D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[bloodtide]

I've rarely seen that; and a player who gets angry about it probably isn't worth keeping anyway.

Personally, being told I could try anything in-character was one of the main hooks that drew me into playing in the first place.

I see it very often. I tend to bring out emotions in people.

I also love the "do or try anything" draw of RPGs. But most people find it scary and confusing.

The DM describes and area and asks the player what they will do. The player, focused on the idea they are 'playing a game' , look for a Official Game Move to make. They want a rule that says "I use my Move Action to Walk". The concept of role playing, that they can just say "my character goes for a walk" is alien to them.

This is why there are the games with the Official Rule Moves. When a player is stuck(or all the time), they just pick an Official Game Move to make.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here is the bit I quoted. There's no question in there.


DW and similar games have potentially multiple ways to handle it. It really depends. But any time we try to take something in fiction and then map it to play, there's a possibility it doesn't work 100%. It's rarely a perfect translation.



I'll pose one way. Gandalf's player said "I want to see if I've learned anything about these doors in all my studies". In DW, this would be Spout Lore move. But, Frodo's player says "Hey, can I help him with that? Maybe I know something or can figure something out that helps?" and this would be the Aid action, which depending on the roll, would grant a bonus to Gandalf's roll, but may also put Frodo at risk on a partial hit or a failure.

So Frodo rolls an 8 to Aid, and that gives Gandalf a +1 to his roll. He winds up rolling a 6, but with the +1 that gets him to 7, which means he succeeds, but the GM can make a move.

Given the circumstances... the disturbance in the waters already having been established, and needing to make a move on Gandalf's roll, which also has Frodo at risk, the GM decides to have the thing in the water collapse the doors behind them, leaving them no choice but to press on into Moria (Reveal An Unwelcome Truth) and also to have the creature catch poor old Bill (Use Up Their Resources).

Again, that's one way to deal with it. There are others that we could apply, other ways to interpret it.



Those were some examples from 5e. Though, like initiative, there are plenty of other examples from all other editions of play. Giving D&D a pass for its game constructs, but labeling those of other games as "artificial" or "forced" or what have you seems a bit unfair.



What other ideas do you have in mind? I know of a few games that I've played that have a better system than Hit Points.

Its not unfair, because none of this is meant to be objective. There are no hard facts about what the best playstyle is.

 

[Faolyn]

If abject failure is off the table, the game loses something for me. If that means the nuclear option TPK, so be it. If there is no TPK possibility our successes don't mean much either.

But in this particular case, the TPK was at the hands of a substitute GM after the players acted, apparently, quite out of character.

It's not like it was a normal situation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But in this particular case, the TPK was at the hands of a substitute GM after the players acted, apparently, quite out of character.

It's not like it was a normal situation.

But regardless the original DM has apparently stepped out. So it's a new game or nothing at this point.

 

[Faolyn]

So here's my issue with some of this. Let's call the OP's scenario specifically designed to end in TPK a "rocks fall everyone dies" moment. It doesn't have to be this specific scenario, but any scenario where TPK is effectively guaranteed.

I would never run a rocks fall everyone dies scenario. I don't see the point, I'd just talk to the players about the issues I have and we'd figure things out. However, in DW people have said that a rocks fall everyone dies scenario could not happen. Period, full stop. But if the tentacle monster can attack multiple people because the fiction demands it, why can't the fiction demand that rocks fall everyone dies? If the fiction demands that the tentacle monster attacks everyone, couldn't it also demand that each tentacle does enough damage to kill the characters?

I understand that wouldn't be in the spirit of the game, I don't think rocks fall everyone dies is in the spirit of any RPG. I just don't see how the rules can stop the DM or GM from pulling out enough rocks to end up with the same result.

I haven't really studied DW monsters or how their damage works, but in MotW, each monster lists how much damage it does. I don't think I've seen any that do above 4 or 5 damage, and the hunters have 7 health and may have armor.

So technically, you could have a tentacle in MotW do 8 or more damage with a single attack, or even give the attack the ignore-armor tag... but that would be a really dickish thing to do. Up there with rocks falling and everyone dying--or with siccing an adult dragon on a very low-level party.

 

[Faolyn]

But regardless the original DM has apparently stepped out. So it's a new game or nothing at this point.

But it was only for a brief time--a week or two, maybe three.

Unless he said something about the original GM stepping down for good and I missed it.

 

[Oofta]

But in this particular case, the TPK was at the hands of a substitute GM after the players acted, apparently, quite out of character.

It's not like it was a normal situation.

No disagreement here. Whether the players acted out of character or not is a different question. Many video games have you taking out guards left and right. If the players don't understand how the DM views the morality they may not have thought it through. Kind of like in many action movies/shows the protagonists mow down dozens of guards and then don't execute the BBEG to stop them from getting away and murdering thousands because they "don't want to be just like them". Morality only applies in many depictions if the person you're attacking has a name.

I would have just talked to the players about it to verify that they knew what they were doing and what the consequences could be. But the OP "doesn't like talking".

 

[Micah Sweet]

But it was only for a brief time--a week or two, maybe three.

Unless he said something about the original GM stepping down for good and I missed it.

I thought it was for good, but I could be wrong. If it was for a short time, the best option I think would be either to hope they find a new GM or wait for the old one to come back. The OP doesn't seem like a good fit for a short game (at best).

 

[Oofta]

I haven't really studied DW monsters or how their damage works, but in MotW, each monster lists how much damage it does. I don't think I've seen any that do above 4 or 5 damage, and the hunters have 7 health and may have armor.

So technically, you could have a tentacle in MotW do 8 or more damage with a single attack, or even give the attack the ignore-armor tag... but that would be a really dickish thing to do. Up there with rocks falling and everyone dying--or with siccing an adult dragon on a very low-level party.

Which in effect isn't much different from D&D where I would never I throw an ancient red dragon at a party of 1st level PCs. I agree it takes a special kind of DM to deliberately set up a TPK, and not special in a good way.

Which is to say, if there's no restriction on what monsters the GM brings in for DW it seems like you could have a rocks fall everyone dies moment in that game as well. Which is why I asked the question because it seems like the scenario could happen in DW despite assertions to the contrary. Or I'm missing something.

 

[Oofta]

But it was only for a brief time--a week or two, maybe three.

Unless he said something about the original GM stepping down for good and I missed it.

They just stated a bit ago that the origin DM is stepping down for good.