D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[pemerton]

This last is suspect in a follow-the-fiction sense, in that oftentimes "nothing happens" would be a quite logical in-fiction outcome.

Well, dragons are impossible is a quite logical in-fiction state of affairs, but the rules of D&D preclude it. So we have to come up with other fictions!

Likewise in Dungeon World - the GM must come up with something else. That's part of their job.

I try to open a stuck door and fail, nothing happens. I say I'm giving my contact an hour to appear and then leaving, nothing happens during that hour so I leave. I speak to a statue, nothing happens. I'm running surveillance for the day but I fail because my target never appears, so nothing happens.

Those are not things that will happen in a game of Dungeon World. In fact, none of them actually triggers a player-side move, and in each case the GM would be obliged to say something - by default, a soft move - in response.

 

[Lanefan]

I understand that some Dungeon World principles may be incompatible with certain playstyles or preferences in D&D, but I don't think that they are inherently incompatible with all playstyles and preferences in D&D.

The rather key part that seems to be incompatible to me is the degree of granularity (particularly in combat) of resolution and in the mechanics which support that; present in D&D (more or less) but not present in some of these other systems as described here and elsewhere.

I don't like the idea of 4e-like skill challenges for the same reason: they allow too much granularity and too many details to be skipped over.

My usual example here is a maze of sewers under a city, through which the PCs are trying to find their way from A to B. 4e would reduce this to, it seems, a single skill challenge, and other games would reduce it to a similar single-roll resolution; where I want them to have to make a choice at every intersection and, preferably, make even a vague map.

Why?

Because every choice point allows them an opportunity to do something different, or decide to take a side trek, or go a different way, or turn around and say "bugger it, we're going above ground for this!".

Yes this takes longer at the table. I don't care.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, dragons are impossible is a quite logical in-fiction state of affairs, but the rules of D&D preclude it. So we have to come up with other fictions!

Not my point. My point is that if one is following the fiction and the fiction would indicate that "nothing happens" is a valid outcome of whatever the PCs just did (or didn't) do, then I shouldn't be barred from telling them nothing happens.

And asking them what they do next throws the ball back into the players' court and asks them to be proactive; or at least proactive in a different direction/time/space as the last try didn't do much.

Likewise in Dungeon World - the GM must come up with something else. That's part of their job.

Those are not things that will happen in a game of Dungeon World. In fact, none of them actually triggers a player-side move, and in each case the GM would be obliged to say something - by default, a soft move - in response.

Even when such a soft move makes no fictional sense?

"Nothing happens. What do you do next?" seems to be all that's required.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, there are times when I could be trying to multi-task my non-multi-tasking brain, lol.

Yeah, multi-tasking is like multi-classing: seems like a good idea at the time but rarely if ever produces the best results in practice.

 

[Aldarc]

The rather key part that seems to be incompatible to me is the degree of granularity (particularly in combat) of resolution and in the mechanics which support that; present in D&D (more or less) but not present in some of these other systems as described here and elsewhere.

All that you say is fine; however, I was talking more about the compatibility of principles and play agendas rather than game mechanics or the game resolution system.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I've never said rules do nothing. I've said that I don't see how rules would change a killer DM in D&D and make them a better DM.

Why is “would change a killer DM into a better DM” the criteria? Isn’t “would make it easier for new DMs to learn” sufficient?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Sure I believe in "turns" in general. In reality, I do go around them as part of my life. I shop at stores at odd hours to avoid annoying crowds, for example. And when I must go to Wal Mart on hours, I use the 'secret' checkout over in the home and garden center.

How are any of those examples accommodations?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, dragons are impossible is a quite logical in-fiction state of affairs, but the rules of D&D preclude it. So we have to come up with other fictions!

Likewise in Dungeon World - the GM must come up with something else. That's part of their job.

Those are not things that will happen in a game of Dungeon World. In fact, none of them actually triggers a player-side move, and in each case the GM would be obliged to say something - by default, a soft move - in response.

But they happen all the time in a world with verisimilitude. Which is why games like DW don't appeal to me.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Very good point.

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.

I do this too. I reread my adventures to try to see if anything seems off. In particular, I realized that I tend to write female NPCs as either “damsels in distress” or “villains that are specifically coded as redeemable”. Sometimes, all it takes is a gender flip, but players with a different perspective are invaluable in providing feedback.

 

[pemerton]

My point is that if one is following the fiction and the fiction would indicate that "nothing happens" is a valid outcome of whatever the PCs just did (or didn't) do, then I shouldn't be barred from telling them nothing happens.

The fiction doesn't have a mind of its own. It doesn't dictate that nothing happens. That's a choice someone makes. It's not a choice that the rules of AW and DW permit.

Even when such a soft move makes no fictional sense?

There is always something that makes fictional sense.