D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Lanefan]

That is too harsh. I can ambush you but I cannot simply decide that some totally hidden from you fiction that happens off screen leads without warning to a bullet in your brain. Remember, there's no 'to hit' in DW. A hard move like that will be serious damage or death. All that may be needed is Defy Danger, which is no more forgiving than an attack roll in D&D. However some logic for why this is a thing should have been surfaced to the players at some point.

It was, only long enough ago that both the players and characters have forgotten about it - which is the point, when trying to serve revenge as a cold dish.

The lack of a to-hit (or equivalent) roll is another issue entirely, as it IMO assumes the attacker is far too close to perfect in its ability to injure or kill every time.

 

[Faolyn]

If I understand @pemerton correctly, he is pointing out an inconsistency in the rules based on how generally speaking D&D rules gives ultimate authority to the DM.

Several of the posters here have stated that in their games, if a player wanted to explore an element of their backstory, they would accommodate them.

The elf who hates his father-in-law would be given an opportunity to find him and confront him.

But, as I understand it, the DM could unilaterally decide that the elf doesn’t find his FiL because he failed his Gather Information check, or the FiL is already dead, or the adventure takes place in Barovia so there is no way for the elf to confront his FiL.

Well, that is why gatekeeping such things behind a single die roll is a bad idea and why discussing backgrounds with the player before gamestart is a good idea.

 

[FrozenNorth]

“Be a fan of the characters”

What that principle means:

* Engage with the player character's dramatic needs. Follow player and system cues as to what that is about, follow player breadcrumbs when they introduce content that pursues that and frame scenes that put provokes and tests those dramtic needs. It is a statement about "what is the nature of conflict in our game?" If the answer to that question is "what the players have flagged via system and direct input" and you're relentlessly engaging with that, then you're "being a fan of the player characters."

TLDR: Its about the nature of content-following-protagonism and who decides what that protagonism is, not preferred outcomes or thumbs on scales.

Exactly, which is why I believe it is inconsistent with a principle/playstyle espoused by other posters on this thread “the PCs are not the main characters”.

 

[Aldarc]

The lack of a to-hit (or equivalent) roll is another issue entirely, as it IMO assumes the attacker is far too close to perfect in its ability to injure or kill every time.

I'm not sure how you leaped to that far-flung conclusion.

 

[Lanefan]

In 4e that is not the default: look at the discussion in the PHB on player-authored quests, and the discussion of the same in the DMG which tells the GM they should "say 'yes'" to those quests.

I suspect we're each reading that passage somewhat differently.

To me it's simply telling the DM "If the players want to have their characters go and do something - an adventure, a quest, an activity - that you didn't foresee or have in mind, let them". It has nothing to do with control over setting elements; instead it's simply warning the DM that curveballs can be thrown at any time - "expect it when you least expect it" - and thus to always be ready to hit them, and that's good advice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Given the gleeful joy that some people have taken in rubbishing FKR games*, I am always shocked, amazed, and chagrined at the chutzpah of people who make this complaint.

It's the Goldilocks complaint- some things are "just right" I guess?


*There have been numerous thread where people bash on FKR, because it's apparently okay that the small indie developers that give away their rules-lite systems get to be attacked. Seems weird to me, but what do I know?

What are FKR games?

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not sure how you leaped to that far-flung conclusion.

From these words you wrote: "Remember, there's no 'to hit' in DW. A hard move like that will be serious damage or death."

The "will" in there tells me the move - and thus the attacker - cannot miss.

 

[Lanefan]

The gameworld is not a real thing. It has no cares. It does not have its own agency, nor its own nature, not its own causal influence.

Some of us like to treat it as though it is a real thing and does have its own nature, however, in order to be able to better and-or more easily think through how things would work there.

 

[Maxperson]

It is also an error that CAN be corrected by proper guidance in the DMG, on the first page and at the level of DM Agenda or DM principles. Because the DMs doing this aren’t necessarily malicious, and the constant refrain of “the DM is the ultimate authority” isn’t helping matters.

Guidance is already in the DMG. It won't work, though, if people won't read the book.

5e DMG page 4: "You can also lean on the other players to help you with rules mastery and world-building."

5e DMG page 4: "That said, 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."

5e DMG page 6: "your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you've created, and to let their characters do awesome things."

5e DMG page 34: "What's the right way to run a campaign? That depends on your play style and the motivations of your players. Consider your players' tastes, your strengths as a DM, table rules (discussed in part 3), and the type of game you want to run. Describe to the players how you envision the game experience and let them give you input. The game is theirs, too."

5e DMG page 37: "Even better, as the campaign takes unexpected turns in response to the players' choices, you don't have to worry about redoing much work."

5e DMG page 81: "Some players create their own objectives, which is to be expected and encouraged. It is, after all, as much the players' campaign as yours."

 

[Lanefan]

Why is it the GM who "interprets as best they can the world to the players"?

Why can the players not interpret Middle Earth, or the Marvel Universe, or the World of Greyhawk, or whatever other setting is being used?

Well, when it's a homebrew setting designed by the GM it's probably going to work more smoothly if the GM is the one who then interprets and describes it to the players....