I found that in no way clarifying.
Let me try:
Objective: plugging a fictional circumstance (that the system covers) into play will always result in the same mechanic being invoked with the same chance of success/failure or range of possible results, no matter who's running it.
If the system doesn't cover it, the circumstance can't happen in play.
Subjective: Different DMs may run the same situations differently in terms of mechanics. The same DM may even run the same situation differently at different times. For that matter, a player may have more than one mechanical option in representing the same concept.
No?
Very sorta for the Objective part...save for the last sentence. That doesn't apply.
On the Subjective part, the first two sentences are kind of a "system doesn't matter" statement. Definitely doesn't apply. However, your third sentence might.
Lets just focus in on one thing and see how this goes. Back to the primary example of the Ogre knocking over the tree. Just upthread I showed how this happens in Dungeon World.
[sblock]A Barbarian in Dungeon World has the Herculean Appetite of "Pure Destruction":
Herculean Appetites
Others may content themselves with just a taste of wine, or dominion over a servant or two, but you want more. Choose two appetites. While pursuing one of your appetites if you would roll for a move, instead of rolling 2d6 you roll 1d6+1d8. If the d6 is the higher die of the pair, the GM will also introduce a complication or danger that comes about due to your heedless pursuits.
The same Barbarian has these two moves:
My Love For You Is Like a Truck
When you perform a feat of strength, name someone present whom you have impressed and take +1 forward to parley with them.
What Is Best In Life
At the end of a session, if during this session you have crushed your enemies, seen them driven before you, or have heard the lamentations of their kinfolk mark XP.
In Dungeon World, the GM frames scenes around a very specific Agenda. The GM follows the rules and procedures, observes the GMing principles, and makes moves against the PCs accordingly. The players roll all the dice. In Dungeon World, Ogres take things by force, fly into rages, and destroy things with their amazing size and strength:
Special Qualities:
*Destroy something
*Fly into a rage
*Take something by force
So the PCs come upon a band of Ogres who have laired in a stand of trees near a major trade route (of course). The Chieftain offers them their lives if they give up all their wealth and perhaps a tasty limb to sweeten the deal. The PCs refuse. The Ogre Chieftain knocks over a tree on them. The Barbarian, unimpressed, meets the chieftans rage with his own appetite for destruction. He declares he is Defying Danger (obviously the falling tree) with Strength. He is going to catch it and heave it back the way it came. ALL of the DW follows the basic resolution mechanics of roll 2d6 + modifier (-1 to +3). There are 3 possible results (these would be the equivalent of subjective DCs); 10+ and you get what you want, 7-9 and you get what you want with a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice, a 6- and things don't go well for you (I make what is called a Hard Move) but you Mark 1 XP.[/sblock]
Play procedure involves:
1) Ogre knocks the frigging tree over. Why? Because the narrative depiction of Ogres viscerally tells me this is the kind of stuff they do. Why else? Because its my job to
portray a fantastic world,
fill their (the PCs) lives with adventure,
give every creature life,
think dangerously, and
make a move that follows (it observes all of the other principles and follows from the established fiction and present situation).
It really ends there. I'm not examining this for uncertainty from any causal logic perspective. I'm not evaluating if this meshes with some idea of internal consistency of fantasy world physics (including all the process simulation components I outlined in my lead post). I'm not making comparisons to an objective standard to derive how difficult this task should be "in-setting" and then rolling dice to resolve. It just happens. Because this is happening to the players...who happen to be playing the protagonists. And its my job to do the stuff I mentioned above. There are no competing simulation or gamist priorities (except for the fact that the system is beautifully intuitive, "balanced", due to its elegantly integrated, exclusively first order resolution mechanics).
And besides, GMs don't roll dice!
2) The players have to deal with this falling tree RIGHT NOW in some way. The most basic way (if they don't have any tricks up their sleeve) is to simply Defy Danger (this is a move akin to a D&D Saving Throw). Well, the player of the Barbarian says "Screw that noise...I've got an Appetite for Destruction...and I'm STAAAAAAAAAAAARVING. I want to catch the tree and heave it back at the Ogre. Give him and any underlings he has something to think about."
The only uncertainty here has precisely 0 to do with Torillian-earth-physics. Simply:
a) Is the move genre/archetype credible? If yes...
b) Does the player have a specific move that we need to roll or do we just Defy Danger?
3) We resolve the move. Defy Danger Strength (which is the Barbarian's primary ability score).
Am I evaluating this against an objective standard (the common man, low level character)...to derive an objective, setting-anchored descriptor which qualifies its difficulty (Nearly Impossible)...which is associated with an objective value (30) for the purposes of mechanically resolving the action?
Nope. The resolution mechanics for every...single...move (again) are:
Roll 2d6 + your character’s ability modifier; 10+ and you get what you want, 7-9 and you get what you want with a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice, a 6- and things don't go well for you (I make what is called a Hard Move) but you Mark 1 XP.
We find out what happens. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. This is how play "snowballs" in Dungeon World.
To review:
Subjective Framing - The role of the players as protagonists means that danger, action, and adventure follows them like a magnet (by system design). This doesn't mean they don't have choice in their endeavors...but it does mean they can't choose to eschew danger, action, and adventure (at any point).
Conflict-Charged - All of the action is centered exclusively around the PCs' subjective interests (every moment of play should be thematically relevant to the PCs). Remember "skip the gate guards?" This is that. If we find ourselves spending any time on gate guards it is means something dangerous is about to happen and they're either an asset or an obstacle.
Resolution Mechanics - (i) Genre logic and (ii) play principles synergize with (iii) a unified dice procedure, none of which prioritize objective phenomena and causal logic as means to the ends of play.
Any help at all?
