D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[bloodtide]

What’s “R x R” I’m this context?

Railroad

 

[Autumnal]

Ahh, thank you.

 

[Maxperson]

@AbdulAlhazred didn't argue the preferences don't exist. He argued that, as they are literally stated (a preference that everything in the fiction follow by way of in-fiction causal logic), they are impossible to satisfy.

Except not. A sim doesn't ever pretend to be able to come up with all possibilities for a situation. Sim City doesn't do it. Sim Ant doesn't do it. Flight Simulator doesn't do it. And yet they are still simulations.

It's the same with RPGs. We can come up with enough of the possibilities or hell even one is enough if it's a logical conclusion from what occurred. It simulates a proper response to what happened. @AbdulAlhazred is wrong when he claims that the sim method of DMing doesn't exist.

 

[pemerton]

So it's a railroad unless the players control the fiction in a way beyond their own PCs? Wow, you and I are very different gamers.

No. (Unless you consider mental states to be something beyond the player's PC.)

For instance, the player declares "I search for <such-and-such>". That's not beyond the PC.

Now, how do we resolve that action declaration? There are lots of ways. Your way includes the GM deciding (in advance, or perhaps on the spot) whether or not there is a <such-and-such> to be found.

But there are other ways. Perhaps the GM just says "OK, you find <such-and-such>" (ie says "yes"). Perhaps a check is called for. Perhaps the declared action triggers a player-side move, and the upshot of resolving the move is that the GM is required to provide an opportunity with a cost, and so the GM says "The <such-and-such> looks like it's been incorporated as a crucial component of the <whatever-it-is>. Do you want to remove it, or leave it in place?"

I get that you are not interested in play AW/DW, or Burning Wheel, or Torchbearer, or In A Wicked Age, or any of those other RPGs that were invented since the 1990s. But they exist, and it's not hard to learn the techniques they use which (i) avoid railroading as I characterised it, while (ii) not requiring the player to do anything in play but declare actions for their PC.

 

[Faolyn]

How much time do you have to give something new before it's ok to form an opinion about it?

"It depends."

I mean, PbtA has been around for 13 years, MotW for 10-11... Meanwhile, you seemed to like Level Up while it was still in production.

 

[Xamnam]

This is to say, you don't need to consult your book for moves and you shouldn't name them anyway. GM Moves mostly codify the sorts of generic consequences that typical GMs may utilize anyway. So I try to think about what's going on and use "what makes sense in the scenario," to borrow a phrase from Oofta.

This is absolutely the stumbling block. It's given such emphasis that these moves are the way the GM responds, so I want to do right by them, and therefore I am caught trying to make sure my honest/fiction-respecting reaction maps to one, while trying not to leave dead air in response to the players declarations as I feel each second ticking by. My instincts are probably better than I give them credit for, and I could retroactively find a way that my response does fulfill one of the GM moves.

However, there are times where a move is warranted by the rules, but there is no change that feels obviously warranted by the fiction, especially in response to a lack of action, and so I desperately scan the list for inspiration on how to respond, and it feels wildly artificial, and it takes even longer to come up with something, especially with the criticisms of failing the game ringing in my head. I do know that practice and just getting out and doing it would help build these muscles, but I also don't want to subject people to a poor experience, especially if it's one of their first.

As I write this, I think it might be that there's a bigger, or underlying, problem: I'm falling into that position in the first place by not crafting scenes that are full of appropriate danger/pressure which fundamentally demand a response and leave open opportunities for things like an unwelcome truth, approaching threat, etc.

There are strengths and weaknesses to each game out there. There are things that I enjoy in each of them as a GM and player. There are things that each of them will eschew that I may like. Nevertheless, I find that it's worth trying different games out there. I've been pleasantly suprised by a fair number. The end result is that I have stockpile of games to play that I can rotate between depending on the mood of my given group.

Fully agreed, which I why I do try and push myself to understand these systems that seem so intimidating from the outside. My fear of Dungeon World and the like is nothing compared to Wanderhome, which I have actively have a group starting soon for.

As I've posted multiple times upthread, the technical genius of Apocalypse World is that the play of the game (following the rules) will produce a story - in the sense of rising action, climax/crisis, and character change/development - without anyone having to sit down to tell a story, to create rising action, to change a character.

Yes, that tracks with my conception of them, so that's why I understand them being called story / narrative games, without any sort of negative connotation. That term certainly doesn't imply, at least as I read it, a pre-authored or intended story specifically. It just seems accurate that that is what will result from play, at least compared to some other systems.

But for me that has always been the promise of RPGing: playing a character in a story that is reminiscent of the inspirational material.

Game systems that actually deliver that are, for me, not counter-intuitive at all.

I was vague in my comment. What I find counter-intuitive (and stressful) is the GM having to make the moves (that they are allowed to) with the frequency the book asks. As above, I probably overthink it.

I'm very much on board with trying to embody that feeling, of living stories you've read and loved, it's practically the claim to fame of PbtA, it's why these games do draw me in so. I'm appreciative of how open they are to players just being able to do what they say they do. I'm sorry it came across like I was dismissing that, or speaking to anything larger than my own intrinsic reaction to just that section of the rules.

 

[bloodtide]

But there are other ways. Perhaps the GM just says "OK, you find <such-and-such>" (ie says "yes").

Guess we would call this way the Yes DM? Whatever the players says, the DM just does for them and says "yes".

Perhaps a check is called for.

Normal enough. Though it does not matter if the DM says there is nothing there. Unless your saying the "check" is what alters game reality.

Perhaps the declared action triggers a player-side move, and the upshot of resolving the move is that the GM is required to provide an opportunity with a cost, and so the GM says "The <such-and-such> looks like it's been incorporated as a crucial component of the <whatever-it-is>. Do you want to remove it, or leave it in place?"

This is just a lot of word speak here though. Sure the GM can say "oh I move a trigger up and over the space of the thing and under the other" or whatever....but the GM is still just making things up.

I get this game has a much better illusion then say D&D. The GM does not even need to say anything as the player is just so fascinated by the rules they are seeing stars that spell out "wow, the GM is doing a opportunity with a cost". And maybe the player even dances around the table as they are so happy the GM is forced to follow such game rules.
But in the end, the GM is still just doing whatever they want.

And this game would have the exact same problems as any RPG with "that" kind of players:

GM: "Up ahead you see the locked bank vault door."

Player - "WWWAAA? You can't make that up out of thin air! The rules say you must wait for me to tell you what I want you to make up! Player Move equals GM Response page 8!"

GM- "It's all good, you triggered the Door Creation when you made player move #117 and I responded with the Creation Trigger."

Player-"Oh..."

 

[Faolyn]

You're saying that PbtA games don't have rules for when GMs or players can make a Move? I'd just prefer not have a list of codified actions I can take as either type of player, whether we're supposed to use their names or not. Choosing from a list feels wrong to me. Probably the presentation is part of the problem. Give these things as just examples of stuff you can do in a less formal way and I'd probably be more on board with it.

D&D has rules for when GMs and players make a move. One of those rules is called "initiative order."

You don't really choose from a list. You don't pick up the paper and decide which one you want to do. Instead, the list is just a formal representation of things that you have almost certainly have always done as a GM anyway. The only difference is that PbtA games actually produce a list of things instead of assuming that a new GM will magically know what to do.

Here's the Keeper Moves list from MotW:

Separate them. I'm sure you've done this on occasion, either as the result of rolls (the PCs fail to spot the teleport trap or prevent the portcullis from dropping) or because you've thought it was dramatically appropriate.

Reveal future badness. Have you ever told the PCs that they found tracks? A monster's corpse? See monsters from afar? A wanted poster? Then you've used this move.

Reveal off-screen badness. Another thing you've probably used, if you've ever said they hear noises or smell something weird from up ahead.

Inflict harm, as established. I know you've used this one, since it's used whenever you've inflicted damage on the PCs, whether by a monster or because they fell 10 or more feet.

Make them investigate. This is the "Do we see something?" "Roll Perception to find out" move.

Make them acquire stuff. I'm sure you've let your PCs go shopping or had them use crafting rules of some sort. This is that move.

Tell the possible consequences and ask if they want to go ahead. Have you ever said "yes, you can get over to the monster there, but you'll draw opportunity attacks if you do"? This is what this move means.

Turn their move back on them. I'm sure that, when a PC has failed a roll, you've sometimes had bad things happen to them as a result.

Offer an opportunity, & maybe a cost. This is the move you'd use if you've ever had the PCs want something and the NPC sends them on a quest first.

Take away some of the hunters' stuff. Literally every single Level Up exploration challenge that causes the PCs to lose Supply on a failure uses this move.

Put someone in trouble. Another thing you probably use as a way to motivate the PCs: kidnap/hold hostage/threaten/attack an NPC so that the PC will want to save them.

Make a threat move, from one of your mystery or arc threats: If you have two adventures, and Adventure 1 has the Kablooie Death Trap but Adventure 2 doesn't, then you would only use the Kablooie Death Trap in Sdventure 1, right?

After every move, ask what they do next. You do this, right? You narrate the room or what the bad guy is doing and then say to the PCs, "what are you going to do?", yes?

You do all of these things. But you probably figured them out after either watching someone else GM, reading lists of GM tips, or years of practice, and now it's simply second nature to you. PbtA games simply codify them so you're ready right away.

 

[Faolyn]

Then you should also accept that people can look into things and they just aren't for them.

Considering they still seem to think that the GM has to pick a move from a list, that indicates they haven't really looked into it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Guess we would call this way the Yes DM? Whatever the players says, the DM just does for them and says "yes".


Normal enough. Though it does not matter if the DM says there is nothing there. Unless your saying the "check" is what alters game reality.


This is just a lot of word speak here though. Sure the GM can say "oh I move a trigger up and over the space of the thing and under the other" or whatever....but the GM is still just making things up.

I get this game has a much better illusion then say D&D. The GM does not even need to say anything as the player is just so fascinated by the rules they are seeing stars that spell out "wow, the GM is doing a opportunity with a cost". And maybe the player even dances around the table as they are so happy the GM is forced to follow such game rules.
But in the end, the GM is still just doing whatever they want.

And this game would have the exact same problems as any RPG with "that" kind of players:

GM: "Up ahead you see the locked bank vault door."

Player - "WWWAAA? You can't make that up out of thin air! The rules say you must wait for me to tell you what I want you to make up! Player Move equals GM Response page 8!"

GM- "It's all good, you triggered the Door Creation when you made player move #117 and I responded with the Creation Trigger."

Player-"Oh..."

I don’t think you understand games beyond D&D. Then again, I don’t think you understand D&D so I guess it’s not surprising.