D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Faolyn]

Of course it does. I don't understand this question.

Sorry, I misswrote and left a word out. Does the time spent rolling dice and not having anything happen cause the game to be more interesting?

And if so, how?

Because I've been in games like that and they're incredibly boring and frustrating.

 

[Faolyn]

Because now you have to figure out some other option. It's called "being challenged" in addition to "being realistic" that sometimes you try to do something and the only result is that it doesn't work.

And if the dice decide that none of those other options work?

When the PCs spend half an hour or more in realtime trying to get past an obstacle and eventually succeed (if they do), do they go "yes, that was so cool!" or do they go "about friggin' time!"?

 

[Maxperson]

I think @Maxperson 's point is that even perfect rules won't and can't stop all bad behavior; if for no other reason than that "bad behavior" is probably going to include ignoring said rules...

My point didn't include perfect rules at all. My point is that there isn't a rule that can be made that will mitigate a bad DM, no matter what his behavior. He's just going to ignore or change that rule and find players to play in his altered game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is a way to do it, through PC action. For instance, the PCs could decide that they don't want to be scapegoats and tell the captain of the mayor's duplicity. Or they could threaten the mayor into giving the help now. Or they could decide it's not worth it and turn the mayor's offer down. Or they could leave town and go somewhere else. Or they could make a counteroffer. And at this point, the GM has to then decide what move to use in reaction to that. Maybe you could have the mayor offer a different deal or accept the counteroffer (which may intrigue the mayor and lead to new adventure opportunities), or tell the PCs that they're no longer welcome in town and to leave immediately under threat of arrest (which may cause a loss of reputation--which is tracked in Root--in the area and other complications).

And, of course, that example only one potential move the GM can make. The PCs go to the mayor for help. One move is "Show signs of an impending threat." The mayor can give the PCs the help they requested and also tell the PCs that there's a danger in the woods that seems to be getting closer and more violent. Alternatively, the mayor could use the move "Show them what a faction thinks of them," meaning that the mayor may be glad to help them (because he supports a faction the PC is well-known in) or may immediately call the guards (because he's against that faction); as a note, in Root, it doesn't seem to be too hard to tell what faction someone is in--it's a bit species-related, and anyway, simply observing someone for a time would also provide the information. Or, while the PCs are asking the mayor for help, you could use the "Put them in a spot" move and have someone try to assassinate the mayor!

So basically, it's all the same options as in D&D and every other game, minus the "nothing happens" option.

Except there's a list of Moves. You can't just naturally respond, you have to decide what Move you're going to make. Just having a list with a bunch of cute names you're not supposed to use feels intensely limiting and stressful, even if in reality it isn't. Someone described them above as stage direction, and that's a big problem for me too. I'm not putting on a show.

 

[pemerton]

So it's a railroad unless your character decides things about the world that are completely out of their control.

You keep talking about characters. Characters are imaginary things. They don't make any decisions about the fiction. Real, flesh-and-blood people who are playing the game make decisions about the fiction.

In the post you replied to, I posted an example of play from AW world and an example from D&D. In the example from AW, the player decided that their PC was looking for Isle, to visit grief upon her and decided that, when she turned up, the situation became charged. Neither of these is decisions about anything beyond her PC. It was the GM who decided that, having looked for Isle, the PC met Isle. But the PC did that by having regard to what the player wanted for their PC (ie the GM provided an opportunity, given the player's expressed desire to have their PC visit grief on Isle).

So you are wrong when I read your post literally, and you are wrong when I read it substituting player for character. The basic difference between a railroad, and a game I enjoy (as player or GM) is about who decides what the focus of play is, what the stakes are, what the dramatic needs and themes are that will be addressed in play.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Conversely, a player could be actively trying to work towards their character's goals and ambitions but because the GM has no obligation to introduce the killer (and possibly no desire to do so), then the character's arc goes absolutely nowhere despite their attempts to fulfill it, which can be a wholly dissatisfying experience for the player. This has been talked about in past discussions. And I can tell you that this has happened to me in a few campaigns that I have played. It sucks.

this ideally should not be something that is happening though, my post was not advocating for this, it does suck when you are actively trying to follow up on a hook to no avail, but that's my point: something you are actively trying to follow up on, it is not the same situation when you are doing nothing to follow up on it.

 

[Lanefan]

No failing to pick a lock a dozen times straight. Roll once and "let it ride."

Also, keep in mind that there is a GM dungeon move in DW called "make them backtrack," which basically amounts to this result.



Similarly, Stonetop has an Expedition Move (for wilderness or dungeons) called Bar the Way:

So this could even include a locked door.

I like the way the DW version put it. That's all well said.

The Stonetop version includes a clause I'd rather not see*, about maybe giving them ideas or options as to how to get past. Those ideas are IMO on the players to come up with, and if they don't or can't then so be it - they're stuck.

* - an exception would be for brand new players who may not yet realize they're expected to think this way, but I'd note that exception in a sidebar somewhere else along with various other "dealing with brand new players" advice.

 

[pemerton]

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

There are dozens if not hundreds of threads on these very boards where D&D players talk about foreshadowing, signalling and signposting, etc. (Eg is it fair to use a medusa as an encounter without placing some very realistic statuary first, for the PCs to notice?)

That is all about a soft move/hard move structure, even if the precise terminology is not being used.

 

[Maxperson]

"Be a fan of the characters." It explicitly tells the DM to be enthusiastic about the PCs and their goals. I've already said that rule, if understood and applied, would have prevented the entire situation that happened in this thread. I don't believe Bloodtide wants to be a bad GM, and I do believe that Bloodtide follows what rules are presented by the game at least in general.

Whether he wants to be or not, that rule wouldn't have changed a thing. From his responses he genuinely believes that it's his job to punish players in the game, not talk to them outside of it. Further, he has also said he won't go to a restaurant that a friend wants to go to if he wants to go to some other place. And even further, someone posted a list of rules such as the one you just created in a post and his response to that post was, "No thanks. I'd never play a game like that."

The specific bad behavior, in this case, would be being dismissive and prejudicial against your players' desires and preferences. If you are sincerely trying to be a fan of their characters, such behavior is impossible—and if you genuinely cannot bring yourself to sincerely be a fan of any of the PCs, that is a clear sign something is deeply wrong and needs to be addressed. In rare extremity, it may mean you simply aren't compatible, but I find such issues can usually be addressed.

That's the point of bad DMs. They are very rare. It's the average and good ones that will care and make effort like this. Such a rule won't do anything to stop a bad DM from failing to be a fan of the players and doing what he wants in the game.

And if your response is "well I can just twist that into a pretzel and thus get around it," then again, you are demanding perfection, not merely utility. Because that was your original request, that I name a rule which you couldn't abuse. A rule that cannot be abused is, by definition, perfection.

Make me a perfect rule and I can still abuse it. Perfection has never been the point of what I have said. My point was that rules(perfect or otherwise) cannot stop a bad DM from being a bad DM. When you find a DM like that, your only recourse it to get the hell out of Dodge and find a new DM.

 

[pemerton]

Things like "Be a fan of the characters" is so nebulous to me that it's borderline meaningless.

Huh? You know all those posts I've made over the past day or so, explaining how I regard it as a railroad unless it is the players who establish what the stakes are, what dramatic needs will be addressed, etc? That is what being a fan of the characters means: the GM's job is to follow the players' lead, as manifested in the players' build and play of their PCs, as to what is at stake, what dramatic needs are addressed, etc.

And clearly it's not meaningless - your reaction to, and rejection of, my posts show that it is very meaningful and that you (and @Lanefan and @Micah Sweet) don't accept it as a principle.

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.

It's more than that. It means establishing a fiction in which the characters' dramatic needs - which have been authored by the PLAYERS - can be addressed.

If I sit down at a table and tell my players "Roll up some PCs, we're playing White Plume Mountain" those PCs may have an exciting, if short, life. (When I did it, one of them got eaten by ghouls in short order!) But that's not being a fan of the characters in the relevant sense. It's just RPGing.

Being a fan of the characters has a more precise meaning, as per my first para in this post.