D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Faolyn]

That's #1, who should be using useful terms to describe what they don't want in game instead of just 'evil'.

Have you considered that maybe they're using it as a shorthand for the forum and that's not what they told their players?

 

[pemerton]

Sounds good. How does that actually make you a "fan" of the PCs/players?

Here is a quote from AW (p 114), which (to the best of my knowledge) coined the phrase "be a fan of the PCs":

Be a fan of the players’ characters. “Make the characters’ lives not boring” does not mean “always worse.” Sometimes worse, sure, of course. Always? Definitely not.

The worst way there is to make a character’s life more interesting is to take away the things that made the character cool to begin with. The gunlugger’s guns, but also the gunlugger’s collection of ancient photographs — what makes the character match our expectations and also what makes the character rise above them. Don’t take those away.

The other worst way is to deny the character success when the character’s fought for it and won it. Always give the characters what they work for! No, the way to make a character’s success interesting is to make it consequential. When a character accomplishes something, have all of your NPCs respond. Reevaluate all those PC–NPC–PC triangles you’ve been creating. Whose needs change? Whose opinions change? Who was an enemy, but now is afraid; who was an enemy, but now sees better opportunities as an ally? Let the characters’ successes make waves outward, let them topple the already unstable situation. There are no status quos in Apocalypse World! Even life doesn’t always suck.

“Make as hard and direct a move as you like” means just that. As hard and direct as you like. It doesn’t mean “make the worst move you can think of.” Apocalypse World is already out to get the players’ characters. So are the game’s rules. If you, the MC, are out to get them too, they’re plain <in trouble>.​

Being a fan of the players' characters means leaning into those PCs, putting them at the centre of the action, embracing their protagonism. In the way that most serial fiction does with its main characters.

It's advice to run a game that is basically the opposite of a classic D&D tournament, in which any group of PCs could be substituted for any other group of PCs and it would make no difference to the setting, the situation or the action.

 

[Faolyn]

Correct. I would never change a meal just for one person: they need to take personal responsibility for their diet.

What if the person had a severe allergy? Like, the type where just being in the same room is enough to make them ill. Would you just tell them not to come over?

Again, yes. If your coming to MY house to watch MY movie....we will watch what I want to watch.

What if the movie was really upsetting to someone for some reason? Would you keep the movie going and not care about them?

It does cost me free will.

Or, you could see it as using your free will to be a good host and considerate friend.

For a game example, a couple years ago in a Star Trek Adventure game, the crew of the USS Palomino were trying to stop a Borg cube. They did the old trick of beeming over to the cube to start trouble. On the cube they passed by one of the Borg Nurseries and I describe the little babies with Borg implants (EXACTLY as was shown in the broadcast of TNG's "Q who"). Two players got all triggered and had to leave the game for the night as that was "so horrible" to them. And they left the game over it.

So even trying to do "PG-13" is a waste of time. I just come right out and say "my game is Unrated 100%. If you ever get offended by anything...my game is not for you."

So... you got triggered by people being upset to the point that you can't function in games that have any limitations anymore.

Wouldn't this have been solved by asking people upfront, in session zero, what their lines were, and then respecting them?

 

[Faolyn]

While I get what you're trying to say, this still sounds very...Frankensteinian, somehow.

This is exactly what I feel when I hear Mambo No. 5.

 

[Mort]

People who are discussing a technical thing, and developing expertise in it, develop their own terminology.

We could have a world in which all RPGing is discussed in terminology familiar to everyone on ENworld.

Or we could have a world that includes Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World, Sorcerer, and all the dozens (hundreds? maybe even thousands?) of RPGs they have inspired.

You can't have both.

Sure, there was some very good games/concepts inspired from the forge - not in any way denying that.

Doesn't change the fact, wandering over there, I often got the impression too many of the posters used jargon to exclude rather than to convey their ideas more clearly/efficiently.

 

[bloodtide]

What if the person had a severe allergy? Like, the type where just being in the same room is enough to make them ill. Would you just tell them not to come over?

Well, no, again I would have them take personal responsibility.

What if the movie was really upsetting to someone for some reason? Would you keep the movie going and not care about them?

Yes? Can't see a reason to stop the movie over that. Plenty of movies are made to be upsetting, so if a watcher gets upset, then the filmmakers did a good job.

Or, you could see it as using your free will to be a good host and considerate friend.

Well, there just are different ways of doing it.

So... you got triggered by people being upset to the point that you can't function in games that have any limitations anymore.

Wouldn't this have been solved by asking people upfront, in session zero, what their lines were, and then respecting them?

No. Too many people are vague, lie or just are clueless. And worst of all is people cherry pick.

Take my Star Trek Adventures example from up thread. Two players went crazy and left the game as they were triggered by the Baby Borg on the Borg Cube. At no time before they game did they say "we are triggered by fictional evil cyborg babies, please don't have any in the game". They just got triggered out of the blue.

The same way I've had the problem where the group would go to a market in the Underdark, and I'd mention some drow slavers with some human prisoners. The player "said" they agreed to a PG-13 game, but still made a big deal about it and disrupted the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm a fan of basketball. I like watching good basketball. Can I be a neutral referee while also being a fan of basketball? I think that it's important to remember that the DM in D&D is being asked to be a referee with respect to the rules and making rulings. However, the DM in D&D is also being told advice such as...

Wait? Making play revolve the characters and make the players come back for more? Tailor things for the players' preferences? How is any of that behavior for a neutral referee? Honestly, it seems a bit absurd that WotC's writers wouldn't want the DMs to be fans of their players' characters.

That said, the GM in PbtA games is not described as a neutral referee nor are they expected to be one. The GM in PbtA games are meant to fill the PCs' lives with adversity and adventure. Some PbtA games go as far as describing the role of the GM as being a firehose of adversity that is pointed against the PCs. That goal is likewise at odds with something that a "neutral" referee would do. Here is how "Be a Fan of the Characters" is described in Stonetop:



Sure, because many people here are long-time players who have internalized D&D's terminology and deviations from "plain English" as normal. So when these people see other games using different terminology, it accuses these other games of a scary misuse of "plain English" while ignoring the presence of such features in their own games. It's about like someone from Culture A accusing Culture B of having Weird Custom Z while ignoring that their own Culture A also has Weird Custom X and Weird Custom Y. We tend to ignore our own cultural blindspots while noticing them in other cultures.


That doesn't say much. Claims are easy to make. Backing them up to make a compelling argument is the hard part.

I'm not on one side of the fence. It don't really see this in terms of a fence or sides; instead, it comes from an open field of experience with a plethora of other games.

I fully recognize that different games use different terms that may defy our sense of "plain English" or "natural language," and IME this can be one of the hurdles going from one game to another. For example, PbtA has terms that took me awhile to learn and I often find throw new learners for a loop: e.g., +1 Forward, +1 Hold, etc. However, it seems a bit hypocritical to accuse DW as having terms that defy "plain English" while ignoring similar linguistic features in D&D. That does strike me as special pleading. D&D was my first TTRPG and I have far more experience playing in games of D&D (and its ilk), so yeah, I have internalized a lot of D&D's terms far more readily than games outside of that bubble of personal experience, including PbtA games, but that mostly comes from 23+ years of experience with D&D-esque games > 8+ years of non-D&D-esque games.

For the record, I disagree with any advice that suggests the campaign revolves around the characters. My preference.

 

[Oofta]

I haven't said anything about whose preference should override whose.

Upthread you said that you allow players full control over their PCs. You also said that you don't allow players to play their PCs in a way that you judge to be evil. All I'm saying is that those two claims are contradictory: the second one entails that the first is false. Players can't play their PCs as they like.

Whether or not that's good or bad isn't something I've expressed a view about.

So I'm the DM. A player has their character doing things that spoil the fun of the game for me. I've asked them to stop, explained my issues, they continue. What are my options?

The players are allowed to do whatever they want with their PCs. Some things that they do may mean they no longer get to play their PC. Jump into a sphere of annihilation? Not going to play that PC any more. Commit evil acts after I warn you? The same. They can play them any way they want up until the moment they irrevocably die or they commit evil acts. I consider that letting them do what they want, I will never tell someone their PC can't sacrifice an innocent because it's expedient. It happens in game. Decide to murder all the nonviolent priestesses in the temple dedicated to The Fates? It happens and it will be the last thing you ever do while you're in control of that PC.

But I'm not going to play word games with you. All I'm saying is that the PC's evil act happens in the campaign world, I won't stop it. I don't tell the player their PC can't commit that evil act. Meanwhile players aren't allowed to play evil PCs in my game. Describe it how you will, I'm not going to argue about semantics any more when what I do is clear.

 

[Micah Sweet]

People who are discussing a technical thing, and developing expertise in it, develop their own terminology.

We could have a world in which all RPGing is discussed in terminology familiar to everyone on ENworld.

Or we could have a world that includes Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World, Sorcerer, and all the dozens (hundreds? maybe even thousands?) of RPGs they have inspired.

You can't have both.

Given the primary focus of the site, I do think it's reasonable to understand D&D terms more than terms exclusive to other games.

This thread, for example, isn't marked as "Let's talk about Dungeon World and similar games", and those games can be discussed without resorting to terms others are unlikely to understand. We've all done it.

 

[Oofta]

The terms is taken from Apocalypse World, which says this on p 11:

Fronts are your prep for play, starting after the first session. (Think “I’m fighting on three fronts! I’m <in trouble>!”)​

The concept of a "front" in an armed conflict is a pretty familiar one, I think.

@Aldarc explained it above, until then I had no idea where the term came from. It's not common.