Besides D&D, what are you playing?

[Fenris-77]

It isn't quite as good at playing in person, but it is better than not playing.

Yeah, at this point I'd take not quite as good and run with it. I got the jones man, I just need a hit. Just one hit man, just one, I swear I'll bring the cash tomorrow....

 

[Jer]

My 13th Age group wrapped up a long-running campaign the other week (which likely would have taken us another year if COVID stay-at-home hadn't caused us all to have free time open up for weekly online instead of monthly in-person gaming), so we started an ICONS game this week. First session was random character creation and a short scene with some combat to introduce the rules and see how folks enjoy it. Plan is to play a few sessions of different game to see what we want to do next - either dive into another long-running campaign of some kind, or maybe just play a series of one-shots for a while.

 

[Reynard]

I finally get to try Dungeon World this weekend with someone very familiar with PbtA games. I have been loathe to try and run a PbtA game myself without having played one before because the concept of GM moves is a little weird to me. It will be interesting to experience.

 

[Fenris-77]

I finally get to try Dungeon World this weekend with someone very familiar with PbtA games. I have been loathe to try and run a PbtA game myself without having played one before because the concept of GM moves is a little weird to me. It will be interesting to experience.

It's not as complicated as it seems. If you've DM'd D&D you already use GM moves in a lot of ways, you just don't realize that they're the same thing as the DW rules yet. PbtA is just more up front and codified about their use and provides specific examples and mechanics for the decision making. The equivalent in D&D is stuff DMs just kinda do sometimes, without the system support.

 

[pemerton]

I have been loathe to try and run a PbtA game myself without having played one before because the concept of GM moves is a little weird to me.

GM moves are all about establishing elements of the fiction that will place some sort of pressure on the players by virtue of the (fictional) circumstances in which their PCs find themselves.

The most obvious analogues in D&D refereeing are (i) telling the players about damage that their PCs suffer and (ii) telling the players about the consequences/effects of traps, spells etc that they fail saves against.

The difference in PbtA compared to D&D is that, as GM, you're not rolling to hit but rather making moves in response to player action declarations and resolution - often actions that have failed.

A less obvious but I think important analogue in D&D refereeing is (iii) telling the players what their PCs see behind a dungeon door they've just opened. In D&D this is the central example of announcing badness (AW) or revealing an unwelcome truth (DW).

I would say that the two most important differences between D&D and PbtA relate to (a) how, and (b) when.

(a) PbtA favours a very flexible and responsive approach to how. This is one manifestation of the idea of "following the fiction" and "playing to find out". So notes, dungeon keys etc - while not utterly absent (because they are there in a certain form in fronts) - don't play the same role as they do in fairly traditional D&D. Related to this: in D&D it's often the case that memoring a Find Traps spell, or playing a thief, is a way of getting around the traps you know the GM will haver put there; whereas in DW, playing a thief is a reason for the GM to give an opportunity that fits a class’ abilities by narrating the presence, the threat, etc of traps either as framing or as consequence.

And also related: there's less codification of permissible responses and consequences in PbtA. If the situation requires you (as GM) to narrate the consequences of a blow from a troll, that could be harm/damage; or it could be knocking the character clear across the room (separate them); or it could be breaking the character's shield (take away their stuff / use up their resources); or, etc, etc.

(b) PbtA favours a very proactive answer to when. There shouldn't normally be a lot of time spent at the table "looking for the adventure" or wondering where the action might be. It's the GM's job to poke and provoke the PCs and thereby their players. It doesn't have to be all bad - AW includes the principle respond with . . . intermittent rewards - but if it's really got to the point where the GM has no moves to make then the story of the PCs is done. For them, the excitement is over.

For some GMs - especially those whose main experience is fairly traditional D&D - building up this feel for pacing, and modulating between softer and harder moves, may take a while. I'd say the main thing is to follow the fiction, using the list of moves as a reminder for the sorts of things you can do with fiction in an adventure-oriented RPG. Don't fetishise the moves in themselves.

EDIT: If you play AW or DW, you will be able to work out the GM moves only by inference. Because a central principle for the GM is never speak the name of your move. I think AW (pp 110-11) is especially good on this:

Of course the real reason why you choose a move exists in the real world. Somebody has her character go someplace new, somebody misses a roll, somebody hits a roll that calls for you to answer, everybody’s looking to you to say something, so you choose a move to make. Real-world reasons. However, misdirect: pretend that you’re making your move for reasons entirely within the game’s fiction instead. Maybe your move is to separate them, for instance; never say “you missed your roll, so you two get separated.” Instead, maybe say “you try to grab his gun” — this was the PC’s move — “but he kicks you down. While they’re stomping on you, they drag Damson away.” The effect’s the same, they’re separated, but you’ve cannily misrepresented the cause. Make like it’s the game’s fiction that chooses your move for you, and so correspondingly always choose a move that the game’s fiction makes possible.​

DW (p 163) is briefer: 'You know the reason the slavers dragged off Omar was because you made the “put someone in a spot” move, but you show it to the players as a straightforward outcome of their actions, since it is.'

 

[Reynard]

GM moves are all about establishing elements of the fiction that will place some sort of pressure on the players by virtue of the (fictional) circumstances in which their PCs find themselves.

The most obvious analogues in D&D refereeing are (i) telling the players about damage that their PCs suffer and (ii) telling the players about the consequences/effects of traps, spells etc that they fail saves against.

The difference in PbtA compared to D&D is that, as GM, you're not rolling to hit but rather making moves in response to player action declarations and resolution - often actions that have failed.

A less obvious but I think important analogue in D&D refereeing is (iii) telling the players what their PCs see behind a dungeon door they've just opened. In D&D this is the central example of announcing badness (AW) or revealing an unwelcome truth (DW).

I would say that the two most important differences between D&D and PbtA relate to (a) how, and (b) when.

(a) PbtA favours a very flexible and responsive approach to how. This is one manifestation of the idea of "following the fiction" and "playing to find out". So notes, dungeon keys etc - while not utterly absent (because they are there in a certain form in fronts) - don't play the same role as they do in fairly traditional D&D. Related to this: in D&D it's often the case that memoring a Find Traps spell, or playing a thief, is a way of getting around the traps you know the GM will haver put there; whereas in DW, playing a thief is a reason for the GM to give an opportunity that fits a class’ abilities by narrating the presence, the threat, etc of traps either as framing or as consequence.

And also related: there's less codification of permissible responses and consequences in PbtA. If the situation requires you (as GM) to narrate the consequences of a blow from a troll, that could be harm/damage; or it could be knocking the character clear across the room (separate them); or it could be breaking the character's shield (take away their stuff / use up their resources); or, etc, etc.

(b) PbtA favours a very proactive answer to when. There shouldn't normally be a lot of time spent at the table "looking for the adventure" or wondering where the action might be. It's the GM's job to poke and provoke the PCs and thereby their players. It doesn't have to be all bad - AW includes the principle respond with . . . intermittent rewards - but if it's really got to the point where the GM has no moves to make then the story of the PCs is done. For them, the excitement is over.

For some GMs - especially those whose main experience is fairly traditional D&D - building up this feel for pacing, and modulating between softer and harder moves, may take a while. I'd say the main thing is to follow the fiction, using the list of moves as a reminder for the sorts of things you can do with fiction in an adventure-oriented RPG. Don't fetishise the moves in themselves.

Thank you for that explanation.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

GM moves are all about establishing elements of the fiction that will place some sort of pressure on the players by virtue of the (fictional) circumstances in which their PCs find themselves.

The most obvious analogues in D&D refereeing are (i) telling the players about damage that their PCs suffer and (ii) telling the players about the consequences/effects of traps, spells etc that they fail saves against.

The difference in PbtA compared to D&D is that, as GM, you're not rolling to hit but rather making moves in response to player action declarations and resolution - often actions that have failed.

A less obvious but I think important analogue in D&D refereeing is (iii) telling the players what their PCs see behind a dungeon door they've just opened. In D&D this is the central example of announcing badness (AW) or revealing an unwelcome truth (DW).

I would say that the two most important differences between D&D and PbtA relate to (a) how, and (b) when.

(a) PbtA favours a very flexible and responsive approach to how. This is one manifestation of the idea of "following the fiction" and "playing to find out". So notes, dungeon keys etc - while not utterly absent (because they are there in a certain form in fronts) - don't play the same role as they do in fairly traditional D&D. Related to this: in D&D it's often the case that memoring a Find Traps spell, or playing a thief, is a way of getting around the traps you know the GM will haver put there; whereas in DW, playing a thief is a reason for the GM to give an opportunity that fits a class’ abilities by narrating the presence, the threat, etc of traps either as framing or as consequence.

And also related: there's less codification of permissible responses and consequences in PbtA. If the situation requires you (as GM) to narrate the consequences of a blow from a troll, that could be harm/damage; or it could be knocking the character clear across the room (separate them); or it could be breaking the character's shield (take away their stuff / use up their resources); or, etc, etc.

(b) PbtA favours a very proactive answer to when. There shouldn't normally be a lot of time spent at the table "looking for the adventure" or wondering where the action might be. It's the GM's job to poke and provoke the PCs and thereby their players. It doesn't have to be all bad - AW includes the principle respond with . . . intermittent rewards - but if it's really got to the point where the GM has no moves to make then the story of the PCs is done. For them, the excitement is over.

For some GMs - especially those whose main experience is fairly traditional D&D - building up this feel for pacing, and modulating between softer and harder moves, may take a while. I'd say the main thing is to follow the fiction, using the list of moves as a reminder for the sorts of things you can do with fiction in an adventure-oriented RPG. Don't fetishise the moves in themselves.

EDIT: If you play AW or DW, you will be able to work out the GM moves only by inference. Because a central principle for the GM is never speak the name of your move. I think AW (pp 110-11) is especially good on this:

Of course the real reason why you choose a move exists in the real world. Somebody has her character go someplace new, somebody misses a roll, somebody hits a roll that calls for you to answer, everybody’s looking to you to say something, so you choose a move to make. Real-world reasons. However, misdirect: pretend that you’re making your move for reasons entirely within the game’s fiction instead. Maybe your move is to separate them, for instance; never say “you missed your roll, so you two get separated.” Instead, maybe say “you try to grab his gun” — this was the PC’s move — “but he kicks you down. While they’re stomping on you, they drag Damson away.” The effect’s the same, they’re separated, but you’ve cannily misrepresented the cause. Make like it’s the game’s fiction that chooses your move for you, and so correspondingly always choose a move that the game’s fiction makes possible.​

DW (p 163) is briefer: 'You know the reason the slavers dragged off Omar was because you made the “put someone in a spot” move, but you show it to the players as a straightforward outcome of their actions, since it is.'

So good.

 

[Nebulous]

It isn't quite as good at playing in person, but it is better than not playing.

I like using dynamic lighting because that is something I can't replicate in person, so its another little perk. But yeah in person is still better.

 

[Nebulous]

It's not as complicated as it seems. If you've DM'd D&D you already use GM moves in a lot of ways, you just don't realize that they're the same thing as the DW rules yet. PbtA is just more up front and codified about their use and provides specific examples and mechanics for the decision making. The equivalent in D&D is stuff DMs just kinda do sometimes, without the system support.

I've noticed that when running DW it is still too easy to get into the D&D mindset of static fights. You know how in DnD PCs and NPCs just stand there and bash and don't move because it's the best tactical option? Well, in DW, there's no reason for that to exist, and you can have combats flopping all over the place, and without any constraints of rounds or initiative. BUT, I still find fights being static because that's what I'm used to doing.

 

[Nebulous]

For people interested, I found this video of Matt Mercer and Adam Koebel (creator of DW) as players in a Roll20 session with a new GM.