Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Nagol]

<snip>

So, on the strength of (1) and (2) above, my creativity does not feel particularly bridled when running Dungeon World (neither in the moment nor long term)!

Creativity in the heat of the moment is pretty unbridled, I grant. I find the area where the game constrains creativity on the part of the GM is between sessions. Planning encounters and designing situations when I have the time for sober reflection is fun! Attempting such with this form of game is a danger signal that you may be setting up rails and/or other forms of illusionism to control the game flow.

 

[Imaro]

Then she has the agency of choosing her Volley complication; either (a) less damage, (b) spent Ammo (which she couldn't much afford at that point), or (c) danger.

When she chooses danger (which is very common in DW), my menu of options for that danger opens up dramatically. I went with the above, but due to all the pieces in play that I control and the (non-binary and multi-vector) nature of the system's machinery (resolution mechanics, tags and resource attrition/status effect system, and fictional trigger requirements for moves), I could have made probably a good dozen or more distinct moves that would changed the situation, observed fictional positioning continuity, observed the GMing principles and the games agenda, while escalating the threat level and introducing a new, interesting decision tree to one or both of the players.

So, on the strength of (1) and (2) above, my creativity does not feel particularly bridled when running Dungeon World (neither in the moment nor long term)!

Ok so looking at this and referencing the DW SRD... the player (because remember I was speaking to GM/DM creativity) decides what the out come will be from their move either less damage, spent ammo or danger.

Now let's first look at the example where the player picks less damage... With this choice I see no area where the GM gets to express any type of creativity. It's less damage, pretty simple and straightforward. I guess color is a form of description and the GM could describe less damage in an exciting or colorful way but I think it's quite the stretch to in any way call that the exertion of unbridled creativity on his or her part.

The second option...less damage is even more constraining on the GM's creativity it doesn't really allow any at all.

The third option...damage... okay finally we get something the GM can use... of course again this seem more to revolve around color as opposed to any real unbridled creativity. I can describe the damage how I want but at the end of the day it is still just damage.

So looking at this example I feel there are a couple of points of constraints on the GM...

1. The point at which the player decides what consequence they wish to take place due to their roll... So the DM is constrained by the fact that he doesn't get to actively pick which of the consequences (even within the parameters of the 3 set forth for the specific roll in the game) affect the player. Instead the GM is constrained by the layers choice.

2. The point at which one of those 3 consequences, as chosen by the player, take effect. Now the GM has IMO two points of constrain
a.) Point 1: The player chooses less damage or less ammo... the GM really has no route to express creativity in this instance. These are player facing results that have are chosen by the player and leave little if any room for unbridled creativity.
b.) Point 2: The player chooses danger, well the GM does get to flex his creative muscles in that he gets to decide the type of danger and the fiction surrounding it but again he is constrained. The adversary can't run, can't negotiate, can't try to bribe the character and so on. This is what I am getting at when I say constrained creativity. In D&D I am not, as DM/GM constrained in this way. I can choose to respond to the PC's attack in a multitude of ways that still fall within the rules of D&D that would not be available to me if I am following the rules and moves of DW.

 

[Imaro]

Having grown up with the game during a period where home-brew was published monthly in Dragon magazine, I consider my approach "mainline" in the sense that the game has always been (to me) malleable and flexible, the intent to make it work for you.

NOTE: Just a general clarification note, when I speak to D&D I am in general talking about the latest edition unless I specify older editions.

And this to me is where I feel a breakdown in discussing this. I have literally never run into two people who run D&D the exact same way (While the indie games I have participated in usually are run a specific way as outlined by the rules). I look at @Campbell 's list and yes some of them apply to my game but not all of them and not the exact same ones as @Hawkeye or you. Why? Because D&D is pretty flexible and mutable it's advice (at least in 5e) is pretty clear about the game being yours and malleable to your desires as opposed to setting forth a design principle and way you should run D&D. IMO, it's more a toolbox for you to enact your own playstyle (and like any toolbox it can have more or less tools to facilitate specific goals) than it is designed specifically to create an experience. This is what I'm getting at when I talk about the flexibility of D&D.

Is lengthy worldbuilding or a pre-made setting a general characteristic of D&D? Not the older editions where you started with a dungeon and possibly a town or village, and many DM's still follow that philosophy with recent editions. Are adventures with designs on how players should interact with them a intrinsic part of D&D... I don't think so I tend to (though not always) run pretty open sandbox D&D games where the characters interact with things as they see fit and I don't use pre-published adventures. Enabling spotlight balance is also something I don't concern myself with, I leave it to my players to work out. I believe the DM can advocate for a narrative just as the players can but ultimately it's actions and the dice that decide whether either of those narratives or an entirely different one arises... and so on.

I'm not trying to be contrary for the sake of it but I just feel like I've been exposed to enough D&D games (as a player and the one's I run which tend to differ on these points depending on the specifc campaign) with very few if any of these things in common that I'm not sure they hold up as a traditional game thing. Especially if we are going with the advice, procedures, etc. laid out in the actual books.

 

[Nagol]

<Snip>

b.) Point 2: The player chooses danger, well the GM does get to flex his creative muscles in that he gets to decide the type of danger and the fiction surrounding it but again he is constrained. The adversary can't run, can't negotiate, can't try to bribe the character and so on. This is what I am getting at when I say constrained creativity. In D&D I am not, as DM/GM constrained in this way. I can choose to respond to the PC's attack in a multitude of ways that still fall within the rules of D&D that would not be available to me if I am following the rules and moves of DW.

Sort of, but not really. If the player chooses danger, either the current situation is revealed to be more dangerous than presented earlier (the current environment/adversary reveals some new element about itself) OR something entirely new is introduced. Continuing combat is certainly a plausible choice and one that is often taken in most RPGs. But, nothing about the choice of danger really prevents the GM from having the adversary react in any plausible way. It would be entirely possible for a 3rd party to burst onto the scene and have the current adversary offer a battlefield truce to deal with the common threat, for example. Even if the current adversary presents as more dangerous (his sword begins to glow a dark sickly light...) nothing prevents the adversary from offering terms, giving the character some form of Sophie's choice, taunting, asking for terms, attempting to flee, or pretty much anything at all. So long as the fiction supports the choice.

 

[Imaro]

Sort of, but not really. If the player chooses danger, either the current situation is revealed to be more dangerous than presented earlier (the current environment/adversary reveals some new element about itself) OR something entirely new is introduced. Continuing combat is certainly a plausible choice and one that is often taken in most RPGs. But, nothing about the choice of danger really prevents the GM from having the adversary react in any plausible way. It would be entirely possible for a 3rd party to burst onto the scene and have the current adversary offer a battlefield truce to deal with the common threat, for example. Even if the current adversary presents as more dangerous (his sword begins to glow a dark sickly light...) nothing prevents the adversary from offering terms, giving the character some form of Sophie's choice, taunting, asking for terms, attempting to flee, or pretty much anything at all. So long as the fiction supports the choice.

And as long as the danger ramps up right? In other words yes you can do the things you have listed but ultimately the GM is constrained in that the danger he is dealing with must increase (along with the previous constraints he is under around the players choice). It can't decrease... right?

EDIT: I'm not sure how I feel about this... it feels like it could also be a form of illusionism, but I don't think that's exactly right. I'm presenting a fiction where it seems the danger should become less but in actuality it has ramped up... I don't know... I guess this part is more my rambling thoughts than anything coherent, I'll think some more on it and try to finalize my view.

 

[Nagol]

And as long as the danger ramps up right? In other words yes you can do the things you have listed but ultimately the GM is constrained in that the danger he is dealing with must increase (along with the previous constraints he is under around the players choice). It can't decrease... right?

Yep. In much the same way a monster's hp must go down because a character hit it (assuming it can take damage from the weapon), the partial success result impacts on the environment.

The player chose "increased danger" so that is added to the environment. Perhaps there was no danger present to begin with. Perhaps the adversary is really an unrecognised ally. The form that danger takes is directed by the GM inside the situation as it exists. It is possible the adversary throws up his hands and says "I am not the enemy! Take heed lest..." as the floor falls out from underneath the PC and he falls in front of an angry rancor.

 

[Campbell]

Either I'm really missing something here or this is saying the player-as-character is banned from the option of simply Doing Nothing in a given situation even when such would make sense. This seems...odd.

Lanefan

When I as MC ask "What do you do?" a player can simply state "I wait them out" or "I hold back". That is still saying what your character does and we follow the fiction from there. If a player is waffling I often ask if that is what they do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is a big deal that we don't discuss enough (or with enough clarity):

"When is a gross increase in GM responsibility a net loss in GM agency (both near term due to cognitive workload/mental overhead issues and long term due to burnout)?"

I'm sure it's different for every DM, but it'd make sense that there's an inflection point, somewhere...

I would love to have a conversation solely focused on that.

It could easily be it's own thread, either here or in the 5e forum, since the DM Responsibility that comes with DM Empowerment in D&D is not often nor deeply examined...

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm sure it's different for every DM, but it'd make sense that there's an inflection point, somewhere...

It could easily be it's own thread, either here or in the 5e forum, since the DM Responsibility that comes with DM Empowerment in D&D is not often nor deeply examined...

I find the general DM empowerment approach of 5E to lead to an increase in GM agency with little to no increase in reaponsibility.

I think the system has replaced a lot of "maintenance" type mechanics with simple judgment calls, which I find refreshing. This is largely due to coming from the highly codified systems of 3E/Pathfinder, and some dabbling in 4E. So mechanically, there is less to keep track of, less rules and subsystems to know.

This shift in focus away from mechanics has also kind of reminded me that the story should come first. I'm more free to focus on that, which I think has helped my game overall. It's also allowed me to involve the players much more in determining how the game goes, although that's likely more of an indirect effect than a direct one.

I wouldn't be surprised, though, to hear others give examples that are very different than mine.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I find the general DM empowerment approach of 5E to lead to an increase in GM agency with little to no increase in reaponsibility.

There's no such thing as power without responsibility.

(Though there are certainly many examples throughout history of power being exercised irresponsibly...)

I think that this sort of "flexibility" claim about D&D is overstated.

But not unfounded. D&D may not often have been a flexible system when viewed from a neutral perspective, but it has always been used that way, by a great many DMs - at first, because there wasn't much else available, then because we were simply very familiar with it. There's a great deal of sunk expertise in modding D&D out here, especially D&D that's close enough to the traditional form it had for the first quarter-century.

For instance, if I don't want movement-based and action economy-based tactics in my combat resolution, D&D won't deliver that for me. It's got no "simple contest" combat resolution mechanic...
...If I want closed, scene-based non-combat resolution then the only edition of D&D that delivers that is 4e.

That same sub-system can be adopted as a simple-contest combat resolution. Substitute attack rolls for skill checks, set complexity at 1 - shouldn't take any time at all and would be completely abstract.

If I want to run a game which will be driven by conflicts within a PC's commitments and inclinations, and also across the commitments and inclinations of PCs, the Ideals/Bonds/Flaws mechanics won't offer very much.

But it offers something, so there's a 'starting point.' Though I think player buy-in is more significant than mechanics on that point.