D&Detox

[prabe]

Also, some people seem to think that DW is prep-free or something, or that prep is somehow against the spirit of the game. I don't think either is true, but I do think the prep that really helps if different from the prep people might be useful from D&D.

I know I'm not into DW and such (at all), but I am curious: How is the helpful prep different than D&D, in your experience?

 

[Fenris-77]

I know I'm not into DW and such (at all), but I am curious: How is the helpful prep different than D&D, in your experience?

The goal of DW, and other PbtA games is to "play to find out what happens". This really obviates the linear quest planning that a lot of people employ. I don't really like linear planning anyway, but it gets done a lot. Planning for DW needs to be a lot more flexible. You can have events in motion, and factions, and all that, you just can't assume anything about entry paths for the players. My planning for PtbA game stends to look more like a mind map than a screen play. The planning also tends to be a lot more soft focus. Player input into the fiction can change things so quickly that you can waste a ton of time and energy over-prepping for things that never come up. I do a lot of work with short descriptive tags, point form notes, and a lot of arrows and boxes to show relationships. The desire to use the novel's worth of prep you did can have a negative impact on really committing to playing to find out what happens. DW still has dungeon locations (duh) which is nice because those can be prepped pretty rigorously. Even then, DW is far less binary when it comes to overcoming obstacles, so encounter resolution is more varied than in D&D, which defaults to combat a lot.

I should be clear, my D&D prep and my PbtA prep look pretty similar. But they both look very different then what a lot of people's D&D prep look like.

 

[prabe]

@Fenris-77 Thanks.

Oddly, that doesn't sound all that different from how I prep D&D. I (usually) have what's right in front of them--they're usually after some goal or something--but anything past that is indeterminate. I have some stuff where I've written up some things that are going on away from the party, and I have some ideas for things that might arise, but I don't have any real long-term plans. When they're between goals--between achieving one and deciding on the next--there's a fair amount of "the DM reacts to the players."

 

[Fenris-77]

The other major difference is that my prep for PtbA games tends to far more focused on the characters' drives and motivations. The XP system is rock simple and evenly split between inter-PC bonds, discoveries, monsters defeated, and treasures looted. There's a lot of latitude there and I find the game feels far less often 'off track' than D&D games can, even one's planned like we both seem to. I haven't played all that much DW compared to other games, some, but I have experience with a bunch of different PbtA games. My planning for all of them tends to be pretty similar.

 

[Nebulous]

I'm running DW Servants of the Cinder Queen and I would say it's a DnD/DW hybrid. It's largely plotted out in broad strokes, but lots of random things can happen. In fact, it would make a fantastic DnD adventure for 1st to 3rd level PCs.

 

[atanakar]

IME, those work pretty well for introducing D&D-ers to other traditional rpgs. (or for introducing newbies to rpgs in general) I haven't found that they work so well for games like Fate or PbtA, where the players have a much higher responsibility WRT to the narrative. Especially true if the GM is in the same boat.

One significant issue is the idea of a "scenario" in the first place. By default, games like Fate and the PbtA games are kind of expecting the players (either through character choices/building or through part of play) to play a much bigger role in creating the setting/scenario. As examples, in D&D, fiction questions like "Is there something here that I can...." or "Do I recognize..." or "Can I..." are "DM, may I?" questions. However, in Fate, a player can Create and Advantage (often with Notice) to discover something useful, or have an aspect Compelled so that those Ninjas are working for his old enemy. Similarly, there are many playbooks for various PbtA games (in particular, I'm thinking of Dungeon World) that either directly inject fiction into the narrative, or require the player to do so "...describe how you know...".

To use your GM-as-chef analogy, traditional rpgs ask the players to sprinkle some salt, pepper, or maybe some salsa on the food. Some of these games are more like asking them to cook with you. A turnkey scenario is like a frozen dinner.

I prefer to think of the turnkey scenario as a chef that comes to your home and prepares a 5 star meal in your kitchen. It's a very pleasurable experience.

To continue with the chef analogy, PbTA games are known to have critical failures. Too many cooks at the pot syndrome. If for some reason some of the participants start injecting input that is disrupting to the narrative the game becomes chaotic and makes no more sense. I've seen this happen as a player - and no not because the people didn't understand how to play PbTA. They just disagreed on were the narrative should go and the game collapsed mid-session despite the efforts by the narrator to mediate the situation. You sometimes end up with a spaghetti sauce with ice cream and peanut butter. Not very palatable.

To each is own. Going outside to do some gardening, cycling and enjoy the first 24°c of the year. /mic drop

 

[Blue]

The typical scenario is more than somebody has the game and wants to run it, but can't find players. If the players joined the game, they'd find somebody who knows the game willing to show them how it works. If you have somebody there who already knows how the game works, it's usually a fairly painless process.

An entire group having to learn it for the first time together, I agree, is less fun. But I don't think that's the usual situation.

I'm with you that I enjoy learning new systems and will read them for fun. But I disagree about groups learning new games together. For me, with multiple groups, the default is we finish up a campaign and we want to try something new. One group it was Marvel Heroic RP (not played because they guy who really knows the universe couldn't commit to running, but no one knew the system) to 13th Age (4.5 years campaign), to Blades in the Dark (where the guy who wanted to run next nixed learning it, even though several players self-taught), to a homebrew system we developed together unlike any other system we were playing, and now we've been playing Fate for a chunk. None of those any of the people involved with had any prior experience with. (Though 13th Age shares a lot of DNA with D&D so maybe that shouldn't count.)

 

[Fenris-77]

I think my ratio of systems read to systems played is something in excess of 10:1, and I've played a lot of different systems. My first step is admitting i have a problem...

 

[Ratskinner]

To each is own. Going outside to do some gardening, cycling and enjoy the first 24°c of the year. /mic drop

Amen to that! I spent most of today ripping up sod and putting in a new raised bed.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I didn't play D&D from '82 to '19, so I'm not accustomed to encounter players who were even familiar with D&D.

Right now we're playing in the Degenesis setting (just started, only two sessions in) using Spilled Ale Studios' post-apoc 5e conversion (no magic, guns and tech added), and already I'm seeing an inclination for my players to envision a post-5e campaign.

5e is good, but it still has a lot of problem.