D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[hawkeyefan]

Its not unfair, because none of this is meant to be objective. There are no hard facts about what the best playstyle is.

My comment had nothing to due with declaring any style better than the other. It was about judging one game for containing something but accepting its presence in another game.

I think that seems unfair. But we could also use other words if you like. Inconsistent? Hypocritical?

 

[Micah Sweet]

My comment had nothing to due with declaring any style better than the other. It was about judging one game for containing something but accepting its presence in another game.

I think that seems unfair. But we could also use other words if you like. Inconsistent? Hypocritical?

So if you find some mechanics artificial, you must accept all similar mechanics as artificial for all games?

 

[Saracenus]

I have searched this thread with several different search words and could not find anyone talking about the Dungeon World-esque rules already in the 5e DMG (specifically Chapter 8, the Resolution and Consequences section). Specifically:

Success at a Cost
Failure can be tough, but the agony is compounded when a character fails by the barest margin. When a character fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you can allow the character to succeed at the cost of a complication or hindrance. Such complications can run along any of the following lines:

• A character manages to get her sword past a hobgoblin’s defenses and turn a near miss into a hit, but the hobgoblin twists its shield and disarms her.
• A character narrowly escapes the full brunt of a fireball but ends up prone.
• A character fails to intimidate a kobold prisoner, but the kobold reveals its secrets anyway while shrieking at the top of its lungs, alerting other nearby monsters.
• A character manages to finish an arduous climb to the top of a cliff despite slipping, only to realize that the rope on which his companions dangle below him is close to breaking.

When you introduce costs such as these, try to make them obstacles and setbacks that change the nature of the adventuring situation. In exchange for success, players must consider new ways of facing the challenge.

You can also use this technique when a character succeeds on a roll by hitting the DC exactly, complicating marginal success in interesting ways.

Degrees of Failure
Sometimes a failed ability check has different consequences depending on the degree of failure. For example, a character who fails to disarm a trapped chest might accidentally spring the trap if the check fails by 5 or more, whereas a lesser failure means that the trap wasn’t triggered during the botched disarm attempt. Consider adding similar distinctions to other checks. Perhaps a failed Charisma (Persuasion) check means a queen won’t help, whereas a failure of 5 or more means she throws you in the dungeon for your impudence.

Yeah, I know, no one reads the 5e DMG (and why is this tucked in Chapter 8?).

I personally go farther than this anemic system they created. If someone close to success (usually within 5 of the Target DC, AC, etc) I offer the PC a chance to change that from a miss to a hit by dangling a consequence in front of them. If they bite then they hit but it comes at a known price they can choose to accept or reject.

EXAMPLE: A spellcaster just misses with to hit roll for a spell, I let them know they can turn it into a hit if they are willing to take one level of exhaustion. If they say yes then I can narrate that said spellcaster digs deep and is able to shift the spell back on target at the last minute. They sacrifice some future ability to make successful roles in the future for a dramatic success right now.

I also find Fronts (Dungeon World) and Count Down Clocks (Blades In The Dark) very helpful to mitigate the binary success/failure system we are all used to in D&D.

One last thing, as a friend of the players (I root for them because I don't seem myself as the player's personal adversary) I will say, "Are you sure you want to do that?" or remind them that they can choose to kill or incapacitate the guards. Now they can make the choice that going forward how they handle themselves will have consequences.

To the OP, I have to say you got thrown into a tough spot where you were guest DMing for what was supposed to be one slot. Now you are potentially sending your buddies campaign in a completely different direction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So if you find some mechanics artificial, you must accept all similar mechanics as artificial for all games?

If you don’t think so, why not?

What is it about initiative and everyone going in turn order that doesn’t seem artificial to you? What is it about hit points that doesn’t seem artificial to you?

I get you don’t like how DW seems to you. That’s fine. But to my mind, the reasons you’ve cited are very present in D&D. So what makes them acceptable in one game but not in the other?

 

[bloodtide]

No disagreement here. Whether the players acted out of character or not is a different question. Many video games have you taking out guards left and right. If the players don't understand how the DM views the morality they may not have thought it through. Kind of like in many action movies/shows the protagonists mow down dozens of guards and then don't execute the BBEG to stop them from getting away and murdering thousands because they "don't want to be just like them". Morality only applies in many depictions if the person you're attacking has a name.

It's a huge problem for a lot of players.

I would have just talked to the players about it to verify that they knew what they were doing and what the consequences could be. But the OP "doesn't like talking".

As I have said, it would not have mattered. I could have done the parent/teacher/cop thing where before the game I told the players "we need to talk". They would immediately get hostile and violent and defensive. And it would go down hill from there.

To the OP, I have to say you got thrown into a tough spot where you were guest DMing for what was supposed to be one slot. Now you are potentially sending your buddies campaign in a completely different direction.

It's always weird to take over a game. Their DM was of the "are you sure you want to do that" question type. So their DM can control the game and the 'wild' players. I don't do that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's always weird to take over a game. Their DM was of the "are you sure you want to do that" question type. So their DM can control the game and the 'wild' players. I don't do that.

No, not at all.

You just have more powerful alternate universe versions of the PCs show up and beat the snot out of them.

Much more subtle.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you don’t think so, why not?

What is it about initiative and everyone going in turn order that doesn’t seem artificial to you? What is it about hit points that doesn’t seem artificial to you?

I get you don’t like how DW seems to you. That’s fine. But to my mind, the reasons you’ve cited are very present in D&D. So what makes them acceptable in one game but not in the other?

I'm not thrilled about initiative or hit points either, but the roles they serve don't, in my opinion, have options so much better that its worth trashing them.

The rules in PBtA are designed to facilitate telling a story together, and include specific restrictions on when actions can be taken, based it seems largely on narrative beats. Even when they technically aren't, the goal is storytelling and drama. They also elevate the PCs to a special status in what feels to me is an artificial,, narrative-driven way. Because I want the world I create or play in to feel as immersive as possible, these rules actively hinder me. You are welcome to disagree, but that's where I stand.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not thrilled about initiative or hit points either, but the roles they serve don't, in my opinion, have options so much better that its worth trashing them.

The rules in PBtA are designed to facilitate telling a story together, and include specific restrictions on when actions can be taken, based it seems largely on narrative beats. Even when they technically aren't, the goal is storytelling and drama. They also elevate the PCs to a special status in what feels to me is an artificial,, narrative-driven way. Because I want the world I create or play in to feel as immersive as possible, these rules actively hinder me. You are welcome to disagree, but that's where I stand.

And what’s the goal of D&D?

 

[bloodtide]

No, not at all.

You just have more powerful alternate universe versions of the PCs show up and beat the snot out of them.

Much more subtle.

Well, I'm not subtle.

Keep in mind the goal was to show them "better built outlaw characters" then their "by the core rules only, bland characters". Hope maybe the figure out the evil twins deception. And once they fail that, let them jump back in with alt alt characters. And give them the chance to undo all the death.

They chose to whine, complain and end the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And what’s the goal of D&D?

My goal is to create an immersive fantasy world with lots of interesting places to go and things to do, and let the players interact with and change it through the actions of their PCs. I'm not here to tell a story, or make sure there's enough drama to keep everyone constantly entertained, and the PCs are not in and of themselves unique and special. What they do in play determines that.

That's D&D to me.