D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[hawkeyefan]

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.

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.

Sure, I wasn't saying that rules in isolation are the ideal. Just that rules can help teach, and are a part of the process of learning.

I really would like if the D&D books explained their design choices more openly in the books themselves. I think that's a big part of what helps... having to consider how rules impact play.

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.

Again, I'm not talking about "more rules". Just rules themselves. D&D has a metric ton of rules, let's not act like some being more specific, or even a few new ones are going to bring the whole thing down.

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?

By providing a specific list of what not to do? Like in huge bold letters where the entirety of the page is: "DON'T DO THIS CRAP" and then there's a bullet list of items to not do. Nothing else on the page. They can reprint it at the front of the book and the back. It can be easily shared online and will be clear and concise and great.

Not scattered throughout the book, buried in random paragraphs.

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.

Compatible?

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.

I don't think this is contradictory in any way to the idea of being a fan of the characters.

Maybe if we rephrase it... "Enjoy the fictional exploits of the characters." Does that seem outrageous to you? Does that seem contradictory to your approach?

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.

Who's telling you that about your game? We have a specific example to look to with the OP. I'm confident that many of the suggestions in this thread could have alleviated or totally avoided the problems in that game.

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

It's not about there being one true way that things must be done. It's about finding the best ways. It's about identifying the poor ones and labeling them as such.

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.

Yeah, that's fine. I think your assessment of DW is way off, but I am not gonna try and convince you otherwise. Not every suggestion about how to improve a D&D game is about your game, nor do they apply to you if you aren't looking for ways to improve your game.

 

[Lanefan]

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!"?

They, just like their characters, probably say something like "Finally!".

I hit this once as a player - our party had been very careful and sneaky in our approach to a castle we (for some forgotten reason) needed to get into. We scoped it all out, found a long-forgotten and unguarded sewer entrance, and (literally) waded in. We eventually found a way up, got to a big room with a set of huge double doors; and after knocking off a couple of guards we - thinking that because the doors were big and imposing they had to lead to somewhere useful - set to work on them.

Worth noting we hadn't bothered mapping our path in through the sewers and had become somewhat disoriented.

Quite some time later (real time) after numerous trials and tribulatons we finally got those damn doors open...to blinding sunlight: they were the castle's heavily-guarded front doors leading outside! And of course all the door guards we had so carefully sneaked past were now turning around and looking at us sideways...

Biggest face-palm moment ever. To this day I don't know how the DM kept a straight face through all that.

 

[bloodtide]

A 50% failure rate is not "great." It is terrible. Can you imagine trying to pitch something like that at your job, whatever job that might be? "We'll lose 50% of <insert thing here>," be it employees, customers, clients, vendors, whatever. You would be laughed out of the room.

50% failure rate is anything BUT "great."

It depends on a lot of things. But it's often better then zero.

If you made a product that say 50% of Americans would auto buy, you'd be in good business.

Are you genuinely saying you would rather drive people out of the hobby than alter your approach slightly so more folks would enjoy your game? And that you think everyone should take this attitude?

Even with my ways, it's rare I drive someone from the hobby forever. It's a lot more common for them to join up and make an "anti-my game game" and then brag about how their game is different and better.

And if I did agree to alter things, I would expect players to also alter things....but then we'd just go full circle back around.

And I would never say my way is for everyone.

I will be curious how Christopher Perkins rewrites and reorganizes the 5e DMG, particularly in terms of the advice offered.

I liked the bit I was about "Advice for the DM on how to take control of the game and get the players back on track of the quest" as that sounded like it my encourage and advocate Railroading.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Rules can't help people who are bad as DMs because they simply don't care enough to follow guidance or have internalized bad action as being necessary parts of their identity, like the OP.

Where rules can help is with DMs who are willing to listen to guidance, but simply haven't yet had the chance to learn good practices, which is probably a pretty large subset of DMs.

Exactly. I'm always trying to get better at GMing. I don't think most people would say they have no room for improvement.

It's not nearly as pithy as "Be a Fan of the Character", but I tend to view that guidance as being more "Be a supporter of the character's narrative arc."

Some of my favorite characters I've played or GMed for have been the ones I've followed into breakdowns, dissolution, or demise, because that was the natural ending point of their narrative. Where "Fan of the Characters" can break down for D&D is the normal assumption that D&D is fundamentally a game about beating challenges, and every D&D character's arc is intended to be a variation of "Get more power and make numbers go up".

Yeah, I don't even know if we need to reference "narrative arc". In D&D those can often be limited... either as you describe in the power growth angle, or else as being entirely up to the player, with no risk involved.

I think it's more about "be curious about the characters and what they do, be interested in them" just like you would the characters in a book or movie or comic.

 

[pemerton]

I'm personally not a fan of fail forward/success with cost models.

These are not really the same thing.

"Fail forward" was invented as a term, and to some extent a clear concept, by Ron Edwards and Luke Crane. Of RPGs I know well, the one that best implements it is Burning Wheel.

In BW, action declaration is intent plus task. If the check succeeds (or if the GM says "yes"), then the PC achieves the task and realises their intent.

If the check fails, then the GM's job is to narrate failure, having primary regard to the intent. And failure should be narrated in such a way that the established fiction (either the evolving scene, or a new scene) continues to provoke the player to action declarations by putting pressure on their PC's Belief, Instincts, Relationships, etc.

That is not "success with a cost" - it's failure (ie not getting what you wanted) coupled with a principle about framing.

It is only when railroad-based games discovered the term "fail forward" that it became associated with success at a cost, because in railroad games - as generations of CoC players have discovered - the game breaks down if the players fail a check and hence there is no rationale, in the fiction, for why the PCs should move to the next bit of pre-authored fiction.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

You're continually misunderstanding. In case you've forgotten, moves aren't abilities or options or skills. They're ways to move the story along.

You don't pick a move from a list. The list is there as a guide. It so happens that nearly everything a GM would want to do can also be described as a move--the only things I can think of that wouldn't be on that list are things that are specific to certain parts of an adventure, and those options would, in fact, be listed in the adventure.

The game is a conversation. When the PCs do something, the GM will say when they trigger a move. The PC doesn't say "I want to roll Investigate a Mystery." Instead, they say, "I'm looking around the floor to see if there are any footprints or other clues." "Sounds like you're trying to Investigate a Mystery; roll +Sharp."

The same is true for the GM. You simply continue the conversation. You don't refer to the list, unless you happen to be stuck for an idea, if you feel you need to. And you really don't need to, because only some adventure moves would even require a die roll (and then, only by the PCs).
I admit I've only GMed MotW for about five sessions now--we skipped last Friday because two of the players were busy out of town so we didn't meet quorum--but it hasn't been at all limiting. In some ways, it's been rather freeing because I know I have a backup in the form of a list of options, should I need one. I've barely looked at the list at all, and the times I have, it's been between games. And mind you, I've GMed several different tradgames, including GURPS, which is one of those systems that practically requires micromanaging on the part of the GM.

Also, GMing is putting on a show; part of your job is to make the world come alive. Doing so well requires showmanship and storytelling skills.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

One of them is: the player deciding that the situation becomes charged is making decisions on behalf of the NPCs present; namely that they now feel they are (or have become aware that they are) in a charged situation. This feeling, which is being forced on those NPCs by declaration of the player, can't help but influence their in-character reactions.

Were the NPCs fully under the GM's control they could choose to react in whatever manner even including completely ignoring the PC's arrival, and a combination of those reactions and what the PC then said or did (and how) would organically determine the 'charged-ness' of the scene as it proceeded.

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).

Yeah, I've no problem with the PC being able to find Isle. It's the forced-emotion piece that bothers me on this one.

 

[pemerton]

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.

All @AbdulAlhazred is pointing out is that some posters appear not to understand how AW (and some other, more-or-less similar RPGs) works.

And frankly that seems correct - because as soon as I talk about RPGing that does not involve railroading, and even explain how it works, you misdescribe it! You say it involves the players making decisions about fiction outside of/beyond their PCs. But it doesn't. The key difference from how you play D&D is not to the role and power of the players, but the role and power of the GM. But you seem to repeatedly fail to grasp what that difference consists in!

 

[Lanefan]

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?)

Indeed, and I often argue against using those things there too when such signposts etc. don't make sense in the fiction.

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

Yeah, that's a fair point. The questions then become whether that structure a) really ever needed to be codified and b) has to be used all the time.

 

[pemerton]

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

Not necessarily. There is no drama or theme in the play of White Plume Mountain, but solving the puzzles and beating up the monsters can be fun. Similarly for X2 Castle Amber.

Also, it is possible for there to be drama and theme that is introduced by the GM. A lot of RPGing at least since DL is like this. Curse of Strahd seems to be a 5e D&D example (which also has a bit of WPM-type play mixed in for good measure). Personally I find this DL-ish sort of thing to be terrible RPGing, but a lot of people seem to enjoy it.