The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[Micah Sweet]

A lot about the post comes across to me as kind of assuming the worst about AW and incuriosity about how games that function on a different scope of resolution for conflict than we're used to with D&D can be fun and and do some things better.

Certainly the example Campbell gave is not how I'd want D&D to play, but I've also faced the problem of the "PCs captured/backing down from a fight" situation being nearly impossible in D&D and playing out in un-fun ways numerous times over my decades of play, so much so that it's become a trope. I'm intrigued by the idea that another game has mechanics that handle that scene in a more fun way than I have found that D&D does.

I'd actually love to play out a situation like that some day. But to me, the cost of having to use those kinds of mechanics makes it not worth it.

 

[Mannahnin]

I'd actually love to play out a situation like that some day. But to me, the cost of having to use those kinds of mechanics makes it not worth it.

So far my experiences playing games really different from D&D (which I've loved since I was ten) have generally been very positive, and I appreciate that different games do different things.

The games that function MORE differently than D&D also generally seem to be, at least for me, more fun than Fantasy Heartbreakers which retain D&D's basic play loop and structure.

I haven't even tried any PbtA games yet, but this discussion has definitely increased my desire to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So far my experiences playing games really different from D&D (which I've loved since I was ten) have generally been very positive, and I appreciate that different games do different things.

The games that function MORE differently than D&D also generally seem to be, at least for me, more fun than Fantasy Heartbreakers which retain D&D's basic play loop and structure.

I haven't even tried any PbtA games yet, but this discussion has definitely increased my desire to.

All my favorite games are fantasy Heartbreakers.

I am preparing to run a Star Trek Adventures game, which is a game more in line with FATE and other narrative games, as an experiment to see if I can handle that stuff. I figured my love of Trek would ease the transition.

 

[Mannahnin]

All my favorite games are fantasy Heartbreakers.

I am preparing to run a Star Trek Adventures game, which is a game more in line with FATE and other narrative games, as an experiment to see if I can handle that stuff. I figured my love of Trek would ease the transition.

In all sincerity, I wish you the best of luck and fun with it!

Could you tell me a few of your favorite Heartbreakers?

 

[Aldarc]

So far my experiences playing games really different from D&D (which I've loved since I was ten) have generally been very positive, and I appreciate that different games do different things.

The games that function MORE differently than D&D also generally seem to be, at least for me, more fun than Fantasy Heartbreakers which retain D&D's basic play loop and structure.

I haven't even tried any PbtA games yet, but this discussion has definitely increased my desire to.

Needless to say, there are a fair number of us here who would love to talk more about PbtA games with you, if you are interested in learning more.

 

[Mannahnin]

Needless to say, there are a fair number of us here who would love to talk more about PbtA games with you, if you are interested in learning more.

Thanks very much. I've gotten an invite to a Discord server to observe someone's game one of these evenings, so hopefully I'll get to do that soon. I think that'll be my next step, and I'll be more likely to pick your and other folks' brains once I eventually pick up the rules and try using them.

 

[Aldarc]

Thanks very much. I've gotten an invite to a Discord server to observe someone's game one of these evenings, so hopefully I'll get to do that soon. I think that'll be my next step, and I'll be more likely to pick your and other folks' brains once I eventually pick up the rules and try using them.

I have been reading a Stonetop (a Dungeon World hack) playthrough by PTFO (Play to Find Out). You may also find their playthrough interesting: Stonetop Campaign: Table of Contents.

 

[Lanefan]

A lot about the post comes across to me as kind of assuming the worst about AW and incuriosity about how games that function on a different scope of resolution for conflict than we're used to with D&D could be fun and and do some things better. Perhaps that's me being negative, but it seems like a lot of pushback.

My pushback is around (what seems like) the loss of individual player agency over one's character in such a scene.

Sure, the one player pulls a gun - but what do the rest get to do other than accept as a group whatever outcome (good, bad, or neutral) that action leads to? Does my PC get a chance to try to stop him, or try to flee, or to pull my own gun*, or do anything else independent of what he's doing?

* - and if so, do I get to decide whether to point it at my friend and try to get him to stand down (which would probably score me a brownie point or two with those we're dealing with!), or is that off the table?

Certainly the example Campbell gave is not how I'd want D&D to play, but I've also faced the problem of the "PCs captured/backing down from a fight" situation being nearly impossible in D&D and playing out in un-fun ways numerous times over my decades of play, so much so that it's become a trope.

I guess I need you to define your view of "un-fun" here as otherwise I'm not sure what you mean. No player likes having their PC captured - it's a Bad Thing, and those are rarely if ever fun at the time though they're often memorable later - and some players would even rather send their character out in a "death before capture" blaze of glory. It's their choice, isn't it?

I'm intrigued by the idea that another game has mechanics that handle that scene in a more fun way than I have found that D&D does.

Until we agree on a definition of fun, whether it's more fun is an open question. What it clearly is is more time-efficient at the table, but is the loss of player agency really worth it?

 

[overgeeked]

My pushback is around (what seems like) the loss of individual player agency over one's character in such a scene.

Sure, the one player pulls a gun - but what do the rest get to do other than accept as a group whatever outcome (good, bad, or neutral) that action leads to? Does my PC get a chance to try to stop him, or try to flee, or to pull my own gun*, or do anything else independent of what he's doing?

* - and if so, do I get to decide whether to point it at my friend and try to get him to stand down (which would probably score me a brownie point or two with those we're dealing with!), or is that off the table?

I guess I need you to define your view of "un-fun" here as otherwise I'm not sure what you mean. No player likes having their PC captured - it's a Bad Thing, and those are rarely if ever fun at the time though they're often memorable later - and some players would even rather send their character out in a "death before capture" blaze of glory. It's their choice, isn't it?

Until we agree on a definition of fun, whether it's more fun is an open question. What it clearly is is more time-efficient at the table, but is the loss of player agency really worth it?

I think this comes down to forcing RPGs to mimic stories. RPGs can produce story-like things, but RPGs are their own unique thing, they’re not procedures for story-making. In doing so you lose what’s unique about RPGs and fail to satisfyingly mimic stories. It’s the worst of both worlds rather than the best of either. A big loss, as you’re talking about here, is player agency. Literally the defining feature of RPGs. To mimic a story requires that the players lose agency. That’s too high a price for too little gain. Especially when the story-like thing produced is so flat and uninteresting as a story in itself. You can get more interesting stories from games that don’t force the issue and cripple player agency.

 

[Mannahnin]

I guess I need you to define your view of "un-fun" here as otherwise I'm not sure what you mean. No player likes having their PC captured - it's a Bad Thing, and those are rarely if ever fun at the time though they're often memorable later - and some players would even rather send their character out in a "death before capture" blaze of glory. It's their choice, isn't it?

I'm talking about how in D&D, mechanically, getting captured, unless everyone happens to fail a save vs certain powerful spells, normally involves playing out a whole extended combat in which the party gets beaten down.

Loss of HP, waste of spells, and a roughly (depending on edition, level, play skill, etc.) 30-60 minute exercise in losing.

Players don't enjoy it. And they almost certainly attach a negative emotional view of the NPCs who did it. If they later get a chance to take REVENGE on those bad guys, they may really enjoy that payoff. But IME the game is NOT conducive to a) making that scene run quickly so it doesn't suck to play through, and consequently b) leaving the players in an emotional state where they are potentially open to a positive or working relationship with the guys who got one over on them.

This is a common trope in heroic fiction and fantasy, and D&D seems to be largely incapable of supporting it.