D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Oofta]

The trick is making good wandering monster tables for the area you're wandering in.

Yep. Like @Lanefan I will sometimes have wandering patrols or encounters, but it will make sense for where the PCs are. Even then it's just as likely that I just have a handful of preplanned encounters that I may throw in depending on what the group does or when they fail specific checks.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you're playing with a group of dull people, or people who aren't good at aspects of the game that make it not dull, the game will be dull. No rules will ever change that.

I think you're wrong here. Provide rules that suit a player, and watch them become more engaged. Same with GMs.

For example, @Micah Sweet might be a great D&D player, but totally check out if playing Dungeon World... because of the rules.

This is certainly a D&D thread. I don't understand why it became a thread about how cool PbtA games are.

I mean, the example provided in the OP and each update since, portrays what just about everyone here has seen as either dysfunctional, or else failed in some other way. The OP asked about ways to deal with it. So people offered possible ways. Some of which originate with other games. Most PbtA games wouldn't devolve into the kind of situation shared in the OP.

That idea then gets challenged. Generally by you and @Oofta perpetually stating "Well I like what I like" again and again. You said early in the thread that you didn't see anything problematic and that the OP should either continue the game or else start a new one. I think @Oofta views at least some of the OP as problematic in some way, but I don't think he feels the GM was to blame as strongly as many others seem to think, myself included.

If you guys consider this conversation done... then you should stop replying. Stop complaining that people suggest methods from other games. Stop insisting that games you're not familiar with don't do what people are saying. Stop asking for clarification and then scolding people for clarifying. Stop feeling the need to say "Well I like X" because we all know what you like at this point.

Or don't... it's a free world, and people can discuss what they like.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you're wrong here. Provide rules that suit a player, and watch them become more engaged. Same with GMs.

For example, @Micah Sweet might be a great D&D player, but totally check out if playing Dungeon World... because of the rules.



I mean, the example provided in the OP and each update since, portrays what just about everyone here has seen as either dysfunctional, or else failed in some other way. The OP asked about ways to deal with it. So people offered possible ways. Some of which originate with other games. Most PbtA games wouldn't devolve into the kind of situation shared in the OP.

That idea then gets challenged. Generally by you and @Oofta perpetually stating "Well I like what I like" again and again. You said early in the thread that you didn't see anything problematic and that the OP should either continue the game or else start a new one. I think @Oofta views at least some of the OP as problematic in some way, but I don't think he feels the GM was to blame as strongly as many others seem to think, myself included.

If you guys consider this conversation done... then you should stop replying. Stop complaining that people suggest methods from other games. Stop insisting that games you're not familiar with don't do what people are saying. Stop asking for clarification and then scolding people for clarifying. Stop feeling the need to say "Well I like X" because we all know what you like at this point.

Or don't... it's a free world, and people can discuss what they like.

Well, it seems pretty clear that the OP is not going to take the, "learn from Dungeon World" lesson to heart. So continuing to extoll its virtues on a D&D thread about a situation that arose in a D&D game doesn't seem any more worthwhile.

 

[Irlo]

If anyone crossed the line from “explaining how DW works” to “extolling the virtues” of it, I missed that step. I for one appreciated the explanations, even if they’re in the “wrong” forum.

 

[Oofta]

If anyone crossed the line from “explaining how DW works” to “extolling the virtues” of it, I missed that step. I for one appreciated the explanations, even if they’re in the “wrong” forum.

There has been some interesting things, and I appreciate when people are willing to answer dumb questions. I don't think one set of rules is superior to another for everyone, people like what they like.

But things like "this wouldn't happen", "you won't get bored because of the rules", "you won't have a problem with a DM wielding ultimate power", etc. sound an awful lot like extolling the virtues of a different game system.

 

[Irlo]

There has been some interesting things, and I appreciate when people are willing to answer dumb questions. I don't think one set of rules is superior to another for everyone, people like what they like.

But things like "this wouldn't happen", "you won't get bored because of the rules", "you won't have a problem with a DM wielding ultimate power", etc. sound an awful lot like extolling the virtues of a different game system.

That’s fair.

 

[Faolyn]

Nah, I agree. It's going nowhere. I'd add more of my thoughts on the topic but with some notable exceptions this stopped being a conversation long ago.

This is a D&D forum, not a PbtA forum.

Can we get a PbtA forum? There are three forums dedicated to different versions of D&D; surely we can get one for more in-depth PbtA threads?

 

[Oofta]

Can we get a PbtA forum? There are three forums dedicated to different versions of D&D; surely we can get one for more in-depth PbtA threads?

There's a general RPG forum. Otherwise I'd say ping Morrus.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Can we get a PbtA forum? There are three forums dedicated to different versions of D&D; surely we can get one for more in-depth PbtA threads?

I'm all for that.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, here are two possibilities (there may be others)

(1) No one at the table wants to create or tell a story.

(2) Everyone at the table is able to integrate their story conceptions.

Given that thousands of people the world over are playing functional games of AW and DW, somehow they are managing to pull it off!

If (1) is the case then how do things move forward in any long-term meaningful way?

(The rules state (1). Some people, eg I believe @EzekielRaiden though I could be wrong, prefer (2).)

I could see (2) working provided people are willing to sometimes compromise their own story concepts to fit with those of others and together build a seamless whole.

For some, however, compromise is a four-letter word; and I've played with and DMed many such over the years.

Really? With rising action, and crisis and climax, and characters whose lives are changed? I mean, just upthread you've explained how - unlike in stories - D&D may have rafts of "nothing happens".

Rising action, crisis, and climax don't define a story....though in a small way pretty much any combat encounter meets these criteria.

Though if you're defining "story" in a more literary sense, perhaps the word I/we should be using instead is "tale", which is more a straight-up relating of events. Even a simple journal tells a tale when read through later; the same is true of a game log.

I mean, the D&D stuff can be edited into a story, by cutting out all the stuff that is not part of a story. The goal of AW is that play will actually generate a story, without anyone needing to set out to write one.

And to do so it tries to force the literary-story construct of rising action-crisis-climax into play, where the characters (and thus players) have no real choice but to go through the crisis rather than be able to try to find means of avoiding or mitigating it? Yeah, no thanks.

Not that it will generate a fiction which can be edited into a story. The latter would not be any sort of technical achievement at all, given that kids playing playground games can achieve that.

Indeed; which is much the same as what we're doing in an RPG, only writ larger, (often) longer, with bigger words and concepts, and without editing.