D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[pemerton]

Yeah, there's some fine points in terms of what is really within bounds. I mean, some tables will think that something like "Oh, you got an 8, there's a self-destruct device attached to the documents, you can try to disarm it..." is cool, and others might find that to smack too much of taking away what the player has earned. While moves are called 'hard' and 'soft', there's really kind of a range there. "A dog barks in the distance" might be considered fairly softer than the above self-destruct example. I'd say in this case the characterization is driven by whether the revealed fiction is in the way of achieving the ultimate aim, or simply indicating that some more obstacles might exist later down the road. In a sense though they're both pretty equivalent, either you disarm the trap or run away without your aim being achieved. Either you outrun the guard dogs or you're likely going to end up getting caught. Still, there's some difference. The simplest way to think of it might be that the more possible ways you can address an issue, the softer it is (IE disarming a trap probably has only one or two possible approaches, escaping dogs could happen many different ways).

Sure. Working out what makes for a good move - hard or soft - is a huge part of GMing Apocalypse World.

Just as you're saying about D&D-style worldbuilding, so in this case: there is no unique solution dictated by the prior fiction. The GM has to make a decision. Sometimes they'll make better decisions than other times - everyone has their off days!

I'm sure you've participated in threads where various posters insist that railroading is just as possible/likely in "story now" play as it is in more "traditional" play. One thing that frustrates me about those threads is not only is that basic claim false - how would an AW GM railroad? what would that even mean, in the context of AW play? - but that it distracts from productive discussion about the actual pitfalls and challenges of GMing story now RPGs. The most obvious one is coming up with consequences, be that in the AW soft/hard move framework, or the Burning Wheel framework, or whatever else is required by the particular game being played.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I could keep answering your specific points about world building, but I doubt it would go anywhere.

This post basically seems to argue that anything that is made up is equally plausible and plausibility in fiction doesn't matter. Or something. I'm not sure.

No, that's going a bit too far. It is certainly true that some things are thematically favored, even required or excluded in some genres (though D&D itself is a very 'kitchen-sink' kind of thing, not much is out of bounds). Nor do I think that when we build sandboxes are we ignoring what players want to find there, in fact that is a pretty important thing. But no, I don't believe that, beyond 'thematic cohesiveness' that there's any kind of internal logic that holds these things together, not really. They are products of imagination, not of rational logic.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, that's going a bit too far. It is certainly true that some things are thematically favored, even required or excluded in some genres (though D&D itself is a very 'kitchen-sink' kind of thing, not much is out of bounds). Nor do I think that when we build sandboxes are we ignoring what players want to find there, in fact that is a pretty important thing. But no, I don't believe that, beyond 'thematic cohesiveness' that there's any kind of internal logic that holds these things together, not really. They are products of imagination, not of rational logic.

I guess this is another binary I find weird and unnecessary. My imagination certainly works in conjunction with my reason, and I cannot even really comprehend how it could be otherwise. (And my worlds are practically never 'kitchen-sinks', I choose every ingredient that goes into them very deliberately.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, there's a bazillion undead monsters in D&D. I could make up one, a level 10 Mummy Baron, whatever. These sorts of details are not really material to the point, are they?

If I didn't think they were, I wouldn't have brought it up. The issue is, what makes a level ten monster relevant to the PCs? Most of the time because its a threat. If its a threat, then its a threat to people other than just the PCs, and in a D&D context, a level ten one is normally a pretty damn serious threat that the town and people going in and out of it don't get to just ignore.

It could be a Stone Golem left to guard an ancient ruined temple.

I believe I mentioned cases where the threat is only one because the PCs attacked first, did I not? But I'll outright deny that's a typical case, especially that close to a town.

People tell you to stay away, so you, the adventurer who has to go break all the rules will of course investigate! And obviously, some sort of highly constrained high level creature COULD exist, but it won't be one that will present an unsurvivable encounter for the starting PCs. Just look at B2, its the perfect model of a 'seed' for a hexcrawl. Heck if 5,000 DMs haven't done exactly that with it I'm a potato. All the nearby stuff is low level because that's how it has to be if there is going to be any sort of fun game!

Again, there's plenty of possibilities of monsters that are both dangerous if encountered but might live nearby a town. Do we really have to dredge through the 20 or more MMs I have over on my shelf? I don't think so.

If you want to suggest they're going to be common problems for routine adventurers who don't go out of the way to pick a fight, why yes, yes you do. Otherwise I'm simply not buying your premise.

Yes, it should never happen, because the GM won't set up that sort of scenario, and that was exactly my point! And I don't agree that there's some 'natural constraint' that makes this sort of thing happen. We will just have to disagree on that.

Then why are we still talking about it?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, so what? In my campaign the second level characters encountered an adult dragon. The characters fled and hid from it, which probably was a good call!

Not that some regions of the world being less dangerous than others is particularly weird. Heavily populated areas where there are patrols etc will probably have less dangers. And different creatures live in different areas. A human(oid) settlement is more likely to exit in an area where rampaging giant monsters are not that common.

Yeah. The idea that there's going to be any significant number of high level monsters around areas where settlements of normal people are unless they are not hostile to the settlements for some reason but somehow are things that adventurers are going to always want to get into it with is sufficiently off from any sort of campaign I've ever seen anywhere I'm having some serious trouble believing AA is arguing in good faith here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure. Working out what makes for a good move - hard or soft - is a huge part of GMing Apocalypse World.

Just as you're saying about D&D-style worldbuilding, so in this case: there is no unique solution dictated by the prior fiction. The GM has to make a decision. Sometimes they'll make better decisions than other times - everyone has their off days!

I'm sure you've participated in threads where various posters insist that railroading is just as possible/likely in "story now" play as it is in more "traditional" play. One thing that frustrates me about those threads is not only is that basic claim false - how would an AW GM railroad? what would that even mean, in the context of AW play? - but that it distracts from productive discussion about the actual pitfalls and challenges of GMing story now RPGs. The most obvious one is coming up with consequences, be that in the AW soft/hard move framework, or the Burning Wheel framework, or whatever else is required by the particular game being played.

Right, and in classic "GM pre-authored (or store bought)" story the authors of the material could in principle map out every reasonable consequence of failure to achieve any reasonable action declaration. That is rarely done, for reasons of brevity for one, but it shows how very cut and dried a perfectly cromulent 5e game can be. The truth is Story Now games just cannot be predicted, there's no knowing really where things will end up, how or why, except some player will somehow cause it to 'happen', lol.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

After reading through every post in this thread, I can say for certain I never want to play a Story Now game and will avoid them at all costs.

I see them as BDSM. Extremely painful for me, even if other people find it pleasurable.

 

[Umbran]

I see them as BDSM.

Mod Note:
In the future, can you keep your analogies to things that are kid-friendly, please?

Thanks much.

 

[Blue]

After reading through every post in this thread, I can say for certain I never want to play a Story Now game and will avoid them at all costs.

As a side note, reading every post in this thread will give you a very warped view of Story Now games, since a good number of posters who dislike them don't actually have a good idea about how they play.

If you want actual information about how they play, there are plenty of quick resources that can explain them from a viewpoint unbiased by being in the middle of an argument.

 

[RhaezDaevan]

As a side note, reading every post in this thread will give you a very warped view of Story Now games, since a good number of posters who dislike them don't actually have a good idea about how they play.

If you want actual information about how they play, there are plenty of quick resources that can explain them from a viewpoint unbiased by being in the middle of an argument.

I'm actually going off the information given by the side in this thread that were FOR story now games. The way they described it here sounded very unpleasant.