Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 9015080" data-attributes="member: 6787650">Thanks for engaging substantively, Manbearcat. I want to make sure I know where you're coming from on the idea of new rule-like things that still don't count as rules. Since I'm not familiar with Dungeon World terminology, could we examine the same situation (opening a sewer hatch) from the perspective of AD&amp;D to see if these also don't count as rules in your eyes, or if there's something special and different about Dungeon World?Player wants to open the sewer hatch. DM specifies Open Doors roll at -2 to pull open. Player fails. Ties a rope to the sewer hatch, sets up a pulley system as a force multiplier. DM allows this to give a +6 bonus on the Open Door roll but says that if it fails then that means the rope snapped. Player succeeds and DM gives them a 50% chance of being drenched in sewer water spraying out of the hatch (they roll 2 on a d6 and do get drenched) but this turns out to be a valid back door into the area where the princess is being held hostage.Same scenario as the Dungeon World custom move for sewer hatches quoted above. Same degree of reasonable extrapolation to cover scenarios not spelled out explicitly AFAIK in the AD&amp;D rulebooks (pulleys and rope strength; probability of getting drenched by a nearby liquid steam).This ruling works within the unifying structure of the game (success rolls against a value on a table, in this case Str table for a feat of strength). I don't grok the meaning behind your words like &quot;unifying agenda&quot; and &quot;give expression to some aspect of the game rather than subvert it&quot;, but I don't think you're saying anything that would make using ropes and pulleys a form of subverting the game. It seems to me that all the things you're saying about Dungeon World apply equally to this AD&amp;D scenario.Would you say that this scenario also doesn't rise to the level of new AD&amp;D ad hoc rule creation? In my mind when I talk about the need for a GM to improvise rulings and rules to cover gaps, this type of thing (extrapolating how much pulleys multiply your effectiveness) is indeed included, but do you disagree?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 9015080, member: 6787650"] Thanks for engaging substantively, Manbearcat. I want to make sure I know where you're coming from on the idea of new rule-like things that still don't count as rules. Since I'm not familiar with Dungeon World terminology, could we examine the same situation (opening a sewer hatch) from the perspective of AD&D to see if these also don't count as rules in your eyes, or if there's something special and different about Dungeon World? Player wants to open the sewer hatch. DM specifies Open Doors roll at -2 to pull open. Player fails. Ties a rope to the sewer hatch, sets up a pulley system as a force multiplier. DM allows this to give a +6 bonus on the Open Door roll but says that if it fails then that means the rope snapped. Player succeeds and DM gives them a 50% chance of being drenched in sewer water spraying out of the hatch (they roll 2 on a d6 and do get drenched) but this turns out to be a valid back door into the area where the princess is being held hostage. Same scenario as the Dungeon World custom move for sewer hatches quoted above. Same degree of reasonable extrapolation to cover scenarios not spelled out explicitly AFAIK in the AD&D rulebooks (pulleys and rope strength; probability of getting drenched by a nearby liquid steam). This ruling works within the unifying structure of the game (success rolls against a value on a table, in this case Str table for a feat of strength). I don't grok the meaning behind your words like "unifying agenda" and "give expression to some aspect of the game rather than subvert it", but I don't think you're saying anything that would make using ropes and pulleys a form of subverting the game. It seems to me that all the things you're saying about Dungeon World apply equally to this AD&D scenario. Would you say that this scenario also doesn't rise to the level of new AD&D ad hoc rule creation? In my mind when I talk about the need for a GM to improvise rulings and rules to cover gaps, this type of thing (extrapolating how much pulleys multiply your effectiveness) is indeed included, but do you disagree? [/QUOTE]

Verification