Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Imaro]

@Imaro

Is it helpful to know that many groups run Dungeon World with an established setting? That there are adventure modules written for it? Is it helpful to know that our Blades in the Dark crew treats acquiring turf differently? That some players are all about The Devil's Bargain while others are not? That some Apocalypse World games use the battle moves while others do not? That principles can be actively prioritized in different ways? That we sometimes alter the principles? I know some people use Fiasco style setup for Monsterhearts to generate some of the initial fiction. When I ran Masks I did not use the default setting and went for something more X-Men like. One of the core features of Burning Wheel is the spokes on the wheel concept where you slowly bring in more advanced mechanics as fits your group or not. Some games run forever on just simple tests and bloody versus combat. Some use the detailed combat rules, but not Duel of Wits. Some do the reverse.

There's a fairly strong DIY mentality to the indie culture and we absolutely customize our games. We just tend to view doing so as hacking the game and hacks our encouraged. During my last Blades in the Dark session I advocated for harm because it made fictional sense to me. When I run Monsterhearts I often limit playbooks. When I ran 4e I did so by altering the rest structure and having very infrequent combat. I know @Manbearcat uses far more skill challenges than combat encounters.

I think you either missed my point or I didn't present it well... at the end of the day it's the codification of the outcome by narrow moves that I feel puts the constraints on the GM/DM (and even the players to a lesser extent) in DW and in Apocalypse World games in general. The player is deciding the pretty narrow parameters in which I must respond through their die roll, and for me as a DM/GM I don't want that. In the example there's only 1 out of 3 player outcome choices that allow me to express creativity and then even with that one (danger) the ultimate outcome has to be an increase in danger... what if that's not what I want? To me that feels like a distinct lack of GM/DM freedom in creativity and lack of flexibility. Unless there's some way to disregard the moves and play more freeform... but then, as with the BW example earlier, it seems to loose what makes it DW.

 

[Nagol]

I think you either missed my point or I didn't present it well... at the end of the day it's the codification of the outcome by narrow moves that I feel puts the constraints on the GM/DM (and even the players to a lesser extent) in DW and in Apocalypse World games in general. The player is deciding the pretty narrow parameters in which I must respond through their die roll, and for me as a DM/GM I don't want that. In the example there's only 1 out of 3 player outcome choices that allow me to express creativity and then even with that one (danger) the ultimate outcome has to be an increase in danger... what if that's not what I want? To me that feels like a distinct lack of GM/DM freedom in creativity and lack of flexibility. Unless there's some way to disregard the moves and play more freeform... but then, as with the BW example earlier, it seems to loose what makes it DW.

Well, in D&D how much latitude for creativity expression does a single die roll such as attempting to strike an adversary in combat give the DM? In D&D the player either hits or he doesn't. If he hits, the damage might hit a threshold (death, unconsciousness, morale failure) or it doesn't. That looks remarkably like your three points. Miss or no threshold hit equals no creativity.

Now, I agree that at any point, the DM can decide to change the tactics of the adversary, but the same is true in Dungeon World. In fact, in addition to that choice at every point, the GM is forced to change the circumstances of the battle more frequently than the DM is as he has to account both for partial success results like extra danger. Some of those possible extra decision points are simple attrition (hp loss, ammo consumed, etc.) and so don't have creativity attached, but analogues to those also exist in D&D as... hp loss and ammo depletion, go figure. Dungeon World just reduces the overall number of rolls and can provide the players negative situational changes as an alternative to the attrition.

 

[Imaro]

Well, in D&D how much latitude for creativity expression does a single die roll such as attempting to strike an adversary in combat give the DM? In D&D the player either hits or he doesn't. If he hits, the damage might hit a threshold (death, unconsciousness, morale failure) or it doesn't. That looks remarkably like your three points. Miss or no threshold hit equals no creativity.

But a single roll of the player in D&D doesn't in general determine the outcome of a shift in the environment(?? danger) that I as DM now have to make happen. In general, in D&D that's all left up to me and what I want to create or go for as DM and with an eye towards the surrounding fiction.

Now, I agree that at any point, the DM can decide to change the tactics of the adversary, but the same is true in Dungeon World. In fact, in addition to that choice at every point, the GM is forced to change the circumstances of the battle more frequently than the DM is as he has to account both for partial success results like extra danger. Some of those possible extra decision points are simple attrition (hp loss, ammo consumed, etc.) and so don't have creativity attached, but analogues to those also exist in D&D as... hp loss and ammo depletion, go figure. Dungeon World just reduces the overall number of rolls and can provide the players negative situational changes as an alternative to the attrition.

It's not just about the adversary... due to the players roll I as DM am forced to take the encounter into a specific direction... irregardless of my desires or wants in the game. That's the constraint I am speaking to, I'd rather not be forced to make an encounter more dangerous because the player decided on that outcome as opposed to taking damage or loosing some ammo.

Emphasis mine... forced (into a very narrow and specific change) is exactly my point.

 

[Aenghus]

IMO DM and player goals need to be sufficiently compatible to allow a functional and coherent game to emerge.

In retrospect when I was a regular player, as opposed to referee, over 15 years ago now I generally sought a low risk strategy in RPG games, which annoyed some referees as they preferred a high risk game, this still being the days where low risk and high risk all pertained to chance of PC death. The referees generally didn't come out and say what they wanted, more often they would just not reward my efforts to find a safe path through the RPG minefield.

But games where the risk was too high for my tastes would make me even more hesitant and increase my analysis paralysis, as I hate my PCs being killed or crippled and avoiding that became an overriding priority for me, which led me to disengaging from the game. Looking back at it I wanted some sort of stake setting mechanic so I could deliberately choose the level of risk taking that worked for me as a player.

The other thing I note is that character backgrounds were often ignored unless the referee liked them for some reason. Module timelines, PC casualties and overriding plots often put individual character stuff on the back burner, which in the case of players primarily invested in their own subplots would lose that player's interest. The lack of willingness to talk about such issues and lack of agreed upon jargon to communicate clearly often made things worse.

As I see it some of the GM constraints in Player driven games are to attempt to discourage GM decisions from accidentally or deliberately sidelining player goals, something I saw happen an awful lot in conventional procedural DM driven games.

 

[Nagol]

But a single roll of the player in D&D doesn't in general determine the outcome of a shift in the environment(?? danger) that I as DM now have to make happen. In general, in D&D that's all left up to me and what I want to create or go for as DM and with an eye towards the surrounding fiction.



It's not just about the adversary... due to the players roll I as DM am forced to take the encounter into a specific direction... irregardless of my desires or wants in the game. That's the constraint I am speaking to, I'd rather not be forced to make an encounter more dangerous because the player decided on that outcome as opposed to taking damage or loosing some ammo.

Emphasis mine... forced (into a very narrow and specific change) is exactly my point.

So, you complaint/observation is Dungeon World requires extra creativity during adjudication from the GM. That's true. Another complaint/observation is the players have more agency (and thus the GM less agency) over the immediate situation. That's also true. The player can have some control over the consequences of partial success as presented by the selected action.

As the GM you absolutely do not need to take the situation in a single direction based on player choice. The player gets to change one dimension of the situation (it has become more dangerous) but has no input to how that extra danger resolves. It could be additional adversaries arrive, it could be the next strike from the adversary will do more damage, It may be the player attack also knocked over an oil lamp and a fire is beginning to spread threatening everyone. It may be the food you ate earlier was in fact poisoned and the player's choice activates the toxin. It may be the adversary taunts you with how your loved one is about to be killed and you have a limited time to attempt a rescue. What the extra danger is wholly determined by the GM who remains in control of how the player's attempt affects the environment.

 

[Imaro]

So, you complaint/observation is Dungeon World requires extra creativity during adjudication from the GM. That's true. Another complaint/observation is the players have more agency (and thus the GM less agency) over the immediate situation. That's also true. The player can have some control over the consequences of partial success as presented by the selected action.

Please don't do that. I said what my observations/complaint was (and it was never about DW needing extra creativity during adjudication from the GM, because honestly I don't feel it does... the GM providing color throughout an encounter is a part of the creativity outlet inherent in arguably all roleplaying games during resolution and outcome in said encounters)... as GM I am forced into a particular outcome by the players roll... that is both constraining around agency and creativity, IMO. Re-framing my complaint in a (possibly??) disingenuous way is not going to foster good discussion or understanding.

As the GM you absolutely do not need to take the situation in a single direction based on player choice. The player gets to change one dimension of the situation (it has become more dangerous) but has no input to how that extra danger resolves. It could be additional adversaries arrive, it could be the next strike from the adversary will do more damage, It may be the player attack also knocked over an oil lamp and a fire is beginning to spread threatening everyone. It may be the food you ate earlier was in fact poisoned and the player's choice activates the toxin. It may be the adversary taunts you with how your loved one is about to be killed and you have a limited time to attempt a rescue. What the extra danger is wholly determined by the GM who remains in control of how the player's attempt affects the environment.

You are repeating what was said earlier... but still no matter how much color I interject the situation must become more dangerous... right? Can it become less? Can it stay the same? I never said there was zero room for creativity within said constraints only that they exist upon the GM and are determined by the player. I also asserted such constraints are generally not a part of D&D and thus creativity being constrained in said way is not a concern when I run D&D. Perhaps it is constrained in a different way but so far that hasn't been asserted by anyone... and I don't think it is.

EDIT: At this point I'm a little unclear on what exactly you are trying to convey. You seem to agree it's a constraint on DM creativity and forces the encounter into a general direction (one of becoming more dangerous)... are you trying to claim that this constraint doesn't matter? Is not important or something else?

 

[Nagol]

Please don't do that. I said what my observations/complaint was (and it was never about DW needing extra creativity during adjudication from the GM, the GM providing color is a part of the creativity outlet inherent in arguably all roleplaying games during resolution and outcome)... as GM I am forced into a particular outcome by the players roll... that is both constraining around agency and creativity, IMO. Re-framing my complaint in a disingenuous way is not going to foster good discussion or understanding.

All I did is express my understanding of the message I received from your text. If I'm wrong, you should let me know -- as you did. But, I will continue the technique because I find it valuable to confirm my understanding of others' points from time to time.

You are repeating what was said earlier... but still no matter how much color I interject the situation must become more dangerous... right? Can it become less? Can it stay the same? I never said there was zero room for creativity within said constraints only that they exist upon the GM and are determined by the player. I also asserted such constraints are generally not a part of D&D.

Yes. Agency in generally a zero-sum game. If one party gains the agency to increase the danger level then the other party loses the ability to undo that increase. Otherwise the first party doesn't have agency merely the ability to issue recommendations.

Such constraints certainly aren't part of D&D. In fact, most situations in D&D will have no escalation or de-escalation mechanisms since they are driven from keyed encounters that were locked down during the design phase. Typically, the creature hits as hard as its stat block indicates, has the magical abilities listed, and its hp predetermined; the encounter is what it is. A DM can always inject an escalation/de-escalation in response as he wishes, of course and it has been a recommended practice over the different editions to have the environment respond appropriately to player action. Much of that form of environment response remains the same in Dungeon World.

Additionally, many D&D DMs ascribe to techniques whereby they adjust danger level off-the-cuff, typically covertly (fudging or illusionism). Dungeon World restricts those tools, but despite @Manbearcat's assertion, has similar ways to be deviate from a "honest" play experience if the GM wishes.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

EDIT: At this point I'm a little unclear on what exactly you are trying to convey. You seem to agree it's a constraint on DM creativity and forces the encounter into a general direction (one of becoming more dangerous)... are you trying to claim that this constraint doesn't matter? Is not important or something else?

I think we're in general agreement. I don't think it's a constraint on GM creativity; I think it forces the GM to provide more improv creativity to incorporate those player directives into the situation. I do think it constrains the GM from being the single arbiter of pacing and stake-setting.

I don't advocate for either style of game; I pick the game that best fits my desire for play experience for a particular campaign.

 

[Imaro]

All I did is express my understanding of the message I received from your text. If I'm wrong, you should let me know -- as you did. But, I will continue the technique because I find it valuable to confirm my understanding of others' points from time to time.

No worries. I've had the experience before of posters subverting what I've actually posted and may have jumped the gun there a bit. My apologies.

Much of that form of environment response remains the same in Dungeon World

.

Interesting... is this through specific moves? And if so what is the play procedure for introducing these

Additionally, many D&D DMs ascribe to techniques whereby they adjust danger level off-the-cuff, typically covertly (fudging or illusionism). Dungeon World restricts those tools, but despite @Manbearcat's assertion, has similar ways to be deviate from a "honest" play experience if the GM wishes.

I'd also be interested in understanding the ways in which that deviation is accomplished.

 

[Imaro]

I think we're in general agreement. I don't think it's a constraint on GM creativity; I think it forces the GM to provide more improv creativity to incorporate those player directives into the situation. I do think it constrains the GM from being the single arbiter of pacing and stake-setting.

I don't advocate for either style of game; I pick the game that best fits my desire for play experience for a particular campaign.

I guess the only place I am in disagreement is around creativity. If I must create around a certain outcome, even if I can bring about that outcome in any way I see fit, I still see it as constraints. But at this point I don't think either of us is going to convince the other so I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on that point.