GMs: Guiding Morals in GMing

[soviet]

I'm in a regular Dungeon World campaign and I would say it's 10% mechanics and 90% pure GM improve. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't PbtA games set up that way on purpose?

10% and 90% of what? Wordcount? Session time? Resolution time?

 

[Yora]

I was saying players having to take into consideration the "GM's preference or momentary whim" a normal part of TTRPGs.

It is a default assumption in the styles we've been calling trad and neo-trad. Which is why I consider these styles to miss out on the aspect of roleplaying games that can be the most exciting and are unique compared to any other medium.

 

[overgeeked]

It is a default assumption in the styles we've been calling trad and neo-trad. Which is why I consider these styles to miss out on the aspect of roleplaying games that can be the most exciting and are unique compared to any other medium.

Exactly. You have to mangle just about everything unique about RPGs to force them to produce even substandard stories. Lean into the unique things about RPGs. Don’t fight against them.

 

[niklinna]

Maybe we're misunderstanding each other?
I was saying players having to take into consideration the "GM's preference or momentary whim" a normal part of TTRPGs.

I don't consider either of those normal or necessarily desirable, especially combined with the common attitude that the GM has arbitrary authority over players.

Further confusing me is I find PbtA games completely opposite to OSR games specially because of the amount of "preference and momentary whim" PbtA encourages.

I do not know what you mean by "preference and momentary whim" here. If the dice come up 6- in PbtA, the GM is obligated to make a hard move. If the dice come up 10+, the player gets what they want. If by "whim" you mean the GM gets to decide what the hard move is, well yeah, that's how the game works. Somebody has to decide it. The hard move can, though, be open to some amount of table discussion for what would be coolest. But the GM doesn't get to decide that the dice didn't come up 6- and they don't get to skip making a hard move. That is the sort of "fix" involved in playing PbtA—a major part of the whole point of playing it—and the players are, in my experience, very much in on that.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm in a regular Dungeon World campaign and I would say it's 10% mechanics and 90% pure GM improve. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't PbtA games set up that way on purpose?

I'm not too familiar with Burning Wheel, so can't really comment. Are you suggesting the GM can't deviate from the rules of BW?

GMing Dungeon World (and kindred like Stonetop) is going to be a combination of:

* Leading an interesting conversation which includes economically and proficiently communicating and how to extract exactly what you need from players' answers so you can follow their lead.

* Principally-informed-and-constrained (this is likely the essential component that is missing in your formulation) improvisation for framing (soft moves) and consequences (soft moves or hard moves pending move resolution) which also includes how Fronts manifest and resolve (as an outgrowth of play).

* Knowing and correctly using the constituent parts of action resolution rules (how NPC Stat Blocks should be employed, how Cohorts/Hirelings/Followers work, how Tags work, how Inventory/Gear works, etc) at every moment of play.

* Knowing when to add something to the map (or when to direct play toward that conversation).

---

So I think probably if you're getting pushback (I've not read enough of the thread to discern the pushback you're getting), its "whim" vs "principally-informed-and-constrained." Whim implies "arbitrary + I DO WHAT I WANT SUCKA" whereas the latter is a different beast entirely (and the primary reason why these games are so mental bandwidth and cognitive horsepower intensive to GM).

 

[Lanefan]

"Encounter Design doesn't stop once initiative is called." - Matt Colville

Mr. Colville is giving extremely poor - almost garbage - advice here.

As I already stated, as DM, those are all within my realm to change. There is no lying. In the scenario I rattled off, there was a very obvious "wink" to the PCs that the die roll was "close enough" and I wanted to end the fight on a fun note rather than draw it out longer.

Funny, this is exactly my reasoning for ending it sooner. I have this golden opportunity to take something boring and make it fun, why not take it?

Because that monster might hang on at 1 hit point for three more rounds, and those extra three rounds of attacks could see it take two characters down with it when it finally dies a heroic death. (I've seen this sort of thing happen more times than I can count!) Ending a fight early might make you the nice-guy GM but it also ultimately ends up making the game easier on the PCs...which in some systems might be necessary but in the currently-most-popular one most certainly isn't.

 

[Arilyn]

Mr. Colville is giving extremely poor - almost garbage - advice here.

This is not poor or garbage advice. It's a difference of opinion and GMing style.

Because that monster might hang on at 1 hit point for three more rounds, and those extra three rounds of attacks could see it take two characters down with it when it finally dies a heroic death. (I've seen this sort of thing happen more times than I can count!) Ending a fight early might make you the nice-guy GM but it also ultimately ends up making the game easier on the PCs...which in some systems might be necessary but in the currently-most-popular one most certainly isn't.

Once again, this is just a differing style. Most GMs I know who do this, don't always end fights early. It's used to end on a dramatic note, or if the fight is taking overly long and it's getting late. It's a fairly common practice that isn't destroying anybody's experience. Other GMs hate it and never employ this tactic. There is no right or wrong here.

 

[Lanefan]

@pemerton I would say @AbdulAlhazred is pretty on point as regards published adventures for 5e. They run pretty trad, in the sense that who the characters are isn't very important for the scenario. For instance, I'm running Rise of Tiamat and unless I add content that's curated to pertain to the PC backgrounds, goals, and connections/relationships, there isn't really any there by default (barring anything developed in Hoard of the Dragon Queen, that is.)

Which makes sense, in that unless the module authors both provide pre-gen characters and expect you to use them (which, let's face it, wouldn't be a very popular option) they've no way of knowing how many or what type or which class(es) etc. of characters are going to be played in the module at any given table. Thus, the authors have no choice but to write the adventure neutrally, without regard for any one table's specific characters.

Can't blame the authors for this.

 

[Lanefan]

I did find this curious since I thought this was an understood part of TTRPGs? Is this really not the case for anyone?

In an ideal world, while the GM's whims and preferences might (and almost certainly will) influence adventure design, choice of system, and other ahead-of-time elements; once play actually begins the GM becomes a purely neutral arbiter, narrator, and referee.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think there has been any culture change in the editions at all. The only culture change is in individual members of the community changing how they think of the game. The idea that a campaign can't specifically revolve around the backstories and goals of the player characters or didn't specifically revolve around character driven play in 2e or even back in 1e is just ahistorical nonsense. It has always been up to the participants in play to decide that and never to the system.

Consider the template for storytelling and adventure provided by "Dragonlance". Clearly play at the time could be character driven. But it wasn't like "Dragonlance" even introduced the concept. "Dragonlance" was just an attempt to record the style of play that already existed at many tables. Play in the group I was in during the early 90's using 1e AD&D rules was largely character driven and was decided by the backstories and goals of the player characters.



The campaign could be played in 1e AD&D, Pathfinder, or anything else. That the plot threads can be character driven has absolutely nothing to do with the system.

And yet the Dragonlance adventures are the VERY MODEL of a railroad. The world meta-plot is all in the hands of a bunch of NPCs and your characters are just picking up a few table scraps. What you do is irrelevant, and there are even several points where things kind of 'reset' such that the PCs cannot really derail or change anything significant at all. I mean, basically you get to figure out how to get some loot or not here and there, and how to die or not, here and there. Nothing else is at stake at all for the PCs, and nothing at all is at stake PERIOD in the greater campaign world of DL, as all of that is already carved in stone.