D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Oofta]

We limit what the characters can be when we decide on system. That choice, however, doesn't limit what the players can have those characters do within the parameters of that system. It's a minor difference, but significant here.

An example: the setting has Elves in it, and Elves are available as PCs. It has Ogres in it, but Ogres are by RAW not available as PCs; thus a game-based limit is that my character cannot be an Ogre. The setting doesn't even have Drow in it, thus by both setting-based and game-based limits my character cannot be a Drow.

So the system allows me to play an Elf. Great. Elves in the setting come in all sorts of different-by-individual personalities, outlooks, and beliefs and with all sorts of different-by-individual moral structures and ethical codes; and in theory my Elf can be any of these as neither the system nor the setting tells me otherwise.

Any limitation on which of those near-infinite options I can play and-or how I play them isn't imposed by the system. If my Elf eats what it kills, for example, even if that kill is another Elf, the game doesn't stop me. I mean, I'm personally not one to play a cannibal as a PC but I feel the option should always be open regardless; and if someone else wants to play one then more power to 'em (though if I'm playing another Elf in the party, there might be friction...)

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Oofta]

You contradict yourself here.

You state clearly "It's not unilateral", then go on to say that during the invitation process you'll be imposing a unilateral choice you've made.

I've stated what kind of game I run. When I invite you to my game you have the choice of joining or not. If you join, you're agreeing to adhere to that rule and a handful of other house rules and limitations. If you disagree with my restriction you can choose not to join, therefore by joining you've agreed to the limit and supported the limits placed. All I'm doing is ensuring that the players in my group all vote for non-evil players at the table before we sit down together.

But if it makes you happy to call it unilateral, go for it. I just disagree.

 

[Oofta]

Is it?

One could argue - and I will, just for kicks - that there's sometimes a case to be made that the one to boot is the one who is trying to impose the limitation rather than the one who is violating said limitation.

Then in my game it would be me, the DM getting the boot if you play an evil PC. Since you no longer have a DM, you have to find another one. Which was my suggestion in the first place! See how much time I saved everyone? I'm just being efficient.

 

[Oofta]

I agree with your thesis, but in DW it goes a bit further, the principles are really effectively RULES, they apply in a very specific and technical sense to the GM's moves, so it becomes extremely substantive 'advice'. Every time the GM makes a move he can (and needs to) ask "which principles is this move embodying?" and "Is it in harmony with the agenda of our game?" I do believe you can incorporate the ideas into other games like D&D in some sense. They're likely to be, as you say, more advisory than they are in AW/DW.

D&D and DW are very different game with very different goals and limitations. It is comparing apples and oranges. But lets assume for a moment that you added the text I was responded to in the DMG, modified for D&D. You could capture the essence and goals of what's being said in the DMG, and I believe that to a certain point they do. But D&D isn't going to come out and tell you exactly how to run the game because one true way is pretty contrary to their goals. I do think they should be more explicit about the role of the DM and interaction between DM and player for new DMs, which is something they say they are doing for the 2024 edition.

But I also think that while much of the advice given would work for a specific style of DMing, it's certainly not the only style. To me though it just feels like a different focus and you're explicitly telling stories in DW. In D&D I'm not telling a story, I'm setting a stage and the environment and the PCs are engaging with that setting. The PCs should generally succeed, but I don't guarantee it. I'd say they should almost always have options because being put into no win situations is generally no fun, although going down in a blaze of glory can actually mean winning if your sacrifice means something. On the other hand if you jump off a cliff you're going to die in my D&D game if it's tall enough since I don't stop damage increases until you hit terminal velocity.

I've listened to a few hours of DW streams and eventually I'll go back to read rules but it's just not the game for me. So I don't want to get into long drawn out discussion about DW because instead of explanations there's a tendency to just be told "You're wrong" and it's not worth it. Suffice to say I don't think there is a perfect game or style of game that will be enjoyable for everyone at the table. Oh, and the OP is not following the guidance from the DMG in multiple ways so no additional text is going to change their approach.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You seem to be treating depth of character and morderhobo as opposites here; I'm trying to say this isn't necessarily the case.

OK, you're right, I could be playing a deep, complex, clinically psychopathic homicidal maniac, this is true! How many of those do you think exist in the world? I don't find this point convincing at all. People play 'murder hobo' because the game doesn't provide for, or reward, any other sort of play, and they're fantasy characters, so there's no ACTUAL consequence to it. Its that simple. Its basically a crude fantasy with no meaningful 'character' to the character. Sure, they might have quirky habits, interesting scars, cute sidekicks, titles, whatever whatever whatever. They're still one-dimensional cardboard cutouts, not fleshed out characters.

The first adventure - the really gonzo one - in my current campaign was KotB. Two players rolled up characters who were already - well, not exactly friends, but travelling companions: one a Bard, the other a Cavalier, known together as the Bardalier. These two had heard there was adventuring to be done in them thar mountains (but with no real idea what it entailed!) and rolled up the country singing their own completely fabricated praises at every village and inviting people to join their merry band. And one by one people joined, and thus by the time they got to Holtus (my re-named Keep village) they had a party of nine: two PCs each plus an adventuring NPC.

So at least that initial crew had a bit of connection to something (mainly each other, except the NPC who they unwisely took in without learning anything about him even including his name!), even if the group very quickly got to the point of recruiting anyone they could press-gang once the casualties started mounting.

I understand. You're giving the players some scope. So, unlike the PCs who met in the bar last night (well, these guys must have also had that sort of origin at some point, right?) they met in some village or other last week. I do think its an improvement in a sense, but had they met at Holtus in Session 1, the sort of "getting to know each other" phase would have happened there and in the Caves, right?

Where I'm fine with this if that's what they want to do. I neither ask nor expect them to be heroes, and their alignments are set by their actions once any patterns become clear.

Oh, we are not disagreeing here. Players are free to develop their characters as they see fit, but I'm going to provide them with suitable character defining moments as they seem interested in them. Most players actually WANT to add depth to their characters. Its fun!

I thought about just starting them at Holtus on this sort of basis, but then the "Bardalier" idea came up and that was just too good to pass up. Also, with Holtus being such a small place I didn't think it'd make in-game sense there'd be so many neophyte adventurers all right there.

Yeah, I'm a bit less wrapped up in that sort of consideration. "6 weeks ago Big Mack, a famous dwarf treasure monger put out the word for assistants and many flocked to the Keep, but Mack hasn't been seen in a month..." Stuff like this is easy to explain, if someone asks, and heck, in a DW game a PLAYER is likely to come up with the above:

Player: There seem to be a lot of adventurers in this one tiny keep.
GM: Why do you think that is Beregond?
Player: 6 weeks ago...

Its what I love about low myth play, we can spin out many fun tall tales, etc. Maybe Big Mack is a totally made up myth, maybe there's a huge treasure out there SOMEWHERE deeper in the wilderness. Maybe Big Mack is Higlet the dwarf's uncle!

There was a bit of that within the party now and then, along with lots of bickering.

It can be more profound too of course. My BitD character was haunted by a demon, came from a lost island, put in an orphanage, and got dragooned into fighting for Doskvol in a brutal war, THEN he became a PC! His crew mates were fellow orphans, his nemesis was a physiker who got angry at him for liking his daughter, his ally was a pit fighter, and his vice was satisfying the urges of the Oni (demon) which also inhabited his father's fine sword (so he couldn't really just ditch this Oni). I mean, yes, this character is a cliche of course, but he had plenty of interesting reasons for what he was up to, and his story evolved. When he did stuff, I could think why was he doing this, how is it part of his character?

 

[Micah Sweet]

OK, you're right, I could be playing a deep, complex, clinically psychopathic homicidal maniac, this is true! How many of those do you think exist in the world? I don't find this point convincing at all. People play 'murder hobo' because the game doesn't provide for, or reward, any other sort of play, and they're fantasy characters, so there's no ACTUAL consequence to it. Its that simple. Its basically a crude fantasy with no meaningful 'character' to the character. Sure, they might have quirky habits, interesting scars, cute sidekicks, titles, whatever whatever whatever. They're still one-dimensional cardboard cutouts, not fleshed out characters.

I understand. You're giving the players some scope. So, unlike the PCs who met in the bar last night (well, these guys must have also had that sort of origin at some point, right?) they met in some village or other last week. I do think its an improvement in a sense, but had they met at Holtus in Session 1, the sort of "getting to know each other" phase would have happened there and in the Caves, right?

Oh, we are not disagreeing here. Players are free to develop their characters as they see fit, but I'm going to provide them with suitable character defining moments as they seem interested in them. Most players actually WANT to add depth to their characters. Its fun!

Yeah, I'm a bit less wrapped up in that sort of consideration. "6 weeks ago Big Mack, a famous dwarf treasure monger put out the word for assistants and many flocked to the Keep, but Mack hasn't been seen in a month..." Stuff like this is easy to explain, if someone asks, and heck, in a DW game a PLAYER is likely to come up with the above:

Player: There seem to be a lot of adventurers in this one tiny keep.
GM: Why do you think that is Beregond?
Player: 6 weeks ago...

Its what I love about low myth play, we can spin out many fun tall tales, etc. Maybe Big Mack is a totally made up myth, maybe there's a huge treasure out there SOMEWHERE deeper in the wilderness. Maybe Big Mack is Higlet the dwarf's uncle!

It can be more profound too of course. My BitD character was haunted by a demon, came from a lost island, put in an orphanage, and got dragooned into fighting for Doskvol in a brutal war, THEN he became a PC! His crew mates were fellow orphans, his nemesis was a physiker who got angry at him for liking his daughter, his ally was a pit fighter, and his vice was satisfying the urges of the Oni (demon) which also inhabited his father's fine sword (so he couldn't really just ditch this Oni). I mean, yes, this character is a cliche of course, but he had plenty of interesting reasons for what he was up to, and his story evolved. When he did stuff, I could think why was he doing this, how is it part of his character?

See, the whole thing where players just make up stuff about NPCs that have nothing to do with the character just drives me crazy. To me it makes the entire setting meaningless because it has no existence outside the PCs.

 

[Aldarc]

See, the whole thing where players just make up stuff about NPCs that have nothing to do with the character just drives me crazy. To me it makes the entire setting meaningless because it has no existence outside the PCs.

The setting does have existence outside of the PCs; however, it's the GM and players at the table who are negotiating what that setting looks like.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Personally, I don't think the DM should be a fan* of the characters and at the same time don't think the DM should be a fan of their opponents either. The DM instead should be neutral, as should any referee.

* - where "fan" means active cheering supporter of, as would be a fan of a sports team or an entertainer.

Why not?

Seriously. A good fan of a sports team does not simply want that team to win. Far from it. Most sports aficionados I know hate it when any sport they're watching ends up being an absolute slaughter where there was only one side that ever had a chance of winning, even when "their side" wins like that! Had two recent instances of that in racing, one with my parents watching NASCAR, the other with friends commenting on the current state of Formula 1. For the former, there have been a couple qualifying races of some kind (I don't watch much racing myself) where by the final few laps, it was just impossible for anyone but the lead car to win, which drains away most of the excitement and interest of the race. It's obviously less stressful for the lead driver but pretty dull as far as sport goes. Formula 1 apparently has a pervasive problem where the Red Bull team vehicles are simply the best there is, and their lead driver is simply one of the best F1 drivers ever, so every race he participates in is a race he will win, no question. That's just not interesting, even for people who love F1.

Hence, as the book says, being a "fan" of the characters is NOT just making everything they encounter happy and beautiful and wonderful, forever and ever, amen. It means wanting to see those characters do interesting and exciting things, struggle against actual difficulty, and grow and change as their adventures shape who (and what!) they are. It means you want them to be truly able to fail, so that success tastes sweet, but you also don't want their stories to come to an abrupt and unsatisfying end either. Some tragic endings are satisfying, some are not—but as the preceding paragraph hopefully showed, some triumphal endings are unsatisfying too!

Hence, you want to build something where genuine, meaningful, impactful failure IS a thing, but not where that failure means "and thus nothing came of it." The adventure goes on, even if the goals fail. Sometimes especially if they fail! I've had a blast GMing whole plotlines that never would have happened but for a player "failing" a roll, inducing me to Reveal an Unwelcome Truth (note, another Principle is "Never speak the name of your move" as GM), and then exploring that unwelcome truth gave us a huge story that continues to influence the future of the campaign.

Failure, both potential and realized, is essential for being a fan.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The setting does have existence outside of the PCs; however, it's the GM and players at the table who are negotiating what that setting looks like.

Yeah, if you're making up the world at the time of play to that degree, then the world doesn't mean a thing to me. That doesn't mean other people don't or shouldn't enjoy that style, but it does nothing for me.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, if you're making up the world at the time of play to that degree, then the world doesn't mean a thing to me. That doesn't mean other people don't or shouldn't enjoy that style, but it does nothing for me.

I think that's fine, but I also think that it's important to recognize the actual process happening isn't so much about the setting's existence outside of the PCs, but, rather, about with your own perception of the setting as a player. Again, I think that there is nothing wrong with desiring this sort of illusionism about the game setting.