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

[Maxperson]

What's the difference? The game world is being changed as a result of a failed skill check. Had the check succeeded, the rope would have never broken and might never break. So, it's not a weak rope. The cliff face suddenly crumbling because of my climb check? How is that not my skill check (which is ONLY my ability to climb something) causing a physical change in the game world. After all, the next person might climb the same cliff and nothing crumbles at all.

The only difference is that you find one physical change to the game world more palatable than the other. But, in both cases it's a change to the game world being introduced without any connection to anything. Sure, flying pixies are extreme, but, again, it's only a difference of scale, not kind.

How is one skill check changing the physical properties of the game world acceptable, but another one isn't? Other than your personal preference of course. ((And note, I'm being pretty hyperbolic here- I doubt any DM would actually introduce pixies, but, I'm trying to show a point here))

That's why in my example I said sharp outcropping cutting the rope. The rope wouldn't be weak or not weak depending on the skill check. As for the a portion of the cliff crumbling under you, PC skill absolutely plays in to that. Part of the climbing skill is determining the best path up, testing rocks, noting crumbly areas, etc. If you fail in that skill check, falling due to a loose rock or crumbly portion of the cliff that you missed is part of what you rolled, unlike a rogue pixie which is not connected to your personal skill in any way.

 

[Campbell]

The stuff that binds the GM in Apocalypse World and similar games are big picture flow of the game type stuff. It's similar to 5e's description of its play loop and casting the DM as a world builder and referee - the stuff the game does not equivocate on - that no version except 4e equivocates on.

Also, the game does talk about how to make adjustments. Principles and agenda, just like any rule, can be adjusted. These best practices basically are your factory warranty. Break them and there are no guarantees.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to my good friend, kettle.

I don't recall anyone else presenting their opinions (and those of others) as stridently extreme as you have been.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How can one "foster a spirit of sincerity and co-operation" when one is secretly modifying the rules whenever one feels like doing so, concealing the actual processes by which player actions produce consequences, and employing techniques like illusionism or fudging?

People somehow manage to do it anyway?

 

[Maxperson]

If the DM is reality, how can they ever be wrong? By definition, anything they say must be correct. Period. End of discussion. There cannot be anything else.

This is not correct. The DM can still be wrong by...

1. Violating the social contract.
2. Abusing his power and authority.

Say your 1st level group is walking down the road and the DM says, "An ancient red dragon swoops down on you and breathes fire on all of you." Does the DM have the power and authority to make that a game reality? Yes. Is it an abuse of authority and the DM being a jerk to have an ancient red dragon just swoop down without warning and do 26d6 fire damage to a group of 1st level PCs? 100%. Should the players get up and leave that game? They should have been packed up and walking out the door before the damage dice stopped rolling.

Just because the DM represents the reality of the game outside of the PCs, doesn't make him correct in everything he does. There can in fact be something else and it is not the end of the discussion.

You are doing that very thing I just mentioned above, that I was so recently told people don't do: the players must be completely deferential to GM judgment until it flips over to being "really bad and then you just leave".

This is precisely the thing I keep seeing. I'm not inventing extremism here, @Paul Farquhar. It's right here, in plain view.

My sense of what @Emerikol was saying is that sometimes agreement doesn't happen and the DM has to make a ruling or the game just stops. I don't think he was saying that players couldn't make a case for themselves and the DM wouldn't ever listen, so they have to suck it up.

Emerikol, have there been times when you said something happens in the game(made a ruling) that the player(s) disagreed with and after a minute or two they persuaded you to change your mind? Has there been an instance where you didn't change your mind during the game, but they came to you after the game and with a longer conversation you realized that they were right and changed the ruling moving forward?

 

[Umbran]

I don't recall anyone else presenting their opinions (and those of others) as stridently extreme as you have been.

Everyone is strident now and again.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Everyone is strident now and again.

True. It's a matter of degree and frequency.

 

[TwoSix]

True. It's a matter of degree and frequency.

Too great a frequency of stridency hertz everyone.

 

[Umbran]

The group lives with that judgment until they cannot. For me, my players have lived with it rather well but I realize some DMs are really bad and then you just leave.

So, as written, this can seem like, "Grin and bear it until it is too much, and then throw a hissy-fit, flip the table and walk out."

Before, "you just leave," there really ought to be some, "attempt to talk through the issues like mature adults," that isn't mentioned here.

Unless you're, like, 12 years old, and talking like mature adults isn't expected, because you aren't mature adults yet....

 

[Campbell]

On a practical level when it comes to superseding rules and making rulings the vast majority of the time when it's done in the trad space is because the rules are specific and often leave no room for interpretation. It's you take X damage, climb Y feet, etc. This is not how the rules work in games like Apocalypse World. Here's a move from its kissing cousin, Apocalypse Keys:

When you push the limits of your supernatural powers, straining to do the extraordinary or avert imminent danger, spend Darkness Tokens and roll.
On an 8-10 you use your powers with great precision and effect, changing the situation before you. Additionally, the Keeper may offer you reprieve, a golden opportunity, or a Bond with someone.
On an 11+ you are on the edge of disaster. Choose one: mark a Condition to exert better control of your powers or let the Keeper tell you how the situation is not under your control.
On a 7- the Keeper will offer you something connected to What the Darkness Demands of You. Whether or not you take it, prepare for the worst.

For the move to even apply it must be something you have fictional positioning to do through one of your powers of darkness (which are loosely defined and refined over time ex. Necromancy, Supernatural Speed and Strength) and what we've established in play about its limits. That's one level of GM judgement that gets applied.

Then in every case the GM must apply their judgement to make a corresponding move back that fits the fictional situation. The game already integrates judgement about the fictional situation into its rules. If anything, I've had players of more traditional games feel like it leaves too much up to GM Judgement in that the GM gets a lot of say in how your powers work and impact the world.

There might be reasons you want to make changes, but they aren't going to be situational this does not fit the fiction reasons. You get GM Judgement on the way and on the way out. I've never felt any desire to ignore a rule when running Apocalypse Keys because I get so much say about what the results look like.

This does have the downside in that so much of the game is shaped by my moves. Sometimes it's nice to have the rules tell us more about the setting.

Aside: Just a reminder that in rules parlance prepare for the worst means the GM/Keeper makes as a hard a move as they like.