How many times do I have to say "If you want to play a gonzo game, go for it." Different games have different structures and different goals. So?
I prefer D&D games that are relatively grounded no matter which side of the screen I'm on. Because some people? Some people absolutely would wreck the enjoyment of the game for everyone else. I've seen it time and again. Usually they don't realize it, but there are absolutely people who want to make the game all about them at the cost of everyone else.
The players in my games I DM and play in do awesome and incredible things all the time. But part of doing that is figuring out how to achieve their goals within the limits of the game we're playing.
It mystifies me why you believe that if there isn't a GM enforcing some iron rules that the game has to be 'gonzo'. Nobody is disagreeing with you that people can do 'awesome and incredible' stuff using process X, Y, or Z. The problem is when you keep telling me how someone inevitably will ruin the type of game we play. It just doesn't happen. I can take any 5 random people that want to play an RPG and play Dungeon World with them, and there is no more chance of anything going wrong than if we played 5e, or any other RPG (generally speaking).
So not know "the offical rules" your talking about, I very much doubt the rules say anything like that...simply because it is impossible. If you could maybe post the amazing rules? I doubt they are even close to what you suggest. After all, at minimum the wordy legalese would need to be at least several pages. And I doubt they exist. I think it's much more likely your talking about some vague useless rule that says "have fun and don't be a jerk". Ok, but see with out 100,000 words to define both "fun" and "jerk", such typed rules are useless.
Again, this goes back to the game only working when all the players think alike and agree on nearly everything.
Just save us the trouble and go read Dungeon World. Its a free download I believe at this point. Anyway, its certainly not an expensive PDF. It is very clear, and very understandable, and quite easy to do at the table. There's a process of play, and there are principles, agenda, and moves for each participant, and a very solid explanation of how to apply these. Yes, it occupies a significant portion of the rules, but it essentially IS the game, its no more elaborate or hard to understand than the equivalent parts of 5e PHB/DMG.
It mystifies me why you believe that if there isn't a GM enforcing some iron rules that the game has to be 'gonzo'. Nobody is disagreeing with you that people can do 'awesome and incredible' stuff using process X, Y, or Z. The problem is when you keep telling me how someone inevitably will ruin the type of game we play. It just doesn't happen. I can take any 5 random people that want to play an RPG and play Dungeon World with them, and there is no more chance of anything going wrong than if we played 5e, or any other RPG (generally speaking).
I've played with people that would ruin the game for others. Correction ... I've played with people that were actively harming the game and the enjoyment of others at the
table. We had to have an intervention with the player to explain what the issues were. It worked, sort of for a while, although we decided to not include them in future campaigns.
By the way, can you lay off the annoying DM crapping? I understand different games work differently. In D&D the DM wears many hats including referee. No "iron rules" involved, just following the rules of the game except for the house rules we've decided to use.
I believe that a few players exist who are the way you describe in response to minimal provocation. Multiple posters have posted to say we've all DM'd for a wide range of people and almost never seen the behaviour you describe in response to the way we DM,
Well, Id say that the small group of posters only play with a small circle of people. That seems to be very common. As is the typical once a week game.
So, I'm the other type of DM, running eight games a week( one each tues and thurs, and three sat and sun) and an occasional pick up game. So roughly 35 players, and I'm only friends with nine of them (my bar for friends is super high), the rest I know...and a good handful I do not get along with even slightly(though yes, we game for four hours). I have gamed with thousands of strangers. In the old days, I could just go to the mall (remember malls) and wait to see who randomly showed up. Now a days I game at the library/center, often with strangers 13(the minimum aged "allowed")-60+
And I (and I believe almost every poster on this board or we wouldn't be posting here) cares about the hobby and like sharing it with others. I, and I believe most others, don't want to see people driven out of the hobby by bad DMing.
Well, I doubt anyone has given up gaming forever from my game experience. They just go to other games. There are anti-my types of games advertised. And then for a crazy fun twist...one of them groups wanted to play Spelljammer. Their DM did not feel like doing it, and they could not find one. So...they asked me. They even agreed to my house rules (that they hated back then). And now this is my sat afternoon group, and they found my house rules "not so bad"....
It mystifies me why you believe that if there isn't a GM enforcing some iron rules that the game has to be 'gonzo'. Nobody is disagreeing with you that people can do 'awesome and incredible' stuff using process X, Y, or Z. The problem is when you keep telling me how someone inevitably will ruin the type of game we play. It just doesn't happen. I can take any 5 random people that want to play an RPG and play Dungeon World with them, and there is no more chance of anything going wrong than if we played 5e, or any other RPG (generally speaking).
I find it odd you think so. Really for ANY social activity go gather five people and you will likely get at least one that will try to 'bend things' and one that out right cheats. And it's very common in RPGs too. A lot of players only care about themselves and their own fun. And too many players idea of fun is to ruin the fun of others.
A LOT of players (and people) need a leader with authority or they do lots of bad stuff. This is just human nature.
I've played with people that would ruin the game for others. Correction ... I've played with people that were actively harming the game and the enjoyment of others at the
table. We had to have an intervention with the player to explain what the issues were. It worked, sort of for a while, although we decided to not include them in future campaigns.
By the way, can you lay off the annoying DM crapping? I understand different games work differently. In D&D the DM wears many hats including referee. No "iron rules" involved, just following the rules of the game except for the house rules we've decided to use.
Honestly, the world is large, and its ENTIRELY likely that this can come up once in a while. I'm sure if I went back to, say, 1978 when I was in high school, there was certainly problems of this sort. I can remember in the mid-80's (when I was in college, maybe even after) I got roped into having a younger teen age kid in the game. He was pretty socially inept, and there were some 'challenges' with integration. OTOH he was (and is) a nice person, intelligent, etc. He was just 13 and we had to work out how to make the game fun for him and for us. We did though, it was not perfect, but we all had fun, there were many sessions he played in, of various games. Once I had a random person join one of my 4e Maptool games (I think the game was listed on their server or something) and he didn't really mesh with the rest of the group. He just wanted to hyper optimize and couldn't seem to put up with the other player's slightly more quirky builds and whatnot. He played a few sessions, did a disproportionate amount of the 'killing stuff', and seemed uninterested in the fiction. Still wasn't a disaster, I guess he got bored eventually and stopped showing.
Now, maybe if I went to a con or did open tables at the library, maybe I'll get a 'goofer' that just wants to jerk people around or something. They do exist, but it ain't going to matter what game we play.
I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm 'crapping on DMs' or something. I'm not. I GM a huge amount. Its fine however people do it that works. I just get a little frustrated by people who INSIST that there are certain specific techniques that just obviously must always apply.
I find it odd you think so. Really for ANY social activity go gather five people and you will likely get at least one that will try to 'bend things' and one that out right cheats. And it's very common in RPGs too. A lot of players only care about themselves and their own fun. And too many players idea of fun is to ruin the fun of others.
A LOT of players (and people) need a leader with authority or they do lots of bad stuff. This is just human nature.
I am not going to say that there is never ever such a person. Honestly, 99% of the time the person WANTS to constructively participate. The only 'troubling' players, in a kind of "this never works" way are the "I'm just here anyway, so I'll pretend to play" person. Again though, IMHO, that type of person actually is BETTER off if they're allowed to really own part of the fiction, they may actually get sucked in (this could happen in various types of games, but it doesn't require GM-centered fiction). I have run games for various types of groups, certainly some are better and easier than others. One great thing with, say, PbtA games is you can actually just ask "Hey, what is it you want to have play look like?" Ask questions, use the answers is a actually a really good tool for pulling players in and getting them all to mesh. Its HARD for someone to just screw off when you pull that one on them.
So not know "the offical rules" your talking about, I very much doubt the rules say anything like that...simply because it is impossible. If you could maybe post the amazing rules? I doubt they are even close to what you suggest. After all, at minimum the wordy legalese would need to be at least several pages. And I doubt they exist. I think it's much more likely your talking about some vague useless rule that says "have fun and don't be a jerk". Ok, but see with out 100,000 words to define both "fun" and "jerk", such typed rules are useless.
Again, this goes back to the game only working when all the players think alike and agree on nearly everything.
To begin with, I want to be clear about what I am responding to. Your first "example" had spoken of games where a player can simply declare that there is a secret exit out of a trap room they were caught in, and that that simply becomes true. Your second example had spoken of games where a player can simply declare that ten 100d100 lightning bolts strike their enemies, whenever they feel like it, and that that simply becomes true.
Unfortunately, to a certain extent, I cannot do as you have asked, because you are asking for me to quote the absence of a rule, and...I can't do that, I can't hold a book up for you and show how it does not contain anything that works that way. But I can quote for you the parts which tell you why you shouldn't do that.
Here's the introductory text for the "Playing the Game" chapter (all emphasis in original):
Playing the Game
Playing Dungeon World means having a conversation; somebody says something, then you reply, maybe someone else chimes in. We talk about the fiction—the world of the characters and the things that happen around them. As we play, the rules will chime in, too. They have something to say about the world. There are no turns or rounds in Dungeon World, no rules to say whose turn it is to talk. Instead players take turns in the natural flow of the conversation, which always has some back-and-forth. The GM says something, the players respond. The players ask questions or make statements, the GM tells them what happens next. Dungeon World is never a monologue; it’s always a conversation.
The rules help shape the conversation of play. While the GM and the players are talking, the rules and the fiction are talking, too. Every rule has an explicit fictional trigger that tells you when it is meant to come into the conversation.
Like any conversation, the time you spend listening is just as important as the time you spend talking. The details established by the other people at the table (the GM and the other players) are important to you: they might change what moves you can make, set up an opportunity for you, or create a challenge you have to face. The conversation works best when we all listen, ask questions, and build on each other’s contributions.
This chapter is all about how to play Dungeon World. Here, you’ll find information about the rules—how they arise from and contribute to the game. We’ll cover both general rules, like making moves, and more specific rules, like those for dealing with damage and hit points.
This isn't rules text per se, but it does explicitly tell you part of what I've been saying: the game arises from people talking to one another like people do. If you don't understand what someone else means, you ask questions. If you and another person have made assumptions and you realize those assumptions differ, you find a way to resolve those differences. Just like any actual conversation. That doesn't mean the people involved have to think perfectly alike--indeed, in most conversations, the participants don't think alike.
From there, it lays out the general format of Moves, which are the things that fire when the players actually do something that requires rules to resolve (such as doing damage to enemies, escaping traps, casting spells, searching for information, or all sorts of other things.) All emphasis in original.
Making Moves
The most basic unit of rules in Dungeon World is the move. A move looks like this:
When you attack an enemy in melee, roll+STR. • On a 10+, you deal your damage to the enemy and avoid their attack. At your option, you may choose to do +1d6 damage but expose yourself to the enemy’s attack. • On a 7–9, you deal your damage to the enemy and the enemy makes an attack against you.
Moves are rules that tell you when they trigger and what effect they have. A move depends on a fictional action and always has some fictional effect. “Fictional” means that the action and effect come from the world of the characters we’re describing. In the move above the trigger is “when you attack an enemy in melee.” The effect is what follows: a roll to be made and differing fictional effects based on the outcome of the roll.
When a player describes their character doing something that triggers a move, that move happens and its rules apply. If the move requires a roll, its description will tell you what dice to roll and how to read their results.
A character can’t take the fictional action that triggers a move without that move occurring. For example, if Isaac tells the GM that his character dashes past a crazed axe-wielding orc to the open door, he makes the defy danger move because its trigger is “when you act despite an imminent threat.” Isaac can’t just describe his character running past the orc without making the defy danger move and he can’t make the defy danger move without acting despite an imminent threat or suffering a calamity. The moves and the fiction go hand-in-hand.
Everyone at the table should listen for when moves apply. If it’s ever unclear if a move has been triggered, everyone should work together to clarify what’s happening. Ask questions of everyone involved until everyone sees the situation the same way and then roll the dice, or don’t, as the situation requires.
The GM’s monsters, NPCs, and other assorted beasties also have moves, but they work differently.
Notice some really important text here: "Isaac can’t just describe his character running past the orc without making the defy danger move and he can’t make the defy danger move without acting despite an imminent threat or suffering a calamity. The moves and the fiction go hand-in-hand."
According to the actual rules of the game, you cannot just declare that whatever you want to happen happens. If you're attacking the enemy, as in the case with the 100d100 lightning bolts, you would have to make some kind of move that involves attacking--which requires making rolls and succeeding, for one thing, and doesn't include 100d100 lightning bolts for another. If you want to perform a move, you must actually describe the action that IS the move, and every single time you describe the action that IS the move, you must follow the rules of that move, even if you weren't intending to do so.
Also, note that it explicitly says that it's possible for people to disagree about whether a move has been triggered. That means the rules expect that some of the time, people will disagree. The response, according to the rules, is that "everyone should work together to clarify what's happening. Ask questions of everyone involved until everyone sees the situation in the same way and then roll the dice, or don't, as the situation requires." Talking to people, figuring out the disagreement, is literally one of the rules of the game.
Finally, in the GM rules section of Dungeon World, the text includes the following (all emphasis in original):
Dungeon World adventures never presume player actions. A Dungeon World adventure portrays a setting in motion—someplace significant with creatures big and small pursuing their own goals. As the players come into conflict with that setting and its denizens, action is inevitable. You’ll honestly portray the repercussions of that action.
This is how you play to find out what happens. You’re sharing in the fun of finding out how the characters react to and change the world you’re portraying. You’re all participants in a great adventure that’s unfolding. So really, don’t plan too hard. The rules of the game will fight you. It’s fun to see how things unfold, trust us.
"Play to find out what happens" is one of the Agendas of Dungeon World. Agendas are the things you, as GM, should always be trying to do, at all times. Having encounters planned out the way you described--where on round 3, everyone already knows that someone will break out of their chair--is explicitly contradicted by the rules themselves. The rules explicitly say, "Don't do that. It wouldn't be fun, and the rules of the game will make your life unnecessarily harder."
This is what I mean when I say that the books repeatedly and explicitly reject the kinds of examples you're giving. It isn't just "oh, if you read the rules charitably, they wouldn't support it." The actual rules of Dungeon World itself say that you should not do that. That doing so is boring or frustrating. Exactly as I said before.
But to what end? A great many players will abuse any system of rules, there is no "talking to them". And plenty of players will try to sneak stuff around the edges of rules, or demand RAW. Again, you can't "talk" to such players. And why would I ever 'buy' most anything a player sells?
I disagree with the following claims here (all emphasis added):
a great many [read: majority of] players will abuse any system of rules
there is no [benefit to be found in] "talking to them"
plenty [read: a majority of] players will try to sneak stuff around the edges of the rules
All of these claims are, fundamentally, saying that most players are abusive, coercive, selfish, power-hungry, and rude. That statement is simply false. Most players are just...people. Sometimes they'll grub for every tiny advantage they can get. Sometimes they will be kind to you and to one another. Usually, they'll just be enthusiastic about something and not always aware that the thing they've asked for isn't good.
Unless and until you are willing to relent on this objectively false statement that most players are abusive jerks, it's going to be very hard or even impossible to discuss things with you. Because most players, by and large, are just ordinary people--neither sinners nor saints, just...people.
So, to answer your question "to what end": To the end of reasonable people coming to a reasonable agreement about how to move forward. Because most players are fairly reasonable. Some will be unreasonable some of the time, and (lamentably) a few will be unreasonable all of the time. But most people will generally be fairly reasonable, and will want to help make sure everyone has fun, both them and others.
The problem is, you keep acting like your statements are a broad generalization which covers essentially all games. Your response here is woefully inadequate, because I'm not saying "but that doesn't describe this one game I play." I'm saying, "That doesn't describe ANY game I've ever heard of, and I've heard of a lot of games!" Unless and until you actually DO name a name or two--unless you can give me a specific game that actually does get played this way--you haven't responded to the actual criticism.
There are no games that get played like this. Name one. Just one! If you can name just one game where it's actually permitted by the rules that players can just declare the kinds of things you've spoken of, and that just happens no matter what the declaration is, then I will grant that you have responded to the criticism. I will still have reservations about whether your claims describe more than just that one game (because you keep making statements about how this is essentially universal, about how almost everyone does certain things, about how nearly all players are abusive and rude and selfish, etc.)
TL;DR: I'm saying "No games work this way. Prove me wrong." You can't respond to that with, "Well I'm not talking about YOUR game, I'm talking about OTHER games." Name a game that actually gets played this way by most people who play it.
Well, it's way more common then you think. And Really, it goes for most games and activities. There are people that should they get even three letters in the basketball game "horse" will just throw away the ball and say "they don't want to play anymore".
Again, that's irrelevant. Name a game that actually gets played this way, or stop saying that most games are played like this. Because none of us have ever heard of even one game actually played like this.
Your original assertion was that even the smallest, tiniest, most minor problems (including taking any amount of damage whatsoever) cause total and complete meltdowns nearly constantly in most players. Your follow-up statement then asked if Neonchameleon had never seen anyone "freak out" at all, for any reason, ever, or "give up," etc. Those two are NOT the same thing. The former is saying that almost all players are incredibly hyper-sensitive to the smallest of problems and will respond with the emotional equivalent of the Chernobyl disaster. The latter is saying that sometimes players get really upset. That is, pretty much definitionally, moving the goalposts.
It's also rather a classic "motte and bailey" argument: you opened with a statement that is extremely strident and difficult to prove, then retreated after being challenged to a statement that is trivially true, only to pretend that by granting the trivial statement, Neonchameleon had also granted the extremely strident statement. This is unfair and invalid. Either you must grant that your original statement is not supported, or you must provide support for it--you cannot pretend that the statement "sometimes players freak out or give up" is at all the same as the statement "many players will have a total meltdown simply because they took damage."
I don't get the push back. Ok, lets say that you personally have never, ever seen such a player. Why are you so opposed to the idea that the players exist? Why do you care if something exists or not, if it does not exist for you anyway.
Because you described someone who, to quote your own words, "For a lot of players, as soon as the slightest thing goes slightly wrong......they give up at best, and stop playing at worst. And this is the normal 'good' players. A lot more players are super over sensitive. The charterer fails a check or takes some damage, and they are ready to quit RPGs forever."
You have said that a lot of players instantly give up at the smallest issue, and that even more players would simply quit TTRPGs forever solely because their character took some damage one time. That's so cartoonishly irrational and petulant, it beggars belief. I'm sure that, in the grand and glorious panoply of humanity, there have been a few people with their heads shoved so far up their own butts that they would respond that way. It's unavoidable that, with something like eight billion of us out there, a few are going to be THAT bad. But they are NOWHERE NEAR common, unless you can actually give evidence otherwise.
Like if I was to say there are people who watch very little 'screen shows/movies' and read books. Would you say you have never met a person that reads books, just because no one you know reads books?
Not at all. Because "doesn't read books" (or "reads books," if you prefer) is a pretty simple thing, which doesn't require someone to fall into hysterics or insanity. But what you spoke of wasn't that. What you spoke of was, if I may edit your original words...
"For a lot of people, as soon as they see a single word they don't know......they give up at best, and stop reading at worst. And this is the normal 'good' readers. A lot more readers are super over sensitive. The reader doesn't understand the meaning of a sentence or reads something they find upsetting, and they are ready to quit books forever."
"For a lot of viewers, as soon as they see an unpleasant scene......they give up on that episode at best, and stop watching entirely at worst. And this is the normal 'good' viewers. A lot more viewers are super over sensitive. The viewer dislikes a character or is upset that their favorite characters aren't in a romance, and they are ready to quit television forever."
That's the kind of ridiculous hysterical nonsense you were asking us to accept--and then, when challenged, you tried to pass off these ridiculous hysterics as "you've never seen someone get upset because of a TV show? You've never seen someone stop watching a show because they got angry? Okay...sure...not sure why you want to pretend such people don't exist..."
Yes, but it is a "story" game. And you were speaking of "story" games as though essentially all of them are like that.
The problem is, almost all of them are like Dungeon World. Sure, they have their differences...but almost all of them have the very restrictions you're saying don't exist. They do not allow players to just invent reality whenever they want, however they want, with zero costs or consequences. They may, in fact, allow players to alter reality under limited circumstances, or for specific purposes, or with approval, or after a successful roll, or because a valuable resource was spent, but none of them (to my knowledge, which I recognize is limited) allow the utterly insane things you specifically called out.
So: Name a game that DOES do this. Just one! Give me just one game to talk about here. Just one "story" game that allows players to "alter reality" with no limitations or restrictions or caveats. That's all I ask: one system I can dig into and attempt to find out what on Earth went so horribly wrong with it.
Then you are simply, fundamentally wrong. 50% of people do not suddenly break out into infantile, rolling-on-the-floor, fist-beating tantrums because their character took damage or they failed a skill roll.
The vast majority of people are just people. Not particularly good, not particularly bad. They don't begrudge others having fun, but they probably wouldn't completely sacrifice their own fun just so someone else could have fun instead. But if they can do something that will be fun for them and for someone else, well sure, why not?
