D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Clint_L]

Same here.

However - and I see this every week - when some players want to world-build (or the DM asks them to) and others don't, the inevitable result is that you end up with what feels like two "tiers" of players in the same game.

It's bad.

In my experience, this comes down to the cohesiveness and experience of the group.

When I'm running game for newbies, I am happy if they can just come up with some backstory for their characters, and they seem very happy for me to do almost all the narrative lifting.

In my current home campaign, some players really like to build out the world in the context of their character. So last weekend, when one character finally revealed a huge chunk of her backstory it was news to me, even though it involved adding a new location, culture, and antagonist to the campaign. But she did it in a way that invited my collaboration, and it worked into the plot seamlessly, paying off a number of teases that had come before. We loved it.

On the other hand, my spouse barely has backstory for their character, and seldom does much world building beyond adding the occasional NPC encounter when their artificer is looking for parts and scrap. And they are happy with that.

A third player not only does substantial world building, but wants to take the reins for a story arc, as he has done previously (we'll see if it comes to fruition; I am the work-horse of the group, by far).

I don't get any sense of multi-tier players - it's just what everyone is comfortable with and enjoys. I think that is ultimately what all of this comes down to - figuring out the group dynamic that works so that everyone, including the GM, feels comfortable and included in the way that they prefer. There is no one way. I don't think there ever has been.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, I I agree with this very much. It’s a matter both of sufficient power and/or other resources and of thinking about what’s interesting and cool for the power and other stuff available where the characters are. It’s a matter, fundamentally, of wanting the players to have a good time. That can even include times of not much excitement or adventure if the players have a justified trust that it’s part of a larger thing that is bringing the interest and the coolness.

Thing is, there's a number of loud strident people who just don't have the patience to let those lower-excitement times occur; and (sadly) over the years the game designers have been listening to their voices. That's why, for example, we now have full hit point recovery on a long rest as opposed to natural hit point recovery taking a few days or even weeks. It's also why we have (IMO poor) DM advice amounting to "Get to the action now!" without regard for quietly building up dramatic tension or for including intervals of lower intensity.

 

[bloodtide]

If you knew, truly knew, that the challenge you designed would lead to a TPK and, as/more importantly, that it would be no fun for the group why would you spring it on them? That's rock falls everyone dies but crueler!

I run a hard unfair game. I don't make every encounter an easy button red carpet no effort sort of thing. In general, most of my encounters are deadly as it's a harsh world. Foe don't show up in my game for the players to have a fun combat dance: foes show up in my game to kill the characters.

I also love to give clues and hints and tells away in the game. Lots and lots and lots of little things for players to notice, figure out, put together and such. Of course, the players need to pay attention and have some basic information skills and common sense.

And I really do encourage players working together as a team. Foes are hard as a lot of players Lone Wolf it in combat. Not only ignoring other players and characters, but often actively hindering them or worse.

The players could have figured it out and attacked first, they could have just run or they could have worked together as a team.....or done at least a dozen other things that could have well saved them. They chose "Be lead to our Doom".

You seem to have no aversion to designing "party specific" challenges and have no aversion to railroading/illusionism, in fact you prefer it.

Yes. I would say I'm much more specific to the player.

If you know the group has serious difficulty functioning as a unit and you want to address that, why not design a series of challenges/encounters that does so. Even making them progressively harder so the group sees that IF they don't start working together it's GOING to get bad and they'll likely fail/die. If the goal is to form them into a "cohesive unit" (not something I'm necessarily advocating, but I can see it) why go right to the end stage "slaughter them" encounter?

I did. It was a huge point of the encounter. I do the "basic training" for all groups starting at 1st level. And I put characters through the wringer/meat grinder.

Remember, this was a nearly a whole game session. The evil twins did not show up at 6 pm and kill the characters at 6:05. There were hours of game play.

 

[Aldarc]

Thing is, there's a number of loud strident people who just don't have the patience to let those lower-excitement times occur; and (sadly) over the years the game designers have been listening to their voices. That's why, for example, we now have full hit point recovery on a long rest as opposed to natural hit point recovery taking a few days or even weeks. It's also why we have (IMO poor) DM advice amounting to "Get to the action now!" without regard for quietly building up dramatic tension or for including intervals of lower intensity.

Oofta (among others) likes to remind me from time to time that 5e is the most popular version of the game and that the designers must therefore be doing something right.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So all of this has a tendency to just comes off as "My favored game is better." If ideas in DW can't apply to D&D, why even bring it into the conversation?

I already covered the meat of this post above, but this warranted its own response.

I, and others, bring it into the conversation because you, and others, keep insisting that rules do nothing. That, because they cannot offer ironclad, flawless guarantees of no had behavior ever—IIRC, you have repeatedly used phrases to the effect of "because rules cannot make virtuous men," probably not in those exact words but close enough—it is therefore completely pointless to even try to make better rules or do anything whatsoever to address real issues actual people have.

Dungeon World shows that rules can, as I have said, help address problems. It would be foolish to simply copy it precisely for exactly the same reason that, say, copying the US/Canada Air Quality agreement in order to tackle climate change would be incredibly foolish. The details, legal, social, and scientific, are much too important to simply copy-paste a previous treaty and call it a day. You need to build something new for it to have any chance. But what the US/Canada agreement shows is that we CAN fix climate problems with properly-enforced treaties and laws. Acid rain was a huge concern even when I was a child. Nowadays, at least in North America and Europe? You never hear about it because we fixed the problem. There are still some lingering environmental issues that we'll have to solve because acid doesn't just disappear once it has rained down. But the treaty shows that we CAN successfully solve climate problems we're causing if we actually work for it.

Same for DW, and any other non-D&D rules anyone might bring up. They show that no, this isn't just pie-in-the-sky, white room, pipe-dream theory. It actually works, in real games played by real people. D&D can learn from this, and build its own tools to achieve that end. Those tools will be different in details and execution, but extremelu similar in concept and style, because Dungeon World is conceptually and stylistically modelled after D&D in the first place.

 

[Mort]

Remember, this was a nearly a whole game session. The evil twins did not show up at 6 pm and kill the characters at 6:05. There were hours of game play.

Sure, but your description said they had fun with a few easy/ diversionary encounters that essentially lulled them into a false sense of security and then WHAM killer doppelgangers.

Regardless. What this actually was, was a really big clash of styles. The group was CLEARLY not prepared (and when things ended did not want) the style you run in. It happens.

But I do think it merited a quick talk or two. First to TELL them exactly how you run so they are not surprised. And then a serious talk/lecture on how they are just not working as a team and with the way you run it's GOING to get the PCs killed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

First, any DM should be listening to feedback from their players. Making the final call on rules, being primarily responsible for everything outside the control of the PCs doesn't change anything. If something isn't clear, if people don't understand what's going on, we'll discuss and clarify. Unlike the OP I have no problem talking about the game, and not talking about it occasionally would just be odd. I think unilateral power as you present it is quite rare. At least for anyone thar wants to DM more than once.

Second, as far as moves and so on, I just covered that. I didn't grok how it worked before, I think I'm closer now thanks to the streams I've been listening to.

But I'm not playing a PbtA game. I've learned enough about it that I wouldn't want to. So I don't see how most of what you're talking about is even relevant. In D&D saying that you should begin and end with the fiction is kind of like saying water is wet. The fiction is everything the DM controls, so of course you begin and end with that. But the fiction isn't driven by the players. It can change in response to the player, but it exists on it's own, completely separate from the players.

So all of this has a tendency to just comes off as "My favored game is better." If ideas in DW can't apply to D&D, why even bring it into the conversation?

Yeah, I have to agree that all the talk about DW and games of similar design really reads like, " my game is better and here's why". The mechanics and underlying principles are so different I just can't see how summoning it is useful as advice.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Thing is, there's a number of loud strident people who just don't have the patience to let those lower-excitement times occur;

Some people only get a few hours a week to game and want that time to be worth it.

The days of being good wasting a six hour session laying low and waiting to heal up, or rolling an endless sea of new characters because 'hey, we'll play again after school tomorrow!' is beyond their reach.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oofta (among others) likes to remind me from time to time that 5e is the most popular version of the game and that the designers must therefore be doing something right.

Definitely one of the areas that the two of us differ strongly on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I already covered the meat of this post above, but this warranted its own response.

I, and others, bring it into the conversation because you, and others, keep insisting that rules do nothing. That, because they cannot offer ironclad, flawless guarantees of no had behavior ever—IIRC, you have repeatedly used phrases to the effect of "because rules cannot make virtuous men," probably not in those exact words but close enough—it is therefore completely pointless to even try to make better rules or do anything whatsoever to address real issues actual people have.

Dungeon World shows that rules can, as I have said, help address problems. It would be foolish to simply copy it precisely for exactly the same reason that, say, copying the US/Canada Air Quality agreement in order to tackle climate change would be incredibly foolish. The details, legal, social, and scientific, are much too important to simply copy-paste a previous treaty and call it a day. You need to build something new for it to have any chance. But what the US/Canada agreement shows is that we CAN fix climate problems with properly-enforced treaties and laws. Acid rain was a huge concern even when I was a child. Nowadays, at least in North America and Europe? You never hear about it because we fixed the problem. There are still some lingering environmental issues that we'll have to solve because acid doesn't just disappear once it has rained down. But the treaty shows that we CAN successfully solve climate problems we're causing if we actually work for it.

Same for DW, and any other non-D&D rules anyone might bring up. They show that no, this isn't just pie-in-the-sky, white room, pipe-dream theory. It actually works, in real games played by real people. D&D can learn from this, and build its own tools to achieve that end. Those tools will be different in details and execution, but extremelu similar in concept and style, because Dungeon World is conceptually and stylistically modelled after D&D in the first place.

The genre is similar, but I don't see how DW is modeled after D&D otherwise.

And what is sacrificed in DW to "solve" these problems is more than I'm willing to pay.