Is this a good system?

Can you explain better the adavantage of strictly following rules I often find generical and unspecified? And give some example?

Does any DW GM use any kind of house rules to streamline the game (not to clobber it, like 20 tables for weapon and shit)?

Considering PvP is a special case and risk socials problem, I think the rule are pretty wise: just talk about it, but some risks and caveats.

Basically, what the thread had been saying; it's not the best PbtA game by a longshot, missing a lot of its strengths, but it's still pretty servicable, has very good GM guidelines (I even found that settlement growth thing kinda useful and fronts are very nice in general).

If you like old school, I think you totally should give it a try, even if you are leery because it's a "story game".

Could you give some examples?

I'm not doubting you, but I've heard this stated elsewhere and wanted to know more.

Not that guy, but planning ahead too much is a thing I've seen and done that doesn't work. If you don't ask enough questions about the setting as you go and don't build on those it feels clunky and less reactive. An example could be the difference between deciding ahead of time what is in a cave and just narrating vs asking the player who finds it what's in it and going from there, asking a different player what the significance of the weird bones are, etc. Sounds silly, but it makes a significant difference in how the game plays.

Might also be talking about the distinction between hard and soft moves, snowballing and sticking to the mc/gm principles. When they fail, make an actually difficult situation based on your moves, remembering to think off screen, not worrying about keeping secrets from the players, stuff like that. An example of a time I fucked that up would be getting stuck on everyone in a combat I-go you-go situation and could have easily made it more interesting by having the local guards show up, the player's sword getting wedged in the wall, falling out the window brawling into the street, stuff like that. I've found DW's combat moves to be not super interesting though and much prefer apocalypse world as is.

Not him, but there's 2 big "whoops" imo:

-using the D&D stat system and HP.

PbtA stats are supposed to be very specific for what they can be used for. Straight up combat is usually 1 stat. Meanwhile 3/6 stats in DW are for combat and some other stuff. HP is also pretty ill fitting, but it still sorta works

- Bonds.

AW used bonds to make players have conflicts of interest. DW uses bonds to... get extra XP occasionally? And for like 1 move (hinder) that is useless, because it's not like you'll be having conflict, since D&D relies on being a group.

XP is also not handled as well as AW imo in general, but its still passable.

The pairing of a system where every roll should have meaningful effects and hit points doesn't work particularly well.

I fear changing and inventing everything after every roll could quickly become too chaotic, "everyone is john" style.

HP are problably needed because pcs have to fight monsters everyday without getting killed outright. Post-ap pcs should fear conflict.
Maybe using a more tough AW clock may be a solution.

>I want to DO THING TO PC
>>????
>>You don't get to roll, uh, something, something, overly complex explanation that is generally retarded as all fuck of why having the DM work by different rules is somehow not idiotic as all fuck and a waste of time, so the game ends up basically being "players roll random dice DM says if they do good, rules are irrelevant might as well do freeform at this point"

The "Aid or Interfere" Move is not exactly rocket science, user.

If it was going for a proper old-school feel, combat should never be a good solution.

But in PbtA, if you want to DO THING to PC, you just roll DO THING.

Is there a different apocalypse world hack that does dnd better? Just curious.

Depends on what you like about D&D, sadly. So, maybe.

Yeah, the fantasy 2e of the original game.

DW's XP is downright inexcusable compared to the original.

AW uses XP and highlighting as an incentive for players to choose actions other people at the table want to see them choose.
DW's XP just incentivize ignoring what you're good at in favor of doing some bullshit you don't face serious consequences for, because consequences in this game tend to be inconsequential anyway.

HP are not needed. HP are an excuse for not coming up with actually interesting consequences for moves.
Combat can have serious consequences both over its course and afterwards without being outright lethal.

Its not that you invent and change everything after every roll, its that you ask players to help come up with ideas, bounce them off yours, etc. But talking to everyone about what kind of tone game you want to have is important. Meshing that between players is key.

You actually have consequences with tags and hard moves, but there has to be some kind to mathematical framework to put a limit to consequences and to differentiate the playbook.

Good question. I tried Streets of Marienburg but it's too bare.

I think DW points to a mixed editions feeling.
Anyway fantasy heroes need to be more durable than post-ap anti-heroes, for most people.

What do you want dnd to do?

I liked Streets of Marienburg but it really helped that everyone who was playing knew about Mordheim and we ran it like that so it had some direction.

The Dark Age playtest looks interesting, but maybe too many moves/parts. Haven't tried it though.

The moves themselves do not have properly defined, thematic and useful consequences, unlike AW's.
Sure, the GM can make up for that, but that veers very close to the Rule Zero excuse.

And HP, as they are in DW, are a horrible, horrible mathematical framework.
In AW, each segment is signficant and damage is fixed, making it a tangible measure of threat.
In DW, HP feel mostly insignifcant and damage is random, which can basically turn what should have been a success into a failure and make what should be a minor scratch a gaping wound.

>The moves themselves do not have properly defined, thematic and useful consequences, unlike AW's.
The GM moves framework should be enough. A list wouldn't comprehensive in the slightest.

>And HP, as they are in DW, are a horrible, horrible mathematical framework.
Not horrible, just mediocre. Big advantage: simple. I too would like to see a clocl rehash.

>damage is random, which can basically turn what should have been a success into a failure and make what should be a minor scratch a gaping wound
Yes. I need a good houserule for this.

>The Dark Age
If it's like the pdf I read, it's just a bit of paint. Not d&d/fantasy like at all.

>The GM moves framework should be enough.
No. If that were the case, you might as well remove every move from the game except Defy Danger.
Moves exist to mechanically contextualize the actions and consequences common to the game's genre. The GM moves are there to supplement player moves and solidify the setting/genre/tone beyond the immediate scope of player moves.

>Big advantage: simple.
Except AW's is even simpler and works much better.

High magic fantasy adventures with faction/guild conflict

>remove every move
That was not my point. HP and consequences seem to go in parallel on DW,
When you constestualize a fantasy battle you need generic rules because everything may happen. Then you need something limiting to avoid infinite conquences.
(That is my interpretation,)

>Except AW's is even simpler and works much better.
Not for fantasy, necessarily. For example, accounting differences among playbooks.
A modfied version may prove useful.

>HP and consequences seem to go in parallel on DW,
HP pretend to be consequences when they're really not.

>When you constestualize a fantasy battle you need generic rules because everything may happen.
No, you only need rules for the things that are most likely to happen.

>Then you need something limiting to avoid infinite conquences.
Yes. That something is abstraction and genre.

>For example, accounting differences among playbooks.
Are you trying to tell me that AW's playbooks are all the same?

>HP pretend to be consequences when they're really not.

This is just plain silly. HP are a resource that gets used up, the consequences are that you're closer to Last Breath than you were before.

Your interpretation is a pretty solid reading of what the system's doing, IMO. You seem to have a pretty good handle on it.

You guys having trouble with HP's existence could splice in a harm clock to Dungeon World, just watch out, because it might get stupidly lethal if you're not careful.

Yes, I ran my first game with this system the DM's guide in the back has some awesome tips and you cam make your own mosters/NPC's quite easily. Plus it is very fun to run

>This is just plain silly. HP are a resource that gets used up, the consequences are that you're closer to Last Breath than you were before.
If DW suffers from HP bloat to the same extent as 3.PF D&D, losing HP is practically the same as losing life in MtG.

The only point that matters is the last one, and every point beyond the last one is just a safety net that determines how much you have to pay attention during combat, which is generally why most high level games become slogs, as both you and the enemy you're facing are powerful enough to survive several rounds of just straight up beatdowns, which ends up being the most optimum strategy in cases where you can't just skip encounters through magic.

Then again, never played, so I have no idea if that's the case or not, just offering my two cents.

Even in normal games, the mechanical PC vs PC interactions are severely limited(not to mention that often PvP is considered off-limits entirely). If the GM allows one player to roll diplomacy to convince other PCs of something, for instance, you know that they're doing their job wrong.

>Players rolling diplomacy and sense notice against eachother is bad.
I know if no GMs who don't do this. If your diplomacy rules aren't good enough to use on other players, then they need work.

Sorry, but if your GM tells you "You really like and trust this guy for no reason" in absence of actual mind control abilities(which diplomacy isn't) then he's someone who shouldn't be allowed to GM.

If you can't resolve diplomatic disputes without having to roll a charisma check against another player, chances are you're more interested in rollplay.

If you're trying to convince a PC of a course of action, after making your case, a diplomacy roll let's you decide how convincing you actually are, rather than the player's metagame wants.
If you roll low the player does what he wants, if you roll high enough to convince him, he cooperates with you.

If it's unreasonable to be something which can be resolved with a single check, then don't resolve it with a single check.

>If you're trying to convince a PC of a course of action, after making your case, a diplomacy roll let's you decide how convincing you actually are, rather than the player's metagame wants.
Metagaming shithead detected. If you're trying to convince a PC of a course of action, you ROLEPLAY the situation out. There's no need to make any rolls at all.

Why the fuck would anyone do that when you can already resolve diplomacy through roleplay?

>preventing metagaming makes you a Metagaming shithead.
Are you on crack?

Of course you roleplay it out. Then you roll, so the other player *can't* be a metagaming shithead, who ignores both the strength of your argument and how convincing your character is to do whatever he feels like doing in a super metagamey fashion.

IE:
You add the roll at the end to prevent Metagaming.

NEEDING to prevent it in such a manner makes you metagaming shithead. If that's an actual problem you regularly encounter, you need to find a better group.

If the player/character doesn't trust you then forcing low-key mind control on the person that you're trying to convince isn't going to make you sound any more convincing.

In fact, now I'm obviously on edge because you forced me to make a roll to not believe you, when otherwise it'd come down to my personal judgement as a player as to whether or not my character would believe you.

So by adding in bullshit to stifle meta-gaming, you've effectively created a situation where meta-gaming is more likely to occur, because now I'm thinking "why would I need to roll that diplomacy check unless he's trying to fuck me over somehow."

It's the same shit as asking for a perception roll.

>Having encountered people who metagame and preventing it from happening in the future makes you a metagame shithead.
This claim is absolutely retarded.

>The game would be better if you had a group of players who never metagamed.
Great. Many of us have to work with what we have in the city in which we live. Not everyone lives in a huge city with an endless supply of other gamers.

You go with the best group available.

>This claim is absolutely retarded.
Your premise is absolutely retarded.
>"Y'know what would really help to prevent meta-gaming, forcing rolls that will only cause meta-gaming."
>Great. Many of us have to work with what we have in the city in which we live. Not everyone lives in a huge city with an endless supply of other gamers.
No game is better than dealing with shitheads who ruin games user.

You don't selectively roll diplomacy.

If *anyone* tries to convince *anyone* (PC vs PC, PC vs, NPC, or NPC vs PC) else to do anything, it's roleplayed, and then rolled (if there is any possibility the character could be convinced to do the thing in question), with any penalties the gm seems appropriate based on the reasonability of the request.

On a failure, the character does whatever they want, which may include going along with the idea.

On a success, they cooperate with your request, through whatever justification they have for cooperating.

Any diplomacy rules that are "mind control" shouldn't be allowed to be used on anyone, PC or otherwise. No diplomacy roll should allow you to butcher your loved ones or change your whole personality or whatever the fuck.

If they distrust you, penalties to the roll. And if someone isn't willing to talk to you at all, no roll allowed.

As for perception? I agree. The only time a player rolls perception, is when they state they're searching for something. Otherwise the GM should roll vs passive perception scores.

There are way less rolls than in DnD, so "every roll is to have a consequence moving story forward" rule doesn't turn it in complete chaos. But it is more fast-paced without doubt.

Based on your posts, I don't think you actually know what metagaming is.

Metagaming is when you act out of character based on information you have as a player, which shouldn't affect your characters behavior.

Like using knowledge of a monster manual your character wouldn't know, or acting on information which was not shared with you that took place in a scene where your character wasn't present.

Cooperating when a convincing character successfully convinces your character to help them with something, is the opposite of metagaming. It's in game information (the diplomacy check to convince you) influencing in game actions (whether your character cooperates).

>Any diplomacy rules that are "mind control" shouldn't be allowed to be used on anyone, PC or otherwise. No diplomacy roll should allow you to butcher your loved ones or change your whole personality or whatever the fuck.

What is "On a success, they cooperate with your request, through whatever justification they have for cooperating." if not mind control?

Why do you need a roll if you've already roleplayed the scenario out though? If the person you're trying to convince to do a thing doesn't trust you because of something OoC that was mentioned, stop fucking mentioning shit OoC that you don't want other people to know.

We had a fella a few years ago who was playing an evil character and one day he was talking about this super serious plan to totally backstab the party, to which I responded with "cool, any more secret plans you want to blab in front of the rest of the party?" to which his response was "don't meta-game." He would later get bludgeoned to death for trying to kill the party cleric during combat but that's besides the point.

If someone knows something, anything they do from that point further is meta-gaming. If you don't want people to know something, keep it between yourself and the DM. If you do this, there will no longer be meta-gaming because there will be no information to meta-game with.

>Cooperating when a convincing character successfully convinces your character to help them with something, is the opposite of metagaming. It's in game information (the diplomacy check to convince you) influencing in game actions (whether your character cooperates).
Wrong! You're not cooperating at that point, you're basically forcing a will save vs. suggestion.

Your character being convinced through persuasion, to assist in a task.

If it's something your character could not be convinced to do, then no roll will allow him to be convinced to do it - that distinction is what determines what counts as mind control or not. Kill your friends, give me all your money, etc.

If it's something that he could be convinced to do, then a roll is allowed, with penalties if the thing would be a hard sell.

And when it has nothing to do with trust, or ooc information, and is just a player deciding "nah I don't feel like cooperating just because I want to go do whatever else instead" even though it's a highly convincing character trying to convince them to do something entirely reasonable?

If it's mind control when used on PCs, then it's mind control when used on NPCs.

If there is any circumstance where you get to roll to convince someone, then it works both ways.

I am fine with either approach, but not both selectively applied as bullshit.

Either you can roll to be persuasive, or you can't.

>And when it has nothing to do with trust, or ooc information, and is just a player deciding "nah I don't feel like cooperating just because I want to go do whatever else instead" even though it's a highly convincing character trying to convince them to do something entirely reasonable?
Then that's his decision as a player/character. Some people are just naturally stubborn or averse to listening to other people and if he doesn't want to cooperate for whatever reason, well tough titties.

>Your character being convinced through persuasion, to assist in a task.
No, they're being mind controlled. If you want to persuade a player to do something? Then PERSUADE them. This is like GMing 101, you don't get to tell players how their characters feel(unless there's some weird shit going on, like a spell cast on the PC). If you tell a player "Thanks to the silvertongue of Mr. Smith, you walk down the street, convinced of his innocence" then you've just railroaded them in the worst possible way.

sjw propaganda garbage

>If it's mind control when used on PCs, then it's mind control when used on NPCs.
>Either you can roll to be persuasive, or you can't.
Or you can just, I dunno, roleplay the scenario out and ignore this bullshit entirely.

See .

Either the characters can roll to be persuasive, including rolling against eachother;

Or they can't, and all social interactions have to be simply roleplayed out.

Double standard mechanics are bullshit retarded and kill any impression that your characters actually exist in the world they're running around in.

>If it's mind control when used on PCs, then it's mind control when used on NPCs.
For NPCs, it's a sometimes necessary abstraction. For PCs, it's taking the control of their character away from them. Different standards exist for PCs and NPCs for a reason. Something that's fine and reasonable when it happens to an NPC(like dying off-screen) can be completely unacceptable when done to a PC.

So then, option B) diplomacy/deception/etc are not mechanical options that exist in the game, and you just talk them out?

I'm good with that too.

Dying offscreen due to things which the PCs are not involved in is completely different than giving the PCs mind control powers then crying foul when they use them on eachother or when an NPC uses them too.

I'm back again.

>HP pretend to be consequences when they're really not.
As I've explained I don't think so. Where is this written?

>No, you only need rules for the things that are most likely to happen.
Like? Give me an example of a complete hack and slash rules you'd deem ok, pls.

>That something is abstraction and genre
Now you're incoherent. You criticize HP for being generic and you want to use "abstraction". Is there anything more abastract than dnd style HPs?

>Are you trying to tell me that AW's playbooks are all the same?
Pls stop allucinating what I write. I think HPs are a very simple way do differentiare playbooks in a fantasy context.

Thanks.
Lethality is a big issue with the clock, I fear it0s too much even for post-ap.

>If DW suffers from HP bloat to the same extent as 3.PF D&D, losing HP is practically the same as losing life in MtG
If there is a bloat, you can adjust the numbers.
Same problem about 4e, math tinkering helps a lot.
Furthemore it's not like dnd hps or magic life. Because damage is part of the moves, so things happen while you give and take it (using tags and maneveurs).

This.
Even in 3e you cannot bypass player agency.

ty, virt

Sorry, "mind control". Forgot the air quotes.

All-or-nothing isn't a good position to be in when making a case for why others should listen to your argument.

When it's between players, use roleplay because the people controlling those characters are not being controlled by the DM, so their agency as a player takes precedence over anything else within the game.

On the other hand, you may roll against an NPC to convince them of something because an NPC has no agency and likely won't exist beyond that brief interaction due to the party moving on to a different part of the world.

Is it a double standard? Yeah, but at the same time, PC's aren't NPC's and carry more weight within the context of the campaign's narrative and pretending that they're in any way, shape, or form equal is doing a disservice to what a PC is supposed to represent.

>Disservice to what the PCs are supposed to represent
Yet another troupe of gold hungry mercenaries taking on whatever work they can manage for the most cash/gold/political power they can manage, just like hundreds or thousands of other such groups running around in the world?

I mean, maybe if you're running a campaign where the PCs are blessed demigods, or everyone else is supposed to be a simple ai program or something, then it might make sense to have the PCs be double extra special.

>Dying offscreen due to things which the PCs are not involved in is completely different than giving the PCs mind control powers then crying foul when they use them on eachother or when an NPC uses them too.

No it isn't. The exact same principles apply. The GM doesn't have to flesh out every event, every location, every NPC in the whole world. The PCs are trying to get information/discount/whatever from a random shopkeeper who has a name and maybe a randomly rolled quirk(but no detailed stats or personality or background)? Rolling diplomacy allows you to keep the game moving without the GM either making up something random on the spot or pausing the game to create those things. The PC already has established personality and background, and the player controlling them knows what's going through his mind at any given moment and knows how the PC would react in a given situation, thus rendering the abstraction unnecessary.

...

My position isn't that you need to allow PCs to control eachother with diplomacy, or not.

My position is that the PCs are *not* special, they're supposed to exist in the world like any other character, and any abilities they can use on others are just as reasonable to use on them.

My position is that all or nothing is the only reasonable option.

>My position is that all or nothing is the only reasonable option.
No, it's completely idiotic. PCs are special by the virtue of being PCs. If this is not the case, you're not playing a game but watching a GM tell a story.

>My position is that all or nothing is the only reasonable option.

>My position is that my absolutist position is the only reasonable one

This is what radicals are made of.

PC's can easily survive blows that would kill any peasant, which is why they get more HP than the average person. They also have access to class levels, which can give them special abilities and access to spells while peasants are only really proficient with gardening tools.

Beyond that, an NPC is only expected to be relevant for the scene they're involved in while a PC is expected to be relevant for the entirety of the campaign. If that wasn't the case then literally any random schmuck could defeat the ultimate evil and save the land, rather than these particular schmucks who happen to be controlled by players.

They're only special in that they are what the story is focused on because they are the PCs.

But if Jimmy the fresh out of training amateur hour brawler decides to take on the army? Jimmy is going to die, just like any other idiot.

IE: he's not special. He isn't bound to succeed, and (unless we're playing a game where he has luck points for a pulpy feel), he does not have any plot protection. If he lives or dies, succeeds or fails, is based on his skills, what he attempts, and his luck.

If he has Divine Providence or is a superhero God among men, well, that will be called out in the campaign premise as an exception. But it's far from a universal constant, and is not the standard scenario by any stretch.

>My position is that all or nothing is the only reasonable option.
An oxymoron if I ever saw one. There are always exceptions to the rule and believing otherwise makes you irrational.

Does Jimmy have character levels or is controlled by a player?

If either are yes, he's special.
If both are no, he's not special.

It's not rocket science user.

Depends on the setting.

The assumption that PCs are gods among men is far from universal, even in dnd land.

As for being relevant for the whole campaign, you mean: unless they are perma-dead.

>Any schmuck could save the world
Any schmuck strong enough to save the world is welcome to try. The PCs aren't unique in their power levels, 99% of the time.

I've read through the rulebook, it's built so normies can pretend they're playing D&D without learning any actual ruleset.
Just play D&D 5e.

>They're only special in that they are what the story is focused on because they are the PCs.
Wrong. They're special because they're being controlled by the players and not the GM. IF THIS IS NOT TRUE, YOU ARE NOT PLAYING A GAME, YOU ARE JUST WATCHING THE GM TELL A STORY.

If we're playing in a game with class levels, anybody can have them. Odds are the only people without a class level equivalent are small children and dumb beasts.

And being a PC just means he gets the screentime.

Screentime is what makes him special. It's all that makes him special.

>If we're playing in a game with class levels, anybody can have them.

>The PCs aren't unique in their power levels, 99% of the time.

These a pretty fucking huge assumption to make, especially when neither of them are true for the game being discussed.

Nobody is claiming that PC's are gods among men, I'm just saying that PCs are special as far as the story is based around them and their exploits.

Luke isn't special because he's actually Darth Vader's son, he's special because the story centers around him and his exploits, going from a simple farm kid to a rebel soldier to a Jedi on the cusp of the dark side.

Also, you're making a lot of assumptions as far as power levels are concerned. Even within D&D land, characters with more than maybe 5-6 levels are rare and characters with 10+ levels are legends that literally have their name listed in the book, such as Tasha or Bigsby.

>Angry greentext paraphrase what you just said and tell you you're wrong and act like I'm saying something different!
>>They're controlled by players.
>>They get the screentime.
>>The story centers on their choices.

That's it. Full stop.

>They are not automatically gods among men.
>They are not predestined to succeed. >They can fail. If they can't fail, there's no game, and no tension.
>They can die.

And thus far, I've yet to see a compelling argument why they should get special PC mind control powers other than "it means they don't have to interact with NPCs", which to me seems like a very stupid reason.

>Anyone with more than 5 levels in dnd is super special
Depends on the setting/campaign/etc

The thread asked if DW was any good.

We have long since wandered into generic RPG opinions on what makes a game good or bad.

I showed up to hear people pick apart the game and see if it was worth actually looking at, because the OP was relevant to my own curiosity.

Does DW require that the PCs be far more powerful than everyone else? Is that built in?

That's not a requirement in D&D, by any stretch.

So, are you saying one has to assume that the PCs have to succeed, like in a movie, because they're the protagonist?

If so, I think I need some sort of justification, because I'm not convinced that's a requirement.

Just because you're too stupid to understand the difference between what you said and what I said doesn't mean there isn't one.

The GM controls NPCs. He is the ultimate arbiter for anything that happens to NPCs. He can, if he chooses, call for a diplomacy check to influence how the NPCs act in a particular situation. He can also choose to NOT call for one if the situation does not warrant it in his opinion(even if in another nearly identical situation earlier he did call for one). It ultimately does not matter whether he calls for one or not, because in any event he still maintains control of those NPCs.

The players control PCs. They do not always get to decide what happens to the PCs. However, they DO get to decide how the PCs feel or what they do. Diplomacy checks are called by the GM, and thus infringe on the players ability to control their PCs. This is taking the control of PCs away from players, because they no longer get to choose how the PCs act or feel. This DOES matter and is a BAD thing, because by doing so the GM becomes the arbiter of the PCs actions, not the players.

Now fuck off and kill yourself.

They get "special PC mind-control" because most GM's don't have the time, motivation, or energy to come up with a unique personality for every single NPC that the party interacts with, especially if they're never going to see that particular character again.
It's a general assumption that the game makes. Crack open most rulebooks and they'll say something to the effect of "this is the point where you're capable of defending kingdoms and large settlements" or some shit.

>Does DW require that the PCs be far more powerful than everyone else? Is that built in?

The PCs are more powerful than many of the monsters they encounter (goblins, etc.) by default. "Rusty dagger shanktown" of low level D&Ds doesn't really exist.

They can be defeated, and they can easily die if they are stupid.

They are, however, supposed to be fairly unique; the base assumption of the game is that characters who can have class levels are rare enough there's only one of each class in the party (although you can optionally remove this limitation).

>So, are you saying one has to assume that the PCs have to succeed, like in a movie, because they're the protagonist?
No, but the story should be driven by the decisions that they make along away, for better or for worse.

This.
All rolls belong to "has some palpable chance of happening" category. Convincing one to go against his character and/or desires by words alone usually lies in "fuck no" category if your GM is not a twat.
And whether a character can be convinced without a roll, needs a roll to convince or can't be convinced at all is up to one that controls the character, be it PC or NPC.

Ah. Then we are very much in agreement on this.

Huh. Good to know. I hadn't realized the PCs were so much above the average guy in DW. I thought it was supposed to be like level 2-6 D&D, from how I had heard it described in the past.

>I thought it was supposed to be like level 2-6 D&D

That's... pretty much the powerlevel I was trying to describe.

DW characters aren't incredibly strong, but they are competent enough that a group of goblins (in a fair fight) won't be a big problem. What makes them unique is that they are, well, unique.

Player: my character does X

A) X is impossible - no roll, may describe attempt
B) He has almost no chances of failing - no roll, may describe how it is done.
C) There is some chance of success, but no guarantees - roll and describe result.

And when character A does a thing to non-magically affect character B's mind, it is usually the one controlling character B who decides where that attempt falls.

Aww. He's buttmad.

>PCs don't roll diplomacy unprompted.
What kind of rock do you live under? They do that all the time.

And I'm all for preserving player agency. I'm just not for giving them mind control powers and then having them off limits for everyone else, or having the arbitrary distinction of "doesn't work on other players" for any ability they have.

Being PCs does not mean they need special powers that enemies can't have. That's a retarded position to take. No, you can kindly go fuck off and kill yourself too, since you're incapable of civility or reasonable discussion.

Sure, I don't see an issue with mechanics like that.

I'd be fine with that approach, hypothetically, and it can be done without being "PC vs NPC only mind control".

Before the roll to influence a character, you have it's controller (be it dm or player) state what category the attempt is in and why, and then if applicable, a roll takes place with modifiers appropriate to skill and situation.

By your retard logic, you should give every class access to monster abilities since being monsters should've mean that they need abilities that PCs can't have either.

In fact, there shouldn't be anything like monsters or classes or magic because nobody should have special powers that certain other people can't have.

Yeah, just make every human peasants who each use the same weapon and have the same stats, just so everyone is equal and without any distinction.

This rule is present in most rulebooks. You don't roll to stop a moving train with bare hands or tie your shoelaces if you play as a regular person.
You just have to remember that it applies both to physical and social activities.