D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[bloodtide]

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.

And what are you referencing here?

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?

I was pointing out the way their game is and that it's a common game style choice.

What is the point of this comment?

Again, pointing out the way their game is and their gaming style.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I was pointing out the way their game is and that it's a common game style choice.

And unnecessarily mocking it with a Goofy laugh for literally no reason. Don't forget that.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I never said D&D was perfect. But a lot of D&Disms are more along the line of abbreviations. AC instead of armor class. Even if a newbie doesn't know how armor class works, they can intuit what it's related to. In addition, this forum is a D&D forum.

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!

I didn't mean it that way. Sorry if my sarcasm got in the way of explaining myself. But if you don't realize how defining "moves" as what do you do is confusing I'm not sure what to say. I have no idea where the term "fronts" comes from is another example, maybe there's some reason that word is used I'm not aware of. Meanwhile I've taught multiple newbies D&D over the years, I even have group of (mostly) newbies I just started. As long as I remember to not speak in abbreviations they seem to catch on quickly. I do forget now and then and one of the newbs was totally confused as to why we were discussing Critical Role (CR) when discussing how difficult a beast was for her druid. But other than that? D&D, especially 5E, is pretty good at avoiding code words. Some of the concepts may be more difficult, but for the most part the words mean what they would normally mean.

Maybe DW's wording doesn't seem obtuse to you, and I didn't really want to go into detail on my issues with DW because saying why I don't like something is bound to get people's hackles up. I mean, I like ham and pineapple on my pizza, there's no accounting for taste. People like what they like and I didn't mean to yuck on your yum. I also assume people aren't being deliberately obtuse. But statements like "the game follows the fiction"? That's kind of meaningless to me. That's all I was trying to say. A bit tongue in cheek, but no offense was intended.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I'm a fan of basketball. I like watching good basketball. Can I be a neutral referee while also being a fan of basketball? I think that it's important to remember that the DM in D&D is being asked to be a referee with respect to the rules and making rulings. However, the DM in D&D is also being told advice such as...

That said, 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!

Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them, and help steer the campaign through their characters' actions, your role [as DM] is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you've created, and to let their characters do awesome things. Knowing what your players enjoy most about the D&D game helps you create and run adventures that they will enjoy and remember. Once you know which of the following activities each player in your group enjoys the most, you can tailor adventures that satisfy your players' preferences as much as possible, thus keeping them engaged.

Wait? Making play revolve the characters and make the players come back for more? Tailor things for the players' preferences? How is any of that behavior for a neutral referee? Honestly, it seems a bit absurd that WotC's writers wouldn't want the DMs to be fans of their players' characters.

That said, the GM in PbtA games is not described as a neutral referee nor are they expected to be one. The GM in PbtA games are meant to fill the PCs' lives with adversity and adventure. Some PbtA games go as far as describing the role of the GM as being a firehose of adversity that is pointed against the PCs. That goal is likewise at odds with something that a "neutral" referee would do. Here is how "Be a Fan of the Characters" is described in Stonetop:

Be a fan of the player characters
The PCs are the protagonists of the story. Keep the focus of the game on them. Root them. Celebrate their victories. Lament their losses. Let yourself wonder things about them, and then find ways to get the answers through play. Care about them. Be their fans.

Being a fan of the player characters doesn’t mean letting them do whatever they want. You’re the author of their adversity. You need to punctuate their lives with adventure. Threaten them. Hurt them. Go after the things they care about. Give them all sorts of difficult choices.

But also: give them opportunities, both to shine in the moment and to make things better in the long run. Let them enjoy the things they work for.

Stonetop gives the player characters lots of agency. Respect that. Don’t shortchange them out of their moves or their rolls. See what they do with their power, status, and
competence. Play to find out what happens.

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.

Sure, because many people here are long-time players who have internalized D&D's terminology and deviations from "plain English" as normal. So when these people see other games using different terminology, it accuses these other games of a scary misuse of "plain English" while ignoring the presence of such features in their own games. It's about like someone from Culture A accusing Culture B of having Weird Custom Z while ignoring that their own Culture A also has Weird Custom X and Weird Custom Y. We tend to ignore our own cultural blindspots while noticing them in other cultures.

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.

That doesn't say much. Claims are easy to make. Backing them up to make a compelling argument is the hard part.

I'm not on one side of the fence. It don't really see this in terms of a fence or sides; instead, it comes from an open field of experience with a plethora of other games.

I fully recognize that different games use different terms that may defy our sense of "plain English" or "natural language," and IME this can be one of the hurdles going from one game to another. For example, PbtA has terms that took me awhile to learn and I often find throw new learners for a loop: e.g., +1 Forward, +1 Hold, etc. However, it seems a bit hypocritical to accuse DW as having terms that defy "plain English" while ignoring similar linguistic features in D&D. That does strike me as special pleading. D&D was my first TTRPG and I have far more experience playing in games of D&D (and its ilk), so yeah, I have internalized a lot of D&D's terms far more readily than games outside of that bubble of personal experience, including PbtA games, but that mostly comes from 23+ years of experience with D&D-esque games > 8+ years of non-D&D-esque games.

 

[Stalker0]

Here I should point out that (a) this requires the table writ large valuing immersion in a world they reckon to be believable as an end of their gameplay, and even if they do, (b) in the real world (which I hope qualifies as "believable"), actions that might be or are usually reckoned as evil often have no meaningful "consequences", or at least nothing resembling "bad things happening to the perpetrators".

Its fair, if your playing a beer and pretzels kind of game where you just want to walk in and kill things, sure you can do that. But based on the OP at least the DM is trying to maintain a sense of immersion (which of course could be the disconnect).

I'll disagree with b, at least passively. Anyone who commits mass murder in public is going to have people come after them. Now are they powerful enough or rich enough to bribe or intimidate people to stop that from happening, sure.... and the PCs are welcome to try such tactics. If they want to bribe the chief of police to look the other way or cover it up, ok that's an interesting angle to pursue. But that is still an ACTIVE thing, things aren't swept under the rug "just because", it was due to some PC action.

 

[iserith]

@bloodtide So did this other DM ever email you back after you let them know what happened in the second session?

 

[Aldarc]

I didn't mean it that way. Sorry if my sarcasm got in the way of explaining myself.

I will admit that I had difficulty reading that as sarcasm. That does help explain things better and (hopefully) cools things down.

But if you don't realize how defining "moves" as what do you do is confusing I'm not sure what to say.

It comes from playing board or card games, which includes common phrases such as "It's your move."

I have no idea where the term "fronts" comes from is another example, maybe there's some reason that word is used I'm not aware of.

The term "fronts" in Apocalypse World came from its real world usage in war and battle: e.g., "battlefront," "war front," etc. But as threats and conflicts can represent more than "war/battle," it was shortened to a "front." Incidentally, this is also the context where "fronts" were adopted into describing weather: e.g., cold front.

I never said D&D was perfect. But a lot of D&Disms are more along the line of abbreviations. AC instead of armor class. Even if a newbie doesn't know how armor class works, they can intuit what it's related to. In addition, this forum is a D&D forum.

Meanwhile I've taught multiple newbies D&D over the years, I even have group of (mostly) newbies I just started. As long as I remember to not speak in abbreviations they seem to catch on quickly. I do forget now and then and one of the newbs was totally confused as to why we were discussing Critical Role (CR) when discussing how difficult a beast was for her druid. But other than that? D&D, especially 5E, is pretty good at avoiding code words. Some of the concepts may be more difficult, but for the most part the words mean what they would normally mean.

IME, some common ones off the top of my head: Saving Throws, Hit Dice, Spell Level, and even Checks.

Maybe DW's wording doesn't seem obtuse to you, and I didn't really want to go into detail on my issues with DW because saying why I don't like something is bound to get people's hackles up.

It can still be somewhat obtuse or wonky to me. I haven't entirely internalized it. I get it now, but I know that it still catches people off-guard when they first encounter it: e.g., +1 Hold, +1 Forward, etc. There are a number of terms that originate from Apocalypse World, which Dungeon World brought over as one of its earliest adapters.

But statements like "the game follows the fiction"? That's kind of meaningless to me.

I could see why you may think so, since this may seem somewhat banal in its obviousness, but these are also mean to be shorthand phrases that point back to the explanation of these principles in greater detail.

We could also look at the Principia Apocrypha: Principles of Old School RPGs by Ben Milton and Steven Lumpkin, which includes some similarly terse principles:

• Rulings Over Rules
• Don't be Limited by Your Character Sheet
• Scrutinize the World, Interrogate the Fiction
• Embrace Chaos... But Uphold Logic
• Ask Them How They Do It

IMHO, don't underestimate the value of principles in helping teach people how to play the game or adopt the appropriate mindset for play. The good PbtA and OSR games excel at teaching their play principles. I do think that one reason why I can get into PbtA, FitD, OSR, and some other games is because they are upfront about their play principles.

 

[pemerton]

So?

<snip>

Why should one person's preference override the preferences of the rest of the group?

I haven't said anything about whose preference should override whose.

Upthread you said that you allow players full control over their PCs. You also said that you don't allow players to play their PCs in a way that you judge to be evil. All I'm saying is that those two claims are contradictory: the second one entails that the first is false. Players can't play their PCs as they like.

Whether or not that's good or bad isn't something I've expressed a view about.

 

[pemerton]

Or take the use of "fronts".

The terms is taken from Apocalypse World, which says this on p 11:

Fronts are your prep for play, starting after the first session. (Think “I’m fighting on three fronts! I’m <in trouble>!”)​

The concept of a "front" in an armed conflict is a pretty familiar one, I think.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah, it's one reason the Forge always irritated me. Jargon CAN be used beneficially but there it always seemed like it was used as an exclusionary tool.

People who are discussing a technical thing, and developing expertise in it, develop their own terminology.

We could have a world in which all RPGing is discussed in terminology familiar to everyone on ENworld.

Or we could have a world that includes Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World, Sorcerer, and all the dozens (hundreds? maybe even thousands?) of RPGs they have inspired.

You can't have both.