D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Micah Sweet]

Have you played it?

I mean, I haven't. But I've skimmed through the book and it definitely feels like D&D to me. Just without relying on D&D's often excessive crunch.

I have played Apocalypse World, and Monster of the Week, both of which follow very similar principles and mechanics to DW, and it's the principles and the mechanics with which I have a problem.

 

[Oofta]

Have you played it?

I mean, I haven't. But I've skimmed through the book and it definitely feels like D&D to me. Just without relying on D&D's often excessive crunch.

If you listen to some of the gameplay streams, it's very different from your typical D&D games. At least it is to me. The set dressing may be similar, but that's about it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

My shock comes from more of the two step. At first the person would be like "oh I don't like that, so I won't eat it". Then after I give my reply they suddenly mention the medical part. It's just odd that is not the first thing said.

Most people don't have someone who requires them to explain their personal medical history when saying 'I don't want to eat X'.

They just say that and then everyone compromises.

 

[Autumnal]

In their defense, if you watch the video, that is exactly what happens. They just begin assuming that every NPC is going to screw them over.

The result is an outcome that is worse for everybody: the DM’s twist doesn’t land because the players expect it, the repeated betrayals are unrealistic, gameplay becomes somewhat predictable, and the players are metagaming by assuming every major NPC introduced is secretly evil.

This is why I think one of the most important pieces of GM advice I ever heard is one we published in the first edition of Adventure: You get what you reward.

If you want players to have their characters act boldly, you have to have bold actions succeed at least as often as hesitant and defensive ones rather than smacking them down via unchallengeable NPCs and situations. If you want them to choose diplomacy and reward curiosity in interactions, you have to have reaction tables or their equivalent that skew away from hostility or a full neutrality toward reciprocal curiosity and willingness. If you want players not to spend a really long time in planning huddles, you have to reward plans and decisions made quickly, maybe even some fortune/story/drama/etc points.

Many GMs don’t do as much of this as they think - and this includes me. Looking at a record of your decisions throughout a session can turn up habits you didn’t notice and that players may or not be aware of consciously but that lead them to act in ways you wish they could shed. And, to nobody’s surprise so deep in this thread , it’s another thing that benefits from explicit talk with players. What decisions do they make because they feel they have to rather than because they want to? What can you do to make stuff they want to and that you want them to feel accessible and worthwhile? And so on.

And a side note: I have dozens to hundreds of food and environmental allergies as a side effect of various internal disorders. So I have a lot of experience declining things. This is how it usually goes:

A: Here’s a snack.
Me: Oh, sorry. I can’t eat that.
A: Really? Why not?
Me: Allergies. Goes with the autoimmune thing we were talking about earlier when trading bad doctor stories.
A: Oh, right. Dude, that sucks. Is there something you can do?
Me: Sure. I’ve got this in my bag and brought enough to share / yeah, that other thing would do great / honestly, I’m good, just give me something to drink / etc.
A: okay, can do. And let’s swap some mail before next time and plan out something that works for everyone.
Me: I’ll be on it.

That’s what mutual good will can do. And from what I’ve seen, it can go similarly for Jewish and Muslim friends, vegan friends, and so on, as long as nobody comes with butt pre-stick-ified. So many of these things never become a big deal unless someone other than the person with the nerd insists on escalating them.

 

[Clint_L]

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?

I run games at a school! I am a hard "NOPE" if players start to cross that boundary. I then emphasize to them that how they express their creativity in their home games is up to them, assuming everyone is consenting and having fun, but at school we have all agreed to run a PG game and it is going to be a PG game.

Even outside of school, I have found that this comes down to context and how well everyone knows each other. Sometimes if a game turns in that direction not every player is comfortable but might be too embarrassed to say anything. So I always err on the side of caution. Consent first!

 

[Vaalingrade]

Hell, Id go so far as to say that being considerate of my friends' eating restrictions has improved my life too.

There's keto and gluten free recipes that I've got in constant rotation now I never would have discovered. I'm eating a gluten free enchilada casserole that's the best I've ever had right now.

 

[bloodtide]

UPDATE

The DM is out. He won't be coming back to DM. He sent me an e-mail.

He feels bad about having to bug out. He says 3/4 of the adventure is done. And he thinks the players really want to see it to the end. So he is going to ask the players if they want me to finish the adventure; if I want too. I'm not sure the players love the adventure so much....

Other then that, he wonders if the group wants to stay together. Maybe have me run a short game while they look for another DM. That, sounds a bit fishy as DMs are hard to find.

So it will be up to the players if they want to stay as a group and if they might want me for a DM. I think they are foul weather players that won't want to stick together over the summer anyway.

And I'm not sure I want to do another massive teaching game. I have done two in the last couple months. And both turned out great. I took common players and made them into my type of player. Though for both of those games the players offered no resistance. It made the teaching easy. I'm not so sure this group is up to it.

If they really want to stay a group....and game with me as DM....I could just do a "drop them into the Abyss" adventure. They would love the endless chaos of fighting where they did not have to think...until they run out of things and their characters die.

But.....maybe not. I wonder what the players will say.....

 

[Autumnal]

Hell, Id go so far as to say that being considerate of my friends' eating restrictions has improved my life too.

There's keto and gluten free recipes that I've got in constant rotation now I never would have discovered. I'm eating a gluten free enchilada casserole that's the best I've ever had right now.

Absolutely! Ditto with things like being curious what neighbors (in decades gone by, classmates and their families, and teachers) do for Ramadan and Diwali and various New Years. And dairy alternatives! And on and on. Discovery via courtesy is fun, and is one more benefit of being sociable members of a very social species.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The description doesn't quote, but on reading it my beef is with the term "fan". You can't in good faith both oppose the characters ("firehose of adversity") and actively want them to succeed (which is what a fan does), because if either one of those things is true the other is a sham.

Well, actual experience trumps hypotheticals. Sure, its cool if the PCs overcome adversity, but its pointless if it isn't ACTUAL ADVERSITY, isn't it? So that's what it is. Been doing it for quite a long time now to one degree or another, nobody has EVER claimed I pulled any punches.

What is missing from my modern games is all the faffing around that took place in the old days as the GM tries to sort out how to explain to the players what they need to do, or watches while they blindly fumble around because he doesn't do that, etc. Frankly it was all just boring, endless tedium followed by a few bits of interesting play. The interesting play is now, like probably 50% instead of 5%. AND a lot of it is interesting in ways that pretty much never happened in the old days.

I mean, the goings on described in the subject matter of this thread may be a bit over the top, but its all part of the whole problem.

 

[Oofta]

Well, actual experience trumps hypotheticals. Sure, its cool if the PCs overcome adversity, but its pointless if it isn't ACTUAL ADVERSITY, isn't it? So that's what it is. Been doing it for quite a long time now to one degree or another, nobody has EVER claimed I pulled any punches.

What is missing from my modern games is all the faffing around that took place in the old days as the GM tries to sort out how to explain to the players what they need to do, or watches while they blindly fumble around because he doesn't do that, etc. Frankly it was all just boring, endless tedium followed by a few bits of interesting play. The interesting play is now, like probably 50% instead of 5%. AND a lot of it is interesting in ways that pretty much never happened in the old days.

I mean, the goings on described in the subject matter of this thread may be a bit over the top, but its all part of the whole problem.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my players rarely don't know what to do. If they're confused, I'll give them a nudge, but that's more just reminding them of something their PCs would remember or reiterating their options. But I can't remember anyone "faffing around" for any length of time in my games.

This, nor the OP's extreme railroading an punishment, is a reflection on the rules of D&D. Your post comes off as yet another "My preferred game is simply superior" whether that was the intention or not.

The problem is the DM, not the system.