D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Lanefan]

Why not? What else would it be about?

The party as a whole.

Expecting a D&D game to be about the characters is selfish?

When it's to the exclusion of it being about anything else including other players' characters, yes.

What about the DM? Is his desire for the game to be about the stories he has in mind selfish?

Yes, if he's going to force things such those stories are the only ones he's going to let be told even if-when the players would rather do something different in the setting.

That said, if a DM is going to all the trouble of designing a homebrew setting it's IMO reasonable to expect that setting is going to come with a few built in stories attached, even if the players/PCs never follow up on any of them.

Do you consider your players AI-players? Seriously, is that how you view them?

No.

This type of game doesn't limit the GM's input, just shifts it a bit. You're no longer free to just decide whatever you want whenever you want. You have to be creative.

I think I'm already being every bit as creative. The difference is that much of my creative input goes into the process ahead of time when designing the setting, adventure, etc.

I don't see why it must. Surely, Aedhros's story would end there (unless there was some way for him to return), but there's no reason that the entire game has to end at that point, unless all participants want it to.

Given the tone, the game would likely at least end for Aedhros' player at that point.

Which plays into my idea that the story of the party as a whole is what really matters even as the characters within that party turn over, as that story can and will continue even if-when one character drops out, retires, dies, or otherwise leaves play. (and the player is, one hopes, already on board with the idea of rolling up a replacement...or already has one, either already in play or waiting in the wings)

So then what's the problem?

When you say run with it, do you mean use it as a means to prod the player through the game you already had planned? "There are rumors that Aedhros's father in law is across the seas, in the golden lands. You book passage on a ship there, but after a terrible storm you are shipwrecked.... on the Isle of Dread!!!!"

Or do you take this opportunity to get creative and craft something that's unique to this character? That suits his goals and what's been established about him?

I take the opportunity to plan ahead, because I'm never not going to plan ahead - be it as DM or player - if I have any choice about it.

The storyboard I churned out upthread (which I was literally making up as I typed, riffing off pemerton's write-up of Aedhros) was in theory supposed to be unique to the character. It's my ideas of how things might go (note the "might" in there) and of some elements and major distractions I might throw in if things work out such that I can.

He came back and said it seemed a bland exercise in fill-in-the-blanks, but then all stories are like that.

For my own games I storyboard at the adventure level, partly to see what I can string together into possible mini-APs, mostly so I can look ahead and see what adventures I can use a canned module for and what ones I might eventually have to write myself. At the time I do this I've no idea whether anything* I write on that storyboard will ever see the light of day; and it's amusing to me now to look back on early versions of my current game's storyboard and see just how far adrift of it the game in fact ended up going.

* - exception: the very first adventure is always pre-determined and locked in, just to get things started.

 

[Lanefan]

They are addressing exactly the same question, when is a person able to meaningfully decide things? To be an agent, you have to be able to control your fate in some meaningful way, not simply toss dice.

I disagree.

Let's say that in reality I find myself in a strange building in a hallway with six unlabelled doors*. I'm there looking for a small business, which I know is behind one of these doors but I've forgotten which one. I also know that one of the other doors is alarmed; I don't want to open that one! So, how do I decide which door to open? You guessed it - after what little observation I can bring to bear, it's good old trial and error; and if I set off the alarm well so be it.

Both the store and the alarmed door were in place ahead of time, and nothing I do now is going to change their locations. I've no idea which door is which, and yet I still have the personal agency to choose which one I'm going to try first regardless of how I make that choice.

And the same is true for a character in a D&D setting. It doesn't know what's behind any of these doors (and thus neither should its player); the player just has to trust the DM to honour her own prep and leave things in their assigned locations instead of changing that prep in response to the player's choice. And a good DM doesn't break that trust.

* - a situation that more or less existed many years ago when a friend had a store in the upstairs of an old building - there was a sign for the store on the outside wall above the street but for the longest time there wasn't a sign on the door, meaning unless you already knew how to get there it really could become an exercise in trying random doors once you got to that floor.

 

[Enrahim2]

In D&D, that last combat could easily take as much or more table time as all the rest of this put together, and the bandit battle would take time as well

I see one problem with this claim in the larger context. You speculate that long winded combat is the reason D&D feel combat focused. However really long winded combat was introduced by WotC, while I would say TSR era D&D had an even stronger reputation for being combat focused back in the day, than I experience 5ed's reputation.

I think you really need to look at the larger culture. When I am running home made campaigns in D&D there are usually many sessions between each combat (and these campaigns are mostly formed and driven by player input). If I am running a prewritten adventure, I can expect at least 1 combat per session. That include enworlds excelent War of the burning sky, that is the least combat focused adventure path I have seen if run mostly as written.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem with your sniper example entails the fact that the GM is not playing by the rules. That is the fundamental problem you are failing to mention in the above.

In D&D the play process of the game dictates that the GM make an attack roll for the sniper against the PC's armor class. It would break the rules if the GM bypassed the attack roll to declare a hit.* It's the equivalent of "rocks fall, you die!"

Agreed.

In Dungeon World, the play process of the game dictates that (1) the GM declares that the sniper attacks, (2) the GM asks the PCs what they do, and then (3) the PCs react to what's happening, and then possibly (4) triggering an appropriate PC Move, such as Defy Danger. The results of the PC's move roll determines the results, which may possibly include damage but also avoiding the hit entirely.

OK. Got that,

To be consistent, then, if it's a PC as the sniper and an NPC as the target, the NPC should get the same chance to react to what's happening using the same mechanics and - if needed - having its player (the GM) make the same rolls.

Otherwise it's a fundamentally unbalanced system at the mechanical level.

I would add here that Dungeon World, in this regard, is not too dissimilar from "defense rolls" in some trad games like the Cypher System or even OSR games like The Black Hack. In these games, the GM doesn't roll to make attacks (as they only declare the actions of the NPCs) and instead the player rolls for defense against attacks. It's also not that different in some concept from D&D's use of saving throws. The GM declares the action of a spell, and the PCs then may roll to avoid it. It would be equally egregious to the rules in the aforementioned systems if you had declared that the sniper hit and damaged the players without first having them make Defense rolls.

Again fine, as long as when the players have their characters attack an NPC the GM gets to make those same defense rolls on behalf of said NPC.

The rules of Dungeon World are consistent. It just doesn't work according to your preferences.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems that PCs are using one set of rules and NPCs are using another. That is not consistent.

 

[Lanefan]

I see one problem with this claim in the larger context. You speculate that long winded combat is the reason D&D feel combat focused. However really long winded combat was introduced by WotC, while I would say TSR era D&D had an even stronger reputation for being combat focused back in the day, than I experience 5ed's reputation.

I can't disagree with any of that, though I've run many a long-winded combat in 1e-like D&D. (my record for a single combat is two-and-a-half full sessions; which, over the years, I've done twice)

I think you really need to look at the larger culture. When I am running home made campaigns in D&D there are usually many sessions between each combat (and these campaigns are mostly formed and driven by player input). If I am running a prewritten adventure, I can expect at least 1 combat per session. That include enworlds excelent War of the burning sky, that is the least combat focused adventure path I have seen if run mostly as written.

I don't have WotBS so I'll have to take your word for it.

Curious - what is it about your homebrew campaigns that makes them so combat-light?

 

[Enrahim2]

Expanding on the above, both combats in your example just make no sense if what you are after is a good story.

--- en route to Karnos the party are beset by bandits, a fairly easy combat (and a useful learning tool if any players are new to the system)

As you point out the only purpose of this battle appear to teach a system. That presumes there is a system of interest that handles combat as a special thing. From a nararive standpoint this scene appear to provide nothing that drives the action, unless it is some forshadowing related to future bandit activity, or the questions they seek answered is somehow related to banditry in the area. In either case it would appear such a scene would be more impactfull if the characters are stopped by the bandit that try to negotiate something from them. Maybe the bandits have or know something the characters want, so they have reasons to negotiate?

--- on arriving at the island the PCs learn the hard way it's a base for pirates who really don't appreciate visitors; the PCs get spotted quicky, and a big long sprawling battle follows.

Again, this seem like a huge waste of narrative potential. Where is the charismatic captain entising the characters to work for them seeing they are clearly able? Where is the disgruntled crew members that see the PCs arrival as a chance to stirr up a long planned mutiny? Where is the peg legged chef ready to provide whatever information the PCs want - for the right price?

The battle can be fun to play out for tactical enthusiasts playing a game with jusy rules and options for fighting. From a narrative standpoint, a battle in such a situation just seem completely out of place. Had the characters known about this pirate cove, and the narrative had buildt up the expectation of a major confrontation there over several scenes, then it could work as sort of a climatic resolution. However as simply an inconvenient obstacle to information as presented here, it do not appear to serve any major effect (unless it is a precursor to an even larger conflict, like the pirate lords uniting against this threat that wiped out one of their peers)

When I run D&D I tend to prioritize the narrative alternatives provided here, and so has my players. However D&D do provide the means to make these combats an interesting choice as well. Games with less mechanics related to combat makes the narrative silliness of these combats more obvious, and hence more likely to be avoided.

 

[Enrahim2]

Curious - what is it about your homebrew campaigns that makes them so combat-light?

I think the above give some pointers. When both me and my players are looking for ways that a situation can be exploited without drawing weapons, combat can be made quite rare indeed. Even in situations with very high tension and conflicts of interest.

 

[Aldarc]

To be consistent, then, if it's a PC as the sniper and an NPC as the target, the NPC should get the same chance to react to what's happening using the same mechanics and - if needed - having its player (the GM) make the same rolls.

What part of “the GM doesn’t roll in PbtA games” do you not understand?

Otherwise it's a fundamentally unbalanced system at the mechanical level.

Nah. That’s what makes it balanced at the mechanical level.

Again fine, as long as when the players have their characters attack an NPC the GM gets to make those same defense rolls on behalf of said NPC.

Nope. The players make attack rolls to hit the NPCs, and players make defense rolls to avoid being hit by NPCs.

Unless I'm missing something, it seems that PCs are using one set of rules and NPCs are using another. That is not consistent.

There is nothing more consistent than players being the only ones who role. Inconsistency is when rolls switch between players and GMs for a variety of arbitrary reasons: attack rolls, saving throws, etc.

 

[Maxperson]

Meh, I'm not particularly convinced of that, but when did I say any rule of any game should be removed? Are you implying that I'm a bad guy because I play games that don't have that rule and work fine and you find that threatening? If not, I have NO idea what you're talking about. You can have any old 5e or whatever you want, there's like a billion games out there which I'm sure meet your criteria, they aren't going away.

You specifically did not say that, but this conversation is about removal of rules, and you stepped into it and didn't exclude yourself from that context, so...

If you aren't advocating for its removal, then I really don't care how you play your game. We all have preferences and mine isn't better or worse than yours.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree.

Let's say that in reality I find myself in a strange building in a hallway with six unlabelled doors*. I'm there looking for a small business, which I know is behind one of these doors but I've forgotten which one. I also know that one of the other doors is alarmed; I don't want to open that one! So, how do I decide which door to open? You guessed it - after what little observation I can bring to bear, it's good old trial and error; and if I set off the alarm well so be it.

Both the store and the alarmed door were in place ahead of time, and nothing I do now is going to change their locations. I've no idea which door is which, and yet I still have the personal agency to choose which one I'm going to try first regardless of how I make that choice.

Yes, but needing to be informed so you can make healthcare decisions proves that you didn't have agency in that completely different situation!!!