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

[Faolyn]

The player chooses what happens with things like like the Carouse and Outstanding Warrants moves, Discern Reality and Parley if you want to stick to basic moves, as more story oriented than anything. But discussing this stuff is always going to be fraught because we don't have an agreed upon vocabulary.

I just find it a different approach than how I run my D&D game. It's not a criticism to say that they work differently.

Incorrect.

Carouse: The player can choose to befriend an NPC, learn rumors or information, or avoid a specific type of complication, but they don't create those things. It's effectively a combination of Investigation, Persuasion, and certain saving throws. Nor is the result random. The PC would have to say something like "I'm going to the bar, then I'm going to buy a round of drinks and see if I pick up any useful rumors" and that would trigger a Carouse roll and on a success, let the PC learn some rumors. They wouldn't have the PC instead befriend an NPC, because that's not what the player said.

Outstanding Warrants: This is purely to see if news about what the PCs have done has spread, only used if the PCs have chosen to be terrible people. After all, if you were running a D&D game and the players decided to be murderhoboes and kill and terrorize villagers and townsfolk, then there would likely be in-game repercussions for that, yes? Or at least, you would understand that some DMs would have in-game repercussions for such behavior. Here's a rule to codify that.

Discern Reality: The player chooses what questions they want answered. It's a combination of 5e's Investigation, Insight, and Perception rolls. The PC doesn't actually decide what the reality is. That's up to the GM. In D&D, if a player makes one of the above rolls while in a room, how much information do you give them? How many rolls to you have them make? Maybe you give one piece of info per successful roll, maybe you give all info on a success, or maybe it depends on how well they roll. In DW, there's a set amount of info: either 1 piece of info or 3. The only choice the player has is what sort of info.

Parley: This is basically a combination of Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation, but with the caveat being that you have to offer them something as well.

In absolutely none of these do the PCs get to create anything or alter the story in any way different from the way they could in D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For further information on this change. The reason being is because they now use magical contagions instead of diseases. Monsters that previously inflicted a disease now just inflict the poison condition. Mundane diseases are not really mentioned in the rules. So spells or features that cure diseases are obsolete.

I gather from my reading, that the designers want things like plagues or outbreaks to be hard to deal with and will probably need an entire quest to solve. So players are no longer curing themselves of filth fever every giant rat encounter. They are slaying the evil necromancer to find his alchemical zombie antidote to save the lands and cure their infected party member.

Ah, and now I don't like it again.

 

[Faolyn]

So ... what should we use? Take Defy Danger from DW. It states "On a 10+, you do what you set out to, the threat doesn’t come to bear. On a 7–9, you stumble, hesitate, or flinch: the GM will offer you a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice."

There's no direct correlation to D&D, but one example would be provoking an opportunity attack by leaving a threatened area. While DW doesn't actually say what "worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice" actually means in the SRD, it's left up to the GM.

Let's say the example scenario is Brog the Barbarian is trying to run past the orc to shut down the Apparatus of Releasing Badness by pulling a lever.

In D&D, the orc (if it still has a reaction) could attack Brog with an opportunity attack in an attempt to damage him. In 2024 rules, the orc could also try to grapple Brog to stop them from reaching the lever. If it's a grapple Brog has a chance to ignore the grapple attempt. As DM I'm looking at what the orc knows, what options they would consider, what the goals of the orc are. I don't really care what Brog's goals are because I'm not playing Brog, I'm playing generic orc #4.

In DW it's a defy danger and the GM takes a look at Brog's goal let's say they choose an option. My understanding of possibilities would be something like

• Worse outcome: The orc stops Brog from getting to the lever would be an option. Brog gets to the lever and it's stuck could also be a worse outcome or any number of things.
• Hard bargain: the orc grabs Brog's cloak of awesome as Brog runs by. Does he relinquish the cloak or continue on to the lever?
• Ugly choice: as Brog gets to the lever he sees that pulling the lever will crush a kitten and he has no time to get the kitten out. Brog really likes kittens, does he still pull the lever?

To me these are just very, very different ways of running the game. I called it focus on story for DW, would narrative focus be better?

I'm open to a better explanation but when the SRD literally says "Do X" and then has no example or definition of what X is, why is there any surprise if it's not clear? Even if I did find a game, who's to say that the GM running the game has a better understanding of it than I do? I would also note that when I looked for clarification it came up as a question in Reddit and it's clear I'm not the only one who would not know what these options really mean.

I don't really see how it's different, except in the most basic of ways: in D&D, the orc would inflict some damage on Brog (since this is Orc #4, they probably don't have the ability to inflict any conditions--at least, I can't remember if 5e orcs have such an ability that can be used in an OoA). In DW, the orc grabs Brog's cloak.

Look at the flavor text in the SRD: The PC was in danger of falling down an icy cliff unless they jammed their dagger in their and used it to climb. Doing so means that the dagger would get stuck and they would lose it. The dagger is directly related to the climb because it was used to climb the icy cliff.

Now look at your example: Brog is trying to get past the orc to pull the lever. That's the action. The lever being stuck or crushing a kitten is not related to the action of Brog trying to get past the orc.

(And before you try to go "a-hah!", the action of picking a lock has the the potential complication of creating too much noise, thus, creating noise is related to the action of picking a lock, thus having someone hear the noise is related to the action of picking a lock.)

Thus, the only one of your three options that would be available would be "the orc grabs your cloak." So Brog would have to (temporarily) relinquish his cloak to get to the lever. Assuming the cloak of awesomeness was magical, he would be without its magic until he got it back--which probably won't be for very long unless the orc runs away while Brog is pulling levers.

And again, look at the example in the SRD: the GM didn't offer the player three options to choose from. They gave one: you can climb, but you'll lose your dagger. So you as the GM here don't have to offer three options either. Whatever is the first or most interesting one that comes to mind. So you could say "As you rush past, the orc stabs you. Take X damage," or "you get to the lever, but the orc trips you up. You scramble to your feet and run the rest of the way and yank the lever. But it's too late, and one piece of Badness was released." Those are also directly connected to the act of getting past the orc.

But you don't say "pick one of the following to happen: you lose your cloak, you get stabbed, or you release a Badness."

 

[AlViking]

I don't really see how it's different, except in the most basic of ways: in D&D, the orc would inflict some damage on Brog (since this is Orc #4, they probably don't have the ability to inflict any conditions--at least, I can't remember if 5e orcs have such an ability that can be used in an OoA). In DW, the orc grabs Brog's cloak.

You don't see how it's different that Brog would not risk an opportunity attack but could otherwise notice a kitten in the way of the lever they want to pull?

Look at the flavor text in the SRD: The PC was in danger of falling down an icy cliff unless they jammed their dagger in their and used it to climb. Doing so means that the dagger would get stuck and they would lose it. The dagger is directly related to the climb because it was used to climb the icy cliff.

Now look at your example: Brog is trying to get past the orc to pull the lever. That's the action. The lever being stuck or crushing a kitten is not related to the action of Brog trying to get past the orc.

(And before you try to go "a-hah!", the action of picking a lock has the the potential complication of creating too much noise, thus, creating noise is related to the action of picking a lock, thus having someone hear the noise is related to the action of picking a lock.)

Thus, the only one of your three options that would be available would be "the orc grabs your cloak." So Brog would have to (temporarily) relinquish his cloak to get to the lever. Assuming the cloak of awesomeness was magical, he would be without its magic until he got it back--which probably won't be for very long unless the orc runs away while Brog is pulling levers.

And again, look at the example in the SRD: the GM didn't offer the player three options to choose from. They gave one: you can climb, but you'll lose your dagger. So you as the GM here don't have to offer three options either. Whatever is the first or most interesting one that comes to mind. So you could say "As you rush past, the orc stabs you. Take X damage," or "you get to the lever, but the orc trips you up. You scramble to your feet and run the rest of the way and yank the lever. But it's too late, and one piece of Badness was released." Those are also directly connected to the act of getting past the orc.

But you don't say "pick one of the following to happen: you lose your cloak, you get stabbed, or you release a Badness."

The GM chooses the option, right? My point is that these are all narrative consequences - not driven by a specific rule (in this case) of leaving a threatened area. Presumably the GM is going to pick the option they find most interesting. In a D&D game, I'm picking the option that the orc would find most beneficial to achieve their goals.

The cloak may not have been a great example ... perhaps the cloak (which is just a cloak Brog's mother gave to him) is ripped and torn beyond repair by the orc.

I see night and day difference and I don't have a problem with that. They're just different.

 

[Lanefan]

Congratulations. We've found a change in 5.5 I like.

You don't want disease to be curable?

 

[Lanefan]

For further information on this change. The reason being is because they now use magical contagions instead of diseases. Monsters that previously inflicted a disease now just inflict the poison condition. Mundane diseases are not really mentioned in the rules. So spells or features that cure diseases are obsolete.

Which has the (probably intentional - sigh) side effect of giving the PCs free rein to wallow around in all sorts of awful places without fear of getting sick from doing so.

I gather from my reading, that the designers want things like plagues or outbreaks to be hard to deal with and will probably need an entire quest to solve. So players are no longer curing themselves of filth fever every giant rat encounter. They are slaying the evil necromancer to find his alchemical zombie antidote to save the lands and cure their infected party member.

Which is fine for a Big Damn Story but doesn't work if as DM you want to present disease as a side-effect environmental hazard of adventuring in a given location, that only affects the PCs (and anyone else dumb enough to go there!).

For example: there's a ruin in the Sickly Swamp they want to check out, and so into the swamp they go. As DM, I want to have the option of telling them that every day they spend in there they each need to make a Con save or become diseased, and if they don't get cured within a few days they risk dying from said disease.

From an adventure design standpoint, this is just intended as a means of draining their curative spell resources a bit. From a simulation standpoint, this reflects the real-world fact that places with bad water and rotting corpses tend to make people who go there sick as dogs, or worse.

 

[Faolyn]

You don't see how it's different that Brog would not risk an opportunity attack but could otherwise notice a kitten in the way of the lever they want to pull?

Not in terms of how it would play out between the two games. Also, there are no threatened areas in DW.

The GM chooses the option, right? My point is that these are all narrative consequences - not driven by a specific rule (in this case) of leaving a threatened area. Presumably the GM is going to pick the option they find most interesting. In a D&D game, I'm picking the option that the orc would find most beneficial to achieve their goals.

The cloak may not have been a great example ... perhaps the cloak (which is just a cloak Brog's mother gave to him) is ripped and torn beyond repair by the orc.

I see night and day difference and I don't have a problem with that. They're just different.

This is entirely a faulty understanding of how PbtA works. First and foremost, in a PbtA game like DW, you would also pick what the orc would find the most beneficial.

Here's where the narrative value came in: imagine that it has been established that Brog's mother gave him the cloak. Now imagine that, for whatever reason, it was most beneficial for the orc to grab Brog's cloak. Great--you also have something which helps make for an interesting story. You can then say "Brog, the orc grabs onto your cloak, trying to stop you. You pull free, but your cloak tears. Didn't your mother give you this cloak? What do you do?" Brog's player can then decide: they stop what they're doing to attack the orc. They can continue to the lever to push it, and then attack the orc. They can not care about the cloak either way (it was ugly; they only wore it because their mom made them and now they don't have to). But they attack the orc anyway, because it's a setting with Always Evil orcs. Whatever. Up to them.

But it it turns out that it's actually most beneficial for the orc to stab Brog as he runs past, or to run away, or to do something else, then that's what the orc does.

You, as the GM, don't decide what makes the best story. You encourage the players to make the best story.

 

[Campbell]

I disagree with basically everything @Faolyn just said. Will have more to say later.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You don't want disease to be curable?

I liked the idea of disease being curable in a magical, cure-all fashion existing only at 9th level or above. I apparently misunderstood the rule.

 

[AlViking]

Not in terms of how it would play out between the two games. Also, there are no threatened areas in DW.

I mentioned threatened areas as a D&D reference.

This is entirely a faulty understanding of how PbtA works. First and foremost, in a PbtA game like DW, you would also pick what the orc would find the most beneficial.

Here's where the narrative value came in: imagine that it has been established that Brog's mother gave him the cloak. Now imagine that, for whatever reason, it was most beneficial for the orc to grab Brog's cloak. Great--you also have something which helps make for an interesting story. You can then say "Brog, the orc grabs onto your cloak, trying to stop you. You pull free, but your cloak tears. Didn't your mother give you this cloak? What do you do?" Brog's player can then decide: they stop what they're doing to attack the orc. They can continue to the lever to push it, and then attack the orc. They can not care about the cloak either way (it was ugly; they only wore it because their mom made them and now they don't have to). But they attack the orc anyway, because it's a setting with Always Evil orcs. Whatever. Up to them.

But it it turns out that it's actually most beneficial for the orc to stab Brog as he runs past, or to run away, or to do something else, then that's what the orc does.

You, as the GM, don't decide what makes the best story. You encourage the players to make the best story.

But the GM is choosing their moves, correct? Why would they not choose an option that they believe makes the story most interesting? The defy danger doesn't give the player the choice, it's up to the GM to decide between the 3 options and how those options are manifested. Unless the orc has some special move they can use I see nothing that says the kitten blocking the lever would not be a legitimate ugly choice. The torn cloak only makes sense as a hard bargain if it has some value to Brog, if it didn't I see no reason to choose that option.

But again, this may be part of the issue. You may run it in a specific way. You could do what makes the most sense for the orc but I don't see that as a restriction from the rules. Once the GM has made their move the player decides what their move is from what I understand. If that's not correct I' like to know where that's stated so I can have a clear understanding.