D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Aldarc]

Except, yes it is. The bolded sees to that, in that it's normal human nature to want to cheer rather than lament; thus this advice introduces and then reinforces a bias towards wanting them to win and-or going easy on them (because cheering is more fun than lamenting) rather than simply presenting things neutrally and letting the chips fall where they may.

Particularly for new GMs, I think this is poor advice; other than the last sentence "You're not here to..." which is very sound.

And I think that one problem is that you are looking at this entirely in isolation from the other principles. It would be erroneous if we looked at the OSR principles in Principia Apocrypha, for example, and pretended that "Embrace Chaos" existed in isolation without also reading the "But Uphold Logic" principle. Principles exist as a set.

In Dungeon World, you are likewise instructed as a GM to "think dangerous" and "make a move that follows" what you have set up in the fiction. If you have set up a dragon getting ready to breath dragon fire at the player and the player fails, then guess what? The GM doesn't roll. The GM can't fudge here. They are obligated by the rules, which GMs are instructed to follow, to make a move that follows the fiction. Don't pull your punches as a GM. What has been set up in the fiction? Dragon fire directed towards the PC. This means that the PC will take damage from the fire. I may have wanted the PC to succeed here and to see them triumph, but I have no control over their dice, and I'm not going to pull my punches.

It's my job and explicit agenda when making moves as a GM to "fill your player characters' lives with adventure" and "play to find out what happens" and not "play to make the story I want happen." So that also means that if the player characters fails when you put danger in front of them, then they fail.

Then a different term is needed, because "being a fan of" does mean you want whatever it is you're a fan of to succeed.

Nah, the term is perfectly fine. The term "referee," on the other hand...

 

[Lanefan]

I would also add terms like "campaign" and "saving throw" to the list.

I'll give you saving throw but I think campaign is pretty generic.

So you undoubtedly agree that you probably shouldn't be refereeing D&D, since you find that interesting, which could unduly influence your rulings and judgments? Glad we cleared that up.

You know, that's probably fair comment. Guilty as charged, y'r honour.

Regardless. That advice is there in the 5e DMG whether you like it or not, and I suspect that things will only lean further that direction in the remastered 5e D&D.

The 5e DMG says that the DM is wearing many hats. They are not solely or exclusively serving as the referee. And when they are the referee it is in so far as they are an arbiter of the rules and having to make rulings. That doesn't mean that they are neutral when it comes to the players. After all, if that were the case, then there wouldn't be the culture of the DM "fudging" or making sure that everyone is having fun.

The culture of the DM fudging needs to die screaming in a very hot fire. Right now.

And to some extent it's not just the DM's responsibility to ensure everyone's having fun: the players need to see to that themselves as well.

Nah, you can. Consider this. As a player, I am a fan of my own character. I want them to succeed. But as a player I also put my character into challenging situations because success is all the sweeter when it has been earned through hardship.

I too am very much a fan of my own characters, though while I put them into challenging situations I also (usually*) try in-character to mitigate the risk and hardship as best I can. To use a sports analogy, while a win's a win I'd still far rather win 7-1 than 4-3.

* - except when I'm playing one of my low-wisdom gonzo types that sometimes have a very limited sense of self-preservation.

But as a player I also like being a fan of other players' characters. I likewise enjoy seeing their characters overcome adversity.

I'm a bit more neutral toward other players' characters; they've each got their own players to cheer for them. My cheering extends more to the party as a whole and its successes.

The same is true when I GM. Even in D&D, I am a fan of the player characters. I want to see them succeed; however, I also want to see them challenged. They may not always succeed, because we don't know the outcomes, and that's fine. Despite what you insist, I remain unconvinced that these are contradictory. When I design or run a dungeon, for example, I want the players to be challenged and I am secretly pulling for for them to succeed but I also don't (a) presume their success nor (b) put my thumb on the scale to ensure their success, because (c) as a GM I am also playing to find out what happens and I too want to be surprised.

When I design a dungeon I want the players (as their characters) to be challenged, I'm neither pulling for them to succeed nor pulling for them to fail (though I'll have downstream ideas in mind to suit either outcome, along "what if they..." lines). I just let it run, see what happens, and often be surprised at how it happens.

For example: in the last session I ran, the party got into what I expected would be a real headache for them: a maze full of teleporters. I'd made up little chits of paper to track the characters on the map in case they got separated (which I kinda thought would be inevitable), and was all ready to run most of a session of them wandering around in there - and fighting undead that every now and then come ambling in.

And so of course by sheer blind luck the party got through it together in next to no time.

Do you think that Matt Mercer, for example, is neutral when it comes to the successes of his players? Do you think that he isn't a fan of his players' characters?

Never watched Critical Role. Likely never will. Can't speak to this one.

However, I believe we generally regard the sentiment of "oh those foreign cultures and their customs are so weird!" to be xenophobic.

Perhaps, but when someone brings that culture up out of the blue I don't think it's valid to expect everyone to know about it.

 

[pemerton]

I really do not see why you have a difficulty with this, no one really allows player characters uncontrolled freedom to act as they may imagine. They are at least constrained by the rules of the game. In older editions of D&D for example, it was explicit in the rules that player characters had alignment and if they acted contrary to that alignment the DM would change their alignment.
@Oofta has a houserule that player characters that become evil become NPCs. This is now a constraint on play, a rule of the game, just like alignment change was of yore.

I personally wouldn't use such a rule, as a special case of my more general aversion to mechanical and GM-adjudicated alignment. Some time around late 1985 I read an article in Dragon 101, "For King and Country", which showed me how ditching AD&D-style alignment would improve my game, and I followed it's advice, and it worked, and I've never looked back.

But that's me. @Oofta is, naturally, at liberty to use whatever rule he wants to!

My point is much narrower: that if a game includes alignment rules like the one Oofta uses, then it is not true that players have total control over their PCs.

And I think this is quite different from the idea that players being required to abide by the rules in general is a limit on their freedom. In a RPG, those rules, by default, permit the adjudication and resolution of whatever fictionally conceivable action a player declares for their PC. The most common departure from that default that I'm aware of is an action economy of some or other sort - eg the D&D combat rules, or the rule in Torchbearer that all player characters must be in the same phase together. I think a rule that restricts players from declaring actions for their PCs based on the GM's moral evaluation of those actions is quite different in its character and effect.

 

[pemerton]

those moments are only special because they're infrequent. If they happened all the time they wouldn't be special any more.

This isn't my experience. In the same way that every episode I watch of (say) Arrow involves the Green Arrow and team getting up to exciting hijinks, so I want every session of adventure-oriented RPGing to involve exciting hijinks.

If the RPG is less about adventure and more about drama or pathos, I want that too. Every time.

 

[Lanefan]

And I think that one problem is that you are looking at this entirely in isolation from the other principles. It would be erroneous if we looked at the OSR principles in Principia Apocrypha, for example, and pretended that "Embrace Chaos" existed in isolation without also reading the "But Uphold Logic" principle. Principles exist as a set.

Isn't "Embrace Chaos" the only principle one really ever needs anyway, in order to run a fun game?

In Dungeon World, you are likewise instructed as a GM to "think dangerous" and "make a move that follows" what you have set up in the fiction. If you have set up a dragon getting ready to breath dragon fire at the player and the player fails, then guess what? The GM doesn't roll. The GM can't fudge here. They are obligated by the rules, which GMs are instructed to follow, to make a move that follows the fiction. Don't pull your punches as a GM. What has been set up in the fiction? Dragon fire directed towards the PC. This means that the PC will take damage from the fire. I may have wanted the PC to succeed here and to see them triumph, but I have no control over their dice, and I'm not going to pull my punches.

It's my job and explicit agenda when making moves as a GM to "fill your player characters' lives with adventure" and "play to find out what happens" and not "play to make the story I want happen." So that also means that if the player characters fails when you put danger in front of them, then they fail.

Which tells me, to your credit, that you're able to separate the desire to cheer rather than lament from the desire to neutrally present fair opposition to the PCs.

I suspect many new GMs would read the advice as written and take it to mean that the PCs were always supposed to win. I know that's how I'd see it.

 

[Lanefan]

This isn't my experience. In the same way that every episode I watch of (say) Arrow involves the Green Arrow and team getting up to exciting hijinks, so I want every session of adventure-oriented RPGing to involve exciting hijinks.

If the RPG is less about adventure and more about drama or pathos, I want that too. Every time.

Where I'm willing to accept much more ebb and flow, I suppose.

With episodic TV, any show tends to become very formulaic in its episode structure unless it's specifically trying to tell a bigger story (e.g. Battlestar Galactica or Game of Thrones). Law and Order solves a case every week. Xena does something heroic every week. Maxwell Smart does something comedically stupid every week. And so on. Thus we-as-audience quickly come to know what to expect; and if that's what we like, we tune in every week to watch that formula play out over the hour (or whatever consistent length) the show runs.

Bigger-story-arc shows tend to be much less formulaic within any one episode, other than often trying to end at a suspenseful moment.

I want my RPGs to be more like those bigger-arc shows, only without the pre-scripted story and known or pre-defined end point.

 

[Aldarc]

I'll give you saving throw but I think campaign is pretty generic.

It really isn't IME. When I first started, I remember having to ask my friends what they meant when they kept talking about their "campaign" or "campaign setting." I understand that "campaign" comes from a "military campaign," referring to military operations, but it was not obvious to me at first that it was being used in the sense of a multi-part series of game sessions that link to create a narrative. I have likewise received similar questions about what I meant by a "campaign" from people who are new to tabletop gaming.

The culture of the DM fudging needs to die screaming in a very hot fire. Right now.

You are not going to get one iota of disagreement from me here. I roll out in the open in games with GM rolls. It's one way that I help build trust as a GM with my players.

Thankfully, I can't fudge dice as a DM in Dungeon World/Stonetop. This means that when players fail a roll and I follow up with moves as a GM, it often leads to a lot of surprises in the narrative that I have neither intended nor anticipated. I am not saying that such surprises are impossible in D&D, by no means, but I have personally found that they come more naturally without force as part of the natural play loop in PbtA games.

I too am very much a fan of my own characters, though while I put them into challenging situations I also (usually*) try in-character to mitigate the risk and hardship as best I can. To use a sports analogy, while a win's a win I'd still far rather win 7-1 than 4-3.

That's a bit more difficult in Dungeon World due to the nature of the resolution system. This resolution system is also a contributing factor for the GM's own investment in the success and failures of the player characters.

When I design a dungeon I want the players (as their characters) to be challenged, I'm neither pulling for them to succeed nor pulling for them to fail (though I'll have downstream ideas in mind to suit either outcome, along "what if they..." lines). I just let it run, see what happens, and often be surprised at how it happens.

And so of course by sheer blind luck the party got through it together in next to no time.

Do you feel anything when the players (as their characters) succeed or fail? Do you suppress all emotion towards them in the interest of keeping this strictly professional?

Perhaps, but when someone brings that culture up out of the blue I don't think it's valid to expect everyone to know about it.

I think that there is a difference between expecting that people will know about other cultures and actively othering foreign cultures for being different. But this point has been resolved with the OP and talked out enough.

Isn't "Embrace Chaos" the only principle one really ever needs anyway, in order to run a fun game?

(1) This isn't my point that I am making here, which I hope you can understand.

(2) Please remember that games aren't supposed to be fun as a referee. Please keep it professional.

Which tells me, to your credit, that you're able to separate the desire to cheer rather than lament from the desire to neutrally present fair opposition to the PCs.

Thanks. I'll take that as a success.

I suspect many new GMs would read the advice as written and take it to mean that the PCs were always supposed to win. I know that's how I'd see it.

Again, that is a conclusion that I reached from reading these Dungeon World principles together and not in isolation from each other. Likewise it came from listening to other people talk about the game and watching it in action. Same with the OSR principles. They do not exist in isolation of each other. One Lego piece doesn't make the whole set. Instead, each piece builds on the other. Same with game principles.

 

[Oofta]

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!)

I can't speak for anyone else, I've never mentioned anything about hard and soft moves. It has little to nothing for why I don't care for the approach the game takes. This is yet another example of people assuming that just because a concept is repeated that everyone should just "know" what you mean. I've asked a few times and I don't remember anyone actually explaining how the rule is implemented, how it sets any real limits on the GM. It just gets repeated "the GM can make hard and soft moves", almost like a mantra.

It's unhelpful to discussions to use specific game terminology that not only is confusing but also not explained. It's also seems pretty irrelevant since this is a D&D forum. It's like going to a car forum and saying "Cars would be a lot better if they could have this feature of airplanes."

 

[Oofta]

Reality has a multitude of opinions and perspectives, it is hard (actually impossible) for one person to recreate that diversity in a fantasy world. DMs can do it well enough for the purposes of a game, but I found that the realities I create for our games became "more" when I added other perspectives as well.

If multiple ideas always produced better results, design by committee would always produce better results. It doesn't. It's fine if it works for you, it's not for everyone. I find that my world is more realistic because I've used the same campaign world for a long time and retained consistency and thematic components despite having multiple players come and go (and we've moved too many times ).

It's also not particularly relevant to why I don't want to help build a collaborative world. I DM about half the time or more, I have no problem with world building. But when I play a character, I want to experience and explore a world from an individuals perspective. It's just a different approach and mindset that I find rewarding and an important part of being on both sides of the DM's screen. In addition some people just aren't very good at world building, we all have strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Aldarc]

I can't speak for anyone else, I've never mentioned anything about hard and soft moves. It has little to nothing for why I don't care for the approach the game takes. This is yet another example of people assuming that just because a concept is repeated that everyone should just "know" what you mean.

You mean like Rule Zero?

I've asked a few times and I don't remember anyone actually explaining how the rule is implemented, how it sets any real limits on the GM. It just gets repeated "the GM can make hard and soft moves", almost like a mantra.

I don't think that this is accurate. Across multiple threads across multiple years, I believe that the Dungeon World play loop has been explained to you in simplistic terms; citations have been made; full excerpts have been posted; and rules have been explained and clarified. I am more than willing to do so again, should you ask politely, but I would prefer to do so without you misremembering/mischaracterizing past dicussions with me and others.

It's unhelpful to discussions to use specific game terminology that not only is confusing but also not explained. It's also seems pretty irrelevant since this is a D&D forum. It's like going to a car forum and saying "Cars would be a lot better if they could have this feature of airplanes."

Just me following along, but you were also making claims about Dungeon World in what @pemerton was responding to:

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. But neither is killing off the PCs to "teach them a lesson" because they didn't play the way you wanted them to play.

We have here a very specific scenario. Using this as an example, I simply don't see why a GM in DW couldn't do the same thing, just in a slightly different manner.

@EzekielRaiden was the first to mention DW in this thread, but this was primarily in terms of the principle "be a fan of the characters." This principle is no more out of place in the discussion of GMing 5e than principles that are found in OSR games.