits, because both sides can stop having to watch out for conflicts that easily fly under the radar with the invisible-rulebooks approach.That's why you'll hear DW GMs tell you that you really, REALLY need to actually obey the rules. That you shouldn't be invoking "Rule Zero"--because doing so is akin to declaring your unilateral right to break from best-practices.Then you are 90% of the way to a "no-myth" game.The only missing component is that the GM does not establish any background fiction ("myth") before the players begin making some kind of choices (e.g., what classes or races they will play, their characters' backstories, etc.) In a hardcore "no-myth" game, the GM attempts to never establish this sort of thing--nothing is true or false unless it is described "on camera." I don't run such games because I frankly don't understand them. There is some "myth" in my games--but I endeavor to keep it in terms of situations, forces, powers, etc.As with the above, Dungeon World includes both the informal and formal means for doing this. Informal ones are like my example GM asking, "What do dwarves do in this situation?" and the player simply stating what is true about Dwarven society without any roll or permission. She is the Dwarf in the party, and thus the Expert on Dwarven things if a question comes up. Sometimes, there may be exceptions or the like, when the fiction calls for it, e.g. Dwarven secrets Kara never learned or heretical clans or the like. Formal structures, like Discern Realities, Spout Lore, the Bardic Knowledge class feature, or a handful of other things, provide more structure (and actual stakes) for the process of advancing or expanding what is in the world. As a consequence, they tend to allow greater latitude when successful, but have the possibility of revealing something the party would really rather be false ("reveal an unwelcome truth" being one of the hard GM moves in DW.)</blockquote>

Verification