D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Oofta]

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.

It's not familiar terminology, this is a D&D forum.

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.

If you were discussing this on a PbtA forum use all the technical language you want.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Sure, I'm not suggesting one approach is objectively better than the other. I am a pretty literal, blunt, up front, straight to the point sort of person. So I tend to personally favor the "yup its even embedded in the play loop" thing myself, but I agree that D&D often is conveying similar ideas, and yes you could even be more explicit. I think '5.5e' probably will tend to be more clear and straightforward. 5e is rather far in the direction of being vague for me!

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.

Well, I mean, story, or at least narrative with some momentum to it, are hopefully coming out of a game like DW, yes. OTOH there's a pretty strong vein of 'interacting with the shared imagined world' there too. The GM is certainly acting a bit like the set director, putting a house here, a tree there, an ornery old grandma over there, etc. I've also always felt that there's a lot more 'story arranging' and 'being a fan of the PCs' in trad/classic gaming than GMs often care to admit. I know I saw it in my games, things really don't work without it. Nor would I characterize, say, Dungeon World as a game where the PCs always win. I've seen a couple parties die gloriously, and a couple die ignominiously by inches as they told themselves they could handle the risk. Torchbearer is better at doing that last type, but you can end up there in DW as well. The GM needs to stick to their guns though, and I would agree that its harder, because you could always argue a bit softer move here or there would have worked. Its a pretty flexible game though for that reason, YOU could be hard as nails and hammer on the resource game (Oh, you are feeling hungry now eat another ration! Your torch is sputtering...). I could largely not make those moves and focus on more of a high fantasy. It can work either way.

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.

Right, I think there are however genuinely uneraseable differences between the two styles, not that one is better than the other. I sometimes hear a lot of talk about how its all really the same, and I don't think those posters are doing the unique features of each game justice.

 

[dave2008]

And what are you referencing here?

I read that you brought in a doppelganger group to wipe them out - twice IIRC. It made no sense and didn't relate to or move the story along. It was not creative, realistic, interesting, or fun. It was just hostile.

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

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

How do you know that it is common? I have never seen a survey or poll of such a thing. Do you have sources? I think your are assuming it is common, much like you are assuming that is their style. From everything you have told us, you don't really know the group at all (other than the two sessions you ran for them).

Now, I am not saying your wrong, I don't know. But I am guessing your own, apparently strong, biases may be clouding your judgement.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I'm not sure I get that, honestly. Like in the example I was giving, a GM was depicted as asking a player to relate a story explaining a certain fact (lots of adventurers are present at the Keep) which seems odd. Its not the character making that up, and its certainly likely that the character will/has heard this story/rumor (we can assume they have, though the GM might also frame a scene where they hear it). Certainly there's no need to do this for everything, but it allows players to convey what their interests are. This player is probably interested in exploring a mysterious disappearance, or just thinks rumors like that are cool and interesting. Maybe he just wants a hook he can follow to try to find a treasure.

I mean, to a certain degree its just 6 of one and half-a-dozen of the other who makes up something like that. Its not like the player is going to spoil the game, and I doubt they have any less creative ability than GMs as a general principle.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Why was it more special because it was made last Tuesday evening and not Sunday afternoon at the table? I also never got this. Not a criticism, its just something that makes me scratch my head. Either way someone just literally pulled it out of their imagination.

 

[dave2008]

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.

I think you need to be able to separate players from characters. I am the DM of our group and the game world is generally mine, but it is really refreshing and leads to a better more engaging world IME if you allow others (such as players) to help flesh some it out. Now, that doesn't require the characters to have any connection to that, it is just world building. Same as I do as DM. It is just more ideas/voices make a better world.

 

[bloodtide]

I read that you brought in a doppelganger group to wipe them out - twice IIRC. It made no sense and didn't relate to or move the story along. It was not creative, realistic, interesting, or fun. It was just hostile.

Well, you are welcome to your option.

A multiverse hit squad made sense and is creative, realistic, interesting, and fun for millions of people, other then you.

How do you know that it is common? I have never seen a survey or poll of such a thing. Do you have sources? I think your are assuming it is common, much like you are assuming that is their style. From everything you have told us, you don't really know the group at all (other than the two sessions you ran for them).

Reading people is a skill. To one that has the ability, people are an open book.

Now, I am not saying your wrong, I don't know. But I am guessing your own, apparently strong, biases may be clouding your judgement.

Seems doubtful.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Remember how touchy you got when you thought someone was discounting the importance or enjoyment of worldbuilding? Here you are saying that the way some games world build is meaningless.

For the record, I disagree with any advice that suggests the campaign revolves around the characters. My preference.

What else would the game revolve around?

 

[Oofta]

.... It is just more ideas/voices make a better world.

Right. Because design by committee is always better.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Have you considered that maybe they're using it as a shorthand for the forum and that's not what they told their players?

No, because as I said in the original post, I'm talking specifically about DMs who say 'I don't run for evil PCs' specifically. Not people paraphrasing things on the forums, people saying it out in the wild.