D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Maxperson]

Adventuring NPCs (nowadays called DMPCs as, I think, a largely derogatory term) are a near-constant in our games/parties anway, so nothing new there.

Adventuring NPCs and DMPCs are very different.

A DMPC is an NPC played by the DM as if it were one of his own characters and often used to overshadow the PCs and "come up with" ideas to succeed at things. It's a blight upon the game as it takes away a large portion of the game from the PCs and is the DM putting himself into a role that isn't his to play.

An adventuring NPCs is simply an NPC with class levels that is going along with the group. In my experience it's usually, but not always, a cleric or rogue. Clerics are sought by the players to fill in the healer gap, and rogues the skill monkey gap for dungeon adventures. The DM will have the NPCs act like real people, but he's not using them to get ahead in the adventure and usually will not take a leading role in the party unless asked to by the PCs. Even then if the NPC isn't the type to lead it will often be refused.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Seems an odd thing to say in the post immediately following your posting of just such a list....

I think you have a list, but are supposed to pretend you don't.

 

[Aldarc]

Concepts like hard and soft moves simply don't really apply to D&D without changing the fundamentals of the game.

Oh, I agree. However, I think that the concept of DW moves entered discussion when you invited discussion about the rules of Dungeon World and how they would have prevented the matter of the OP. (At least this was the point that I recall since you mentioned me in that post.) I think that is sometimes how these discussions go. People talk about the rules of PbtA not because of any belief that D&D should play like DW but usually when there are misunderstandings about the rules when its brought up.

Things like "...your goal isn’t to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more!" from the DMG do directly apply to the OP's solution to their perceived problem do directly apply. Based on the end result of the group apparently breaking up, perhaps they should have listened to the advice.

I'm not sure if the OP would have been willing to listen to any advice no matter where it came from, D&D or not. I think that this is a potential pitfall of blowing up so much smoke up the GM's sense of authority that is within some subcultures of D&D-style gaming. IME, the fervent belief in their own sense of unquestionable authority can sometimes lead to a lack of critical self-reflection about the proper use of that authority:

Spoiler

 

[Oofta]

Oh, I agree. However, I think that the concept of DW moves entered discussion when you invited discussion about the rules of Dungeon World and how they would have prevented the matter of the OP. (At least this was the point that I recall since you mentioned me in that post.) I think that is sometimes how these discussions go. People talk about the rules of PbtA not because of any belief that D&D should play like DW but usually when there are misunderstandings about the rules when its brought up.

The concept of moves came up because people were saying that "This wouldn't happen in my game". My point for a long time is that how PbtA fixes the issue is largely irrelevant because it can't be applied to D&D without fundamental changes to the structure of the game. If you're going to do that, just play a PbtA based game.

I'm not sure if the OP would have been willing to listen to any advice no matter where it came from, D&D or not. I think that this is a potential pitfall of blowing up so much smoke up the GM's sense of authority that is within some subcultures of D&D-style gaming. IME, the fervent belief in their own sense of unquestionable authority can sometimes lead to a lack of critical self-reflection about the proper use of that authority:

The number of truly bad DMs I've had over decades of play is a tiny, tiny percentage of all the DMs I've had over the years. In most cases, like in the case of the OP with the game simply falling apart, it's a self correcting problem.

But it seems like we agree. The changes that people feel would prevent the perceived issue with D&D is incompatible with the way D&D works. Whether you prefer one style over another is a matter of preference.

Spoiler

View attachment 285050

Now the spoiler I can agree with!

 

[Aldarc]

The concept of moves came up because people were saying that "This wouldn't happen in my game". My point for a long time is that how PbtA fixes the issue is largely irrelevant because it can't be applied to D&D without fundamental changes to the structure of the game. If you're going to do that, just play a PbtA based game.

Dungeon World was first mentioned in the context of the principle "be a fan of the characters" by @EzekielRaiden. I agree, however, that trying to apply the same structure of DW to D&D won't work. I do think that some of the GM moves work in a more abstract sense of having consequences for failure or failing forward from the preceding fiction. But that has less to do with DW per se and more to do with how PbtA incorporates fail forward into its game structure whereas that's something that D&D can incorporate or utilize.

But it seems like we agree. The changes that people feel would prevent the perceived issue with D&D is incompatible with the way D&D works. Whether you prefer one style over another is a matter of preference.

It depends on what changes we are talking about. If it's a matter of using some of the principles, agendas, or even fronts of DW, then I would disagree that they are incompatible.

 

[Oofta]

Dungeon World was first mentioned in the context of the principle "be a fan of the characters" by @EzekielRaiden. I agree, however, that trying to apply the same structure of DW to D&D won't work. I do think that some of the GM moves work in a more abstract sense of having consequences for failure or failing forward from the preceding fiction. But that has less to do with DW per se and more to do with how PbtA incorporates fail forward into its game structure whereas that's something that D&D can incorporate or utilize.

What happens on a failure, other than just not succeeding, is an issue I think is incompatible. If a PC tries to remember any significance to the symbol of Odin they just found that has an unusual design, nothing typically happens on a failure in my games. There's a difference between having a consequence of failure such as the PC doesn't remember anything and there being no difference between success and failure. I think even that particular guideline is overblown by some people because it clearly applies to things like walking across the room, but that's a whole other issue.

It depends on what changes we are talking about. If it's a matter of using some of the principles, agendas, or even fronts of DW, then I would disagree that they are incompatible.

I think the general flow of PbtA games (e.g. soft and hard moves only in response to player moves) is incompatible. By default the scope of player authored fiction is not standard but is an option in D&D. Things like Fronts, as I mentioned before are just a label put on aspects of the game that at least some people utilize.

Things like "Be a fan of the characters" is so nebulous to me that it's borderline meaningless. I want everyone at the table to have fun. I want to give different PCs a chance to shine. How I go about doing that can be pretty disconnected from individual character goals most of the time, if they even really have individual goals.

 

[Mort]

Dungeon World was first mentioned in the context of the principle "be a fan of the characters" by @EzekielRaiden. I agree, however, that trying to apply the same structure of DW to D&D won't work. I do think that some of the GM moves work in a more abstract sense of having consequences for failure or failing forward from the preceding fiction. But that has less to do with DW per se and more to do with how PbtA incorporates fail forward into its game structure whereas that's something that D&D can incorporate or utilize.

Failing forward can absolutely be incorporated into D&D, though it's not typically done so.

The only 5e adventure that I've seen explicitly incorporate it is the spelljammer one Light of Xaryxis. Short of a TPK (which is actively discouraged) the group WILL get to the end eventually.

 

[Aldarc]

Things like "Be a fan of the characters" is so nebulous to me that it's borderline meaningless. I want everyone at the table to have fun. I want to give different PCs a chance to shine. How I go about doing that can be pretty disconnected from individual character goals most of the time, if they even really have individual goals.

Thankfully it's expanded in the game text that you haven't bothered reading yet so it's more than just a pithy saying.

 

[Oofta]

Thankfully it's expanded in the game text that you haven't bothered reading yet so it's more than just a pithy saying.

I did read it. Doesn't mean it stuck or that I think it always applies to D&D.

If I do a quick google search for the term I get this question on Reddit. Seems like I'm not the only one who doesn't get it because:

Address the characters, not the players; Make your move, but misdirect; Never speak the name of your move; Begin and end with the fiction; and Be a fan of the characters are the most important principles. Without these the conversation of play and the use of moves is likely to break down.​

Other than "Address the character, not the players" it doesn't really mean much. In D&D the rest of the advice in the answers is really dependent on group style. For example one answer applies it to D&D:

Contrasting to D&D​

I, as a player in a D&D game, recently had my wizard get engulfed by a Gelatenous Cube. Under the rules of D&D, this probably should have prohibited casting any spell with a verbal component. My GM, though, as a fan of the characters still allowed me to cast a Burning Hands spell and immolate the Cube from the inside, "because it's awesome so we'll go with it." He even skipped the Cube's saving throw for it.​

​

In D&D, that was a DM waiving a rule to let cool things happen. Many DMs do this, and many consider it to be good DMing. The only difference here is that in Dungeon World, it's right there in the rules that the DM should let cool things happen.​

​

The rule of cool is a hotly debated topic on this forum, I don't think you'll get any consensus that it's always a good idea.

 

[Xamnam]

Be a fan of the characters:
Think of the players’ characters as protagonists in a story you might see on TV. Cheer for their victories and lament their defeats. You’re not here to push them in any particular direction, merely to participate in fiction that features them and their action.

Give each character a chance to shine
As a fan of the heroes (remember your agenda?) you want to see them do what they do best. Give them a chance at this, not by tailoring every room to their skills, but by portraying a fantastic world (agenda again) where there are many solutions to every challenge.

In what I've read of these books, in no way does Fan of the Characters come across as giving them easy wins, or ignoring the rules to do so. The bolded line is really the key one. I was a fan of Walter White as a character in Breaking Bad, but in no way did I want him to just get away with everything he was doing. I was a fan because I saw how he responded to a whole spread of a situations, including terrible ones, especially ones of his own making. Being a fan of them means giving them an exciting / interesting life, one filled with choices and problems to solve and unexpected tragedies and, to be certain, success as warranted and earned. I think equivocating it to Rule of Cool does short shrift to the sentiment as written.