D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Faolyn]

Why not? What else would it be about?



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

I think what he meant is, if you have a bunch of people who want to go on The Quest, but another player who only wants to do their story and doesn't want to have a reason to go on The Quest, it's selfish of that other player to demand that The Quest be dropped in favor of their own story. Or, if everyone is doing their own story and not finding reasons to work together all that much (or at all), then it's selfish to require that they just sit there, potentially for hours, and do nothing while they wait for their turn with the spotlight.

Obviously, a good GM can weave personal stories and Quest stories together, although it might seem a bit artificial at times (the father happens to be on the Isle of Dread).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

When you are playing D&D and its ilk, that aligns with you the lion's share of the market. There is D&D, and then there is everything else.


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!"

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. So it's not an auto-hit at all. It can only become an auto-hit when the GM bypasses the rules to Cause Harm right out of the gate and ignore the required play process, which is equivalent to "rocks fall, you die!" This is what you were doing with the sniper causing damage. You were breaking the rules of Dungeon World.

* A key difference is that the GM in D&D is potentially authorized to fudge the dice and declare that the sniper hits - even if we may both agree in our dislike of fudging - and fudging is not possible in Dungeon World since the GM doesn't roll.

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.


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

There could be a question about if a hard move might happen at the start of a scene when previous play has established sufficient basis for it. @Lanefan was exploring that, and I think it could be a point where GMs might not all land on the same answer. I agree you are going to be correct in the vast majority of cases. Personally I would stick to your way of handling it as being the most conservative and definitely never wrong.

 

[Faolyn]

This is what I am calling a railroad. When I play a RPG, I want the fiction to be a joint creation of all the participants.

But that is not what is commonly accepted as the definition.

I've told you the definition before, and so have others: it's when you have no choices as to what you're going to do, because all of your choices lead back to the GM's decision.

Having the GM make a world is not railroading, unless that GM refuses to let any of your choices change that world in a way they don't want it changed.

 

[Aldarc]

There could be a question about if a hard move might happen at the start of a scene when previous play has established sufficient basis for it. @Lanefan was exploring that, and I think it could be a point where GMs might not all land on the same answer. I agree you are going to be correct in the vast majority of cases. Personally I would stick to your way of handling it as being the most conservative and definitely never wrong.

The exploration of that point was apparently lost in their need to shift the goal posts to whether the GM rolls for NPCs.

 

[occam]

If some of your choices are best guess does that mean you have no choice, that your life is a railroad you have no control over? If some decisions are done blind in real life, why should it be any different in a game?

Because we’re talking about a game. Someone playing a game. This idea gets lost a bit because players are also playing roles. But if we look at other games, it becomes clearer.

Imagine chess without being able to see your opponent’s pieces.

Imagine Battleship without being able to see your opponent's pieces.

Oops... I mean, imagine poker without being able to see your opponent's cards.

Uh... dangit, I'm having a hard time thinking of any game involving cards that doesn't limit player knowledge.

I guess it means that all such games are railroads lacking any player agency? Imagine the reaction of all those professional poker players, and fans, when they find that out.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with all of this except the bolded; as other goals can and IM long E often do play a large role in what's still otherwise a pretty Gygaxian setup. Even more so as we long ago knocked off giving xp for treasure and in so doing slowed level advancement to a crawl.

Sure, specific goals can be set in classic play, but I would say that is a sort of leaking in of a more trad agenda. This is why 2e spent so much energy talking about how the PCs will get powerful items and emphasized that you can't buy magic.

 

[occam]

To you. That's your subjective opinion, except for the part where blind choices are not an example of agency. You are just wrong about that one. You still have agency, it's just not enough subjective agency for you and you want more of the kind of agency that you like. There's nothing wrong with wanting more of the kind of agency you like, but telling others that they don't have agency at all in those situations is wrong. Your dislike of the amount of agency you have in those situations doesn't translate into it not being there for either you or others.

I don’t see how it’s all that subjective. I mean, who’s going to say that a blind choice between two doors represents more agency than an informed choice between two doors? No one.

And no one is making that argument; it's a straw man. You're equating more vs. less to some vs. none. That's what @Maxperson is pointing out.

 

[TwoSix]

Imagine Battleship without being able to see your opponent's pieces.

Oops... I mean, imagine poker without being able to see your opponent's cards.

Uh... dangit, I'm having a hard time thinking of any game involving cards that doesn't limit player knowledge.

I guess it means that all such games are railroads lacking any player agency? Imagine the reaction of all those professional poker players, and fans, when they find that out.

That's silly. Lack of any knowledge at all precludes agency, but having limited information is certainly sufficient to allow for agency.

If you think other people are posting that omniscience is required for agency, I don't think you tried very hard to understand people's posts.

 

[Gradine]

Humility had nothing to do with it.

Oh hey, I found the thread subtitle

 

[occam]

Really? I live in a densely packed suburb with many little streets and lanes. (It is perhaps the closet one can get to Greenwich Village in Australia.) I know the names of dozens of streets, the locations of shops and cafes and restaurants and pubs. There are different paths I can take to get from one place to another depending on my mood, my sense of how much traffic might be about at a given time of day, whether I want to check out a particular piece of street art or remind myself of a particular interesting or beautiful building.

I see people on the streets and in the shops whom I recognise, some of whom I know.

Playing a game in the way that you are advocating does not give me, in playing my PC, all that knowledge. I have to ask the GM at every moment of play what I can see, what I remember, who I recognise, etc. That 's not immersive, unless I am playing an artificial space alien.

And when I see a person, I can see their build and their manner and their dress. I can see where they are coming from and where they might be heading. If I interact with them, I have a sense - built on years of experience as a human with these other sorts of humans - of what they want from me (if anything), what their immediate purpose is, etc.

...

In what TTRPG does anyone describe every detail of every person on the street: the buttons on their clothing, the materials from which they're made, the person's complexion and hairstyle, whether they're sneezing or coughing or laughing or in conversation with another person (also so described), etc.? Plus every detail of every cobblestone on the road, and every brick and tile on nearby buildings, every sign, everything that one might observe in real life? I'd like to know, so I can try it out! (Although I don't know how much time I'd have for it; seems like it would result in pretty long play sessions.)

If there is no such game, then I don't really follow what you're arguing for or against.