D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Aldarc]

One of the issues I have with DW is the language used. It's not plain English and words are seemingly redefined in a way that people who don't know the "true" meaning of the word being used. It makes it hard to have a conversation.

Yeah. I don't know about that or I would at least claim that there has to be some special pleading going on here. I think that you've internalized D&D to the point of failing to recognize how D&D is guilty as sin of things like this when it comes to perverting plain English and natural language.

It's everything from "moves" being used instead of "what does your character do". Or take the use of "fronts". As opposed to "backs"? I assume there's some reason the verbiage is used but it's pretty head scratching and a barrier to conversation when people insist on using it on a forum not dedicated to games that use the terminology.

Sorry, Oofta, but this criticism strikes me as wholly unreasonable and kinda petty. It's basically demonizing Dungeon World (based on Apocalypse World) uses different terminology than D&D. And yet your point also completely ignores the hypocrisy of how people, such as yourself, try exporting the terminology of D&D to non-D&D games who likewise don't share D&D's terminology!

 

[Lanefan]

I'd like to direct you to so many modern fans who absolutely can't wait for characters in their media of choice to die so they can feel that media is grown up like a big boy. Because Big Boys need death to brood and be insufferable over and characters persevering through danger without dying and being horribly maimed is strictly for children, you see.

One can be a fan of a particular media-of-choice while still not being a fan of (some or all of) the main characters in it. I mean, I love the MCU but if I ever see Spiderman again it'll be too soon.

Just like a sports team - I'm a Canucks fan to the end but over the years they've had some individual players who I couldn't wait to see move on or retire.

 

[Lanefan]

Sorry, Oofta, but this criticism strikes me as wholly unreasonable and kinda petty. It's basically demonizing Dungeon World (based on Apocalypse World) uses different terminology than D&D. And yet your point also completely ignores the hypocrisy of how people, such as yourself, try exporting the terminology of D&D to non-D&D games who likewise don't share D&D's terminology!

Can't speak for Oofta, but given this is primarily a D&D site (and this specifically is a D&D forum) I personally would kind of assume anyone posting here is at least passingly familiar with D&D terminology and how those terms are commonly used.

 

[Vaalingrade]

One can be a fan of a particular media-of-choice while still not being a fan of (some or all of) the main characters in it. I mean, I love the MCU but if I ever see Spiderman again it'll be too soon.

Just like a sports team - I'm a Canucks fan to the end but over the years they've had some individual players who I couldn't wait to see move on or retire.

No no, I'm talking about fan who straight up love a character but 'understand' that they 'need' to die.

"I love X, but Y really needs character development, so X has to die. There's no other way for Y's character to develop."

"I watch the series for Z, but look at all the death flags. I wouldn't respect the writers if Z doesn't die now."

Actual things I hear. Often.

 

[FrozenNorth]

@FrozenNorth I think I need to elaborate more.

Well, I AM a sucker for a good elaboration.

There is a wide variance of what individual players might accept in terms of DM authority and style that one might not like or accept in another but will accept in a given DM because of their other qualities.
A DM that is perceived as fair and fun will get more leeway as to odd views or quirky rulings than another DM who is considered capricious.

I agree with all this. I may go along with a DM that is not to my taste or outright bad for any number of reasons, including:

• I may not know any better;
• the DM is my friend/relation and the relationship matters more than the game;
• the DM is new, but is learning.

But your original post did spark a different thought.

The thing about "reasonable, prudent limits" is that, generally they only apply to reasonable, prudent people. Black Letter Law never stopped anyone from doing the thing there were going to do. Even those that knew better, they just believed that it did not apply to them.
You can only educate those willing to be educated.

There seem to be two currents of thought. There are those who believe that the majority of the DMs who engage in conduct that is not fun for the players (mainly excessive or arbitrary use of DM power) are doing so because they are immature or don’t care about the player experience. While there is recognition that some of these DMs may simply have poor social skills or learned from a poor DM themselves, the majority of the “bad DMs” are “bad apples”. Naturally, this view influences the proposed response. Why should rules limit DM authority if bad DMs are just going to ignore it? My main criticism of this school of thought is that generally speaking, it discourages fixing problems. “Some DMs are bad, there’s nothing to do, them’s the breaks.”

The other view is the mirror image of the first one. Sure there are some DMs that are actively placing their amusement ahead of that of their players, but most problem DMs are just unsuccessfully trying to run a fun game. In support of this second interpretation, I think every DM on this board has a story of a horrendous mistake they made when they were starting out. Some people get called out on their mistakes and improve. Others crystallize bad practices.

The advantage of the second interpretation is that it suggests that the situation can be improved. The DM Guide can be made more user- and newbie- friendly. Making certain issues table decisions (like Session Zero, dealing with disruptive participants and organization) rather than putting it on the DM lightens the load and might encourage more people to DM (including people who might be neurally atypical and have chosen to avoid DMing so as not to deal with those issues).

I strongly believe that most heavy-handed railroading takes place because the DM feels solely responsible for ensuring the session is exciting! and fun! and that “cool things are happening”, rather than recognizing that the table as a whole is responsible for an enjoyable night.

 

[dave2008]

Do you define "hostile" as "not agreeing with you?"

No. I mean hostile to the players. You came up with a total DM fiat (not story related from I can tell) to punish the players - that is hostile.

Look it's a common game style: The Fun Laid Back Casual Game. Thousands of gamers love this sort of game. They laugh and carry on and maybe play a little of an RPG. Though mostly they are just getting together to hang out, relax and have fun.

I have no idea if that is common. I am certainly not going to trust your opinion on the subject. However, what it the point of you bringing it up?

And in most cases, the DM does keep things flowing so the game can "end". They will take about a year to play through "The Adventure", but they do what it to end.

What is the point of this comment?

 

[Mort]

That all counts as being interested in the characters; and being interested in the characters is great!

Being interested is not the same as being a fan, however, as being a fan of somethng means actively supporting it and wanting it to win; hardly a position a neutral referee should be taking.

Actively supporting the right of the characters to have an interesting time and be fun for the player. As @Vaalingrade just said - that could very well lead to a gruesome end (or worse) but it should be an interesting, fun gruesome end (or worse).

Rock falls you die is bad because it is neither interesting nor fun.

A suicide mission where most of the party is not expected to survive - that could be fun and interesting. And players whos PCs die during it can then bring in new PCs to have interesting and fun things happen to (and possbly meet a gruesome end too).

 

[Mort]

Sounds good. How does that actually make you a "fan" of the PCs/players?

To reiterate, because you are giving them fun and interesting things to do. And if that leads to a gruesome death, well that can be fun and interesting too - heck some players thrive on that kind of thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah. I don't know about that or I would at least claim that there has to be some special pleading going on here. I think that you've internalized D&D to the point of failing to recognize how D&D is guilty as sin of things like this when it comes to perverting plain English and natural language.


Sorry, Oofta, but this criticism strikes me as wholly unreasonable and kinda petty. It's basically demonizing Dungeon World (based on Apocalypse World) uses different terminology than D&D. And yet your point also completely ignores the hypocrisy of how people, such as yourself, try exporting the terminology of D&D to non-D&D games who likewise don't share D&D's terminology!

One could just as easily claim that you've internalized the terminology of PbtA games. It all depends on what side of the fence you're on.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well, I AM a sucker for a good elaboration.


I agree with all this. I may go along with DMing that is not to my taste or outright bad for any number of reasons, including:

• I may not know any better;
• the DM is my friend/relation and the relationship matters more than the game;
• the DM is new, but is learning.

But your original post did spark a different thought.


There seem to be two currents of thought. There are those who believe that the majority of the DMs who engage in conduct that is not fun for the players (mainly excessive or arbitrary use of DM power) are doing so because they are immature or don’t care about the player experience. While there is recognition that some of these DMs may simply have poor social skills or learned from a poor DM themselves, the majority of the “bad DMs” are “bad apples”. Naturally, this view influences the proposed response. Why should rules limit DM authority if bad DMs are just going to ignore it? My main criticism of this school of thought is that generally speaking, it discourages fixing problems. “Some DMs are bad, there’s nothing to do, them’s the breaks.”

i do not agree that the majority of "Bad DMs" are badd apples or irretrievably bad. However, some people are naughty words and that transfers over to their DMing and you cannot fix the latter until they take some steps to fix the former.

The other view is the mirror image of the first one. Sure there are some DMs that are actively placing their amusement ahead of that of their players, but most problem DMs are just unsuccessfully trying to run a fun game. In support of this second interpretation, I think every DM on this board has a story of a horrendous mistake they made when they were starting out. Some people get called out on their mistakes and improve. Others crystallize bad practices.

The advantage of the second interpretation is that it suggests that the situation can be improved. The DM Guide can be made more user- and newbie- friendly. Making certain issues table decisions (like Session Zero, dealing with disruptive participants and organization) rather than putting it on the DM lightens the load and might encourage more people to DM (including people who might be neurally atypical and have chosen to avoid DMing so as not to deal with those issues).

I totally agree that the DMG can be made, both more user friendly and more newbie friendly. It can help improve a persons DMing including veteran DMs.
I have frequently advocated for this on these forums.

I strongly believe that most heavy-handed railroading takes place because the DM feels solely responsible for ensuring the session is exciting! and fun! and that “cool things are happening”, rather than recognizing that the table as a whole is responsible for an enjoyable night.

Heavy handed railroading is, in my opinion, almost always due to inexperience and a fixation with a "plot".
Some judicious railroading is necessary on occasion, in my opinion. Particularly, in published adventures which are often fairly linear or if the party has no instigator type player that will get the ball rolling.
I generally run published stuff and my players know what to expect but if I was running published material with people not familiar with me, that, if they want to play the published material there may be some rails involved.

Mostly I agree with your points, but this thread is about someone asking for advice and ignoring it and largely ignoring the spirit and may be even the letter of the game. Or it is superior trolling.