Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9012420" data-attributes="member: 6790260">A much more pithy (if perhaps a bit harsh) statement of a concern I brought up earlier in the thread: the flip between &quot;this is a horrible affront to all we hold dear as D&amp;D players&quot; and &quot;how is this any different at all from what we do?&quot; It's not quite at-convenience, more like if you discuss it in the abstract it raises every hackle folks have available to raise, but then when you lay it out with concrete examples it's so unobjectionable, folks can't see how it contains any differences.Which, for me anyway, is some pretty strong evidence that the amount of control DMs need isn't nearly as high as the amount they believe they need. DW--and most PbtA games--explicitly and officially put quite a bit of control in the players' hands, and more importantly, explicitly and officially bind the GM with several restrictions, both at the specific level (e.g. &quot;you must answer honestly when the player uses this move&quot; or &quot;you must give the player an answer that is both interesting and useful when they roll well on that move&quot;) and the abstract level (&quot;draw maps, leave blanks&quot; etc.) The thing is, those restrictions have been put in place for the same reason that--for example--many of the rules of writing have been put into place. Writing is a tool of communication; its rules exist with the goal of facilitating communication. Breaking those rules for light or transient causes is deeply unwise. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases, you want to obey those rules fully, lest you fail to communicate, or communicate the wrong thing, or induce the recipient to turn away because of the inordinate effort required to understand you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9012420, member: 6790260"] A much more pithy (if perhaps a bit harsh) statement of a concern I brought up earlier in the thread: the flip between "this is a horrible affront to all we hold dear as D&D players" and "how is this any different at all from what we do?" It's not quite at-convenience, more like if you discuss it in the abstract it raises every hackle folks have available to raise, but then when you lay it out with concrete examples it's so unobjectionable, folks can't see how it contains any [I]differences.[/I] Which, for me anyway, is some pretty strong evidence that the amount of control DMs need isn't nearly as high as the amount they [I]believe[/I] they need. DW--and most PbtA games--explicitly and officially put quite a bit of control in the players' hands, and more importantly, explicitly and officially bind the GM with several restrictions, both at the specific level (e.g. "you must answer honestly when the player uses this move" or "you must give the player an answer that is both interesting [I]and[/I] useful when they roll well on that move") and the abstract level ("draw maps, leave blanks" etc.) The thing is, those restrictions have been put in place for the same reason that--for example--many of the rules of [I]writing[/I] have been put into place. Writing is a tool of communication; its rules exist with the goal of facilitating communication. Breaking those rules for light or transient causes is [I]deeply unwise[/I]. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases, you want to obey those rules fully, lest you fail to communicate, or communicate the wrong thing, or induce the recipient to turn away because of the inordinate effort required to understand you. [/QUOTE]

Verification