Something I find extremely annoying is when someone Discern Realities and asks questions like “What should I be on…

8 thoughts on “Something I find extremely annoying is when someone Discern Realities and asks questions like “What should I be on…”

1. We are literally having a conversation about this in another post from today.

   https://plus.google.com/117780427219183848405/posts/AY7xXVRUBCZ

2. As a GM, I try to never say “there is nothing there.” That’s boring. “Nothing there” is the worst thing that can happen to the game. My games never have “nothing.”

   Now, perhaps getting something good should either be a clue to a danger that you weren’t aware of before (which is how I think that move actually works– are you sure it wasn’t there before?) or it should reveal something that is not a danger, but rather something good for the party. The most boring answer I’m willing to give is to reinforce something they already knew or assumed, like “well, there is a blood trail leading towards the woods– the ranger saw it, and now you definitely can confirm it.”

   For me, I will reveal a danger that didn’t exist when someone uses that move and rolls a 6-, and I love doing so. It’s a great way to advance the story and make the players do something exciting.

3. I think it’s fine to reveal a danger, if that danger was already there from prep or it was created on a 6- and the players didn’t know about it.

   I agree it’s boring, but I’d rather have a GM say there is nothing, than create a new danger on the spot and suddenly place it in the scene from a discern realities question.

4. When my players do this, they usually find out about a threat that I knew was around but they didn’t know about yet.  They get something good because they are now aware of the threat.  Also, don’t forget they get +1 when acting on the information.

5. I think this is a stylistic choice, but an important one. My mind has been busy with similar thoughts lately, which I roll under the heading of ‘tangibility’.

   If you want to tell stories about perceptive adventurers, great warriors and so on, well then of course there’s something there. Doesn’t it suck when there’s nothing there?

   I think the trade-off is a reduced feeling of tangibility, the sense that the world has an independent existence and you’re striving against it.  Tangibility implies resistance, a defiance of your expectations at least some of the time.

   I’m reminded of Wing Commander, an old space fighter sim: you’d leave base on a patrol mission that went through three way points. Every single time there would be escalating resistance at each one, culminating in a tough battle at way point 3. Anything else would be anticlimactic, or even boring.

   At the same time, this transforms ‘recon’ into an activity whose purpose is to experience combat, not to gather information.  There’s no point sneaking into town to see if the pharmacy is clear of zombies and still has some medical supplies, because of course it’s filled with zombies, and of course it still has a few medical supplies.

6. It’s Dungeon World. If you’re playing to the spirit of the game, why wouldn’t there be anything there? Go ahead and add new wrinkles. Play to see what happens, right?

7. “Offer an opportunity, with or without cost.”

   Nothing in the question implies a threat. “These mercenaries are know to be well paid and, by tradition, carry a large portion of their wealth into battle as gems. The more prevalent and valuable the gem, the better paid and theoretically more proficient the warrior. That guy, over there, huge diamond pendant.”

   Oops, that got threatening after all.

8. Following the principles, fill the world with adventure and danger, but don’t screw the players.

   Any danger CAN be an opportunity, if the adventures are smart AND prepared.

Comments are closed.