D&D General Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants

[Ovinomancer]

Actually, I was thinking about this, and there ARE some 'unwritten rules' that I think (maybe they are not things that other GM's adhere to) should be binding on a GM in DW. This amounts to "you cannot take away the player's stuff." So, if a PC took a big risk and won a magic sword, the GM CANNOT take that sword away! Only if the PC wagers it in another situation (IE if the fighter jams his magic sword in the mouth of the Great Dragon so it cannot bite the wizard, well, maybe it can get bit off!). There's no possibility of something like a 'Rust Monster' in DW! I mean, if there was it would have to be telegraphed via soft moves that clearly gave the PCs a choice "go here and your magic items/metal gear may be ruined" and play that against their bonds or something. That's fair game, but the players should know what they're risking etc. Really, if you don't do that, then the whole point of things like bonds is obviated anyway.

In any case, the real point is, there are always unwritten parts to the rules of pretty much any game, even one that is very transparent, like DW.

I'm unaware of any such unspoken rule about not taking away magic items. I don't see an issue with putting a magic sword at risk in as a soft or hard move, especially if the fiction follows. Doing so intentionally, to remove the item from the player, is already against the principles of play, so it's not unspoken (or unwritten). This may be something you do as a DW GM, but it's not an expectation of the game they forgot to put it -- your things are at risk, just like your life, when you adventure.

 

[Fenris-77]

Any equipment can be lost under the right circumstances. Magic items don't get a pass there, at least not from me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I mean, when I'm told I have to answer truthfully, I don't really see how there's any way to speak about it that isn't synonymous with "constraining." I'm obliged, compelled, required, etc. to do a thing, by the rules. I voluntarily submit to these rules, sure, but that's still a submission; I'm agreeing to my absolute creative freedom as GM being restricted by something more than merely "best practices."


Well, I didn't say they weren't, and am not entirely sure where you got that notion. Just that the rules directly tell me both things I'm not supposed to do (like speaking the names of my GM moves), and things I am supposed to do (like truthfully answering questions or providing information that is explicitly "useful and interesting," etc.) That's a constraint, which rises above the not-quite-rules "best practices" notions like Agendas and Principles.


Honestly no idea where you got this notion of "control" from. The only thing "controlling" behavior is the system itself; I'm assuming every participant is engaged purely to have a good time, and makes use of moves because they're interesting, useful, or relevant, not because they're trying to dominate.


I guess I just disagree. I see plenty of skill in knowing how to advance the fiction, which is impromptu/improv theater, and further skill in both (a) knowing when the fiction has actually triggered a move, and (b) how to make wisest use of the moves you have. Plenty of moves, for example, give Hold that can be spent when you choose to, or have options to choose from, like Discern Realities with its "choose one(/three) questions from the following five" or Bend Bars, Lift Gates with its "choose two(/three) things from the following four" (and thus don't get the one or two things you didn't get to choose).

It's absolutely a VERY different skillset compared to basically any version of D&D (except possibly OD&D when things were still heavily in flux and new rule-systems got added all the time in rather ad-hoc fashion). You're much more an improv performer, and instead of tactical choices you have to make qualitative choices as to which things are worth having vs. forsaking. But that's still totally a set of skills, for exactly the same reason that someone can be skilled at improv theater or skilled at distributing military materiel without having perfect knowledge of the battlefield and enemy's plans.

I'm reminded of that quote from Sun Tzu's The Art of War: "If I determine the enemy's disposition of forces while I have no perceptible form, I can concentrate my forces while the enemy is fragmented. The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it." A perfect demonstration of how superlative logistical skill is in fact an AWESOME power for any military leader. A Dungeon World character may not have armies at their command (though some might!), but making sound vs. unsound qualitative judgments about what objectives are worth fulfilling IS a skill, and DW play strongly benefits from it. The two skills--improv acting and sound qualitative judgment--do not always go hand in hand though, which can lead to really fascinating character development no matter which one wins out. Producing a great story, which I completely agree is the goal of DW play, benefits from both elements in different ways, and the non-commensurate nature of these two skills can add some delightful tension.

Hmmm, so, yes, I think your response is cogent. OTOH my impression of, particularly, how @Manbearcat put it was much more 'competitive' and seemed to vest the idea of constraint directly in the player's actions, and described the skill of so constraining the GM's options! I guess I'd have to go back and reread the post of yours I was responding to. Maybe his stance colored my perception of yours? I do see DW as much more of a cooperative game though than say B/X D&D where the GM is definitely NOT 'on the side of the players' in the same sense as in DW (though there are parallels in terms of unspoken forces which shape most RPG play).

Also, when you invoke Sun Tzu, you sound much more like you are resting on this oppositional formulation, but perhaps you are intending to mean that this 'logistical skill' is employed by the player on behalf of the PC in favor of the PC's IN GAME goals? I think we all have somewhat different concepts/styles of playing DW. One thing I think is true of myself as a GM is that I am much more focused on/interested in the experience of the players vs whatever is going on with the characters. So I don't usually focus on conflict or struggle as the salient experience. I can be competitive, but I see that as just a technique, not something fundamental.

 

[Fenris-77]

The B/X DM is not working in opposition to the players. B/X requires and demands fair and impartial adjudication, not so much PvDM.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here is the thing about me that may be making some of my commentary non-transferable or incomprehensible to others.

I come from an athletics and martial arts background.

I spent ages 4 through college ruthlessly committed to baseball (of which I played through college). I spent most of that time period also playing basketball, football, wrestling, tennis, golf, and various track/running.

I’m a Brown Belt and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (and I really have no excuse to not be a Black Belt other than losing interest primarily due to both rotator cuffs being torn multiple times and cervical injuries).

I now spend much of my physical time working on being as good of a climber as I can be.


My brain is absolutely oriented toward extreme focus on micro-goal-attainment. Part of this is genetic, but a HUGE part of the array of cognitive features that make that so is due to the mental demands of that physical life and the well-understood Best Practices approach to maximizing your capability (focus on what you can control and narrow your focus to the attainment of micro goals to the exclusion of the big picture).

This has very much helped me to focus intensively on the moment and run scene-based games with obstacles and objectives.

So when I look at any TTRPG tech, I look at it through that prism. When I run any scene, I look at it through that prism. If for whatever reason I don’t understand what players are trying to accomplish, I make it abundantly clear for all parties via direct conversation. We then set about mechanizing the test for “is this objective attained or not attained?” And I make that mechanical archetecture clear. I doubt players who come away from a game with me will ever be confused as to (a) what just happened or (b) how the gamestate was moved from here to there and how the content of the shared fiction was resolved.


Now will this be different in a scene of Dogs in the Vineyard where you’re confronting your traumatic past (and making decisions about when/how to martial Traits/Relationships/Things and how to manage your dice pools/potential Fallout…and maybe when/if you Give) with your abusive Aunt…the same Aunt that you’re now obliged to try to exorcise a demon from…vs a social conflict in DW using a Tug of War Clock where you’re a Paladin trying to adjure a demon from a non-relative (and you’re simultaneously dealing with the various tech and subtle thematic divergence that underwrites this scene in each game)?


ABSOLUTELY.

But my brain has a very particular focus. And if I had to guess (@darkbard can correct me on this if I’m wrong), that focus comes through in play as distilling moments of play and objectives of play in an extremely clear fashion.

That focus…that lack of murk and obfuscation…coupled with the clarity of ethos and mechanical effect of the games I run…we’ll, it feels very Win Con - ey to me!

Yes, we are pretty much on opposite ends of the scale there. I invariably work from 'systemic approaches' to things and move downwards from general to specific. I will keep many different things in mind and keep working them all. Sometimes I seem unfocused or inattentive to certain things, but then usually what emerges is that said thing simply was categorized as peripheral or unlikely to be a blocker when it came time for it to matter. My wife gets crazy about these things sometimes, and then I get frustrated by having some thing dragged into my attention that I'd already dismissed or whatever.

So, when I am GMing, maybe I am not as clear and decisive as you are. Usually what happens is things eventually 'brew up' to a head where all the different threads turn out to have been addressed. Well, I will miss some chances here and there too. I just might not focus enough on a specific conflict or character trait or something. Maybe some things get left out, or I don't act on something, but then usually that's because I've responded to a broader context. I might forget that your mother-in-law relationship needs to be resolved, but by gosh that giant invasion is putting pressure on everything very nicely, thank you!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm unaware of any such unspoken rule about not taking away magic items. I don't see an issue with putting a magic sword at risk in as a soft or hard move, especially if the fiction follows. Doing so intentionally, to remove the item from the player, is already against the principles of play, so it's not unspoken (or unwritten). This may be something you do as a DW GM, but it's not an expectation of the game they forgot to put it -- your things are at risk, just like your life, when you adventure.

Maybe this is getting interpreted in too literal a way. Here's an example of something I would NOT DO. A character leaves his castle in order to go engage in some sort of activity that is part of his agenda. Totally out of the blue some monsters arrive while he's gone and take over his home. This castle was an acquisition which required a large amount of the character's effort, planning, and activities, and was his major goal, for which he risked various other things, made certain character decisions (IE putting his own interests ahead of an ally) etc.

There was no telegraphing of this possibility, no 'soft move', nothing. He just returned home and it was "sorry Charlie, you will have to start all over again and repeat this achievement." Now, I don't know, maybe there's some thematic play under which this is cool, but it didn't seem cool to the player at the time (I wasn't the GM).

There is a definitely unwritten rule. You don't have to keep relitigating past conflicts and achievements. Trust me. I'm not saying you can't, in DW, say "Oh, 6-, yeah, you lost your backpack." I mean, it is a backpack, you bought it at the store, big deal. Maybe its bad news because all your gear was stored in it, but that's just putting pressure on the character, now he's gotta do without. Saying to the fighter, out of the blue, "Well, your magic sword broke on the iron golem's incredibly hard body" when this was a prized acquisition and the possibility wasn't even hinted at before he made the choice to hit the golem with it? Not really cool.

So, yes, this is an unwritten rule.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The B/X DM is not working in opposition to the players. B/X requires and demands fair and impartial adjudication, not so much PvDM.

No, but unlike the DW GM, the B/X DM is definitely not "on the side of the pcs" or a fan of them, etc.

 

[Fenris-77]

No, but unlike the DW GM, the B/X DM is definitely not "on the side of the pcs" or a fan of them, etc.

Well, there's nothing stopping a B/X GM from 'being a fan of the PCs' so long as his adjudication is fair and impartial. The fan bit tends to be more about framing and opportunity than adjudication, even in DW.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Maybe this is getting interpreted in too literal a way. Here's an example of something I would NOT DO. A character leaves his castle in order to go engage in some sort of activity that is part of his agenda. Totally out of the blue some monsters arrive while he's gone and take over his home. This castle was an acquisition which required a large amount of the character's effort, planning, and activities, and was his major goal, for which he risked various other things, made certain character decisions (IE putting his own interests ahead of an ally) etc.

There was no telegraphing of this possibility, no 'soft move', nothing. He just returned home and it was "sorry Charlie, you will have to start all over again and repeat this achievement." Now, I don't know, maybe there's some thematic play under which this is cool, but it didn't seem cool to the player at the time (I wasn't the GM).

There is a definitely unwritten rule. You don't have to keep relitigating past conflicts and achievements. Trust me. I'm not saying you can't, in DW, say "Oh, 6-, yeah, you lost your backpack." I mean, it is a backpack, you bought it at the store, big deal. Maybe its bad news because all your gear was stored in it, but that's just putting pressure on the character, now he's gotta do without. Saying to the fighter, out of the blue, "Well, your magic sword broke on the iron golem's incredibly hard body" when this was a prized acquisition and the possibility wasn't even hinted at before he made the choice to hit the golem with it? Not really cool.

So, yes, this is an unwritten rule.

That's not at all unwritten. The principles as presented cover not doing this, because it violates the cycle of play directly -- you can't do anything without putting it in front of the players. This is GM solo play, and it totally outside the game system altogether. There's no written thing to say "don't do this" because the way the game plays already doesn't allow it. It's like saying that "don't rob a liquor store while playing this game," is some unwritten rules of DW.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, there's nothing stopping a B/X GM from 'being a fan of the PCs' so long as his adjudication is fair and impartial. The fan bit tends to be more about framing and opportunity than adjudication, even in DW.

Right, obviously a GM that is HOSTILE to the PCs will not be a GM for long... Realistically you cannot even be fully neutral. The 'best' you can achieve is favoring "the play of the game" in cases where it is a consideration (IE presenting the PCs with options which lead to stuff you have prepared as opposed to other stuff, or warding them away from sandbox areas where stuff is too high level for them yet). Beyond that though, often a classic GSP DM is faced with situations where player's interpretation of things is just as valid as his own, which does he go with? Or where they clearly extrapolated some information or circumstance which the DM has not defined, so she might just "go with it." This is actually IMHO a very large part of what happens in classic GMing. Tucker's Kobolds COULD wipe you out, but you interpret their mood as that they're not 100% sure of that, and they already gave you a bloody nose, so they turn back and go home instead of finishing the job.