Good video, but there is one important thing that I think needs to be mentioned. The GM moves and principles in PbtA are intended to steer the GM into being a "better" GM by telling them directly what to do to enable the story and avoid bad practices. Essentially they are codified "guidelines" based on the knowledge passed down of all the GMs that came before us. Meaning that the things that they are telling new GMs to do are exactly the kinds of things that one would learn to do subconsciously merely through experience. The reason you did perfectly fine without following the DM principles is because you are obviously already a competent GM. You have a keen understanding of the game and genre, and you know innately the things that you need to do to keep the story both interesting and moving forwards. So I would actually bet that you are subconsciously following many of the principles already. What PbtA does best is force inexperienced participants, both GMs and players, to adopt good habits while playing (or force those with bad habits to improve). But as with most things, once you become comfortable all rules become guidelines and you can start breaking them to create new and interesting things. You can cheat in D&D where there is a certain competitive aspect between the players and the GM, but in PbtA where it is all about the story there is no such concept, so let your creativity fly.
You describe GM moves as "unstructured social exchange improvisation with extra steps" and I'd like to draw a distinction there: As I see it, it's not unstructured social exchange improvisation with extra steps, it's structured social exchange improvisation with *constraints.* It's not that the moves can't result in typical social exchange improvisation, it's that DW wants to constrain you to a subset of it that keeps the game moving forward. In this example, a PC has asked for an NPC's sword. The GM moves "Reveal an unwelcome truth", "Show signs of an approaching threat", "Give an opportunity that fits a class' abilities", "Turn their move back on them" or "Tell them the requirements or consequences and ask" will often lead to the sort of responses an experienced GM might give anyway. They *won't* lead to responses like "The NPC waxes lyrical for an hour about the history of this family heirloom" or "The NPC ignores you and keeps going". Or the one in the OP: The GM doesn't know how to respond and stalls. It does lead to a particular playstyle - some groups *like* rambling dialogue and character moments, and this approach is less suited to that. Also, looking at a list of moves rather than directly improv-ing something helps the GM mix up their approaches a bit. They can go "Hmm, I haven't used *this* one for a bit" or "Ooh, how could I apply *that* one to this situation?". Improvisation often works best when it has a prompt. So the GM moves narrow a GM's options to 'best practice' ones (which is still a very broad set of options) while also serving to give them ideas for what might work well. BTW, I suspect the poster used the expression 'failure state' because they have a programming background or similar. In which case it would just mean "this is the routine to handle something unexpected happening". I'd be surprised if they meant that the game or the GM was a failure.
I second this idea that Moves are just the broad representation of what GMs do anyway. GM Moves are really abstract and you can easilly fit any response into a GM Move
Yeah, sounds like an obnoxious rules lawyer to me. Running a TTRPG game is a lot like cooking: everyone has really strong opinions about it, but it rarely matters because many different approaches are pretty much equally effective. The goal is make sure everyone has a good time. Making an ad-hoc ruling for a situation you're not sure how to adjudicate with the RAW just to keep the game moving is being a good GM. Busting out the rulebook and saying "um, ACKSHEWALLY," is being a bad player. For most people, keeping the game moving is preferable to stopping for 10 minutes to debate game mechanics.
I have some things to add: - From what I understand from the answer the GM failure is not in the player asking, that is OK, the failure from the GM part is falling into old habits, making rules on the fly and asking for rolls that are not really needed. You can have improvised social exchanged and still be applying the rules, the examples you pointed as such are the proof, in these examples the GM is applying the rules, doing a move and make it all look like a simple social exchange (after all one of the GM rules is to hide their moves). - In most PBTA games the rules are rules not guidelines, they called as such in the manual because they are part of the game rules as the rules for players. When you read the manual I am pretty sure almost no one (that is not a chronic cheater) sees the player rules as suggestions or guidelines, but for some reason if the rules are for the GM for some obscure reason (years of conditioning by other games) they are disregarded as advice and optional. - Following from the previous point, deviating from the rules on occasion or forgetting a rule here or there is not a problem. After all, what matters at the end if that everyone is having fun at the table. But precisely for that reason it is important to follow the rules, because in well written PBTA games the rules (all of them, GM rules included) are crafted to create a certain experience at the table. If you do not follow them it doesn't mean you will have a horrible time, but it means you are out of the bounds of the game, you took the safe off and the game no longer can ensure you will have the intended experience (which is exactly the problem the person asking had, they were not following the rules and encountered an undesirable state). - The fact that your games worked without following the rules doesn't mean the GM rules don't matter, that they are no longer rules, or that straying from the rules will work for others the same way it did for you. It worked for you but might not work for others, meanwhile if you follow them it will work for far more people of far different experience ranges with RPGs in general and PBTA in particular. I've personally seen many people try to GM PBTA games and not liking them and after some questions they admitted of not even reading the GM section of the book, if they did and followed the rules, they might have ended not liking it either way, but for sure they would have had a better and easier time.
Watching this after watching Collabs Without Permission's latest video on Agency and Alienation in PbtA games just puts things majorly into perspective. The "turning natural social interaction into something Bad unless they follow a strict behavioral guidelines" thing is pretty pervasive in PbtA design circles, which is a shame cuz PbtA games can be really fun.
Very well put response to a strangely phrased question. Upon first glance, the response that came to mind was "yes they're cheating in Dungeon World if they ignore the results of a move in determining the outcome" or "yes they're cheating if they don't follow through with a move trigger." Regarding the subject matter of the video, however, while the initial post response does seem hyperbolic, it's often more of a matter of the GM saying "no" to a PC's polite request, whereas "no" is a less accurate way of saying "under the current circumstances, no." Tabletop Bro, what are your thoughts about Dungeon World incorporating oracles ala Ironsworn, either for yes/no questions or content generation via keyword phrases?
This is how I reconcile the ‘extra steps’ versus ‘arbitrary call’ conflict: A. Nothing in life is free. B. The point is fun. C. It’s always improv, (but within guidelines to keep it from getting TOO random.) I think those are critical concepts here. There is always a cost, (basic roll) so the Gm moves just give you a list of interesting ways to find out what that cost might be. The given solutions are all flavors of cost: benefit bound to cost with curse, open conflict with insult, cost quickly approaching, cost already paid (saving them) etc. You get the idea. The GM moves encourage creating reasonable options while ultimately leaving the decision to players’ sense of fun. If EVERYBODY’s having fun, it’s not wrong. Keeping it interesting through varied types of cost is one way to make that happen. Not the only way. As others have said, DW giving structure to good GMing is helpful for any reason that you need a hand. While it is always improv, DW moves point you towards improvising choices based on the fiction rather than arbitrary decisions that may not be. The game does ‘gracefully collapse inward’ if you can’t remember extra rules, but the basic cost structure helps keep the suspense going.
Asking "why shall the guard give you the sword?" is not using their move agaisnt them, it is a question that is trying to determine the logic behind the action in the context of THE FICTION. And remember the principle: Begin and finish in the fiction. You are not triggering a move, you are trying to determine what's happening IN the fiction BEFORE determining the move to use (if any). "Well, because we are the heroes of the town" --> This is leavarage. You've given a reason inside the fiction and the player responded with an action that triggers a move.
After 20+ years of DMing, i recently find the most important secret to great play, and IT releates a lot with the content of this video: talbetop rpg campaigns NEED a solid STRUCTURE for the only pourpose to PUSH the players into BREAK IT. Most GMs fall in one o this two categories: Solid Structure BUT no or minimal permission to players. Fluid structure ONLY based on players choice. They are fine style of play, don't get me wrong, BUT, in my humble opinion, tabletop rpg SHINES when players feel they have solved things their way, putting an effort in terms of idea, cost, chance and all the other tension tool you coud think of. This is now my mantra on TRPG, i hope it will help others understand why some session are more memorable then others, and maybe making more of them in the future. Happy gaming to all
I've been running games for 35 years. Originally I thought the same as you, why do I need to use the gm-moves, I could do these things in my sleep. But then I started to think, why not try to run the game as intended. Then I started to be more mindful of my moves as a gm, and that has helped me steer the game in interesting and unplanned directions so many times. It's a big part of "play to find out what happens". Personally I've learned a lot from utilizing the gm-moves in PbtA games, and I still try to follow them as best I can. Usually they make my sessions better. I do think it clashes with a lot of the advice more traditional games give you. It's all about the "golden rule" and "advice and suggestions for running the game", so when gm's are told "you should follow the rules as well, it will make your game better" a lot of us has a tendency to look at that as overbearing and unnecessary. I say, at least try running a few sessions where you follow the rules laid out for the gm before writing them off.
It might sound intimidating at first, but this is how the Vincent Baker designed it to be. He stated somewhere that every time the GM speaks, it’s a move. Coming from trad games, it might take an awful lot of time to get used to, but it does reenforce a story driven game.
I mean I guess? It definitely helps new GM’s who don’t know how to run a game. Maybe they’re just internalized in veteran GM’s. I just think the idea of checking the GM Moves list whenever there’s a lull or whatever is silly
@@tabletopbro One thing I would definetly agree with, is that the PbtA gameloop is often terribly explained, especially for players coming from trad games. With its long lists of abstract concepts ( play to find out, be a fan, look at everything through crosshairs etc), it can lead to confusion about how the game works. That said , following the guideline that everything the GM does is a move , makes the game really click together. In some ways, its the heart of it all. The list of moves might be irrelevent at some point as you come up with whatever makes sense. But following this principle, the game ALWAYS moves forward and sets the tone that everything the PCs does makes a difference, and therefore creates a shared story.
Not playing/GMing DungeonWorld, but still interesting. I really gotta print the GM moves for my PF2E games. Just a note: Starting about 9:40 , the music is a bit too high compared to the rest.
I typically follow GM rules as striclty as I can, since I dont't have that much experience. But that's just because it works for me, not because it's the only way.
5:47 Honestly most "gm moves" I've come across in PtbA games do not feel like rules nor "moves", they feel more like guidelines and advice on how to just be a GM. Like you mentioned, same stuff with more steps, if you play it by the "rules". Probably good for new GMs but as a GM of other games coming into PtbA stuff recently it made me more confused on how to make the darn car (game) go. 8:20 This is what stops me from asking for help or advise in PtbA places. In fact, the very last time I did which was an experience that did ultimately help me see that "moves" are just "attribute checks with specific triggers and codified mechanics to help push story a little more", the friend was discussing it with blocked me right after we got the details of moves sorted out.
I watched this back when it came out, but I needed some time to think before commenting. Good video, good topic, but in response to this video I would ask "what is the difference between a GM cheating (as per your example in the video) and a GM hacking the game?" . Also when you say you've never followed the GM moves, are you sure? Because I find many GMs do without even knowing they are doing it, even if they aren't playing DW. Is there consequences to players failing their rolls? If so you've most certainly used a GM move.
"Well, it's where [freeform social interaction] would lead if your GM is good. Which they probably are!" So refreshing to hear someone confidently trust the players. A lot said in a throwaway line, haha.
It is more important to have fun. GMs, DMs, STs, etc fucking *should* be 'cheating.' Curse and emphasis necessary. It's collaborative storytelling, full of improv and social interactions, not a miniature war game or legal system with punishments. I /love/ the sarcasm.
@@karibui494 I got from the video that the ""definition"" of 'cheating' was to engage in social interactions and improvisation? But if you mean proper rule breaking? GMs should occasionally fudge the dice for the sake of fun or miss applying a rule or misapplying a rule, and I feel that players have a bit of leeway, not always the same kind of leeway since the role of player and gm is different, as well, yes. Taking longer to hash out a plan mid-heist during a stealth section than is really feasible, for instance, in character, and out loud is absolutely metagaming and thus cheating. But we all forgive it when a plan takes seven minutes to be hashed out vs the thirty seconds the group actually has, don't we? We forgive cheating by players -all the time,- for the sake of fun, collaborative story telling, social interaction, and improv. Not the egregious shit though, like casting six 9th level spells in a row or some shit like ignoring the rules entirely. GMs shouldn't get away with egregious shit either. The line between acceptable cheating and unacceptable is ultimately up to the table though. So, yes. Yes, I do.
While the GM moves are useful to keep in mind, not everything needs to use them. Sometimes the answer to some simple action like "I load the treasure into my sack" is just "okay, you do that, now what?" You don't immediately ALWAYS have to introduce footsteps coming down a corridor just to always respond with a move. In fact it can be very harmful when it doesn't flow well with the narrative. I think the GM moves are some really good advice, but not to the point that they should be followed like robotic dogma. The most important aspect of any PbtA game is not the GM moves, but rather that whatever you do makes sense in the narrative. Don't try to force a GM move if it doesn't make sense.
The premise of the question being answered was "no one at the table knows what will happen" the rules state that if you know what will happen you answer with that. In fact the rules instruct you on exactly when to use the GM moves and one of the is a fancy way of saying "when no one at the table knows what will happen", the other 2 being a failed roll and "when the player asks for it"
Imagine making rules about how youre supposed to have an improv conversation, but just making so many rules that its basically just an unregulated conversation.
I would not call it cheating nor a failure. Sure, the DM/GM is not using the full potential of the system, but people use all kinds of tools not to the full potential and nobody is calling that cheating or a failure.
Love the dungeon world content! Proves to me that rules goobers don’t have to just argue about ranger/rogue/warlock builds. Im a shitty GM because I never explicitly use the moves having run dungeon world for 8 years.
This post is hilarious because I've watched Adam Koebel run DW and he is not anywhere near as strict as this poster would have him be. I guess the game dev is "cheating" by running a fun game.
You would have no way of knowing that (unless he was explaining his though process) because the GM moves should be invisible to players (and as a consequence viewers)
Never played DW but rules look very similar to a game I'm working on. And, put simply, yes that _IS_ just unscripted player interaction with more steps. In my game instead of just a simple "No" there is also a chance for the answer to be "No, AND..." or "No, BUT..." which actually seems pretty close to how DW works. Really the only big difference here is how often these caveats come into play -- and the fact that DW helpfully provides all kinds of suggestions for them! And really you could do (and maybe already do!) the same thing in D&D anyway. So instead of just "just unscripted player interaction" you could add "more steps" by just rolling a d20 to see how things go and having things get interesting on a crit or fumble. So in that context No, failing to do so is not "cheating". But it _is_ a missed opportunity! And if DW provides all kinds of rules and guidelines for this you might as well use them!
While I'm not diagnosing/this poster/, there is a point to make that these rules are helpful for people with neurodiversity (like autism but not exclusively.) In my personal experience, I find breaking stupid and meaningless rules annoying because I hear the rules lawyer in my head rules lawyering in my own voice. This isn't just in games. It is cutting across grass when there is a sign saying don't walk on the grass - and then for streets ahead of me that voice is telling me off like a disappointed parent. I have never in my life considered smoking, which I also put to my ND and how my brain operate with rules. Rules like this may be a godsend to people with ND who interact with rules differently and/or seem like cheating to not follow, just from how their brains work.
This post is everything that is right and wrong about the PbtA community. They are helpful, knowledgeable, and well articulated, but the advice almost always comes with a zealous demand on how other people should run the games complimented by a condescending smugness seething through the lines. To add to your point about the game working without all the rules the triggers are definitely designed to be vague so the table can figure out how much they want to push the story forward. "When everyone looks to the GM to see what happens next" and "when someone hands the GM a golden opportunity" are not always a clear cut triggers. They can often be considered a pacing tool that gives the GM mechanical right to push the players when the game is stalling or no other rules apply to the situation. I don't think those rules should be used as a "Fuck you, you have to make a move right NOW!!". I think PbtA could be a much more common system if we stop hammering people on their heads if they don't run it exactly like they should.
Good god we share the exact same sentiment on the PbtA community. Fantastic games, helpful people for the most part, but the zealotry of what constitutes "real PbtA" and the frequent accusations of "playing the game wrong" are frustrating.
Good video, but there is one important thing that I think needs to be mentioned.
The GM moves and principles in PbtA are intended to steer the GM into being a "better" GM by telling them directly what to do to enable the story and avoid bad practices.
Essentially they are codified "guidelines" based on the knowledge passed down of all the GMs that came before us. Meaning that the things that they are telling new GMs to do are exactly the kinds of things that one would learn to do subconsciously merely through experience.
The reason you did perfectly fine without following the DM principles is because you are obviously already a competent GM. You have a keen understanding of the game and genre, and you know innately the things that you need to do to keep the story both interesting and moving forwards. So I would actually bet that you are subconsciously following many of the principles already.
What PbtA does best is force inexperienced participants, both GMs and players, to adopt good habits while playing (or force those with bad habits to improve).
But as with most things, once you become comfortable all rules become guidelines and you can start breaking them to create new and interesting things.
You can cheat in D&D where there is a certain competitive aspect between the players and the GM, but in PbtA where it is all about the story there is no such concept, so let your creativity fly.
You describe GM moves as "unstructured social exchange improvisation with extra steps" and I'd like to draw a distinction there: As I see it, it's not unstructured social exchange improvisation with extra steps, it's structured social exchange improvisation with *constraints.* It's not that the moves can't result in typical social exchange improvisation, it's that DW wants to constrain you to a subset of it that keeps the game moving forward.
In this example, a PC has asked for an NPC's sword. The GM moves "Reveal an unwelcome truth", "Show signs of an approaching threat", "Give an opportunity that fits a class' abilities", "Turn their move back on them" or "Tell them the requirements or consequences and ask" will often lead to the sort of responses an experienced GM might give anyway. They *won't* lead to responses like "The NPC waxes lyrical for an hour about the history of this family heirloom" or "The NPC ignores you and keeps going". Or the one in the OP: The GM doesn't know how to respond and stalls. It does lead to a particular playstyle - some groups *like* rambling dialogue and character moments, and this approach is less suited to that.
Also, looking at a list of moves rather than directly improv-ing something helps the GM mix up their approaches a bit. They can go "Hmm, I haven't used *this* one for a bit" or "Ooh, how could I apply *that* one to this situation?". Improvisation often works best when it has a prompt.
So the GM moves narrow a GM's options to 'best practice' ones (which is still a very broad set of options) while also serving to give them ideas for what might work well.
BTW, I suspect the poster used the expression 'failure state' because they have a programming background or similar. In which case it would just mean "this is the routine to handle something unexpected happening". I'd be surprised if they meant that the game or the GM was a failure.
I second this idea that Moves are just the broad representation of what GMs do anyway. GM Moves are really abstract and you can easilly fit any response into a GM Move
Yeah, sounds like an obnoxious rules lawyer to me. Running a TTRPG game is a lot like cooking: everyone has really strong opinions about it, but it rarely matters because many different approaches are pretty much equally effective. The goal is make sure everyone has a good time. Making an ad-hoc ruling for a situation you're not sure how to adjudicate with the RAW just to keep the game moving is being a good GM. Busting out the rulebook and saying "um, ACKSHEWALLY," is being a bad player. For most people, keeping the game moving is preferable to stopping for 10 minutes to debate game mechanics.
I have some things to add:
- From what I understand from the answer the GM failure is not in the player asking, that is OK, the failure from the GM part is falling into old habits, making rules on the fly and asking for rolls that are not really needed. You can have improvised social exchanged and still be applying the rules, the examples you pointed as such are the proof, in these examples the GM is applying the rules, doing a move and make it all look like a simple social exchange (after all one of the GM rules is to hide their moves).
- In most PBTA games the rules are rules not guidelines, they called as such in the manual because they are part of the game rules as the rules for players. When you read the manual I am pretty sure almost no one (that is not a chronic cheater) sees the player rules as suggestions or guidelines, but for some reason if the rules are for the GM for some obscure reason (years of conditioning by other games) they are disregarded as advice and optional.
- Following from the previous point, deviating from the rules on occasion or forgetting a rule here or there is not a problem. After all, what matters at the end if that everyone is having fun at the table. But precisely for that reason it is important to follow the rules, because in well written PBTA games the rules (all of them, GM rules included) are crafted to create a certain experience at the table. If you do not follow them it doesn't mean you will have a horrible time, but it means you are out of the bounds of the game, you took the safe off and the game no longer can ensure you will have the intended experience (which is exactly the problem the person asking had, they were not following the rules and encountered an undesirable state).
- The fact that your games worked without following the rules doesn't mean the GM rules don't matter, that they are no longer rules, or that straying from the rules will work for others the same way it did for you. It worked for you but might not work for others, meanwhile if you follow them it will work for far more people of far different experience ranges with RPGs in general and PBTA in particular. I've personally seen many people try to GM PBTA games and not liking them and after some questions they admitted of not even reading the GM section of the book, if they did and followed the rules, they might have ended not liking it either way, but for sure they would have had a better and easier time.
Watching this after watching Collabs Without Permission's latest video on Agency and Alienation in PbtA games just puts things majorly into perspective. The "turning natural social interaction into something Bad unless they follow a strict behavioral guidelines" thing is pretty pervasive in PbtA design circles, which is a shame cuz PbtA games can be really fun.
Oh god finally. Finally someone put into words the thing I struggle the most with in the system
I think it can help if you don't have those natural social interactions down, but yeah totally agree
The guard just handing him the sword then realising its stolen would be hilarious!!!
Very well put response to a strangely phrased question. Upon first glance, the response that came to mind was "yes they're cheating in Dungeon World if they ignore the results of a move in determining the outcome" or "yes they're cheating if they don't follow through with a move trigger."
Regarding the subject matter of the video, however, while the initial post response does seem hyperbolic, it's often more of a matter of the GM saying "no" to a PC's polite request, whereas "no" is a less accurate way of saying "under the current circumstances, no."
Tabletop Bro, what are your thoughts about Dungeon World incorporating oracles ala Ironsworn, either for yes/no questions or content generation via keyword phrases?
This is how I reconcile the ‘extra steps’ versus ‘arbitrary call’ conflict: A. Nothing in life is free. B. The point is fun. C. It’s always improv, (but within guidelines to keep it from getting TOO random.) I think those are critical concepts here. There is always a cost, (basic roll) so the Gm moves just give you a list of interesting ways to find out what that cost might be. The given solutions are all flavors of cost: benefit bound to cost with curse, open conflict with insult, cost quickly approaching, cost already paid (saving them) etc. You get the idea. The GM moves encourage creating reasonable options while ultimately leaving the decision to players’ sense of fun. If EVERYBODY’s having fun, it’s not wrong. Keeping it interesting through varied types of cost is one way to make that happen. Not the only way. As others have said, DW giving structure to good GMing is helpful for any reason that you need a hand. While it is always improv, DW moves point you towards improvising choices based on the fiction rather than arbitrary decisions that may not be. The game does ‘gracefully collapse inward’ if you can’t remember extra rules, but the basic cost structure helps keep the suspense going.
Asking "why shall the guard give you the sword?" is not using their move agaisnt them, it is a question that is trying to determine the logic behind the action in the context of THE FICTION. And remember the principle: Begin and finish in the fiction.
You are not triggering a move, you are trying to determine what's happening IN the fiction BEFORE determining the move to use (if any).
"Well, because we are the heroes of the town" --> This is leavarage. You've given a reason inside the fiction and the player responded with an action that triggers a move.
After 20+ years of DMing, i recently find the most important secret to great play, and IT releates a lot with the content of this video: talbetop rpg campaigns NEED a solid STRUCTURE for the only pourpose to PUSH the players into BREAK IT.
Most GMs fall in one o this two categories:
Solid Structure BUT no or minimal permission to players.
Fluid structure ONLY based on players choice.
They are fine style of play, don't get me wrong, BUT, in my humble opinion, tabletop rpg SHINES when players feel they have solved things their way, putting an effort in terms of idea, cost, chance and all the other tension tool you coud think of.
This is now my mantra on TRPG, i hope it will help others understand why some session are more memorable then others, and maybe making more of them in the future.
Happy gaming to all
I've been running games for 35 years. Originally I thought the same as you, why do I need to use the gm-moves, I could do these things in my sleep. But then I started to think, why not try to run the game as intended. Then I started to be more mindful of my moves as a gm, and that has helped me steer the game in interesting and unplanned directions so many times. It's a big part of "play to find out what happens". Personally I've learned a lot from utilizing the gm-moves in PbtA games, and I still try to follow them as best I can. Usually they make my sessions better.
I do think it clashes with a lot of the advice more traditional games give you. It's all about the "golden rule" and "advice and suggestions for running the game", so when gm's are told "you should follow the rules as well, it will make your game better" a lot of us has a tendency to look at that as overbearing and unnecessary.
I say, at least try running a few sessions where you follow the rules laid out for the gm before writing them off.
I hate to be "that guy," but the GM guide for Stonetop now gives Dungeon World's GM section a run for its money, if not excede it.
Ooooo I'll have to check it out!
Stumbled on this post as aswell but turned away because to much wall of text :D thanks for voicing it, gonna use it in my session this evening :)
It might sound intimidating at first, but this is how the Vincent Baker designed it to be. He stated somewhere that every time the GM speaks, it’s a move.
Coming from trad games, it might take an awful lot of time to get used to, but it does reenforce a story driven game.
I mean I guess? It definitely helps new GM’s who don’t know how to run a game. Maybe they’re just internalized in veteran GM’s.
I just think the idea of checking the GM Moves list whenever there’s a lull or whatever is silly
@@tabletopbro One thing I would definetly agree with, is that the PbtA gameloop is often terribly explained, especially for players coming from trad games. With its long lists of abstract concepts ( play to find out, be a fan, look at everything through crosshairs etc), it can lead to confusion about how the game works.
That said , following the guideline that everything the GM does is a move , makes the game really click together. In some ways, its the heart of it all. The list of moves might be irrelevent at some point as you come up with whatever makes sense. But following this principle, the game ALWAYS moves forward and sets the tone that everything the PCs does makes a difference, and therefore creates a shared story.
Not playing/GMing DungeonWorld, but still interesting.
I really gotta print the GM moves for my PF2E games.
Just a note: Starting about 9:40 , the music is a bit too high compared to the rest.
Good to know, thanks!
And yeah they can really help get out of a bind!
I typically follow GM rules as striclty as I can, since I dont't have that much experience. But that's just because it works for me, not because it's the only way.
Great video dude
5:47 Honestly most "gm moves" I've come across in PtbA games do not feel like rules nor "moves", they feel more like guidelines and advice on how to just be a GM. Like you mentioned, same stuff with more steps, if you play it by the "rules". Probably good for new GMs but as a GM of other games coming into PtbA stuff recently it made me more confused on how to make the darn car (game) go.
8:20 This is what stops me from asking for help or advise in PtbA places. In fact, the very last time I did which was an experience that did ultimately help me see that "moves" are just "attribute checks with specific triggers and codified mechanics to help push story a little more", the friend was discussing it with blocked me right after we got the details of moves sorted out.
I watched this back when it came out, but I needed some time to think before commenting. Good video, good topic, but in response to this video I would ask "what is the difference between a GM cheating (as per your example in the video) and a GM hacking the game?" . Also when you say you've never followed the GM moves, are you sure? Because I find many GMs do without even knowing they are doing it, even if they aren't playing DW. Is there consequences to players failing their rolls? If so you've most certainly used a GM move.
Fair point! GM moves are basically, being a good GM lmao
"Well, it's where [freeform social interaction] would lead if your GM is good. Which they probably are!" So refreshing to hear someone confidently trust the players. A lot said in a throwaway line, haha.
A GM cheats in DW when she doesn’t use the player’s funny character names
melee player spotted. diagnosis : peach main.
Never owned Melee before in my life I'm afraid. Whenever I play ultimate I play Ness cause I'm bad😂
I guess I've got 5e pretentious douchebaggery 😂
It is more important to have fun. GMs, DMs, STs, etc fucking *should* be 'cheating.' Curse and emphasis necessary. It's collaborative storytelling, full of improv and social interactions, not a miniature war game or legal system with punishments.
I /love/ the sarcasm.
Do you apply the same logic and approach to the player section of the manual? Or is it only for GMs that breaking rules should be encouraged?
@@karibui494 I got from the video that the ""definition"" of 'cheating' was to engage in social interactions and improvisation?
But if you mean proper rule breaking? GMs should occasionally fudge the dice for the sake of fun or miss applying a rule or misapplying a rule, and I feel that players have a bit of leeway, not always the same kind of leeway since the role of player and gm is different, as well, yes.
Taking longer to hash out a plan mid-heist during a stealth section than is really feasible, for instance, in character, and out loud is absolutely metagaming and thus cheating. But we all forgive it when a plan takes seven minutes to be hashed out vs the thirty seconds the group actually has, don't we?
We forgive cheating by players -all the time,- for the sake of fun, collaborative story telling, social interaction, and improv.
Not the egregious shit though, like casting six 9th level spells in a row or some shit like ignoring the rules entirely. GMs shouldn't get away with egregious shit either. The line between acceptable cheating and unacceptable is ultimately up to the table though.
So, yes. Yes, I do.
While the GM moves are useful to keep in mind, not everything needs to use them. Sometimes the answer to some simple action like "I load the treasure into my sack" is just "okay, you do that, now what?"
You don't immediately ALWAYS have to introduce footsteps coming down a corridor just to always respond with a move. In fact it can be very harmful when it doesn't flow well with the narrative. I think the GM moves are some really good advice, but not to the point that they should be followed like robotic dogma.
The most important aspect of any PbtA game is not the GM moves, but rather that whatever you do makes sense in the narrative. Don't try to force a GM move if it doesn't make sense.
The premise of the question being answered was "no one at the table knows what will happen" the rules state that if you know what will happen you answer with that. In fact the rules instruct you on exactly when to use the GM moves and one of the is a fancy way of saying "when no one at the table knows what will happen", the other 2 being a failed roll and "when the player asks for it"
100% use them as guidelines =) Thanks for making the cool stuff!
Thanks for watching the cool stuff!
Imagine making rules about how youre supposed to have an improv conversation, but just making so many rules that its basically just an unregulated conversation.
I would not call it cheating nor a failure. Sure, the DM/GM is not using the full potential of the system, but people use all kinds of tools not to the full potential and nobody is calling that cheating or a failure.
Hard agree
Love the dungeon world content! Proves to me that rules goobers don’t have to just argue about ranger/rogue/warlock builds. Im a shitty GM because I never explicitly use the moves having run dungeon world for 8 years.
Thanks Jason!
whoo dundon worl fideoo
This post is hilarious because I've watched Adam Koebel run DW and he is not anywhere near as strict as this poster would have him be. I guess the game dev is "cheating" by running a fun game.
If I ran DW the way the poster is demanding, we would be on endless pointless side quests that nobody asked for.
You would have no way of knowing that (unless he was explaining his though process) because the GM moves should be invisible to players (and as a consequence viewers)
Never played DW but rules look very similar to a game I'm working on. And, put simply, yes that _IS_ just unscripted player interaction with more steps. In my game instead of just a simple "No" there is also a chance for the answer to be "No, AND..." or "No, BUT..." which actually seems pretty close to how DW works. Really the only big difference here is how often these caveats come into play -- and the fact that DW helpfully provides all kinds of suggestions for them!
And really you could do (and maybe already do!) the same thing in D&D anyway. So instead of just "just unscripted player interaction" you could add "more steps" by just rolling a d20 to see how things go and having things get interesting on a crit or fumble.
So in that context No, failing to do so is not "cheating". But it _is_ a missed opportunity! And if DW provides all kinds of rules and guidelines for this you might as well use them!
While I'm not diagnosing/this poster/, there is a point to make that these rules are helpful for people with neurodiversity (like autism but not exclusively.) In my personal experience, I find breaking stupid and meaningless rules annoying because I hear the rules lawyer in my head rules lawyering in my own voice. This isn't just in games. It is cutting across grass when there is a sign saying don't walk on the grass - and then for streets ahead of me that voice is telling me off like a disappointed parent. I have never in my life considered smoking, which I also put to my ND and how my brain operate with rules. Rules like this may be a godsend to people with ND who interact with rules differently and/or seem like cheating to not follow, just from how their brains work.
The energy of that comment is indeed overwhelmingly male
"is that sexist?"
Yes. But that doesn't make you wrong :P
This post is everything that is right and wrong about the PbtA community. They are helpful, knowledgeable, and well articulated, but the advice almost always comes with a zealous demand on how other people should run the games complimented by a condescending smugness seething through the lines. To add to your point about the game working without all the rules the triggers are definitely designed to be vague so the table can figure out how much they want to push the story forward. "When everyone looks to the GM to see what happens next" and "when someone hands the GM a golden opportunity" are not always a clear cut triggers. They can often be considered a pacing tool that gives the GM mechanical right to push the players when the game is stalling or no other rules apply to the situation. I don't think those rules should be used as a "Fuck you, you have to make a move right NOW!!". I think PbtA could be a much more common system if we stop hammering people on their heads if they don't run it exactly like they should.
Good god we share the exact same sentiment on the PbtA community. Fantastic games, helpful people for the most part, but the zealotry of what constitutes "real PbtA" and the frequent accusations of "playing the game wrong" are frustrating.
Not to be *that* guy, but 5:20. Yes it is sexist. Women have equal potential to sound like pretentious dork nuggets as any other sex.
You're not that guy, it was a genuine question! Thanks!
lol