D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

It's not putting the rules over the fiction and is still very much constrained by the shared fiction (what has been established). Both the rules and not yet defined elements of the setting are serving the game's agenda. So, in a game like Monsterhearts that's keeping focus on these teenage monsters who are unsure of themselves, have this personal darkness they are dealing with and feelings they're not sure about, etc. It's choosing complications that speak to the premise of the individual characters.

Nothing about this is because it's what the rules say. It's because we're playing a game where we want to focus on the character's struggles and see who they are coming out the other end.

The way Monsterhearts structures the conversation is not important because it's the rules. It's important because it's the foundation of this thing we are doing because we need the GM to frame these scenes so our characters can be tested. In the same way that D&D requires the DM to describe the dungeon environment so it can be explored.

One is not more rules bound than the other. The roles are different because the play is different.
I don't know about that. Trad games like D&D IME tend to be a might fuzzier on things that are mechanically very codified in Narrativist games. And while there are certainly codified rules in other areas in trad games, I feel the design philosophy gives even those areas more wiggle room. Just my thoughts on the matter.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yeah, as a bit of a tangent, one of the things I like best about running low myth kind of Story Now is that there are no bottlenecks of this sort. A player tries to move in a direction, it fails, things are just shunted into a slightly different path. There's no 'beyond the door' that has any unique character which needs to enter the fiction more than something else does.

Meanwhile knowing that there is something beyond the door has unique character is one of the things I enjoy. :)
 

Thanks for your thoughtfulness.

The games I would recommend most for someone coming from your position would probably be Stonetop or Daggerheart, likely Daggerheart. Both do a better job than Dungeon World of giving a more immediate context to play. Both are also likely to itch the fun combat bug better than Dungeon World, especially Daggerheart.

Stonetop in particular does a much better job of grounding the characters and giving them stuff to care about.
I was thinking Deathmatch Island and Apocalypse Keys.

The former because the Paragon system gets you scene framing and players narrating their successes and failures, and the latter because the 'Apocalypse by Moonlight' mechanics present and resolve adventures in a neat way that I think takes better advantage of PbtA game structures than Dungeon World.

@DinoInDisguise for vis.
 

And that makes a major assumption about how groups play. I've never had a group go partway into a dungeon, then turn around and go back to get new supplies.
More commonly IME - particularly at very low levels - they need to turn around and go back to get new characters to replace what they lost; getting new supplies is done at the same time, helped (sometimes greatly!) by any treasure they've thus far managed to scoop from the place.

But I have once or twice seen parties turn around on hitting an obstacle and realizing they simply don't have the (usually class-related) abilities in the party to get past it, and that they have to go recruit someone with those abilities in order to progress.
But how is preventing progress at all fun or interesting?
Interesting for all if the players try thinking of new and creative ways of getting around the obstacle, whether successful or not.

Interesting for me-as-DM if they have to turn around and go do something else.

Fun? Most of the time, obstacles aren't supposed to be fun.
 

It also depends on how important the characters' gear and equipment are to play. In a game where gear and equipment are carefully tracked and-or can be vital to success, forgetting to pick up something while in town can have big consequences later and thus at least doing the basic "adding items to one's sheet and knocking off the requisite number of g.p." step is rather important.

A recent example from my game: the party found themselves in a null-magic zone in some caverns. All their magical lights went out, and most of them couldn't see in the dark (lots of Elves, and in my game their night-sight only works outdoors). Much checking of character sheets later, it turned out not a single one of 'em had a mundane lantern or torch to provide light! Someone did have three basic candles, which were used to get them through to where their lights came back on.

Next time in town they all loaded up on mundane light sources! :)
Fair, TB2e for instance has a lot of emphasis on gear and supplies. Shopping is thus high stakes. I'd note that in TB2e you're lucky if an adventure even nets you enough to buy supplies and heal up. So bargaining, stealing, and scrounging are vital. It also has very robust rules for running all of that within the context of town phase. Makes surviving a B/X dungeon crawl feel like easy mode IME.
 

Question: how does having a single (potential) point of failure have any relation to direct storytelling?
Because the way I see it, if the game can't go forward without getting through this obstacle, then there must be a story everyone is following that insists upon going through it. Otherwise, the party could simply do something else.
 
Last edited:





Remove ads

Top