D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I think the DMG advice is pretty lackluster, honestly. It’s a lot of “some people do A, others do B, lots of folks do a mix of A and B. You should do what feels right.” That’s not all that useful.

GMs don’t spring into existence fully formed. They learn over time. Advice is one way, absolutely, but so are the rules themselves. Or alternate rules. Or ideas from other games. All of these things can help a GM improve.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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

they are not saying that there shouldn't be drama or thematic occurences in their games, just that it is not the GM's job to serve them up to the players on a silver platter for the players to pick and choose at as they so desire.

IMO the GM serves up a world that lives and breathes as it's own entity, the players create their own drama and themes by the actions they take to interact with that world, and the GM narrates back to them the organic consequences of their actions

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Why would you even make someone roll for something as trivial as walking across a room or recognizing a widely-used symbol?

I had thought you, of all people, would already grok the idea of "do not roll unless success and failure would have interesting consequences." If there's literally no possible way failure could add any interesting consequences, don't bother rolling. Same with success. Walking across a room, no further context, is both, there's no consequences at all that would be remotely interesting in 99.99% of situations, so just don't roll. The player describes what they do and it happens.

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.

Ooooor making moves when the players look to you to find out what happens. That doesn't require a player to actually make a move. It requires only that the players expect you to tell them more about whatever is going on.

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.

Honestly, at this point, you may as well just not bring it up anymore, because you keep saying things rhat would be trivially addressed by simply reading the text. Which you can do, for free, because it is CC-BY 3.0 licensed, meaning anyone can reprint, remix, or repackage any part of Dungeon World, even for profit, so long as they give attribution.

Here is the DW Gazetteer, a freely available web copy of the entire text. Specifically I have linked the "Gamemastering" section since that's what's relevant. I've already quoted significant chunks of it anyway.

The text is, as far as I can tell, pretty clear about what "be a fan of the characters" means. "Cheer their victories and lament their failures." In context, surrounded by other things (like mentions of you being the evil genius masterminding the players' opposition), it is quite clear that this is a reminder that the players are supposed to have fun, and you're supposed to enjoy seeing them have fun. It's also a reminder to be enthusiastic about the things your players find fun and interesting, and that if you genuinely cannot do that, you NEED to have a very serious conversation with any player whose interests are total non-starters for you. Any time you simply cannot bring yourself to fulfill any of the Agendas and/or Principles is a HUGE red flag that something is going wrong and needs to be fixed ASAP.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

No rule, nor set of rules, can truly stop 100% of all bad behavior unless that rule or set of rules is perfect. Your standard requires perfection. There is literally no other way to achieve 100% termination of all bad activity.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the DMG advice is pretty lackluster, honestly. It’s a lot of “some people do A, others do B, lots of folks do a mix of A and B. You should do what feels right.” That’s not all that useful.

It's okay. Not great, not bad.

I was more speaking to my view that advice on how to be a better DM(or just DM in general) should be in the DMG, rather than make rules to try and accomplish it.

GMs don’t spring into existence fully formed. They learn over time. Advice is one way, absolutely, but so are the rules themselves. Or alternate rules. Or ideas from other games. All of these things can help a GM improve.

And I still agree. However, rules should not be made to keep DMs from hurting themselves(metaphorically speaking). You don't need to protect people from themselves. Just teach them how to DM and make good gameplay rules.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

That advice is most likely there to try to prevent GMs from becoming antagonistic, bringing in god-tier DMPCs, or trying to outsmart players by preventing them from doing anything unless they figure out the one exact right option that fulfills the GM's pre-set plans. It's not advice for GMs like you and I who actually want the players to enjoy the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

they are not saying that there shouldn't be drama or thematic occurences in their games, just that it is not the GM's job to serve them up to the players on a silver platter for the players to pick and choose at as they so desire.

IMO the GM serves up a world that lives and breathes as it's own entity, the players create their own drama and themes by the actions they take to interact with that world, and the GM narrates back to them the organic consequences of their actions

A world in which nothing happens and everything is static, a wonderful landscape painting by the GM, sounds impossible to create drama in. The GM must provide some hooks and potentials and challenges, or it's dead in the water.

 

[Oofta]

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.



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.

Then we simply disagree. Rules implies greater restrictions on what a DM can do than what we currently have. No thanks. Add on, also extremely nonspecific and kind of pointless. "Do better" is not actionable advice.

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

Because there are many styles, many ways to run a game. How would you make "don't be a Dick by purposely setting up a TPK" it an actual rule?

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?

Concerning "there are always consequence to failure other than just not succeeding" perhaps incompatible was not the correct term. Default? Standard? Normally accepted practice? Choose your poison.

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.

I don't focus on individual characters, I focus on group goals, activities and options. I focus on building out an interesting world with interesting NPCs and organizations with their own goals and motivations. If we hit a scenario where the group has to get past some guards, the solutions are not tailored to individuals. I let the players figure it out. If do try to share the spotlight, but even then that's more about the player than the character per se. The stuff that's focused on the character? PCs have built businesses, gotten married, had little fictional kids.

But this just seems to come back to "I know how to run the game better than you do, if you only listen to me you'd be a better DM." It's BS. I can give advice, explain what I do and why. But I'll never tell you my way is better or the only way. The best way to run a D&D game is whatever works best for the group.

 

[Oofta]

I think the DMG advice is pretty lackluster, honestly. It’s a lot of “some people do A, others do B, lots of folks do a mix of A and B. You should do what feels right.” That’s not all that useful.

If find telling people that there is no one true way extremely helpful.

GMs don’t spring into existence fully formed. They learn over time. Advice is one way, absolutely, but so are the rules themselves. Or alternate rules. Or ideas from other games. All of these things can help a GM improve.

If one-true-way works for you great. That's the impression I get from DW, that there is one way to run a game and the rules are going to force you into that channel whether it works for you or not. It wouldn't work for me.

 

[Oofta]

Why would you even make someone roll for something as trivial as walking across a room or recognizing a widely-used symbol?

I don't. Walking across the room was what I was specifically calling out as not requiring a check. The holy symbol? It's easily recognizable as a symbol of Odin but it has some unusual features to it signifying a different sect, a splinter group.

I had thought you, of all people, would already grok the idea of "do not roll unless success and failure would have interesting consequences." If there's literally no possible way failure could add any interesting consequences, don't bother rolling. Same with success. Walking across a room, no further context, is both, there's no consequences at all that would be remotely interesting in 99.99% of situations, so just don't roll. The player describes what they do and it happens.

Sometimes the consequence of not succeeding is failure.

Ooooor making moves when the players look to you to find out what happens. That doesn't require a player to actually make a move. It requires only that the players expect you to tell them more about whatever is going on.

Ooooor, sometimes nothing happens in response to what the PC does other than the PC does something. If there's uncertainty they may or may not succeed which may or may not have consequences. Just like real life. If I try to remember where I put my book and can't remember the only immediate consequence is that I can't read it. I'll probably find the book later. Why should games be any different?

Honestly, at this point, you may as well just not bring it up anymore, because you keep saying things rhat would be trivially addressed by simply reading the text. Which you can do, for free, because it is CC-BY 3.0 licensed, meaning anyone can reprint, remix, or repackage any part of Dungeon World, even for profit, so long as they give attribution.

I find a lot of things in DW simply don't apply to D&D. Then I get "But it really does if you just understood it's greatness." So I push back.

Here is the DW Gazetteer, a freely available web copy of the entire text. Specifically I have linked the "Gamemastering" section since that's what's relevant. I've already quoted significant chunks of it anyway.

The text is, as far as I can tell, pretty clear about what "be a fan of the characters" means. "Cheer their victories and lament their failures." In context, surrounded by other things (like mentions of you being the evil genius masterminding the players' opposition), it is quite clear that this is a reminder that the players are supposed to have fun, and you're supposed to enjoy seeing them have fun. It's also a reminder to be enthusiastic about the things your players find fun and interesting, and that if you genuinely cannot do that, you NEED to have a very serious conversation with any player whose interests are total non-starters for you. Any time you simply cannot bring yourself to fulfill any of the Agendas and/or Principles is a HUGE red flag that something is going wrong and needs to be fixed ASAP.