Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7088321" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Yeah, I don't think that your examples and their examples are all that different. You objected to the idea that the fact that the king was assassinated was predetermined, so the DM didn't engage the mechanics. As a result of the king being assassinated, they players need to figure out why they were rebuffed.In your example, Jabal told them to leave town because they are bearers of a curse. Although you could just as easily said that "Jabal says leave town now, or there will be consequences," leaving the party wondering why they were debuffed. Either result works for me, because either one is reasonable from the PCs point of view. Whether it was by fiat or by random determination, the king is dead, and as of yet, the PCs don't know about it. In either scenario - King or Jabal's thug, if I were one of the PCs I wouldn't expect to get a clear answer. I'd probably ask, perhaps push just a bit, but would be surprised if I actually received an answer that way.I wouldn't characterize it entirely as puzzle solving. The death of the king probably won't remain a secret for long. On the other hand, I don't have an issue with this type of puzzle solving. On the contrary, my campaigns rely on layers upon layers of such things. So your objections are:The GM already knows what happened...and they kept it secret: That is, they know the king has been assassinated. To the common person, that information may not have been known, and they (the NPCs) may have been keeping it a secret at that point in time for a reason. There are legitimate reasons for this to have been the case.The GM has authored it unilaterally Just as you decided that the campaign would be set in Hardby, and you decided the merchants would tell the PCs that the Gynarch is to be married to Jabal, which also means that you decided they were to be married.The fact is, like all RPGs, the fiction must come from people. That is, the DM/GM authors stuff, the PCs author stuff, maybe other people author stuff that the other participants use. Just about everything in the DW rulebook I agree with, other than the tone:The players in the scenario just described aren't playing to find out in the salient sense. Here's the relevant passage from the DungeonWorld rulebook, p 161 (note that it's addressed to GMs):Your agenda makes up the things you aim to do at all times while GMing a game of Dungeon World (DMing D&D): • Portray a fantastic world • Fill the characters’ lives with adventure • Play to find out what happens Everything you say and do at the table (and away from the table, too) exists to accomplish these three goals and no others. OK, that's a bit much, but OK. I guess we're not interested in a social event, or having fun with our buddies, an escape from the world into a fantasy world, or imagine ourselves as a character outside of our comfort zone, or anything else other than these three things. Things that aren’t on this list aren’t your goals. You’re not trying to beat the players or test their ability to solve complex traps. You’re not here to give the players a chance to explore your finely crafted setting. So what's wrong about a finely crafted setting? If I recall, the BW rules specifically said that they weren't providing a setting, because there are plenty of good ones out there, and that you can write a better one than us anyway. DW is based on those rules if I recall, and now they're saying, "your better setting is wrong?" I agree in the test their ability to solve complex traps, unless that's what they like. However, if a trap ought to be there, then it should. It shouldn't be any more complicated than it needs to be to get the job done, and be built by the mechanical capability of the time. Oh wait, that's right, we used to love trying to play through Grimtooth's traps... You’re not trying to kill the players (though monsters might be). You’re most certainly not here to tell everyone a planned-out story. I kind of prefer to avoid a playing a planned-out story myself. But I know other gamers that think the Dragonlance series of modules are some of the best ever. Your first agenda is to portray a fantastic world. . . Show the players the wonders of the world they’re in and encourage them to react to it. Check. Filling the characters’ lives with adventure means working with the players to create a world that’s engaging and dynamic. . . Check. Dungeon World adventures never presume player actions. A Dungeon World adventure portrays a setting in motion—someplace significant with creatures big and small pursuing their own goals. As the players come into conflict with that setting and its denizens, action is inevitable. You’ll honestly portray the repercussions of that action. Because so many other games encourage dishonest portrayal of the repercussions of their actions. I agree with not presuming player actions - all too often a DM (and especially a published adventure) operates under a certain requirement in terms of their actions. Usually the assumed action, which is blindly accepted by the players, is to attack to kill anything put in their way. And whatever it is will, of course, fight to the death. I believe in honesty in portraying the repercussions too. To start with, most intelligent creatures won't fight to the death. Then you have to deal with that. This is how you play to find out what happens. You’re sharing in the fun of finding out how the characters react to and change the world you’re portraying. You’re all participants in a great adventure that’s unfolding. Check. So really, don’t plan too hard. The rules of the game will fight you. OK. Not sure I've ever had a game that fights me. I have visions of the pages and dice suddenly rising up to buffet me around my head. One of the issues I have with indie games is that there's an awful lot of presumption on their part. The "Everything you say and do at the table (and away from the table, too) exists to accomplish these three goals and no others" is quite a declaration. Did I just join a cult?So in the scenarios I saw, the GM knows something that happened. That sets the framing, as you state. The king has been assassinated. Back to the Star Wars examples - Luke doesn't have any clue what's happened in regards to the droids, he just buys them. So are you suggesting that the players should know all of that information before Luke makes any decisions?If the "no GM secrets" thing is one of those key mechanics that is a requirement for you to play (such as "no DM fudging" or "no hidden dice rolls" that are requirements for certain other players), I obviously don't have any objection to that. But I definitely don't think that's a universal requirement for good game design or play. Secrets for the sake of keeping secrets is one thing, but for events to happen in the world that the PCs don't know about, but could discover, that's pretty much a given in my world. To make an in-game secret worthwhile, it needs to be discoverable. I am curious as to where the line is, though. You have no secrets in the campaign? The GM never knows something that the players don't? I didn't get that sense with other in-game examples you've given, but I could be wrong.</blockquote>

Verification