D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Faolyn]

Well, no, again I would have them take personal responsibility.

Yes? Can't see a reason to stop the movie over that. Plenty of movies are made to be upsetting, so if a watcher gets upset, then the filmmakers did a good job.

Well, there just are different ways of doing it.

No. Too many people are vague, lie or just are clueless. And worst of all is people cherry pick.

So basically, you don't care about other people then. You don't care if a person could die or get very sick just by entering your home. Some movies can literally make people sick because of anxiety, which is not the point of probably 99% of movies.

Take my Star Trek Adventures example from up thread. Two players went crazy and left the game as they were triggered by the Baby Borg on the Borg Cube. At no time before they game did they say "we are triggered by fictional evil cyborg babies, please don't have any in the game". They just got triggered out of the blue.

I hardly think "harm to infants" counts as out of the blue. That's a very common thing that upsets many people. It doesn't matter if it's because they were injected with nanoprobes or because somebody decided to hit one with a fist. They're both "harm to infants" and something that, quite frankly, just about everyone should realize must be handled with care. It is very much common sense.

Now, take a recent example that happened at my table, in a CoC game that takes place in the 30s. There was a time-traveling flash-forward that included some Holocaust imagery--a brief scene of a camp but no descriptions of bodies or executions that I can recall, but this triggered one of the players, who is Jewish. So you know what happened? We paused the game for the night, had an adult conversation about things, and the GM did not get triggered by the other player's actions. He apologized, since he hadn't realized this non-graphic imagery would be considered so horrible as to cause harm to that player, and then we continued with the game. Nobody left the game and the game didn't end and we're all still friends. Because we were considerate and talked like adults.

My group... well, some of us have been gaming together for well over 20 years, and even the newest person has been with us for like 4-5 years. How long do your groups stick together?

The same way I've had the problem where the group would go to a market in the Underdark, and I'd mention some drow slavers with some human prisoners. The player "said" they agreed to a PG-13 game, but still made a big deal about it and disrupted the game.

So you didn't bother to find out if slavery was upsetting to any of your players? Or did you just go into so much detail that it became upsetting? I have a sneaking suspicion it was the latter.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Well, no, again I would have them take personal responsibility.

I see the problem now.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here is a quote from AW (p 114), which (to the best of my knowledge) coined the phrase "be a fan of the PCs":

Be a fan of the players’ characters. “Make the characters’ lives not boring” does not mean “always worse.” Sometimes worse, sure, of course. Always? Definitely not.​

​

The worst way there is to make a character’s life more interesting is to take away the things that made the character cool to begin with. The gunlugger’s guns, but also the gunlugger’s collection of ancient photographs — what makes the character match our expectations and also what makes the character rise above them. Don’t take those away.​

​

The other worst way is to deny the character success when the character’s fought for it and won it. Always give the characters what they work for! No, the way to make a character’s success interesting is to make it consequential. When a character accomplishes something, have all of your NPCs respond. Reevaluate all those PC–NPC–PC triangles you’ve been creating. Whose needs change? Whose opinions change? Who was an enemy, but now is afraid; who was an enemy, but now sees better opportunities as an ally? Let the characters’ successes make waves outward, let them topple the already unstable situation. There are no status quos in Apocalypse World! Even life doesn’t always suck.​

​

“Make as hard and direct a move as you like” means just that. As hard and direct as you like. It doesn’t mean “make the worst move you can think of.” Apocalypse World is already out to get the players’ characters. So are the game’s rules. If you, the MC, are out to get them too, they’re plain <in trouble>.​

Being a fan of the players' characters means leaning into those PCs, putting them at the centre of the action, embracing their protagonism. In the way that most serial fiction does with its main characters.

It's advice to run a game that is basically the opposite of a classic D&D tournament, in which any group of PCs could be substituted for any other group of PCs and it would make no difference to the setting, the situation or the action.

Hmm. Not my cup of tea, really.

 

[pemerton]

This thread, for example, isn't marked as "Let's talk about Dungeon World and similar games", and those games can be discussed without resorting to terms others are unlikely to understand. We've all done it.

This thread is manifestly about GMing problems.

The idea that we are going to discuss GMing problems without drawing on the full range of applicable concepts and resources seems odd to me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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. 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.

I don't think its any more arcane than 'class', 'level', 'hit points' 'armor class', 'DC', 'ability check', etc. I mean 'move' comes STRAIGHT out of basically every other sort of games there are, its very vanilla! It doesn't mean 'what does your character do' either, it means 'you did something that is covered by a special rule'. Actually there isn't a specific word for "my character does something", we usually use the term 'action', but DW often just says "what you did" or "if you do it, you do it". Its a rather informal and non-jargony game IME.

Front is literally taken from military terminology, and I think probably by way of wargames in the case of DW. It represents an 'area of concern' or an 'independent plot arc'. I'm sure there are potentially other terms that could be used, though I'm not sure why they would be preferable (but by all means suggest other terms we can use).

As for this forum, its an RPG forum, and these are quite commonly used terms that were introduced at least 15 years ago with the specific meanings that PbtA games give them. I mean, sure, D&D's jargon is older, though honestly DW uses D&D jargon wherever it can. It uses 'ability score' (and the same 6 that D&D uses, with the same bonus structure as d20)! It uses level, hit points, damage, monster, NPC, PC, the same names for its playbooks that D&D uses for its classes, etc. etc. etc. I'd say Dungeon World literally bent over backwards to sound familiar to and be easy to understand for people playing other RPGs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Because it was made by the player, and had nothing to do with their PC. That's not the player's job in my games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This thread is manifestly about GMing problems.

The idea that we are going to discuss GMing problems without drawing on the full range of applicable concepts and resources seems odd to me.

Like I said, you can talk about these games without resorting to bespoke terminology that you know everyone involved isn't familiar with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

You are welcome to feel that way, but in D&D that is not what I want, as a DM or a player.

 

[pemerton]

Like I said, you can talk about these games without resorting to bespoke terminology that you know everyone involved isn't familiar with.

You and @Oofta have participated in so many threads in which DW terminology comes up (and is complained about) that frankly it doesn't occur to me that you're not familiar with it by now.

Especially something like "front" which is used in the game in its ordinary meaning of being a field or site of conflict.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Oye, you all complain about terminology! Here's what Dungeon World actually says:

"Be a fan of the characters
Think of the players’ characters as protagonists in a story you
might see on TV. Cheer for their victories and lament their defeats.
You’re not here to push them in any particular direction, merely to
participate in fiction that features them and their action."

Its not being nice to them, its not 'wanting it to win' etc. It is being a fan. I bet all of you who spend lots of time and energy on your settings are 'fans' of those settings, right? I bet you are! Its fine too. You're not proposing that this makes it impossible for you to be objective about how the setting works or what's in it, right?

I am just as capable as that of being a fan of the characters. They're cool and quirky, and when they attempt to put the keystone back in the cap of the Well of Stars and screw up, they probably get to die too! OK? Sheesh.