D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[kayakingpoodle]

I'm sure it's not your intent, but to me posts that seem aimed at stifling speech are least useful of all.

So I wondered if you could state your concern in a form it can be addressed? What is broken? Why is that problematic from your perspective in a way that isn't fixable by muting the thread?

Pages and pages of the same arguments, ie a broken record.

FYI you could have checked the quoted posts and gotten the context with a couple of clicks.

 

[clearstream]

Pages and pages of the same arguments, ie a broken record.

I partially agree with that -- much is being repeated although there are occasionally new experiences and observations being shared.

Still, something must be keeping you in the thread, glued to your seat so to speak. What thoughts do you have that would advance the strands of conversation?

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I partially agree with that -- much is being repeated although there are occasionally new experiences and observations being shared.

Still, something must be keeping you in the thread, glued to your seat so to speak. What thoughts do you have that would advance the strands of conversation?

Again check my post up thread.

 

[pemerton]

Many modes of play assign responsibility for world to GM (MC, DM, etc.) and character to player. For example, Harper wrote that

In Apocalypse World, the players are in charge of their characters. What they say, what they do; what they feel, think, and believe; what they did in their past. The MC is in charge of the world: the environment, the NPCs, the weather, the psychic maelstrom.​

​

That sort of division could imply that if it's world it ought not to depend on player choices, but come from GM in response to those choices. Because GM is world it's never a violation of causality and never casts doubt on membership in the diegetic set.

What Harper says only establishes an "ought" on the premise that it is accepted as true. It's not self-grouding.

Furthermore, as I've already pointed out in this thread, reading that passage of Harper's in disregard of the rest of what he says, and of the AW rulebook, is leading some posters into dogmatic assertions that are not true of Apocalypse World.

As one example, the psychic maelstrom - p 113 of the AW rulebook says that:

It’s especially important to ask, the first time each character opens her brain to the world’s psychic maelstrom, what that’s
like for her.​

This feeds into an important point. Harper (together with Vincent Baker) is well aware of the tension between X is in charge of the world and Y is in charge of Z's thoughts, beliefs and memories of the world, given that veridical beliefs and memories imply truths about things other than the person whose memories they are.

Harper gives this example, and explains how it works within the Apocalypse World framework:

Sometimes, the players say things that get very close to the line. Usually this happens when the MC asks a leading question.

MC: "Nero, what do the slave traders use for barter?"
Player: "Oh man, those fuckers? They use human ears."

That's a case of the player authoring part of the world outside their character, however -- and this is critical -- they do it from within their character's experience and frame of reference. When Nero answers that question, he's telling something he knows about the world.​

So it's actually not as simple as saying "The GM is in charge of the world". Rather, the GM gets to decide when to bring in player contributions (by asking questions) and gets to decide how to bring in player contributions (by asking about PC knowledge, experience, etc). This is consistent with what is said on p 109 of the rulebook:

The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings.​

This shows how overly simplistic it is for someone to say that, in AW, "The GM is in charge of the world". And it's doubly simplistic, and absurd, to use that sort of wording to beat other posters over the head for playing RPGs which don't grant the GM exclusive authority over backstory.

 

[pemerton]

While I don't play DW, I do play games that have similar moves. Anyway, according to the SRD, the player asks the GM either one or three questions from the following list:

• What happened here recently?
• What is about to happen?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What here is useful or valuable to me?
• Who’s really in control here?
• What here is not what it appears to be?

The PC doesn't get to say "It would be useful for me if the runes pointed out an exit." (Or, well, they can, but the roll has nothing to do with that.) The GM can say that the runes point out an exit, but the player doesn't get to "hope" that and then roll to see if they do. And even if the players made a point of looking at the runes, the GM could say "the runes are just a recipe for guacamole, but you notice this other useful thing over here..." Or "the runes say the password for that food locker you couldn't get into a few rooms back." The GM isn't required to fulfill the PCs' hopes, no matter how well they roll.

AbdulAlhazred made a post about this not too far upthread:

let's imagine I'm playing DW, and I'm fleeing from some terrible monster. I come to a dead end. I Discern Realities. I get a 10. There are kind of limited options available to the GM here! Some sort of fiction is required which I can use. It doesn't HAVE to be a secret passage, but such an outcome is fairly compelling!

Now consider beyond this maybe I developed the idea that I am a master dwarven mason, and my escape is somehow central to some conflict bearing on my character. GMs in this type of game may well be hard pressed not to go in a given direction.

Here is the text of Discern Realities (DW p 68):

Discern Realities
When you closely study a situation or person, roll+Wis. ✴On a 10+, ask the GM 3 questions from the list below. ✴On a 7–9, ask 1.

Either way, take +1 forward when acting on the answers.

• What happened here recently?
• What is about to happen?
• What should I be on the lookout for?
• What here is useful or valuable to me?
• Who’s really in control here?
• What here is not what it appears to be?​

So if the player asks what here is useful or valuable to me, the GM has to give them something useful or valuable. As @AbdulAlhazred said, that is a significant constraint on what the GM narrates. That's before we get to other considerations. I mean, your examples, that involve making fun of the player, the character and the situation, don't seem to me to conform to principles like "Portray a fantastic world", "Embrace the fantastic", "Ask questions and use the answers" and "Be a fan of the characters".

In the example of play that I gave, this was the character:

View attachment 409951

As I asked in that earlier post, Does this character know about dungeon runes? Either in general, or what these particular runes are likely to say? He's a Solitary Traveller, and a Cunning Expert. In a game that is deliberately playing on classic D&D tropes, Cunning includes the thief's traditional ability to deal with traps and read strange writings. As per the MHRP rules (p OM96),

Experts are a cut above the rest, having had extensive experience and practice using skills in this field. If you’re an Expert, you know the theory and application of the skill set, probably have contacts in the field of study, and can recognize others with this level of training just by observation.​

The idea that his expectations as to what strange runes might say are unlikely to be accurate is one that is being projected by you and other posters. It doesn't follow from the fiction of the character, or the rules or play of the game.

 

[pemerton]

the PC doesn't exist except for the player. The player and PC are one. You, as the PC, want something to be true. So you, as the player, roll for it.

This seems wrong to me. The PC, like any other character in fiction, "exists" for anyone who reads, views, listens to, imagines, etc that fiction. And the PC and the player are not one. The player is a real person. The PC is imaginary. Somethings the player does correspond to things the PC does '- eg if the player is speaking as the PC. Other things do not - eg if the player is rolling dice to resolve an action.

The players say things. As a result, the PCs do things.

Sure. This doesn't entail that, because the player puts a certain possibility on the table, the PC is the one who causes that to be true.

I refer you again to this example from John Harper:

MC: "Nero, what do the slave traders use for barter?"
Player: "Oh man, those [foul people]? They use human ears."​

Do you think that this means that, in the fiction, Nero made it the case that the slave traders use human ears for barter? I mean, that is obviously not what Harper intends, as he goes on to explain:

That's a case of the player authoring part of the world outside their character, however -- and this is critical -- they do it from within their character's experience and frame of reference. When Nero answers that question, he's telling something he knows about the world.​

Your assertion that only the GM can legitimately author parts of the world outside the players' characters is simply not borne out by the play of a vast range of RPGs. Including MHRP.

Fronts and threats = situations. Common English here. These are situations that the GM preps.

They're not situations. I mean, in common English a threat is a being, or perhaps a state of affairs. A rival warlord might be a threat; they're not a situation. And the AW rulebook explains that "front" is used in the sense of "fighting on two fronts" (p 11). A front, in that sense, is a domain or locale of conflict.

Baker goes out of his way to make this point - see eg AW p 143:

Prep circumstances, pressures, developing NPC actions, not (and again, I’m not [mucking] around here) NOT future scenes you intend to lead the PCs to.​

An RPG that does use the prep of situations to make the game go is Prince Valiant. It's different from AW.

Different RPGs use different techniques, different approaches to GMing. AW is ultimately driven by characters and their conflicts, not by situations.

 

[Lanefan]

No more than the idea that the roll to hit an Orc is no different from wishing the Orc dead.

The runes have established characteristics too. They're strange. They're on a dungeon wall.

The PC knows that they are strange runes in a dungeon. There are many things that they might say. It turns out that they reveal a way out. That's no less likely than any other candidate thing they might say.

You've many times gone on about how rolling for the runes and rolling to kill an Orc are the same thing. So explain me this difference:

When I roll to kill an Orc, you-as-DM already know things like the Orc's AC and how many hit points it has. Its specific characteristics are pre-established by you.

Yet when I roll to read the runes, you-as-DM don't already know what they say. Their specific characteristics are not pre-established by you or anyone else.

Some of us see the inconsistency here and ask - why?

 

[Lanefan]

It''s not a question of how much or how little time it takes. It's a question of the result. "Nothing happens" means that the game just stops because nothing happens. Sure, the PCs can choose to do something else or come up with another method but that's besides the point. Because this isn't real life, no matter how "realistic" GMs may want to make their game. Things happen, generally to the PCs.

But let's turn the question back on you. How much time would a simple "...and something else happens" take out of your game that would actually be wasted time?

See, I've played "nothing happens" for decades. I've GMed that way for decades. With some of my GMs, that still is the only result. But "...and something else happens" is usually more interesting and engaging, and it doesn't take up more time.

IME when "something else happens", resolving it invariably takes up more (sometimes much more) time than "nothing happens" would have*.

* - assuming the players are reasonably quick thinkers and-or already have a plan B in mind if plan A fails. If on a "nothing happens" they just sit there baffled and stare at their dice that's a them problem, not a you problem.

 

[AnotherGuy]

You've many times gone on about how rolling for the runes and rolling to kill an Orc are the same thing. So explain me this difference:

When I roll to kill an Orc, you-as-DM already know things like the Orc's AC and how many hit points it has. Its specific characteristics are pre-established by you.

Yet when I roll to read the runes, you-as-DM don't already know what they say. Their specific characteristics are not pre-established by you or anyone else.

Some of us see the inconsistency here and ask - why?

This is a good question, reminds me of the discussion around solving a mystery.

I'm not @pemerton but he has often mentioned intent when discussing BW.
You make an attack roll with the intent to kill the orc, you have no idea if you will, but the intention is there.
You make an investigation roll with the intent to read the runes hoping it reflects abc, you have no idea if those runes will provide that information, but the intention is there.

Anyways that is enough of my interjection, pemerton will provide a better answer on this I feel.

 

[AlViking]

There is a "diegetic" reason: it's a kitchen, it has a cook in it, the cook is startled by a burglar.

That's as "diegetic" as the reason for saying "There's a dragon in this hex because I rolled a 6 on the encounter die."

Then it would have happened on success or failure. The fact that it only happens on a failure, that the room is empty on a success is the issue.

But, that's not your answer so I accept that you will never acknowledge that someone else could legitimately run their game differently.