D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem is, over the years it seems "fun" and "easy" have (and continue to) become more and more synonymous in the eyes of the player base writ large.

I'm totally on board with consistent + interesting = fun. Easy is optional.

No, the hobby has simply grown, so there are a lot more different sorts of people playing different ways now than there were in 1974 when it was 2 geeks gleefully putting everyone through a meat grinder. Them days are over! That being said, this style of play is absolutely still valid and probably has more adherents today than it did in 1981 when Moldvay wrote Basic. There is no 'problem' here at all.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

I just care differently. I'm not sure of what things could just make a person sink from entering my house. I take it you have, could you give some examples of things you and others have done in such a case? Or maybe if anyone else has an example?

Movies have warnings on them, right at the start. So if someone reads and listens to the warnings, then sits there to watch the movie, and "suddenly" a couple minutes later they have a "problem", I put that all on them.

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.

You kind of prove my point here.

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.

Well, I don't agree with this action at all. I came to play an RPG for a couple hours: as soon as someone says "I want to stop playing the game and talk " I'm out. It's not why I am there. And I sure would not do it if I was host or in charge.

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?

My three main groups are 26, 18 and 9 years. Next down are my 6 and 3 ones. Then my two 1 year groups. And my Spelljammer newbes, almost 8 months.

I am a classic Long Haul Long Game Old School DM. I don't do the "quick games that play out in a couple weeks or one published adventure".

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.

I do use details in my game.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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

A skill I am pretty confident you don’t have.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Well, I don't agree with this action at all. I came to play an RPG for a couple hours: as soon as someone says "I want to stop playing the game and talk " I'm out. It's not why I am there.

Well that is an incredibly immature and self-centered way to handle yourself.

My only hope is that this whole tread is a massive…never mind.

 

[Irlo]

My only hope is that this whole tread is a massive…never mind.

It is!

 

[pemerton]

In DW, I don't see anything from stopping the GM from making an insurmountable front with repeated moves that will eventually kill off the characters when they fail. Is it playing "fair" or according to the spirit of the rules? No.

How would rules change this scenario (from badly planned prison break to "teaching the players a lesson") from being FUBAR to being truly enjoyable for everyone? Or even improve the result? Other than "it would ". It's not that I refuse to consider, but you have yet to explain how it would make much of a difference. I have listened to a few hours of a DW stream and it's just not for me for a variety of reasons that aren't relevant here. But I also don't see how anything would change the end result.

The difference that DW would make is that the structure of play is expressly based around escalation of the rising action (GM "soft moves") punctuated by moments of crisis or climax (player-side moves and/or "hard moves").

Various posters, including you (Oofta), have said that you do not like DW. Various reasons have been given - the way it relies on a pattern of soft moves and hard moves has been one of those.

The DW approach may therefore not be feasible for you, or to others who don't like some or all of its features. But it an approach that is available to those who want it.

Whether the approach can be adapted to 5e D&D would be a further question. My view is that it probably can't be. To take up the approach would require adapting DW, or a framework much closer to it.

(EDIT: corrected "patter" to "pattern", though the former is not entirely wrong!)

 

[Faolyn]

I just care differently. I'm not sure of what things could just make a person sink from entering my house. I take it you have, could you give some examples of things you and others have done in such a case? Or maybe if anyone else has an example?

There are lots of allergies that are quite dangerous. There are other allergies that cause very unpleasant reactions, even if they're not fatal. Some allergies can even cause anaphylaxis if you touch a surface on which the food was prepared. I've heard of cases of people with peanut allergies getting horribly sick by kissing or being breathed on by people who had eaten a peanut butter sandwich hours before.

In the Before Times, we would game at a friend's parents' house--he used to live there, eventually moved out, his parents still didn't mind us coming over using their enormous table, and his mother apparently loves cooking for us. Then we got a new player who was allergic to lots of things, although fortunately none of their allergies cause, fortunately. They tried to bring their own food and she responded by cooking food for them separately and keeping the kitchen door closed when she was cooking with any capsaicin or nightshades, so the smell wouldn't make them sick. And by sick, I mean seriously swollen up and in pain for days. When she didn't cook, we would order out, and we would avoid getting spicy food because we knew the smell would sicken him.

A bit of decency keeps my friend from being sick.

Likewise, the friend whose house we gamed at keeps kosher to some degree, so we make sure to avoid getting food that he can't eat because of that. We've done the same for vegetarian and vegan friends.

Movies have warnings on them, right at the start. So if someone reads and listens to the warnings, then sits there to watch the movie, and "suddenly" a couple minutes later they have a "problem", I put that all on them.

How about no scare quotes around the word problem? The problems are real, even if you don't care about them.

Also, movies tend to just having warnings like "gore" or "nudity." They don't usually say things like "baby murder" or "torture."

And no, that's not just "on them." If you want to be a good host, it's up to you to make sure your guests are comfortable.

You kind of prove my point here.

Was your point that you didn't bother to think about a very common trigger and sprung it on people without warning or asking? If that's the case, I agree.

One of the people at my table will say things like "hey, you guys OK with killing slavers" before an adventure arc starts. They're also a very good DM. While I don't go that far, I do pay attention to what people don't want to see and work around it, which is why I don't use certain topics in my games, even though they're actually perfect for the genre I run (horror). Because being able to use that topic is less important than everyone at the table is having fun.

Well, I don't agree with this action at all. I came to play an RPG for a couple hours: as soon as someone says "I want to stop playing the game and talk " I'm out. It's not why I am there. And I sure would not do it if I was host or in charge.

Have you considered working on your interpersonal skills?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be able to have fun playing a game that was upsetting someone else--it would knock me right out of immersion and make me want to help that person who was upset.

I do use details in my game.

So it wasn't that they got upset that you included slavers; they got upset because you included gory details.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

To my mind, being a fan of a character doesn't mean always wanting them to win (or worse, throwing the game in their favor); it means wanting them to be cool. It means running them through the wringer so they look even more bada$$ when they succeed, not because you think that they need to spend all their resources before they take a rest. If they die, they should have awesome deaths, not just die because they triggered a trap you stuck in a room because you had two empty rooms already and you didn't want a third. If they succeed, they should succeed in a way and against a foe that makes them feel really awesome, not just "OK, we cleaned out another nest of goblins and got the reward, ho hum."

 

[Faolyn]

Edit: Nevermind; I misread.

 

[bloodtide]

A bit of decency keeps my friend from being sick.

Likewise, the friend whose house we gamed at keeps kosher to some degree, so we make sure to avoid getting food that he can't eat because of that. We've done the same for vegetarian and vegan friends.

The question is how much would you change your life for the whims of several people. And how far would you go?

As you said, you'd jump at the chance to eat all vegan food if someone asked you too. But if someone was a meat eater, would you and the vegan eater jump at the chance to eat meat? Why not? It's the same thing. If your going to say "to honor Sally, we will have seaweed cakes" and you would expect everyone to eat them. Then you should also do "Well, Hank likes meat so in honor of that we have ribs", and expect everyone to eat them. I have a feeling you'd disagree, so why does it not work that way?

Also, movies tend to just having warnings like "gore" or "nudity." They don't usually say things like "baby murder" or "torture."

And no, that's not just "on them." If you want to be a good host, it's up to you to make sure your guests are comfortable.

The type of person that does not want to see stuff, is unlikely to be a movie watcher anyway. After all if they have even a short list, they can't watch like 90% of all movies. I don't often do a kids movie night, but when I do, I ask parents to check out the IBDM movie notes for parents and decide if they want their kid to see the movie.

I try to avoid the repeat of showing some kids the old, old Disney movie Bedknobs and Broomsticks...where Angela Lasnsbury fights them bad German folk from WW2. Some parents were not happy.

One of the people at my table will say things like "hey, you guys

If you can't tell by my type, I am Super Clear that I run an Adult Unrated Game. The examples I give are people joining the game under falsehood, or just outright lying that "they are fine with everything".

Have you considered working on your interpersonal skills?

No, but I don't need too. I'm very clear and open about myself. It's up to others to take it or leave it.

So it wasn't that they got upset that you included slavers; they got upset because you included gory details.

No. It was just a passing over of the things sold in the underdark market, but just the words were enough.

To my mind, being a fan of a character doesn't mean always wanting them to win (or worse, throwing the game in their favor); it means wanting them to be cool. It means running them through the wringer so they look even more bada$$ when they succeed,

I'm sure a wringer DM....though the Old School term is Meat Grinder.

. If they die, they should have awesome deaths, not just die because they triggered a trap you stuck in a room because you had two empty rooms already and you didn't want a third. If they succeed, they should succeed in a way and against a foe that makes them feel really awesome, not just "OK, we cleaned out another nest of goblins and got the reward, ho hum."

I don't agree here. I think the strength and uniqueness of an RPG is anything can happen any time. Character death might just happen, though most often is the player 's chosen path. But I don't do "the character has plot armor for 99% of the adventure"

I agree a bit more on success, and it's why I Railroad hard to make it at least possible to happen....for the players that step up to do it.