Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9014919" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, technically, no you cannot. Remember, playbooks in DW are not intended to represent 'classes of people'. In DW you are THE Wizard, not 'a wizard'. While I understand the question still arises of 'what if I want my wizard to be different than what the playbook says', well then you need to invent a variant playbook! This would clearly be a 'homebrewing' activity, and people do it all the time! There are 100's, maybe even 1000's of variant DW playbooks out there you can find. In fact I think the standard playbook 'pack' that you can download from the DW site even has a couple extra variants in it. I'd think making up a dwarf wizard playbook would take roughly 2 minutes though, you just need one or two alignment and bond statements to cover it, basically. In fact, in my copy there's actually a 3rd blank space under 'race' after 'Human', implying that the player can simply make something up. I'd assume the other players/GM may have suggestions.As I say, the 'fiction' of DW contains "THE Wizard" not 'wizards generally', though I think its fair to assume that the GM's duty to 'portray a fantastic world' in DW will probably motivate them to invent NPCs of the same ilk. The 'Folk of the Realm' section of the rules has an entry for 'Hedge Wizard' for example. This entry is basically just an NPC resource, it has no combat stats, just 2 GM moves that let him/her "Cast almost the right spell (for a price)" and "Make deals beyond their ken". I believe there are also monstrous 'casters' like a Sorcerer or something like that. My point is, the PCs are kind of specific characters, it wasn't the intention of the rules to produce a compendium of all possible dwarves, wizards, clerics, fighters, etc. but to provide a few specific working character types. Naturally players will desire to stray from these types, and it appears that such is at least anticipated in the character sheets.But I think it would be odd to call the game 'incomplete' because it doesn't provide statistics for, say, every imaginable monster that could possibly exist, or every imaginable PC that could possibly exist either.Well, again though, DW is not intended to be a 'simulation', so there isn't a rule that says how many days of short rations/hunger/thirst will have exactly what effects. The GM can make moves here, like imposing penalties, or simply decreeing that because your character was very hungry he stumbled, or even simply allocating some hit point loss due to extreme thirst. The rules don't actually touch on ANY situation of a similar type! There's no rules about how far you can jump, march, see, how long a light source lasts, etc. That being said, the Make Camp move requires a ration, you cannot camp if you can't eat! Undertake a Perilous Journey also has a ration rule, which at least implies that you cannot travel a distance greater than your rations (it says that trips are measured in units of rations, not distance). This implies that the move cannot be executed if you lack sufficient supplies, either you simply cannot try, or else you are in 'free wandering' mode where you just make camp each day (at least until you lack the rations to do so anymore). What happens then is up to the GM, but I would not want to be that party!So, essentially, when people make this sort of claim about DW, my response is that they're focused on the wrong sort of completeness! DW is not about how much gold you have, or how long your rations will last, etc. It is about determining who will say what happens next, and if that will be an evolution of the narrative in favor of the PCs goals, or a setback/defeat/complication, or possibly a mix of the two. Running out of food will clearly be at least a complication, and may become much more serious as the GM makes more moves based on it.How is the GM deciding? The player prized out the ruby. THEY decided that they considered it a feasible action (or why take it) and if the GM arbitrarily decides 'no' then THE TABLE decides (or typically just acquiesces if its a healthy table). Obviously GMs are free to make moves of their own in situations like this, but you cannot make a move that doesn't FOLLOW FROM THE FICTION. So, if the GM hasn't established that this statue is imbued with some sort of magic or that traps are likely, etc. then there isn't much option here! He could make a soft move and basically say "as you prize out the eye you see a flash of light, and a strange mark appears on your hand!" That would be fair, stealing treasure from mysterious statues is not without risk, but blasting the character with lethal damage, that would not be cool unless it had been somehow hinted at before. So, what you will find, is that the principles are remarkably thorough in terms of guiding the GM's creation of new fiction. Again, this is the job of the rules!I would call this "openness", the game COMPLETE and OPEN. It always tells you what procedures to follow next in order to move forward, and at the same time there are no hard and fast prescriptions as to how anything will turn out or what choices will be made.Rule zero is simply not relevant for a discussion of games like Dungeon World. The GM does not need, nor does the GM have, any sort of special rules authority. The GM does have some degree of story authority, quite a lot actually, which lacks any procedural check on it (IE there is no check on what sort of scene a GM can frame next, procedurally. DW doesn't say players can demand that the GM frame a different scene instead). Obviously scene framing is governed by the non-procedural rules, the principals and agenda, just like moves are. So, we have a powerful GM, but also fairly powerful players. The GM can certainly make up new GM moves, I think even unilaterally, but these are not 'covering gaps' or 'creating authority', they are simply devices the GM uses to regulate herself. In fact DW describes ALL GM moves as simply "what you do anyway" implying that they are useful, but not even really 'rules'. I don't think a GM can make up new player side rules arbitrarily and unilaterally though. I've never had this come up, but I see no part of the game which implies this would be the case, or procedure which calls for it to happen.I'm certainly not averse to the discussion. I feel like my "process complete" definition is a pretty solid one.</blockquote>

Verification