Since it was asked about: Moldvay's "Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art" on pages B60-B61 are wonderfully clear, cogent, useful statements of how to DM Moldvay. I love those pages to death.

Quote from: Bill;674143I am still fascinated by the mindset that a gm must obey RAW rules.

So am I! I don't know how this gets associated with DW. We tried to make this really clear by saying "These are rules, but you can change every rule, including these."

Quote from DW: "The GM’s agenda, principles, and moves are rules just like damage or stats or HP. You should take the same care in altering them or ignoring them that you would with any other rule."

That gets taken all kinds of ways, and some day if we do a second edition (I dread the thought) I'd probably rewrite it to be even clearer.

There's an entire chapter in the book on changing the rules. Changing DW is part of playing DW.

Quote from: sage;674155I don't know where you're getting that. Here's an actual move (note, also, that moves don't limit what a character can do, they just provide mechanics for certain things):

When you attack an enemy in melee, roll+Str. On a 10+, you deal your damage to the enemy and avoid their attack. At your option, you may choose to do +1d6 damage but expose yourself to the enemy's attack. On a 7–9, you deal your damage to the enemy and the enemy makes an attack against you.

I guess the phrasing here might not be the most clear. Let's pick it apart:

On a 10+, you've got the edge. You can push it, or you can stay safe, but it's your call.

Gameplay:

Player: "I got an 11 on my Hack and Slash"

GM: "Cool, you've got the orc where you want him. You can push your luck and do some extra damage, or you can play it safe and guard yourself, what do you do?"

Player: "Screw it, I go for the extra damage. Do your worst, orc!"

On a 7–9, there's no particular choices to be made by the player. They roll some damage and the GM says what the orc does.

On a 6-, it's all the GM.

That's not quite how I had read or heard it being described anywhere else up to now. So you'll have to pardon my confusion. I thought, and do correct me if I'm wrong, that the standard format for most "moves" was:"

6-: you fail. The GM simply tells you the predetermined result (and note that the GM doesn't get to decide anything that isn't purely and totally descriptive).
7-9: you're somewhere in between, in some nebulous zone of uncertainty.. The GM must read to you two or three different options (*he has no choice what they are) and you get to pick which one you want, most of them let you do what you want but edit the result of what you attempted so that there was some 'downside' or 'complication' as well.
10+: you succeed at what you wanted.

From what I understood, at no point in any of those three processes does the GM really have any choice at all. The Player has a choice in terms of initiating the move in the first place, and if he gets a 7-9 result, in terms of choosing which option he wants (but again, I would presume only from the list the game designer provided for him).

Is that not an accurate depiction?
It seems from what you wrote above that the "choice" element for the player gets switched over to the 10+ result, rather than 7-9, and maybe in fact that's the norm in most moves, is it? Or did you choose a very common move (attack, which I assume would be very common) but one a bit different in format from most other moves?

In either case, it doesn't seem to make a huge difference.

QuoteThe GM always says what happens in the world. It's the GM's job in DW to say that.

I note that you keep saying "SAYS", not "DECIDES".  That's very telling. The GM's job is to be the guy who relates the results, like a scorecard announcer or the girl at boxing matches who holds up the big card with the round number on it.  But generally speaking, and again do try to present rebuttal if you think I'm wrong, the GM isn't really the one who gets to DECIDE what happens in the world, he just has to recite what the rules say happen, right?

QuoteFor example, when the wizard casts a spell, they may cast it no problem, or they may face a choice:
-Focus on casting the spell and let the GM do whatever they want as your character does whatever they have to to cast the spell

Again, does the GM get to "do whatever they want"? Or is it in fact that the GM has a single or limited-set of prewritten options of what he can do to the caster here? It might be easier to prove your point if you directly quoted the rules to us, so we could be sure what the language explicitly states.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;674135This doesn't "Shape" a GM's skillset, it lobotomizes it.

I know that's a frequent criticism levied against DW, and an opinion that you, and some others around here, hold. I haven't read DW - or any non-traditional games like it. I probably never will. Maybe if these 'swine' start modelling their games' experience after BRP/d100 systems/RuneQuest I'll start giving a crap.

I erred on the side of giving the game's creator a chance to explain the approach. And, I coached the question with kid glove's, certainly.

I also think he should be commended for jumping into the shark tank with a rotting tuna swimsuit. He's handled being accused of being a moron and disingenuous in stride.

Quote from: sage;674159Nope, the GM can totally change the rules if they feel like it. There's an entire section of the rules on changing the GM-ing framework.

Rules, all rules, everywhere in DW (or any other RPG) are a framework. People should ignore them or change them if they feel like it. If a particular rule isn't helpful, trash it or replace it. If an entire system of rules isn't helpful, don't use them

Fascinating. I wasn't expecting that.

QuoteUh, yeah? I don't see why this would be contentious, or something I'd ever say a GM shouldn't do.

Because your game is based on Apocalypse World, a Storygame, and it was written by someone who's part of a group of people that strongly believe that rules should not be changed by GMs in play.

You're almost getting me to believe this whole babe-in-the-woods thing, though I'm having some very serious difficultly processing the possibility that you might have done a clone/hack of a Storygame without actually knowing what that is, or any Storygame Theory, or being aware of much less part of the discussion and general culture of that movement.  It seems like a pretty freaking amazing set of circumstances that would depend on either astounding levels of freak chance or very intense willful ignorance. It would be like if someone "invented" their own version of a french haute cuisine dish copied from a Cordon Bleu manual while at the same time claiming to have no idea whatsoever about "what France is".

So you didn't hang out on the Forge and do not now hang out on Storygames?  Because you do realize that if you do, and you've written on there about narrativism or about the need to control the GM, or interacted in threads where others have done the same, it would be very easy for that to come to light?

RPGPundit

Are you now, or have you ever been, a communist sympathiser?

Quote from: RPGPundit;674174That's not quite how I had read or heard it being described anywhere else up to now. So you'll have to pardon my confusion. I thought, and do correct me if I'm wrong, that the standard format for most "moves" was:"

6-: you fail. The GM simply tells you the predetermined result (and note that the GM doesn't get to decide anything that isn't purely and totally descriptive).

That's not the case. You fail, and what happens is entirely up to the GM. Maybe you fail to attack the ogre and it bashes you with its club (d12 damage sounds about right for that). Maybe you fail to pick the lock and the GM says "nope, sorry, it's beyond you, you'll need a key." (GM might add "A key like the one that guard had, the one you snuck by.") Maybe you fail to get through the crunching hallway, and the GM says "you manage to get out, just barely, but the shield on your back gets stuck between the walls as they slam together, even if you could get it out it's likely useless." (The GM could have just as easily dealt damage or killed them if the GM thought one of those fit better.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;6741747-9: you're somewhere in between, in some nebulous zone of uncertainty.. The GM must read to you two or three different options (*he has no choice what they are) and you get to pick which one you want, most of them let you do what you want but edit the result of what you attempted so that there was some 'downside' or 'complication' as well.

A 7–9 is a complication, yes. Sometimes that means something specific to the move, sometimes the GM just makes up whatever tough situation they please, depends on the move. Cast a spell, which I quoted above, is an example.

I don't think of them as "editing." To me, and the way I present them at the table, they're that frozen moment when you notice something's going wrong and have to make a choice. You're biking down the street and try to breeze past the grocer pulling out his cart, but don't quite make it. Do you still swerve as much as you can and wing the grocer, or save him but run into his cart?

If there's a choice on a 7–9 (or a 10+, or a 6-) it's part of the move, not an edit. A 7–9 doesn't mean a complete success happened, but we're going to go back and edit it. It means, as you do the thing you're rolling for, something happens, and you react to it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;67417410+: you succeed at what you wanted.

Yep.

Quote from: RPGPundit;674174From what I understood, at no point in any of those three processes does the GM really have any choice at all.

On a 6- the GM says what goes wrong, changing the world, the character (their HP, maybe stats, gear, whatever else), and so on. There's a list of GM moves, but they are meant to be so broad as to inspire. The rules specifically mention that as a GM you may already have an idea of how it goes wrong, and that you should do that (it's probably a move anyway).

I quoted the list above, they're hugely vague, intended to give the GM ways to look for "how this goes wrong" in any given situation.

Quote from: RPGPundit;674174The Player has a choice in terms of initiating the move in the first place, and if he gets a 7-9 result, in terms of choosing which option he wants (but again, I would presume only from the list the game designer provided for him).

The player may have a choice on a 7–9. They may have a choice on a 10+. They may even have a choice on a 6-, if the GM decides to give them one.

Sometimes those choices are listed by the move, because the move is specific enough that we attempt to spell out how it can turn out. Sometimes those choices are entirely up the to GM.

Quote from: RPGPundit;674174It seems from what you wrote above that the "choice" element for the player gets switched over to the 10+ result, rather than 7-9, and maybe in fact that's the norm in most moves, is it? Or did you choose a very common move (attack, which I assume would be very common) but one a bit different in format from most other moves?

The only guide is that 10+ is get what you set out to do (or as close to it as possible), 7–9 is a partial success, and a 6- is something goes wrong. Some, none, or all of those may involve choices, either from the move itself or from the GM.

Quote from: RPGPundit;674174I note that you keep saying "SAYS", not "DECIDES".  That's very telling. The GM's job is to be the guy who relates the results, like a scorecard announcer or the girl at boxing matches who holds up the big card with the round number on it.  But generally speaking, and again do try to present rebuttal if you think I'm wrong, the GM isn't really the one who gets to DECIDE what happens in the world, he just has to recite what the rules say happen, right?

Nope. I use "says" because that's the actual thing that happens at the table. The GM says something. They decide what happens in the world.

As I mentioned, I only designed the game. How the hell would I know what the GM should say at your table? I can give the GM some tools to help decide what happens, and some ways to say things at the table to help portray those, but I have no idea what your world is, your game is, or what you should decide to say.

Quote from: RPGPundit;674174Again, does the GM get to "do whatever they want"? Or is it in fact that the GM has a single or limited-set of prewritten options of what he can do to the caster here? It might be easier to prove your point if you directly quoted the rules to us, so we could be sure what the language explicitly states.

Sure, the rules:

When you release a spell you've prepared, roll+Int. ✴On a 10+, the spell is successfully cast and you do not forget the spell—you may cast it again later. ✴On a 7-9, the spell is cast, but choose one:
-You draw unwelcome attention or put yourself in a spot. The GM will tell you how.
-The spell disturbs the fabric of reality as it is cast—take -1 ongoing to cast a spell until the next time you Prepare Spells.
-After it is cast, the spell is forgotten. You cannot cast the spell again until you prepare spells.

As you can see, if the player says "whatever the GM wants," it really is whatever the GM wants. You may pick apart "The GM will tell you" and claim that somewhere else in the rules we tell the GM what to say, but that's not the case. This phrasing is because the person being addressed is the player, not the GM.

The other two options let the player have their character do things within their power to keep the spell under control. At my table at least, this is usually:

Player: I got a 7 to cast a spell.

GM: Well, how does Avon manage that? Shunt it onto the fabric of reality? Forget the spell? Or just go for it and take the consequences?

Player: I'll take the -1.

GM: So Avon casts his spell and, as it starts to get away from him he pulls on the fabric of reality itself to stabilize the spell. The fireball springs into the room, roll your damage.

Quote from: RPGPundit;674174That's not quite how I had read or heard it being described anywhere else up to now. So you'll have to pardon my confusion. I thought, and do correct me if I'm wrong, that the standard format for most "moves" was:"

6-: you fail. The GM simply tells you the predetermined result (and note that the GM doesn't get to decide anything that isn't purely and totally descriptive).
7-9: you're somewhere in between, in some nebulous zone of uncertainty.. The GM must read to you two or three different options (*he has no choice what they are) and you get to pick which one you want, most of them let you do what you want but edit the result of what you attempted so that there was some 'downside' or 'complication' as well.
10+: you succeed at what you wanted.

As discussed above in some depth, the GM always has flexibility and discretion on a fail. Almost no rule/move in DW has a predetermined result on a fail.

In fact, as also discussed, the only time a GM's flexibility and discretion can be said to be restricted* is when a player has taken an action, been called to make a roll and succeeds. The GM should let the success stand. But that concept, not fudging the rolls, is considered by most to be good RPing.

*as restrictive as any rule in a game that explicitly acknowledges that the rules can be changed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;674179Your game is based on Apocalypse World, a Storygame, and it was written by someone who's part of a group of people that strongly believe that rules should not be changed by GMs in play.

Could have fooled me. There's a similar section in Apocalypse World on how to change the rules. One thing that people liked about the finished DW text (including Vincent, from what he told me) is that it includes in that section how to change the GM rules, which is an unfortunate (and accidental) omission from AW.

Quote from: RPGPundit;674179You're almost getting me to believe this whole babe-in-the-woods thing, though I'm having some very serious difficultly processing the possibility that you might have done a clone/hack of a Storygame without actually knowing what that is, or any Storygame Theory, or being aware of much less part of the discussion and general culture of that movement.  It seems like a pretty freaking amazing set of circumstances that would depend on either astounding levels of freak chance or very intense willful ignorance. It would be like if someone "invented" their own version of a french haute cuisine dish copied from a Cordon Bleu manual while at the same time claiming to have no idea whatsoever about "what France is".

The alternative here is that "indie games"/"story games"/"the Forge" had moved passed this crap by the time I met anyone from it.

I'm relatively young. I think by the time I interacted with any Forge folks online, the Forge was already in the process of being shut down/archived.

The people who I know who like some things that appear to be considered "other games" around here also play plenty of things that appear to be "RPGs" and love talking about both.

Quote from: RPGPundit;674179So you didn't hang out on the Forge and do not now hang out on Storygames?  Because you do realize that if you do, and you've written on there about narrativism or about the need to control the GM, or interacted in threads where others have done the same, it would be very easy for that to come to light?

I don't even have an account on the Forge. I've posted to Story Games. You can see every one of my story games posts here.

I can't think of any time someone has ever talked there about how to take away GM power because it's bad wrong fun. I know this is an idea that supposedly some people have, but I can't recall anyone seriously saying that in my presence. Of course, I could be wrong. I'm sure you'll double check for me.

I'm not trying to be innocent here. I know that, supposedly, some people think that an unconstrained GM is going to be horrible and lead to the end of the world or something. I just don't think I've ever met those people. I have met some people that, on this site, have been portrayed that way, but they've never said something like that to me.

I don't think I'm all that different from a lot of the "Swine" I know. Nobody that I know of has plans to destroy another game, gaming, GMs, or whatever else. Most play a mix of D&D (skewing towards older editions or retroclones at the moment), stuff from outside our community (DCC, SWN and Zenobia are hot right now), and stuff that could be considered "other games."

It looks to me as though what's going on in DW is that the whole "rolling for stakes" thing that Storygames do (and that Baker exemplified if not invented in Dogs in the Vinyard) is just front-loaded here, from how Sage is describing things.
In essence, on a 6- the GM gets to decide what happens, on a 7+ the player gets to decide. Its just that DW takes the game designer into effect through having some of the options front-loaded in the actual mechanic itself instead of leaving it a free-for-all.

The real question then becomes "how different is that from an RPG?"
There is clearly a GM vs. Players mindset in DW's rules, which probably comes out of Forgist ideas about "Gamism", but that in and of itself doesn't make something not an RPG; 4e was designed with the exact same thing in mind due the exact same ideological influences, but it is still an RPG (an RPG that's barely one step above a tactical skirmish game, yet an RPG neverthelesss).

The question is the matter of "stakes". If the "stakes" are set in such a way as to make them nearly indistinguishable to regular RPG-rolls, then is it a Storygame doing an incredibly good job of masquerading as an RPG, or is it just an RPG with a huge amount of legacy-influence borrowed from the Storygames hobby?
Could Sage have possibly taken the rules of a storygame which was not his own (AW), combined it with his notions of what he would like D&D to play like, and ended up accidentally creating some kind of mutant freak-hybrid that is what an RPG would be like if it had evolved out of a storygame?

Damn it. Now I'm going to have to go read this fucking thing. There's just too much conflicting and contradictory statements and information being bandied about.  

RPGPundit

Sage in Volley, your choices on a 7-9 are to...
Fire one arrow for low damage
Fire several arrows for normal damage
Move into a dangerous position and fire for normal damage

All of these options supposedly take the exact same time as each other and as a full success which hits for normal damage.

This method has been described as "the mechanics don't tell me what happens, they ask me what happens".  

Now if the GM chose which of the three happened or the player rolled, then the character could be said to be dealing with the effects of the sub-par result.  However, this move's choice in particular is very hard to rationalize as an In Character choice particularly in the time frame of a single move.

Can you see how this mechanic and others that give similar choices can be seen to be player-driven about the character and not character-driven by the character.

Secondly, if the moves are meant to be so free-wheeling, why, in most of the move examples is one of the three examples showing the player specifically correcting the GM and telling him he cannot play that move?

Quote from: RPGPundit;674220It looks to me as though what's going on in DW is that the whole "rolling for stakes" thing that Storygames do (and that Baker exemplified if not invented in Dogs in the Vinyard) is just front-loaded here, from how Sage is describing things.

I've played a lot of Dogs. I love Dogs. Somewhere there's film of me playing Dogs with Vincent. I don't think this is much like Dogs.

Some examples from the DW text that are pretty much transcriptions of actual play:




GM: Jarl, you're up to your not-inconsiderable belly in slavering goblins. They have you surrounded, knives bared. What do you do?

Jarl: I've had enough of this! I wallop the closest goblin with my hammer.

GM: Okay, then. This is definitely combat, you're using hack and slash. Roll+Str.

Jarl: I got an 11. It says here that I have a choice. Fear is for the weak, let those goblins come!

GM: You smash your hammer into the nearest goblin and are rewarded by the satisfying sound of the crunching of his bones. That and a knife wound as the goblin counterattacks. He deals 4 damage to you. What do you do?





GM: Emory, as you climb up the side of the ravine you spy a cultist on a ledge nearby who evokes a frost spell and covers the side of the cliff with ice! If you want to keep climbing, you need to defy danger or you'll fall.

Emory: No way, I am too tough. I grit my teeth and dig my nails into the wall, climbing one hand at a time. I'm using Con, okay? I got an 8, though...

GM: Hmm, well, I think the only way you can gain any traction, tough guy, is if you use your dagger to pull yourself up the last few feet. It's going to be lodged in there until you have some time to pull it loose and there's an angry spellcaster nearby.

Emory: I can always get a new dagger when I get home. Time to finish this climb and that cultist.






I think of those as RPG play. I also think of a lot of things you don't think of as RPG play as RPG play. I'll let you make your own decisions.

The thing that I feel is different from Dogs is that these stakes aren't generally negotiated. In Dogs it says "Establish what's at stake. Any player can make suggestions, and everybody should feel free to toss it around until you arrive at the right thing." That's not how DW works.

In DW, the GM might tell you what will happen if you don't make a roll (as in the example above: you'll be stuck on the ravine wall, an easy target). Actually what's happening here is the GM is telling you what will happen if you don't do something about it, but whatever. You as the player can't say "no, I don't want that be what's at stake, what about X?" There's no negotiated stakes, really. The GM might sometimes flat out tell you that something just isn't possible ("I jump over the dragon to escape out the gate!" "Uh, no, that's not physically possible."), but it's not a negotiation. The GM says what's going on around you. You say what your character does. Maybe that triggers a move, maybe not. If it triggers the move, it's generally either a clear-cut outcome described by the move (you hit/you don't hit) or left to the GM, based on the circumstances.

On a 7+, in some cases, the player may get to say how their character deals with a complication. I don't know how many more times I can say that a 7+ doesn't shift the roles of GM and player. The GM is always responsible for the world outside the characters. The players are always responsible for the characters. (The GM can ask the players questions about the world to help fill it in, but the scope of those questions is left to the GM.)

Looking at the hack and slash move, there are three fundamental outcomes: the enemy hits you, you and the enemy hit each other, you hit the enemy. The fourth outcome is just a twist: you have such an advantage you can get in extra damage by opening your guard a little.

With the Moldvay melee attack rules, the fundamental outcomes over your action and the action of the enemy, are: nobody hits anybody, the enemy hits you, you both hit each other, you hit the enemy.

They're not the same. They're similar though. We're not doing anything too crazy. We've collapsed two rolls into one, and eliminated the "nothing happens" option. Not because it's impossible for nothing to happen, but because if nothing happens we don't need to be spending time at the table rolling over and over for it. Our way isn't better. It's different. It can have fewer rolls, and tries to deal more with what the characters are doing in the world instead of naming an attack option, but those aren't better things, they're just differences (or maybe for some people, worse things).

I'm also not sure that this is all that far from AW, but again, your own conclusions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;674222Sage in Volley, your choices on a 7-9 are to...
Fire one arrow for low damage
Fire several arrows for normal damage
Move into a dangerous position and fire for normal damage

All of these options supposedly take the exact same time as each other and as a full success which hits for normal damage.

This method has been described as "the mechanics don't tell me what happens, they ask me what happens".  

Now if the GM chose which of the three happened or the player rolled, then the character could be said to be dealing with the effects of the sub-par result.  However, this move's choice in particular is very hard to rationalize as an In Character choice particularly in the time frame of a single move.

Can you see how this mechanic and others that give similar choices can be seen to be player-driven about the character and not character-driven by the character.

You're reading the move differently from me.

Those are the three options. How they play out at my table:

Player: I take a potshot at the goblin sorcerer to kill him before he can complete the ritual. Ouch, a 7.

GM: So you can't get the shot. You can either take several shots to find one that works (mark ammo), take the best you can find (less damage), or do whatever it takes to get the shot lined up and I'll say what happens. What do you do?

Player: I've got to get him good, and I'm already low on arrows. I'll do whatever it takes to get the shot, tell me what happens.

GM: To get the shot you wheel around the ritual circle, trying to figure out an angle where the cultists won't be in the way. You finally find it, take your shot, roll your damage. When you lower your bow you see you've gotten much closer to the dark waters than you meant to, and the tentacles are coming out at you.

Quote from: CRKrueger;674222Secondly, if the moves are meant to be so free-wheeling, why, in most of the move examples is one of the three examples showing the player specifically correcting the GM and telling him he cannot play that move?

The GM can always make any GM move. The examples are of the GM or players (it differs between examples) applying the player moves wrong, which is like the GM saying a hit on a goblin in d20 with a sword and no speical protection doesn't deal any damage, the goblin gets to make a Fort save first.

They're examples of not quite getting it right because:
-I make lots of mistakes, and I want to set that as a baseline. No GM has to be perfect.
-We're trying to explain this actual rule, not all the other ways you could do it.

As in the d20 example, a GM ignoring the rules or making up new ones is completely cool. We're just trying to explain in the actual text how it works if the GM plays by the rules as written. The GM doesn't have to do that. They can change it, ignore it, play another game. But to carefully explain the actual rules presented we wanted to show both how they work and how they don't.

FWIW, I think this is an equivalent mechanic to Volley:

When you make a ranged attack, compare the target's AC to your attack bonus. If the target's AC is less than your attack bonus, you hit them and deal your damage. If they can't do something about it (get out of the way, take cover, attack you back) and nothing keep you from attacking again, they're dead, the GM will say how long it takes.

If the target's AC is greater than your attack bonus + 10, you can't hit them. Better make another plan.

Otherwise, roll a d10 and add your attack bonus. If the result is greater than or qual to their AC+5, you have a clean hit, deal your damage. If the result is less than or equal to their AC-5, the GM says what happens. Otherwise, the shot is at the edge of your ability. You can take what you have now and deal half damage. You can take many shots to try and find a good angle, deal your damage and mark off some ammo. Or you can do whatever the GM says you have to do to get a shot, they'll say where you end up (you probably won't like it).



That's not exactly the same. The probabilties, for one thing. But the general model is the exact same: get a clear shot, have to work for it, or screw up.

Note that the roll only occurs when the middle result is possible. If its clear you will hit them, don't roll. If it's clear you can't hit them, don't roll. If you're somewhere in the middle, you may have to work for your shot.

Each option may take a different amount of time, which is part of why DW has no set rounds. That one roll might cover several seconds for the archer, then we'll deal with that same time for the fighter who's off doing something else. In that same time the fighter might trigger no moves, one move, or more moves.

Quote from: sage;674228The examples are of the GM or players (it differs between examples) applying the player moves wrong, which is like the GM saying a hit on a goblin in d20 with a sword and no speical protection doesn't deal any damage, the goblin gets to make a Fort save first.

Quote from: DWHalek: Kobolds and an ogre? Man, what's going on here? Well, if they're coming to get me, I might as well let my arrows say hello. I take a shot at the mob. I rolled an 8.
GM: Well, what'll it be? Danger? Ammo?
Halek: I'll take the danger.
GM: Well, the kobolds swarm you and you manage to hit one as they approach—he falls down but as the rest approach, you realize you've lost track of the ogre. He smashes you with his club and you take 12 damage!
Halek: 12 damage? That's the danger?
GM: You're right, that's not just danger. Okay, so you're not mush yet—the ogre is looming behind you and that club is flying down at your head! What do you do?

Quote from: DWOctavia: I've had enough of this ogre, I'm going to drop my shield and swing my hammer in both hands. Hack and slash, right?
GM: You drop your shield? That's a bad idea–now you have to defy danger because the ogre is going to bash you.
Octavia: Are you sure? Isn't that what hack and slash is? Trading blows and stuff?
GM: Yes, duh, of course. I need another cup of coffee–hack and slash it is, make your move!

Quote from: DWVitus: I got a 10 on my spout lore about this gilded skull. GM: You're pretty sure you recognize the metalwork of Dis, the living city.
Vitus: ...and? I did get a 10!
GM: Right, of course. Well, you recognize a few glyphs specifically. They're efreeti, marks of a fire spell, but they're different, a kind of transmutation magic. I bet if you cast a spell into the skull, it'll turn it into a fire spell.
Vitus: Magic missiles of fire—hurrah!

So, in your view, the fact that the GM cannot present an option outside what the rules say he can in response to a player move essentially makes the GM just another player, albeit one who has more than one character.  Each player has complete and total control not only of their character's actions but also elements of the world about and around the character, while the GM has control of things only outside player control.  Is that a fair assessment?