D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

I dunno about that, they are free to do what they want, it is just the consequences of some actions is that the PC becomes an NPC. However, we could qibble on this point forever without reaching an agreement.

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.

On a tangential but related note (and I think relevant to the thread topic) how do you feel about constraint on character behaviour by social contract? If the table agrees to a PG 13 game/campaign do you not think it out of line to conduct some R rated actions?

 

[Oofta]

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.

I don't care what alignment people put on their character sheets. I couldn't tell you the alignment of any of the PCs at my table. I don't allow continued play of characters that commit evil acts since that would lead to a game I don't enjoy. We all limit certain behavior at the table, it's just most of it is likely unspoken social contract. My line is just different from some.

 

[dave2008]

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 doesn't seem like you really took the time to read and understand what you responded too. I made no claim that "multiple ideas always produced better results," and in fact suggested and it can fine for a game. Nor did I suggest it was for everyone. I specifically said "...I found..." That is personal experience, not everyone's.

I agree that using the same world for a long time can had layers of depth and realism. I never suggested otherwise. My current campaign world is going on 14 years and is really an extension of my first world from about 40 years ago. However, it still grew richer, deeper, and more realistic when I allowed other perspectives to help add even more detail and definition.

It is not possible for me, or any one person, to truly know all possible perspectives that existing our world.

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.

I agree. When I play a character and not DM, I don't want to world build either. I never suggested it was something a player had to do. If jumped into the middle of such a discussion I apologize. I missed that corner of the conversation.

In addition some people just aren't very good at world building, we all have strengths and weaknesses.

Again, I never meant to suggest it was for everyone. My only point really is that I think there is real value to a DM listening to the perspectives of players with regard to world building. I am not even suggesting you need to do what they want, just listen.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

There is another advantage to getting input from others in creating the world: the way we see the world (our world, not the campaign world) tends to have a disproportionate weight on what “seems” normal, even if it isn’t the case. Allowing another’s input can counterbalance the perspective and make the world more real overall.

PuffinForest has a funny video of a campaign he DMed in which for three adventures in a row, the questgiver stabs the party in the back. The DM was the only person who didn’t realize that he was reproducing a pattern.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

And yet, you were completely blindsided by the fact that certain people would be so disturbed by the inclusion of Borg babies that they would refuse to continue playing.

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.



What else would the game revolve around?

The setting, and the PCs reaction to it.

And I was explaining why I don't like something, not suggesting that something some people like didmt

I assume your are just talking about not wanting your players ideas and creativity and that you can in fact separate the characters identities from the players identities.

If that is the case, while a respect that you have a method you prefer, it might open you up to new ideas if you share the reigns a bit. I definitely started gaming as the DM that created the world, cosmos, and had control of everything. I do in fact really enjoy world building. However, I found that my world's became even more lively, engaging, and immersive when I shared some of that task with others. 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.

Now, as part of session 0 or sometimes even before, I share my ideas of the world/cosmos with the group and take in feedback and ideas. I then incorporate those ideas into the world. It has made my worlds, and my games better.

And before the campaign begins, I have no problem listening to players and maybe taking their suggestions to heart in the worldbuilding. What I don't want is a player generating fiction about the world not related to their PC at the table. Once the campaign begins, the players are responsible for their PC only.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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


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.


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.


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

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?


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

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the WotC 5e rules (and the likely revisions to those rules that are coming) is  the way to play D&D, rather than a way that happens to be popular at the moment. Just because many modern DMs subscribe to the ideas you suggest above doesn't mean, "This is the Way".

For example, I believe the DMs job is to do their best to create an environment where they and the players can have fun, not to bend over backwards to make sure they do. I believe a neutral referee who does their best to be fair is better than a "fan" who wants the PCs to succeed with just the right amount of adversity so the game is sufficiently dramatic. The fact that many people instead believe as you do doesn't change my thoughts on the matter or render them less valid.

 

[Aldarc]

You seem to be operating under the assumption that the WotC 5e rules (and the likely revisions to those rules that are coming) is  the way to play D&D, rather than a way that happens to be popular at the moment.

No, this is you assuming things about me, and that's all there is to it, Micah.

 

[Oofta]

You mean like Rule Zero?


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.


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

@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.

The problem is that people have a tendency to explain how it works using game specific terms that don't really mean anything. I was

I understand the play loop because I've been listening to actual play. Until then, I did not really get it. It's the same wit hard and soft moves. Maybe someone somewhere explained it, how GMs are restricted, how that could possibly apply to D&D. In D&D DMs have encounter guidelines and XP budgets, whether or not people pay any attention.

If you can't explain and relate principles of one game to the game this forum is dedicated to, I don't see the point. But perhaps there should be a thread "How to apply DW principles to D&D". Because y'all keep bringing it up but quoting text here and there doesn't mean it's of any use on this forum. That, and if someone did actually explain soft and hard moves, I missed it.

When it comes to being a fan of your players, that's something I'll post on later.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, this is you assuming things about me, and that's all there is to it, Micah.

Your post supported the DM advice in the 5e DMG, and suggested that style would only get stronger in the revision. You also used Matt Mercer, the current most famous 5e GM, as an example. How does that not read as supporting that style over others?