D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Faolyn]

Not that I disagree with this in theory. People have fun in different ways. But it holds a danger.

I've twice now encountered GMs who were SO in love with their own world building that the PCs were an afterthought to them.

The First one let us encounter his world and move through it, but we were basically spectators who never did anything major. That was left to his own NPCs - who were the protagonists. To the point of when we were fighting the BBEG, we couldn't affect him but the protagonist NPCs swooped in and took care of it. I somehow lasted through the first time this happened. The second time this happened, I was out!

Years later, different city, completely different group. GM was a great storyteller, but it became VERY clear to me that the PCs were window dressing to the GMs world and where just there to "marvel" at the GMs world building without affecting much of anything.

Even without this sort of stuff, too much worldbuilding can get in the way of player enjoyment in other ways.

My Monster of the Week game, for instance. I wanted to build a world without the "traditional" monsters (vampires, werewolves, zombies, etc.) and instead have different creatures--weirder ones that I had-made. Then one of my players, upon learning about the game said, "Can I play a werewolf." And... I didn't really want to let them, because it wasn't in my vision. I had them read a doc I'd written up on a different type of creature and asked them if it was interesting to them, which it wasn't. So I decided that I could make room for werewolves--and that player has recently said that their werewolf character is their favorite of all the characters they've made in recent years. This player wouldn't have been nearly as happy with that other creature, even if I thought they were cooler. (It also caused this setting to have a werewolf bowling team, so there's that.)

In other threads, people have talked about how there are too many races in D&D and not enough places to put them. With player input while worldbuilding, though, you can learn that nobody at the table wants to play an elf but someone really wants to play an owlin, so the DM can just not include elves, unless they have a good story idea in mind for them, and have owlin instead, and have the owlin take what would have been the elves' place on the map.

 

[Faolyn]

And that right there is my objection. If there's no reason for something to happen then something shouldn't happen, even if the Rogue fails on the lock. The result of that failure is that time passes and the PCs/players are stuck having to proactively think about what to do next, perhaps even to the point of turning away and abandoning whatever it was that had them trying to get through that door.

I think the idea with DW is that, having nothing constantly happen just gets boring and frustrating. If you're running the kind of dungeons where there's no plot or goal other than to kill as many monsters as you can and get as much loot as you can, then abandoning whatever was behind that door isn't a big deal. But if there's a purpose for the adventure, then there should be a reason for that door to be locked and the room behind it to exist--otherwise, what's the point of it? It didn't help to move the adventure along and it didn't provide an interesting opportunity for role-playing--all it did was waste the players' time.

And if what's behind the door is important for the adventure or provides an RP opportunity, then it shouldn't be behind a door they can't enter.

 

[bloodtide]

Its pretty clear that the OP doesn't take ANY ADVISE FROM ANYONE, EVER. Gads, he won't even have a conversation with his players. lol. At no point was anyone deluded into the idea that they were giving meaningful advice. In fact the OP did entirely what most of the thread thought was exactly a bad idea. What do you know, the game imploded!

Not true. I just need Relevant and Useful advice. And vague advice does not help.

Like....ok.....I have not heard anything as to what will happen Saturday. I guess there is a chance the players will show up and say "lets play". So what if that happens? Nearly every single poster her just says "talk to them". Like it's some sort of magic.

 

[Mort]

Not true. I just need Relevant and Useful advice. And vague advice does not help.

There was plenty of very specific advice.

Almost all of it was essentially, do something interesting and make sure it is fun for the players and not a punishment. With specific examples, in many posts.

The talk to them part was just to make sure there was no further miscommunication, in case you weren't sure what they actually wanted.

Like....ok.....I have not heard anything as to what will happen Saturday. I guess there is a chance the players will show up and say "lets play". So what if that happens? Nearly every single poster her just says "talk to them". Like it's some sort of magic.

It's not magic, it's communication. To make sure everyone is on the same page.

And since the campaign had been nuked (what was it, 2 TPKs?).

IF they show up (kind of a big if), you basically HAVE to talk to them to determine what happens next, right? Start over? Do a funky after death thing? But, maybe this time, make sure everyone is actually on the same page.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So? Each one still accomplishes the same thing. I mean, OK, you simply dislike all games which aren't D&D for purely idiosyncratic reasons. That's OK, but isn't it normally better to be clear about stuff like this?

I like plenty of games. What I don't care for are narrative rules and story games, particularly games with aspects; they just bug the heck out of me. Games I have played and enjoyed other than D&D and its cousins include: Cyberpunk, Legend of the Five Rings, Marvel Super Heroes (TSR), Mutants and Masterminds, Hackmaster, the One Ring, Star Wars (FFG), various Palladium RPGs, Deadlands (classic and Savage Worlds). That doesn't count various D&D derivatives like the OSR, and if course Level Up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The moves for each playbook appear in the rules. Character sheets are just an organizational nicety that puts commonly used information along with your ability scores and such together in one place so you can play easily. Its not like players have zero interest in how moves work, but then AFAIK a 5e rogue is pretty interested in how her abilities work too, and they're normally recapitulated in some form on the character sheet, right? Why the double standard? I mean, I could easily enough make a character sheet that has nothing but the move names, you'll just have to constantly refer to the rulebook when the GM says "OK, that sounds like Defy Danger".

From what I've heard from you and others, as a player you're just supposed to do stuff in the narrative and the GM tells you when dice are needed, right? Then you are not supposed to be thinking about the mechanics of your character at all, which is addition to feeling very alien from my perspective, kinda assumes the GM is the only one who actually knows how the game works.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the idea with DW is that, having nothing constantly happen just gets boring and frustrating. If you're running the kind of dungeons where there's no plot or goal other than to kill as many monsters as you can and get as much loot as you can, then abandoning whatever was behind that door isn't a big deal. But if there's a purpose for the adventure, then there should be a reason for that door to be locked and the room behind it to exist--otherwise, what's the point of it? It didn't help to move the adventure along and it didn't provide an interesting opportunity for role-playing--all it did was waste the players' time.

And if what's behind the door is important for the adventure or provides an RP opportunity, then it shouldn't be behind a door they can't enter.

I disagree. A door they can't enter merely presents a bigger challenge, which they may or may not be able to overcome with some creative thought and possible use of some in-character resources.

Can they dig through the wall (or floor, or ceiling) and bypass the door? Can at least one of them get behind it somehow (via short-range teleport, gaseous form, whatever) to see if it's easily openable from the other side? Can they go back to town and hire or recruit a better lock-picker? Can they get a good enough impression of the lock to get a key made; or via divination find if any keys still exist and if so where they are? Can they beat the door down using sheer brute force? Do they have, or can they access, other magic that could remove the door as an obstacle? Is there some specific thing that must be done or said in order to gain entry, and if so what is it?

From these questions, entire sub-adventures could be spawned.

Or - and this is a big one for me - can or will they bring themselves to admit they failed, and give up on getting at whatever is behind the door? I'm not the sort of DM who thinks the PCs must necessarily succeed at every mission, and sometimes for whatever reason it's just not meant to be.

 

[Aldarc]

I've got no objection to the notion of solitary play. (See eg the card game solitaire.)

But I don't think of writing notes or drawing maps as playing a game. I think of it as preparing to play a game.

The only example I can think of that is borderline is generating Classic Traveller characters, because that has a solitaire-like component and serves as prep in the form of giving a list of NPCs for future use.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

Micah, I understand from my own experiences that world-building can indeed be a fun exercise.

However, I don't feel like I am playing D&D (or some other TTRPG) when I do worldbuilding. IME, it was quite the opposite experience. There were many times I found myself world-building for some TTRPG precisely because I wasn't playing the game. It was all I could do in the absence of a gaming group. I may have still been engaging in the general hobby of TTRPGs by doing so, but the idea that it constituted "playing the game" is pretty absurd to my experiences. If you had told me that I was playing the game, I would have been pretty insulted, frustrated, and hurt by that idea, because in no way did it feel like I was in any way, shape, or form playing the game despite wanting to play. In retrospect, my world-building was mostly an exercise of self-indulgence.

These experiences world-building in the absence of a group plus similar experiences to what @Mort recounts of "setting tourism" helped me realize that world-building is pretty pointless self-indulgent exercise in the absence of actual play. It may be prep, but I wouldn't call it play.

 

[Oofta]

Micah, I understand from my own experiences that world-building can indeed be a fun exercise.

However, I don't feel like I am playing D&D (or some other TTRPG) when I do worldbuilding. IME, it was quite the opposite experience. There were many times I found myself world-building for some TTRPG precisely because I wasn't playing the game. It was all I could do in the absence of a gaming group. I may have still been engaging in the general hobby of TTRPGs by doing so, but the idea that it constituted "playing the game" is pretty absurd to my experiences. If you had told me that I was playing the game, I would have been pretty insulted, frustrated, and hurt by that idea, because in no way did it feel like I was in any way, shape, or form playing the game despite wanting to play. In retrospect, my world-building was mostly an exercise of self-indulgence.

These experiences world-building in the absence of a group plus similar experiences to what @Mort recounts of "setting tourism" helped me realize that world-building is pretty pointless self-indulgent exercise in the absence of actual play. It may be prep, but I wouldn't call it play.

I'd be more likely to call game prep a creative, relaxing, enjoyable pastime than anything. I'm not sure it really matters though.

As far as setting tourism, occasionally DMs do that I suppose but in my experience it's usually new DMs who don't know any better. There's also a pretty simple solution to it - talk to the DM and explain what the problem is. Long, long ago I has some scenes in my game that were pretty much just me monologuing and the players just sat down and told me what the issue was. It worked. I know, radical concept.

Now? I have decades of lore, a lot of thoughts about how the world works and if someone wants to dig into it or needs it for some reason I can pull it out. But for the most part it's just foundation for the game. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think world building is ever the issue. I have a wiki with page after page of info, I let people know that it's there and then point them to a short overview and outline and let them know the rest exists if they ever want it.

So for me? I enjoy world building for it's own sake and as it's own thing. Keeping the focus on what the players are doing and what they need to know about the world around them is a good idea but it's also an unrelated issue.

 

[Oofta]

I disagree. A door they can't enter merely presents a bigger challenge, which they may or may not be able to overcome with some creative thought and possible use of some in-character resources.

Can they dig through the wall (or floor, or ceiling) and bypass the door? Can at least one of them get behind it somehow (via short-range teleport, gaseous form, whatever) to see if it's easily openable from the other side? Can they go back to town and hire or recruit a better lock-picker? Can they get a good enough impression of the lock to get a key made; or via divination find if any keys still exist and if so where they are? Can they beat the door down using sheer brute force? Do they have, or can they access, other magic that could remove the door as an obstacle? Is there some specific thing that must be done or said in order to gain entry, and if so what is it?

From these questions, entire sub-adventures could be spawned.

Or - and this is a big one for me - can or will they bring themselves to admit they failed, and give up on getting at whatever is behind the door? I'm not the sort of DM who thinks the PCs must necessarily succeed at every mission, and sometimes for whatever reason it's just not meant to be.

Yeah, I'd rather set the scene and let the players interact with it. If they're trying to get past a door, I've thought about where they're trying to get and I'll consider if there's ways of bypassing or listen to their ideas if they make sense. But just like in life sometimes I can't get something to work and I have to try something else. That makes the game feel more realistic and enjoyable to me.