D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm speaking of personal preference. I thought I made that clear. Just because a game handles on minor aspect of the "better" doesn't mean it's superior for every player.

I'm not going to bother with details on why I wouldn't like DW other than to say it doesn't work for me.

Okay, but you do realize this is dangling the specter of some terrible price paid, some unacceptable cost that would ruin everything if one actually paid it, and then when asked what exactly that price is, you have replied "well I don't feel like saying."

Which, to be clear, none of that is like...verboten or anything. Nor is "DW just isn't for me." There are plenty of things that aren't for everyone. But it weakens your argument considerably to make such speculative claims about the potential "cost" and then refuse to actually say anything at all about what it might be.

 

[FrozenNorth]

But the character that failed (Gandalf) was not attacked. Frodo succeeded and was attacked. That's the disconnect that DW doesn't seem to handle as far as I can tell.

Putting an NPC in trouble is a valid move in PbtA.

Technically, neither Gandalf nor Frodo are PCs or NPCs, which points to an inherent limitation in mapping a story onto a D&D or a PbtA system.

 

[Gradine]

As someone who loves D&D and the Powered by the Apocalypse style, I'll admit to being disappointed by Dungeon World. What I wanted was PbtA with a dash of D&D and what I feel like I got was D&D with a dash with PbtA.

Still, the idea that the general PbtA structures gets in the way of storytelling is extremely far afield of the stated goals of many of the specific systems and my own personal experiences with them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is

literally nothing

like what playing Dungeon World is like. You are very specifically and explicitly instructed NOT to do this. You are very specifically and explicitly instructed to only trigger moves when the fiction requires it, and never for any other reason.

So yeah, nor surprised you're pushing back. You aren't actually talking about DW. You're talking about some other game entirely.

I'm sure it isn't intended to play that way, but I have played in a couple PbtA games and that was my experience. The mechanical framework simply felt artificial, like you have to constantly stop and check your move list when you want to do something. The GM felt particularly constrained, and that I expect was by design; a design I don't care for.

I have other issues with PbtA, but that my response to your post.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As someone who loves D&D and the Powered by the Apocalypse style, I'll admit to being disappointed by Dungeon World. What I wanted was PbtA with a dash of D&D and what I feel like I got was D&D with a dash with PbtA.

Still, the idea that the general PbtA structures gets in the way of storytelling is extremely far afield of the stated goals of many of the specific systems and my own personal experiences with them.

I don't think the PbtA rules get in the way of storytelling. I think they  force storytelling in a way I don't want, to conform to their ideas.

 

[Aldarc]

But the character that failed (Gandalf) was not attacked. Frodo succeeded and was attacked. That's the disconnect that DW doesn't seem to handle as far as I can tell.

The response to the character failing (Gandalf) and stalling was the GM announcing the approaching threat. The party ignored that threat to focus on opening the door.

We can interpret what follows in one of two ways here, both of which follow the fiction:

• Frodo succeeds at helping Gandalf, which helps give Gandalf the boost he needs to succeed at solving the riddle with a 7-9 result, triggering a GM soft move. GM chooses to follow up with ignored threat that they had previously established in the lake.
• Frodo succeeds at solving the riddle with a 7-9 result, which triggers a GM soft move. The GM acknowledges that success; however, their soft move is to have the tentacle monster attack Frodo. Why Frodo? To either (a) key off his mixed success or (b) the GM uses the fact that Frodo is the Ringbearer against him, and says that the monster is drawn to him.

Keep in mind one way that D&D is different to DW. In D&D, the DM declares that the monster attacks Frodo, and they roll to hit or grapple. He fails and is grappled. That's really all there is to it.

In DW, it's a little more involved. The GM may declare as a soft move that the tentacle monster bursts forth from the lake and reaches for Frodo, followed by the classic question "What do you do?" Frodo tries to avoid it, so that may trigger an additional move of "Defy Danger." Frodo fails and so the GM follows-up that fiction by saying that Frodo becomes grappled by the monster and is being pulled into the lake. Now the GM turns to everyone else: "You the tentacle monster grab Frodo and raise him over what you assume is its mouth, what do you do?"

Even so. Where's the in-universe justification for the different response? You said that the event in LotR in question can be handled with the DW rules. Is there an in-universe justification for the result of that resolution, or is it just how the mechanics work?

Since you've said that you played Monster Hearts and Apocalypse World, I assumed that you were familiar with the potential spread of results that forms the basic resolution system of most PbtA games. I mean no disrespect with my assumption here.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You just missed the whole point of the post you responded to. In the real world and in D&D, nothing happens is perfectly legitimate. You're also wrong when it comes to the LOTR. When Gandalf tried to open the doors to the Mines of Moria, nothing happened. Similar things happened in The Hobbit when they were trying to open the secre back entrance. Sometimes nothing happens can be far better than something unrelated to what you were doing happens.

D&D isn't a story based game, a story emerges from the PCs interacting with the world.

I don't know if I'd describe D&D as not a story-based game. So much of the wording in the books describes it as exactly that. All the published adventures can be described as exactly that. In my experience, both personal and hearing people here describe their play, it is often exactly that. There's some kind of story... some plot in place or perhaps multiple plots, and the players engage with those in some way.

As for the example of the doors of Moria, viewing that as nothing happening seems very odd to me. At the very least, time passed, and the thing in the waters drew closer or awakened from slumber or what have you.

Yeah, the whole "move" system feels artificial to me. Takes me out of the immersion I'm looking for.

And yet I imagine you accept things like Action Surges and Raging and initiative order without really being phased, right?

The freedom for both GMs and players to declare what they want to do and do it, without any requirement to figure out what "move" your proposed action counts as. The freedom to not concern yourself with following narrative beats and pay-offs, but rather simply to live in an imagined world and make choices.

Right. I mean... Hit Points are a pacing mechanic at the center of D&D combat. Mounting danger as hit points dwindle... it's all right there. You're not avoiding the thing you claim to not like. It's just in a form that you've internalized to the point of not seeing it for what it is.

But the character that failed (Gandalf) was not attacked. Frodo succeeded and was attacked. That's the disconnect that DW doesn't seem to handle as far as I can tell.

Perhaps this can be attributed to your low experience with Dungeon World? Perhaps those that are more familiar and are claiming otherwise may be more informed than you, and maybe you could try and understand why they say what they say instead of digging in your heels to try and make sure that your idea is "right"?

 

[bloodtide]

Yeah, the whole "move" system feels artificial to me. Takes me out of the immersion I'm looking for.

I do understand why people like it.

A game like D&D is 95% combat rules and 5% adventure rules. A DM describes an area, some rocky hills and a cave, then asks the player what they do. This brings a huge crushing weight right down on the player. The player has t make a choice and a decision, and that is hard for a lot of people. Worse they get over loaded with the idea that they can try to do anything in the game. It's a great idea, but it's also too much for most people. Put someone on the spot and tell them they can try to do anything and most people will freeze as they think about the endless things that could be done.

And in D&D the rules offer no help. Unless your in combat, or doing something like climbing a tree, there are no D&D rules. A player feels lost and lonely; like they are a tiny speck on an island with no name in a vast endless ocean. Most players freeze, many get confused, and more then a couple just get angry....but they are still at a loss of what to do.

The other systems in the other games are like a warm welcoming blanket. The player can hug the blanket around themselves and look in the game rules. And right there, on the page, are the rules not only telling the player what they CAN do, and HOW to do it, but even going as far to tell the player WHAT to do. It brings a high level of comfort to the game.

It's also a comfort to know only set things can happen only at set times, and almost always must be done with the player in the lead. Does the player say "I ignore whatever is over in the tree line" outloud? Then and only then can the GM use the "surprise monster move attack", because the player let him.

As opposed to D&D when...as there are no rules for this....any monster attack, encounter, or anything else can happen at any time at the DMs whim and it utterly does not matter much what the players do, unless the players have their characters take major, directed, focused and extreme actions.

like what playing Dungeon World is like. You are very specifically and explicitly instructed NOT to do this. You are very specifically and explicitly instructed to only trigger moves when the fiction requires it, and never for any other reason.

This is a good rule to have. Even more so if the players are obsessed with it. Then a GM can just use it as a shield "nope, no complaints, the fiction requires it". then all the players will just nod and say "By the Fiction".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Putting an NPC in trouble is a valid move in PbtA.

Technically, neither Gandalf nor Frodo are PCs or NPCs, which points to an inherent limitation in mapping a story onto a D&D or a PbtA system.

More importantly, the book explicitly says that it is valid and appropriate for the bad consequences of a move to fall on a different person if the situation calls for it. For example, there's a reference to someone losing a spell they had cast, which was helping a second character, and the GM then turns to that second character and says, "You were relying on that spell. What do you do?"

If we parse the Moria scene in PbtA terms, knowing that the analogy will be imperfect because fiction isn't identical to gameplay:

The party has just finished a fraught Undertake a Perilous Journey, where the Trailblazer rolled poorly (mountain pass cannot be taken due to unnatural weather!) as did the Scout (no forewarning of the Watcher in the Water), but the Quartermaster did fine (they aren't going hungry.) They are delayed and frustrated but in good spirits otherwise.

Gandalf knows there's a secret door here, and begins asking questions and trying various means to open it. Unfortunately, even though he has +3 Int and such, he actually manages to botch his Spout Lore roll, and the GM narrates something like the following:
"Gandalf, you've gone up against some tough magical wards in your day, but this one is clearly beyond any you've faced. Hours and hours—precious time—is wasted on incantation after incantation, seemingly to no avail. You know you'll crack it sooner or later...but 'later' is becoming 'much later.' Eventually, even watching your magic work ceases to provide an interesting diversion. Merry and Pippin, this was supposed to be your adventure, your chance to be like Cousin Bilbo and do crazy impressive things that would get rumors about you for years. How do you handle the sheer, unadulterated boredom?"

And then from there the Hobbits disturb the Watcher (which I doubt would even trigger any moves), and you thus have a fun "escape from the monster" scene. Then Merry gets a partial success (in theory it could be full, but partial fits better) on Discern Realities and asks, "What here is not what it appears to be?" regarding the door and its inscrutable riddle. "Gandalf, the instant the words have left Merry's mouth, you realize your error. It does not say 'speak, friend, and enter.' It says 'say "friend" and enter.' The password is just the elvish word for friend, 'mellon'! Ah, what gentler times these doors were made in." And then the Watcher starts up its business.

Again, not perfect. But it shows how you don't ever have JUST, flat, bare "nothing happens." Even a scene that might become "nothing happens" is instead one that features a new danger, or puts something under threat, or presents an opportunity (with cost), or gives some means for the action/drama/meaning to push forward.

There is no such thing as a dead-end failure, which is an unfortunately all too common event for many other TTRPG systems. That doesn't mean other systems cannot take steps to prevent the problem; far from it, advice on how to avoid the "party MUST get through the locked door but Rogue only has a 60% chance to pick it" problem is arguably one of the most common points mentioned for new DMs. But the fact that it needs such advice and is an effort to avoid shows the problem. System design can make problems like that go away, building in the solutions that otherwise have to be slowly sussed out by each individual GM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know if I'd describe D&D as not a story-based game. So much of the wording in the books describes it as exactly that. All the published adventures can be described as exactly that. In my experience, both personal and hearing people here describe their play, it is often exactly that. There's some kind of story... some plot in place or perhaps multiple plots, and the players engage with those in some way.

As for the example of the doors of Moria, viewing that as nothing happening seems very odd to me. At the very least, time passed, and the thing in the waters drew closer or awakened from slumber or what have you.



And yet I imagine you accept things like Action Surges and Raging and initiative order without really being phased, right?



Right. I mean... Hit Points are a pacing mechanic at the center of D&D combat. Mounting danger as hit points dwindle... it's all right there. You're not avoiding the thing you claim to not like. It's just in a form that you've internalized to the point of not seeing it for what it is.



Perhaps this can be attributed to your low experience with Dungeon World? Perhaps those that are more familiar and are claiming otherwise may be more informed than you, and maybe you could try and understand why they say what they say instead of digging in your heels to try and make sure that your idea is "right"?

Maybe you're right. But it doesn't change anything for me. The style of narrative/story games bugs the heck out if me, and I want nothing to do with it when I play D&D. Thinking about it doesn't help me play D&D better, and its lessons are not applicable to the kind of game I want to play. Others might get something out of it, and I'm happy for those people, but I am not one of them.