D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Micah Sweet]

Needless to say I don't find tacking some notes in chapter 8 of the DMG to be a solution that is anything comparable to PbtA. There are fundamental limitations and assumptions in 5e which makes it very hard to achieve anything like what DW does without major changes to the game.

Exactly. The approaches are incompatible, because they are mechanically unrelated games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But the game state has changed - it is the next participant's turn. If it had still been your turn, and you could attack again, then the gamestate hadn't changed. A full round of misses however would in most situations been quite wasted time, hence good to try to at least make the probability of that happening quite low.

But @Faolyn seems to want there to be zero chance of what she refers to as, "wasted time". That seems both impossible and unrealistic (because I'm getting tired of writing "lacking in verisimilitude") to me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Some of that might be coming from that family of games often being referred to as "story games" or "story-now".

I guess "Traditional Play" as a term is being used differently here than I'd use it, but I otherwise get your point.

It's also very possible to play old-school D&D on an emergent-story basis, starting with either a sandbox or West-Marches premise and just seeing where things go from there.

All 'story now ' does is contrast with 'story before', the generation of all the elements going into the fiction before play. The NARRATIVE will always emerge in play, but even sandbox/west march sort of play has already defined the possibilities to certain elements. Even our Stonetop play, where a good bit of setting is laid out up front, has more range of possibilities than any sandbox, and the ability to have a much more dynamic narrative without running into the pitfalls of trad play.

As I've said before, these discussions always remind me of Spock's observation of Khan's tactics. Essentially that, brilliant as he might have been, he was trapped in a 2D mindset.

 

[Oofta]

All 'story now ' does is contrast with 'story before', the generation of all the elements going into the fiction before play. The NARRATIVE will always emerge in play, but even sandbox/west march sort of play has already defined the possibilities to certain elements. Even our Stonetop play, where a good bit of setting is laid out up front, has more range of possibilities than any sandbox, and the ability to have a much more dynamic narrative without running into the pitfalls of trad play.

As I've said before, these discussions always remind me of Spock's observation of Khan's tactics. Essentially that, brilliant as he might have been, he was trapped in a 2D mindset.

See, it's this kind of post that borders on insulting. We just don't understand the genius of PbtA, we're still thinking 2D. If only we accepted the holy truth and accept the genius of a different game we would become enlightened.

I don't care if that's what you intended or not, that's what it sounds like. That everyone that doesn't play your favorite game is just an ignoramus.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I will mention again that "popular" is not equal to "good", and neither is "new". No one should be pressured to try something that doesn't appeal to them, especially if their current method is producing positive results.

Who's being pressured? I see people ask about problems they have and respond with the best available techniques for solving or avoiding them.

As for popular, I don't think you do this, but many many times I've gotten told in these forums that I am a tiny and insignificant part of the community and basically my preferences mean nothing because someone thinks they are less popular.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My view on this, especially after working with other GMs with my own games, is every person is pretty unique and so having systems that provide more guidelines or rules are going to be good for some people, while others might find such rules constraining. I have definitely met GMs who struggle to run a game that doesn't place some kind of limits on them. GMing is difficult. And with RPGs on top of the difficulty of GMing there is the added strain of dealing with the social dynamics in play (and not every person is comfortable or natural enough when it comes to adapting ambiguous guidelines to a group of players). I think the key here is for there to be a range of games, some that explore greater constraints on the GM, some that are more open. And I also think the key is truth in marketing (whether it is literally a game company marketing or just a fellow gamer trying to persuade someone to play or run a system).

Sure, I agree... what amount of rules feels right will vary according to preference and cognitive load and so on. I'm not saying more rules is always better. I'm arguing that rules themselves can help a GM improve.

According to you. Nobody has explained what rules to add to D&D that would make a bad DM better. Suggestions? Guidelines? Things we already have in the DMG just phrased differently? That we get. Actual rules? Not so much.

I'm not talking about making a bad GM better. I'm talking about making any GM better. My GMing has improved because of rules I've learned from. Ones that I've stopped and considered why they're present, and what impact they have on the game. Some games even make a point of explaining this kind of thing in the rule books, so that you have a better grasp of it from the start.

In real life, just like in the game, I have no problem with surprises that I can do nothing about. Rocks fall everyone dies is not going to be fun, nor is setting up an encounter to guarantee a TPK because you "don't like talking" to your players. But again, rocks fall everyone dies being a bad idea is already covered by general advice in the DMG.

So if it's already general advice, and everyone should follow it, what's the problem if they made it an actual rule?

Sometimes a failure just means you don't achieve a goal. The idea that there must be some consequence to failure other than simply not achieving your goal is something anyone can do. You can do a lot of things. I just don't think it fits with the sort-of-simulation nature of D&D.

You said it was incompatible. I said it is not. You now seem to be agreeing, though pointing out that it's optional. I didn't say it was required... so it seems you agree with me?

I don't focus on characters. I focus on world building, setting up interesting options and possibility. Maybe 5% of my game is strictly character focused, probably less. Yet my players are quite happy with the game. My way is not the only way, but focusing primarily on character development also does not guarantee any better results.

I don't see how the setting can take up 95% of the game. But I think that's beside the point.

What was being discussed wasn't character development, but rather consequences for characters, and how being a fan of the characters doesn't mean you have to take it easy on them. Quite the opposite, really... think of movies you're a fan of and how you want to see the heroes struggle. You want them to win, yes, but you also want them to struggle. And whether or not they do win is not something that's up to you as a fan. Same with sports.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So this is effectively an admission that a rules change won't stop bad DMs from being bad DMs. It's a clear evasion because I never asked for rules to be perfect.

These two statements are directly contrary.

You. Cannot. Stop. ALL. Bad. Behavior. Without. Perfect. Rules.

That is literally, 100% true. You are demandinf perfection and then pretending that isn't what you're doing.

Unless and until you recognize this, there is no point to further discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

Rules absolutely can help people improve as GMs.

Sure, I agree. To an extent. I feel that DMG advice is much better for helping people improve as DMs than rules are. However, you don't need rules to protect people from mistakes. If they are not a bad DM, mistakes will be made, fixed and learned from.

 

[Maxperson]

These two statements are directly contrary.

You. Cannot. Stop. ALL. Bad. Behavior. Without. Perfect. Rules.

That is literally, 100% true. You are demandinf perfection and then pretending that isn't what you're doing.

Unless and until you recognize this, there is no point to further discussion.

We don't have to discuss further, but that is absolutely not what I'm asking for or even implying. One rule =/= perfect rules.

 

[Faolyn]

Also, I don't believe it's the DMs job to address a player's "dramatic needs and thematic orientation", and a D&D-like fantasy game that is designed in such a way has no interest for me.

So what is your idea game style? Because without drama and themes... wouldn't it just be kind of boring?