D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Oofta]

They certainly do say things very like it.


Never said that.


Never said there wouldn't be.


No, I keep insisting that it would, and I want to make this extremely clear,

HELP.​

Rules do not make bad behavior go away. They HELP address bad behavior. Rules do not turn ordinary people into saints. They HELP deal with problematic behavior. Rules do not instill moral virtue. They HELP guide people toward more productive behavior.

An absolute refusal to even consider the useful benefits of these things is exactly what I'm talking about. Just because rules do not MAKE people automatically and inherently perfect, they must obviously be completely ignored as a component of addressing the problems of bad behavior. As usual, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and since perfect is unattainable, good is thrown out the window along with it.

So what advantages, specifically? Because this seems to be what it comes back to. That other systems are inherently better with no explanation of how. I've had very few bad DMs. I didn't have them for long, it tends to be a self correcting problem.

How would rules change this scenario (from badly planned prison break to "teaching the players a lesson") from being FUBAR to being truly enjoyable for everyone? Or even improve the result? Other than "it would ". It's not that I refuse to consider, but you have yet to explain how it would make much of a difference. I have listened to a few hours of a DW stream and it's just not for me for a variety of reasons that aren't relevant here. But I also don't see how anything would change the end result. Sure, the players could question the GM on what the f*** is going on, but there's nothing stopping that in D&D either.

So I'll ask again: given the OP's attitude and the scenario how, specifically, would different rules change much?

 

[Mort]

So what advantages, specifically? Because this seems to be what it comes back to. That other systems are inherently better with no explanation of how. I've had very few bad DMs. I didn't have them for long, it tends to be a self correcting problem.

How would rules change this scenario (from badly planned prison break to "teaching the players a lesson") from being FUBAR to being truly enjoyable for everyone? Or even improve the result? Other than "it would ". It's not that I refuse to consider, but you have yet to explain how it would make much of a difference. I have listened to a few hours of a DW stream and it's just not for me for a variety of reasons that aren't relevant here. But I also don't see how anything would change the end result. Sure, the players could question the GM on what the f*** is going on, but there's nothing stopping that in D&D either.

So I'll ask again: given the OP's attitude and the scenario how, specifically, would different rules change much?

That's a really interesting question. I've seen Dungeon World and actually recently gotten the rules set. But I'm not familiar enough with it yet to give a proper answer.

But what I can say, is I can't see the OP running a proper DW session EVER. His style just involves too much DM authority to want to respond to player input/moves like DW requires. Also, his style is to have a set path for the PCs to follow with a defined end goal. From everything I've seen DW expressly rejects that.

 

[Celebrim]

UPDATE: I just now realized this thread is 23 pages into it, so probably useless to say anything at this point.

This is a problem as old as the game: How does a DM get the players to stop just outright slaying all NPCs, but more specifically the "good guys". Assuming that the PCs are at least sort of good, or at least want open access to good/neutral civilization.

So I will tell you what the solution isn't, and that is to make all the NPCs that aren't supposed to be killed more powerful than the PCs. That's the most common solution you will find in published materials, both in tRPGs and video games. And it sucks, both because it's a form of railroading, and because it ends up deprotagonizing the PC's and tempts the GM to creating DM PC's, and because it creates a wholly unrealistic world filled with fridge logic where you are like, "Why didn't you solve your own problems?"

If I'm understanding correctly you are in the process of ruining another DMs campaign. Let me suggest you hard step back from that course of action. If the PC's want to or have created a game where they are criminals, then let them have the game where they are criminals.

I don't entirely blame you for the situation. It sounds like there is a ton of railroading going on in the notes handed over to you as well, and this is a situation that is entirely predictable. No experienced GM would be surprised that a PC party would murder all the guards attempting to arrest them. That's the normal expected result of attempting for force PCs into prison.

My reaction would be the super harsh way...killing the characters. And maybe reseting the game with some time travel or something like that.

OK... umm, so you ARE just going to ignore the problem, and do a do over AFTER asserting some hard GM force to get the PCs back in line?

Well, I don't know about your players, but after that I'd be leaving the group.

One really interesting question to me is does this city really have the resources to easily hunt down and kill the PCs? Because if they do, why the heck where they so taken by surprise by the PCs and unable to prevent them from murdering large numbers of guards? Chances are, any city that doesn't have the resources to prevent PCs from murdering large numbers of guards probably doesn't have the resources to easily hunt down PC's and kill them. Sure, you could employ some DM pet NPCs to dispense justice, but that's to me obviously shady.

But....here I am. Asking for maybe another view point? Is there anything new to say on this topic? I guess someone might say that a game must have a session zero where the DM very slowly and carefully tells the players the way good, evil, slaughter and common sense work in the game. Though in this case it's not "my" game. Still the players "get" that it was wrong to slaughter all the guards......but that did NOTHING to stop them.

So, anyone?

So yeah. The PC's story is that they have become criminals and mass-murderers. This doesn't end their story, it just means that this isn't the story you had in mind. You can go with that story. It could be an interesting and fun one. If you are willing to go with that story to see where it goes, then I have suggestions.

 

[Oofta]

That's a really interesting question. I've seen Dungeon World and actually recently gotten the rules set. But I'm not familiar enough with it yet to give a proper answer.

But what I can say, is I can't see the OP running a proper DW session EVER. His style just involves too much DM authority to want to respond to player input/moves like DW requires. Also, his style is to have a set path for the PCs to follow with a defined end goal. From everything I've seen DW expressly rejects that.

Well I would say their style isn't particularly suited to most people playing D&D either. They ignore some very basic tenets of D&D. Like it says in the DMG "your goal isn’t to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more".

In DW, I don't see anything from stopping the GM from making an insurmountable front with repeated moves that will eventually kill off the characters when they fail. Is it playing "fair" or according to the spirit of the rules? No. But neither is killing off the PCs to "teach them a lesson" because they didn't play the way you wanted them to play.

We have here a very specific scenario. Using this as an example, I simply don't see why a GM in DW couldn't do the same thing, just in a slightly different manner.

P.S. @Aldarc (thanks) gave me some videos to watch https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-much-control-do-dms-need.697132/post-9008748. Now that spring has finally sprung here and I can go biking, I've listened to a few hours while riding, I'm still working on the first set of sessions. I'd have to go back and read rules again, I simply don't see how much would change for this specific situation.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Right, this is the heart of my "there is no such thing as world sim" position. GMs cannot possibly have mapped out the world in a rich enough way to make decisions about what is and is not feasible based purely on fictional considerations.

I disagree, as they can also be informed by historical precedent.
Not 100%, of course. But at least pleasingly so.

 

[Baron Opal II]

They are all adults, somewhere 18-25 or so.

Hmm. A little older than I would have expected.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[Vaalingrade]

Being informed by Earth historical precedent for a world of magic and monsters and more intelligent species is going to lead to a not very well thought out world.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Being informed by Earth historical precedent for a world of magic and monsters and more intelligent species is going to lead to a not very well thought out world.

Yeah, how nobles actually governed, how goods were transported, how weather affects shipping, how crime was organized, what influenced trader routes- all trash, amirite?

Especially when we're considering a "reasonable" ruler's response to violence.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Especially when we're considering a "reasonable" ruler's response to violence.

See? Reasonable Ruler? Now there's a fantastic concept that generally didn't happen in feudalism. Again, largely the point of feudalism: to keep that from happening.

 

[Aldarc]

P.S. @Aldarc (thanks) gave me some videos to watch https://www.enworld.org/threads/how-much-control-do-dms-need.697132/post-9008748. Now that spring has finally sprung here and I can go biking, I've listened to a few hours while riding, I'm still working on the first set of sessions. I'd have to go back and read rules again, I simply don't see how much would change for this specific situation.

First, I appreciate that you are watching/listening to the videos that I had posted.

In DW, I don't see anything from stopping the GM from making an insurmountable front with repeated moves that will eventually kill off the characters when they fail. Is it playing "fair" or according to the spirit of the rules? No. But neither is killing off the PCs to "teach them a lesson" because they didn't play the way you wanted them to play.

We have here a very specific scenario. Using this as an example, I simply don't see why a GM in DW couldn't do the same thing, just in a slightly different manner.

(1) I would recommend reading the GM principles of Dungeon World. These principles help direct the sort of Moves (hard or soft) that a GM is supposed to be making with the PCs:

• Make a Move that Follows (the Fiction)
• Be a Fan of the Characters
• Think Dangerous
• Begin and End with the Fiction

(2) The GM will usually only make hard moves when the following conditions have been met: (a) the players trigger a PC move with their action in the fiction, (b) the player roll to resolve the PC move (if applicable), and subsequently (c) fail with 6- on their roll (2d6 + Mod).

However, the text of DW says that a soft move may be more appropriate in the fiction than a hard move, and so it's acceptable to make a soft move instead:

When you have a chance to make a hard move you can opt for a soft one instead if it better fits the situation. Sometimes things just work out for the best.

(3) If you are curious about how these Moves play out in practice, and I can reassure you that IME I have been steamrolled over by the GM in D&D far more frequently than I have in DW. And this is even considering that DW is designed (much like PbtA) to have a certain degree of dramatic downhill snowballing.