Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Lanefan]

Here is how you earn xp in Dungeon World.

1) Did you roll a 6 or less on a move (2d6 + modifier)? If yes, mark xp.

At End of Session (group move to reflect on play)...

2) Choose one of your bonds that you feel is resolved (completely explored, no longer relevant, or otherwise). Ask the player (this would be the GM if it is an NPC) of the character you have the bond with if they agree. If they do, mark XP and write a new bond with whomever you wish.

3) Look at your alignment. If you fulfilled that alignment at least once this session, mark XP.

4) Then answer these three questions as a group:

Did we learn something new and important about the world?
Did we overcome a notable monster or enemy?
Did we loot a memorable treasure?

For each “yes” answer everyone marks XP.

number 1 above has my interest - xp for messing up!

The rest, though...the whole idea of bonds and rewards for adhering to them really doesn't fly with me; it seems an artificial way of forcing characters to get along.

And number 4 flies in the face of my unshakeable belief that xp for things like combat etc. should only go to those who actually participated in it. That said, in this system it seems xp are trying to reflect something different (not sure exactly what) than I'm used to; I've always seen xp as a game-mechanical attempt to reflect the character's learning curve. (side note: this is also why I rather detest the idea of giving xp as a player reward e.g. for bringing snacks to the game)

That all said, however:

Alright. Now we know what the game is incentivizing. Through examination of that reward cycle we can find out what the play premise for Dungeon World is:

* Playing to take risks and find out what happens (This is the primary source of xp in the game. Xp on failure pushes players away from (a) turtling and (b) optimizing action declarations toward their areas of strength...or at least it puts it at tension with the inclination for character progression).

* Playing to find out about your relationships.

* Playing to find out about your highest ideal (what are you willing to risk to achieve it?).

* Playing for discovery.

* Playing to overcome notable adversaries and obstacles (mythical monsters, impossible climbs, inspiring the most stodgy to action).

* Playing to gain something...precious (lost artifacts, divine boons, or something more mundane that an NPC just doesn't want to give up).

This looks good (well, except for the relationships part; that could get messy).

So that is how robust reward cycles in a game where the GM is instructed to "follow the rules, "fill the characters' lives with danger and adventure" and "play to find out what happens" aids me in avoiding having to apply force to achieve dramatic tension, danger and adventure.

The players tell me what is important to them and what they care about.
The system rewards them for taking risks.
Then I just follow the rules, think dangerous, and make my moves as the fiction unfolds and the play procedures dictate.

So, quite player-centric (as opposed to DM-centric).

Are all the characters' bonds etc. known to the other players, or can some or all be kept secret? (e.g. my character Bjorn might have as a bond a secret crush on your character Twylia; not much of a secret if you-as-Twylia's-player know about it)

One thing it seems to deny you as DM is the ability to make stuff up that breaks the rules, which in traditional D&D we've always kind of had. Seems a bit constraining.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Misunderstanding again. Lets try again.

Starting point B/X dungeon entrance. Play through 5 times with different groups.

Depending on various factors, probably the most important of which is the design of the dungeon itself, the results might be very similar each time or might be wildly different each time. See below...

Starting point World's End Bluff (where the PCs discover the Roanoke-like disappearance of the settlers) in Dungeon World through the table time equivalent of Earthmaw (or whatever might happen after WEB if things go differently). Play through 5 times with 5 different groups.

Depending on various factors, in this case the most important of which is probably whether the PCs in fact choose to move on to each next step when presented, the results might be very similar each time or might be wildly different each time.

Getting back to the B/X dungeon example:

If the dungeon is a straight-ahead linear design (as some old tournament modules are) there might not be all that much difference in experience from one group to the next, assuming at least vague similarity between the groups e.g. number of characters, average level, etc. But if the dungeon has numerous entrances and - once inside - numerous different interweaving paths and stairs and ways to go such that parties might encounter things in a much different sequence each time then the in-play experience might never be the same (or anywhere even close) twice.

L1 Secret of Bone Hill is a great example of the latter. There's about 5 or 6 different ways into the thing and once inside there's various options as to what to do next. I've played in this twice (three times?) and run it twice and the results have been vastly different each time as you just never know what order things will happen in or from which direction(s) the party will approach any given scenario.

Judges' Guild's Dark Tower (which I'm currently running) is another and perhaps even better example. In fact, I'm finding the module writer even managed to defeat himself with his impressive dungeon design: in numerous instances the answer for the problem in area x, say, is to be found in area y; with the implicit assumption the party will hit them in the order y-then-x. However there's so many different ways a party can go once inside that thing* that the odds of hitting these areas in the right order is almost miniscule!

* - including vertical access: I've never seen a dungeon with so many different ways of getting from one floor to another. It's excellent!

Lanefan

 

[Campbell]

Please allow what might seem a stupid question:

You mention running all kinds of different "modern" RPGs - some for better, some for worse - but how much experience do you have in running old-school games e.g. 0-1e D&D or Hackmaster or any of the various OSR options?

I ask because experience frames perspective; and if most or all of your experience is with games whose year of release beguns with a '2' then your perspective will naturally be much different from that of an old-schooler like me.

Lanefan

Far from it. I love B/X with all my heart and soul as a player which I discovered around the same time as Apocalypse World. Vincent Baker's raves about Moldvay convinced me to give it a shot. I absolutely adore D&D played as a war game. I am not very adept at module design so I do not tend to run it that often. If you want to see me get really excited talk to me about running a West Marches game. There's nothing like a good hex crawl with cheap death and treasures and dangers behind every corner.

I am also a fan of Sine Nomine's Stars Without Number and Godbound, two sandbox games built on a modified B/X chassis. I enjoy both games run either in my most preferred style or pure sandboxing fun. Classic Traveller is another example of this type.

Generally the only sort of roleplaying games I am not fond of are those run in a middle school way - a set of techniques that suggest keeping player agency as low as possible, focus on exploration of setting minutia and metaplot, and the GM telling the players a story. Vampire - The Masquerade is the classic example, but the texts of AD&D 2e, Shadowrun, certain ways of playing Champions, and Numenera are other examples.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Generally the only sort of roleplaying games I am not fond of are those run in a middle school way - a set of techniques that suggest keeping player agency as low as possible, focus on exploration of setting minutia and metaplot, and the GM telling the players a story. .

Sounds better than the Basic D&D I played in middle school.

 

[Lanefan]

Far from it. I love B/X with all my heart and soul as a player which I discovered around the same time as Apocalypse World. Vincent Baker's raves about Moldvay convinced me to give it a shot. I absolutely adore D&D played as a war game. I am not very adept at module design so I do not tend to run it that often. If you want to see me get really excited talk to me about running a West Marches game. There's nothing like a good hex crawl with cheap death and treasures and dangers behind every corner.

Cool!

Generally the only sort of roleplaying games I am not fond of are those run in a middle school way - a set of techniques that suggest keeping player agency as low as possible, focus on exploration of setting minutia and metaplot, and the GM telling the players a story. Vampire - The Masquerade is the classic example, but the texts of AD&D 2e, Shadowrun, certain ways of playing Champions, and Numenera are other examples.

I guess I fall somewhere between old and middle school by these measures. My game worlds will always have (a) stor(y/ies) but it's up to the players in character whether and-or which one(s) they want to engage with should they decide to make that choice; but if they don't do anything about it they're going to get my story as default. That said, even when there's engagement with a story there's always time and oppotunity for side treks, other stories, diversion adventures, red herrings, and so forth.

Just as an example, the last string of adventures in my current campaign:

(preamble - shortly before this one of the PCs had pulled a keep and title from a Deck of Many Things; this drives some of what follows)
--- Mysteries in Lariana: heart-and-soul meta-story adventure, party is acting as secret agents in an Elvish town trying to find out what's driving the Elves to invade...well, everywhere.
--- Halls of Azarius / Volcano: a strange split-party adventure where half of them help the PC investigate some ruins near his castle while the others follow up on some leads from the previous adventure...until one of them gets captured by the enemy and the rest get beat to rat-spit. Volcano part would have been meta-plot had they got in the front door; the Halls were a diversion.
--- King of the Woodlands: they're not powerful enough yet to try a rescue so they go and bash some Giants not too far from where the PC put his castle. Complete diversion at the characters' behest.
--- Rescue!: a scry-buff-teleport rescue of their captive comrade...and another who they'd kind of forgotten about. Character-driven, arising from the meta-story.
--- Deep Dwarven Dead: a Ranger had joined the party for the Giant-bash; this adventure to help him out with some undead was the trade-off for his help. Another character-forced diversion (but again tangentially related to the PC's castle) but I put some elements in to set up the next adventure.
--- Against Saith: an old meta-story about some Undead Lords meets a new one (the Elves) as the party's quasi-mentor (in fact the vampire referenced at various points in this thread!) asks them to take out Saith the Lich before the Elves recruit him. The background bits for this adventure have been on my "storyboard" since before Day One; 9 real-world years later it sees the light of day. This one's still in progress. And, by sheer luck (a random effects roll at one point) one of the characters has picked up a mission quest that will nicely lead to another adventure I've had in the mill for a while.

So of 6 adventures only one (plus the abortive Volcano) is true meta-plot, another is the culmination of things brewing for ages, and the rest are either character-driven or standalone diversions. So - old school or middle school?

Lan-"storyboard still has about 5 years worth of game on it even without whatever the characters might come up with in the meantime"-efan

 

[Campbell]

number 1 above has my interest - xp for messing up!

The rest, though...the whole idea of bonds and rewards for adhering to them really doesn't fly with me; it seems an artificial way of forcing characters to get along.

And number 4 flies in the face of my unshakeable belief that xp for things like combat etc. should only go to those who actually participated in it. That said, in this system it seems xp are trying to reflect something different (not sure exactly what) than I'm used to; I've always seen xp as a game-mechanical attempt to reflect the character's learning curve. (side note: this is also why I rather detest the idea of giving xp as a player reward e.g. for bringing snacks to the game)

That all said, however:

This looks good (well, except for the relationships part; that could get messy).

So, quite player-centric (as opposed to DM-centric).

Are all the characters' bonds etc. known to the other players, or can some or all be kept secret? (e.g. my character Bjorn might have as a bond a secret crush on your character Twylia; not much of a secret if you-as-Twylia's-player know about it)

One thing it seems to deny you as DM is the ability to make stuff up that breaks the rules, which in traditional D&D we've always kind of had. Seems a bit constraining.

Lanefan

Bonds are not really about reinforcing the relationship. They are about meaningfully exploring it. Here's the relevant passage:

Resolving Bonds

At the end of each session you may resolve one bond. Resolution of a bond depends on both you and the player of the character you share the bond with: you suggest that the bond has been resolved and, if they agree, it is. When you resolve a bond, you get to mark XP.

A bond is resolved when it no longer describes how you relate to that person. That may be because circumstances have changed—Thelian used to have your back but after he abandoned you to the goblins, you’re not so sure. Or it could be because that’s no longer a question—you guided Wesley before and he owed you, but he paid that debt when he saved your life with a well-timed spell. Any time you look at a bond and think “that’s not a big factor in how we relate anymore” the bond is at a good place to resolve.

If you have a blank bond left over from character creation you can assign a name to it or write a new bond in its place whenever you like. You don’t get an XP for doing so, but you do get more defined bonds to resolve in the future.

One way to resolve the bond between Lucann and Thurgon would be for me as the player of Lucann to decide he does not trust Thurgon anymore but it trying to salvage their relationship. The new bond might be "Thurgon is too wrapped up in this Iron Tower business. I must convince him to honor The Accords." Alternatively, if I am willing to go there I might decide that Thurgon is now my enemy. The new bond might be "Thurgon has stepped on the Accords for the last time. By Sehanine, I shall end him."

Thurgon might see things differently and have conflicting bonds. If I declare that he is now my enemy [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] might decide that Thurgon wants Lucann to see reason. "Lucann is my friend. I will bring him into the Storm Lord's light." Here we have compelling play with multilayered relationships where players' characters act in opposition.

Think of bonds as questions to be answered, rather than statements of truth.

A significant portion of Powered by the Apocalypse games actually expect that players' characters might end up opposed to one another. Dungeon World, Masks, and The Sprawl are fairly group focused. They do not really get in the way of conflict though. Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts do not assume the characters will even be allies in any way. That's up to the players.

 

[pemerton]

Generally the only sort of roleplaying games I am not fond of are those run in a middle school way - a set of techniques that suggest keeping player agency as low as possible, focus on exploration of setting minutia and metaplot, and the GM telling the players a story. Vampire - The Masquerade is the classic example, but the texts of AD&D 2e, Shadowrun, certain ways of playing Champions, and Numenera are other examples.

That doesn't surprise me about Numenera. Monte Cook is the author of Dead Gods.

 

[pemerton]

The dynamics between PCs are an interesting part of RPGing.

Generally I run games based around party play, but with no assumption that the PCs are allied in any ultimate sense. Ie there may be alliances of convenience.

The reason for party play: the games I run don't generally have good systems for supporting plot dynamics between PCs who are not relatively proximate in space and time.

Examples of alliances of convenience: in the situation that is unfolding in the OP, the assassin may still end up working with the PCs who carried her off from the mage's tower, because they all have an interest in the fate of the dead mage's soul.

Examples of PC conflict: the PC mage wants to redeem his brother; the naga-serving PC wants to take the blood to the naga. These may not be compatible goals.

 

[pemerton]

I see a problem with this approach. You're basically making the entire situation hinge on the perception check when the actual fiction would not require that. Removing game mechanics and rules for a moment, why can't the player retrieve the blood in some other way?

In the fiction - maybe the familiar has lapped it all up?

From the point of view of the mechanics of play - because retries are boring, and tend to push play away from "go to where the action is" and towards puzzle solving.

Am I reading too much into this if I say it's telling me you don't like trial-and-error because it slows things down too much?

More or less, yes.

 

[Manbearcat]

I get the idea and I have no arguments against it, per se. But, if "GM Force & Illusionism" - or DM Empowerment & good DMing, to spin it hard in the other direction - isn't seen as a bad thing, or even seen as a good thing because it leads to enjoyable play experiences for the whole table, then that insight just means, 'well, you have choice.'

I'm not sure I buy it, either - I feel like I could enable the style myself, regardless of system.

Certainly in any version of D&D, given some willingness on the part of the players.

Well, now we're running into further posts I was planning to do about what impedes GM Force or Illusionism. If I could do a very abridged version it would be any system that constrains GM latitude by:

(a) principally guiding GMs in situation framing and adversity/obstacle introduction

(b) requiring little to no GM intervention/adjudication in the resolution mechanics

(c) obstructing the GM from imposing their own will on outcomes (rather than letting the system and the players have their say)

Obviously if we want to sort out facilitates GM Force or Illusionism, we merely have to invert the above, the abridged version being any system that indulged GM latitude by:

(d) giving the GM broad, sweeping authority in situation framing and adversity/obstacle introduction

(e) mandating GM intervention/adjudication in, or subordination of, the resolution mechanics

(f) permitting and materially supporting the GM in imposing their own will on outcomes

So the only real question becomes...why would you be playing the first system if you want GM Force or Illusionism to be featured in the course of play? And why would you be playing the second system if you do not want it featured?

I wouldn't consider a range of results from 'TPK' to 'boring roll-over' to be mere 'nuance.'

Depending on various factors, probably the most important of which is the design of the dungeon itself, the results might be very similar each time or might be wildly different each time. See below...

Depending on various factors, in this case the most important of which is probably whether the PCs in fact choose to move on to each next step when presented, the results might be very similar each time or might be wildly different each time.

Getting back to the B/X dungeon example:

If the dungeon is a straight-ahead linear design (as some old tournament modules are) there might not be all that much difference in experience from one group to the next, assuming at least vague similarity between the groups e.g. number of characters, average level, etc. But if the dungeon has numerous entrances and - once inside - numerous different interweaving paths and stairs and ways to go such that parties might encounter things in a much different sequence each time then the in-play experience might never be the same (or anywhere even close) twice.

Going to put these two together.

What I'm trying to juxtapose is consistent and truly inevitable dynamism in output versus consistent nuance (with the some prospects for stray dynamism)

Imagine, if you will, the below B/X dungeon crawl. For now, lets bridle the opinions of "I don't like that sort of player agency", "that negatively impacts my personal ability to immerse", "I feel like this would be boring to GM", "that dungeon will inevitably have crappy decision-points, puzzles, and continuity", and "OMG SCHRODINGER'S DUNGEON!" None of those things are the point. Let's just focus on the evaluation of dynamism. Alright:

You have a starting point; an initially framed theme, opening chamber/entrance, and obstacle to overcome. From there, literally everything is up for grabs. Everything is generated in the moment as an emergent property of what came before and is the product of the creative reservoir of the GM (with some help from the players) + the fundamental procedures and principles of play. The subsequent map (from structural layout, to stairs, to traps, to secret doors, et al). The stocking of the dungeon (from set dressing to puzzles to encounters). The endgame (be it boss or grand puzzle which opens to corridor leading down to the next level of the dungeon).

Where B/X's dynamism is mostly (but not wholly, as the decision-tree component of the dungeon itself and the players' decisions have their role to play) dependent upon (the beautifully elegant mechanics of) (1) Wandering Monsters and (2) Monster Reaction Rolls.

Now, the obvious caveat for the obvious rejoinder.

Yes, if you have a crappy Dungeon World GM (who isn't creative, who doesn't have a forensic knowledge-base and deep well of genre tropes to call upon, who doesn't improvise well) contrasted with a very skilled B/X GM (who masterfully creates complexes with deep and compelling decision trees, stocks them with engaging puzzles, and who describes each corridor/chamber with pithy and skillfully provocative - in both mood and subtle hints/misdirection - narration)...then yes, of course the B/X dungeon crawl experience is going to yield more dynamism on subsequent play-through by different groups.

But assuming an apples to apples comparison, one formula is going to inevitably produce an emergent play experience that is dramatically and dynamically different from any predecessor (given the same starting point).