Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8346322" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Well then, I guess in the spirit of [USER=6879661]@TheSword[/USER] 's technically empty post...When I hear you say "just frame a good scene" [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] , I get very confused. I don't know what that means. You've described it as...basically just saying a scene happens. Absolute fiat declaration, no holds barred. I don't like that idea. That idea sounds like literally just telling the players, "You're doing this now, capisce?" That's why I see it as railroading; you are doing whatever you like, and the players can put up or shut up.When I pushed on that, you followed up with, more or less, "ask them what they want to do, then have that happen." This confuses me further, because I have explicitly and repeatedly said that I talk to my players frequently about what they want. Between sessions, I ask explicitly. During a session, I prefer not to ask explicitly, in part because I feel that interrupts the flow of play too much, and in part because Dungeon World explicitly tells me never to refer to the player, only the character. (Principle: "<a href="https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com/gamemastering/#Address_the_characters_not_the_players" target="_blank">Address the characters, not the players</a>") Instead, I go off what they've said before, patterns in the character's behavior, and how the player describes the character's current status/behavior/emotions, and if those things aren't obvious, I ask the player, "How is <X>? Are you scared, determined, unflappable? What are you looking for?" When necessary, I will resort to more out-of-character conversation, if hacking a new move or the like is required, but I try to keep that to a minimum so we stay focused on the fiction.Further, you have asserted that it is not true that the DM can do whatever they like. I had thought this was well-understood to be a literally universal maxim for any game that has a GM-like role, known as Rule Zero. A lot of people use it (and I would argue, often badly, but that's just me). Every DM can always override any rule in any rulebook, any idea from a previous situation, even their own previous precedent if they wish to. I emphatically do not believe they should, but I do not see how it is possible for you to argue that a DM, even in 4e or BW or whatever system you wish to suggest, is not (at least in theory) free to say, "Nope, that's not how it works this time." If you have an argument that Rule Zero doesn't exist for 4e (or BW, or whatever else), I'm all ears.As for the "metagame" thing, I mean a WHOLE different ballgame from "shape the fiction as you wish it to go," which I guess you can call "metagame" if you like, but I personally wouldn't. What I'm talking about is: "okay, we know we rolled badly on that, so whatever he said, he was lying, that means we should act as though whatever he said is false even though there's literally no justification for us to do so, other than that we, as players, know that the dice were bad instead of good." To the best of my knowledge, this is an explicitly Bad Thing in Dungeon World terms, because it means thinking mechanics first rather than fiction first. It means thinking as a player, rather than as a character. And I'm absolutely not alone in having this problem; this was a big discussion on the old Google+ site for Dungeon World, and it's come up repeatedly on the Dungeon World subreddit.Sooo...yeah. I explicitly, repeatedly consult my players. I constantly seek feedback and advice. I don't understand what it is I'm not doing that I'm supposed to be. And I don't understand how "<x event> just happens, deal with it" is somehow magically NOT railroading, just because you did a temperature check with the players--nor how that isn't "GM-directed" play, which you seem to dislike to a very severe degree.</blockquote>

Verification