D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Faolyn]

Exactly - you've seen the issue I'm raising and, while jokingly turning it back on me, are also agreeing it's a problem. No, the sniper shouldn't auto-hit in D&D; my point is that the sniper shouldn't auto-hit period, and that rolls for actions of any character should be made by the person controlling that character, in this case - as the sniper is an NPC - by the GM.

OK, so the rules aren't even consistent in how (the players of) NPCs and PCs interact with them on something as basic as combat. That's a deal-killer right there.


If it doesn't mechanically work the same when the positions are reversed - i.e. when it's the PCs shooting at some Goblins the Goblins get to Defy Danger etc. - that's a huge red flag as to how this game is designed. D&D has issues in this area as well, don't get me wrong, but nowhere near to this extent.

Not so. If you engage in melee combat against some goblins, the goblins fight back, inflicting damage. You may have armor or have rolled well enough in your attack roll to lessen or eliminate the damage you take.

If you're shooting at some goblins in the distance, your ability to hit determines if they take damage, and they also may have armor or a special ability that lets them lessen or eliminate the danger they take. However, you wouldn't take damage yourself, unless the goblins also had ranged weapons.

The GM, using a move, can also inflict damage to a PC without it being in combat. Perhaps the PC investigated something and, using a GM move, the goblin leaps out or snipes the target. If you had previously used a move such as "Show signs of an approaching threat" (or in MotW, Reveal future badness), that would give indication there were goblins around--and if the PCs chose to be more aware of their surroundings, then the GM would likely not allow that goblin to ambush them in that manner.

It's actually pretty consistent. It's just not like in D&D.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Do you mean this passage (PHB p 258)?

You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. For instance, perhaps your mother is the person whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring. Quests can also relate to individual goals, such as a ranger searching for a magic bow to wield. Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.​

This passage talks about the player connecting their background elements to other parts of the fiction of the setting and about giving the GM ingredients to help develop the story. It's not ambiguous.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

How many realistic snipers set up a shot and then fail? I'm not an expert, but as a very good shot myself I wouldn't miss!

As for the served cold thing, sure. But then why make such little use of a windfall. I'm going to work that! You hear rumors of a contract going out, of a famous hitman in the area, etc. I'm definitely making the player sweat! Lets see how crazy he gets.

 

[pemerton]

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.

The move is a narration by the GM of an event in the fiction. The assassin shooting and missing sound like the GM narrated a soft move. The assassin shooting and hitting is the GM narrating a hard move. Which one the GM does depends on what the rules of the game say they should do, having regard to the established fiction.

AW and DW use a different resolution structure from D&D combat. The idea of rolling to hit, and then hitting or missing, has no work to do. It's not part of the game system.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Yes, I'm aware of this. That's why I call it railroading, because all the thinking about how things would work - that it to say, the authorship of situation, stakes and consequences - is being done by one person, ie the GM.

 

[pemerton]

Yet what's stopping that shipwreck putting them on Isle of Dread?

What do you mean, "what's stopping"? There's no real shipwreck, no real wind, no real waves or tidal forces.

So the question is, Who authors where the shipwrecked characters land, and why?

I've explained in some length why X1 has absolutely no relevance to the play of the game in which my PC is Aedhros. At this stage I don't need to reiterate.

If I-as-DM say up front something like "OK, Aedhros' quest will be front and center for the most part but at the same time expect the unexpected to happen now and then", then what?

What do you mean, "then what"? In what context are you imagining this happening? I mean, are you pitching a game? Then I'm out.

Are you asking me if you understand how to GM Burning Wheel or Dungeon World? Then I'm telling you know, you've radically misunderstood the nature of the activity.

It has everything to do with Aedhros; I missed that Alicia was also involved.

All of which could be introduced as complications to/around Aedhros' quest, which is why I'd sketch them out as ideas. The side quests are also intended as options to give the campaign room to spin out longer.

Aedhos is not on a "quest". My play doesn't need side quests.

The "story board" you set out could have the three words removed and subbed in - instead of Aedhros, Elves and father-in-law we could substitute in Ged, wizards and the shadow that escaped when he miscast a spell as an apprentice - and literally nothing else would need changing. That's enough to show that it has nothing to with Aedhros. It's just a sketched-out conception of an utterly generic action-adventure in which you plug in a couple of proper names in place of <X> and <McGuffin> in the schema.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Exactly - you've seen the issue I'm raising and, while jokingly turning it back on me, are also agreeing it's a problem. No, the sniper shouldn't auto-hit in D&D; my point is that the sniper shouldn't auto-hit period, and that rolls for actions of any character should be made by the person controlling that character, in this case - as the sniper is an NPC - by the GM.

OK, so the rules aren't even consistent in how (the players of) NPCs and PCs interact with them on something as basic as combat. That's a deal-killer right there.

If it doesn't mechanically work the same when the positions are reversed - i.e. when it's the PCs shooting at some Goblins the Goblins get to Defy Danger etc. - that's a huge red flag as to how this game is designed. D&D has issues in this area as well, don't get me wrong, but nowhere near to this extent.

There's a fundamental disconnect happening here. A hard GM sniper move would be Cause Harm. There's no roll for that because it would not happen as an opening of a situation! You started out claiming a PC cannot be ambushed and I just pointed out that starting the fiction with a sniper shot is the AW equivalent of "rocks fall, you die!"

I then went on to comment on the idea of revenge served cold. I don't think it makes great play, but if a player ignored further soft moves like a warning that a hitman is around, then fine! I'd just expect the player to, say hire a guy to wear his hat and go ahead of him! In that case a Defy Danger +CHA might be appropriate, oops your decoy's head just exploded! But if the player is truly playing stupid, so be it. Anyway, the damage MIGHT not kill them outright...

 

[Gradine]

Exactly - you've seen the issue I'm raising and, while jokingly turning it back on me, are also agreeing it's a problem. No, the sniper shouldn't auto-hit in D&D; my point is that the sniper shouldn't auto-hit period, and that rolls for actions of any character should be made by the person controlling that character, in this case - as the sniper is an NPC - by the GM.

OK, so the rules aren't even consistent in how (the players of) NPCs and PCs interact with them on something as basic as combat. That's a deal-killer right there.

If it doesn't mechanically work the same when the positions are reversed - i.e. when it's the PCs shooting at some Goblins the Goblins get to Defy Danger etc. - that's a huge red flag as to how this game is designed. D&D has issues in this area as well, don't get me wrong, but nowhere near to this extent.

Oh man, did this stuff take me a while to wrap my head around as a long-time D&D player who started playing around in a lot of PbtA playgrounds.

Once I grokked it though I really ended up liking it. Once again, it's a very different way to approach how the game is played, but when it's in action, and everyone has bought in to the system, it's so smooth. I can't say I'd never go back to D&D combat, I can and have and will again. But I think, ultimately, I prefer it this way.

Certainly not for everyone, though.

 

[Lanefan]

Do you mean this passage (PHB p 258)?

You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. For instance, perhaps your mother is the person whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring. Quests can also relate to individual goals, such as a ranger searching for a magic bow to wield. Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.​

This passage talks about the player connecting their background elements to other parts of the fiction of the setting and about giving the GM ingredients to help develop the story. It's not ambiguous.

Still says "hit the curveball" to me if I'm reading it as a DM (meanwhile it's giving the player free rein to throw said curveball, which is good player-side advice), and it's nothing new other than in its specific wording.

Characters questing for items they'd like to have (as per the Ranger and bow example) is as old as the hills, and IMO it'd be a damn fool DM who didn't go along with a player having their character do something like this. Paladins (and, later, Cavaliers) calling for their warhorse is a baked-in example from 1e, and the DMG gives guidance to the DM as to what happens next.

The bigger challenge IME is to somehow get the other players/PCs involved and-or interested in these type of quests, if the intent is that the whole party go along.

However, what the above passage is not doing is giving players free rein to add or change significant setting elements to suit these quests. The referenced Fortress of the Iron Ring is, one assumes, a pre-established setting element but the identity of the remain therein is not; and the DM is given right of approval/veto in any case.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. I'm pointing out that, in D&D, it is not true to say that the normative baseline is "the GM establishes the setting". That is one approach, but not the only approach contemplated over the history of the game, both as published and as played.

Here are a few more, then: BitD, DitV (don't be misled by the fact that the GM authors the town), In A Wicked Age, HeroWars, Marvel Heroic RP, Fate, d20 Conan.

The GM's key function is to establish adversity, to "orchestrate conflict". This requires some authority to author setting, undoubtedly. But it does not require all of it. And it certainly doesn't require being able to appeal to as-yet-unrevealed elements of setting as the basis for resolving a conflict by making a hard move.

You do know that "normative baseline" does not mean "only way to play D&D" right?