D&D General How to move a game forward?

[EzekielRaiden]

So other then an internet poll, the best I can do is the, er, 500 gamers within 100 miles or so. But even if I did that....it would still just be from the people I know, right? So, it kinda sounds like your saying "no one can never say anything as they can't back it up with a poll".

If you have gamed with more then a couple players it's odd you have never met a crybaby player. They are not that uncommon. And DM that bow and roll over for thier players are also common. Though it's also word play about what you see. If a DM "somehow" runs a game where the players are beyond happy all the time, you'd just say it's a "great game". Of course, I'd look at it and say "um, the DM is just doing what the players tell them too...so it's a bow DM game and the players won't cry as they always get whatever they want. You'd just say it's "collaborative storytelling" or something like that. So...then it kind of goes nowhere.

Please don't cast aspersions. It doesn't do your position any good.

I think this is more a social circle sort of thing. When you have a nice DM and nice players they all sit down and have a nice game. Everyone is on the same page, and agrees on nearly everything....so nobody rocks the boat.

I keep telling you, I don't have a "social circle." I don't have a group of people I consistently game with. I never have. Yet, despite that, I have never seen the thing you describe.

Know I never typed that...

Then what on earth is "DM that bow and roll over for their players"? Because that's literally what you're describing. A DM that is servile. That's literally what "bowing one's head" refers to! Slavery, where the slaves aren't allowed to look their enslavers in the eye!

Magic words are real. A set type of people can be amazingly programed with the right words.

No, they aren't. They really, really aren't.

I get that the "twist" of a lot of these games is to take the classic vague ambiguous RPG type game and make it more like board games, or poker or chess.

That genuinely has nothing to do with the design of Dungeon World, nor any PbtA game I've ever seen. At all. These are not board games. I've literally never actually had a battle mat for my DW game. It's either pure theater of the mind, or a quickly-drawn MSPaint map, or (very very rarely) a nice map I drafted up myself or found online.

In general, yes. The vast majority of gamers are Causal, it's not that they are "bad" people.....but they think of the game as just a "random distraction" for a couple hours. They don't want to "think to hard"...about a game. A lot of DMs are casual, and even more 5E D&D pushes this type of game. Such DM just say "there is a dragon over there, roll to attack" and everyone has a fun game.

The vast majority of gamers are not that casual. That's what I keep telling you. You think they're basically all gamers. They aren't. My experience of DMs is, naturally, a lot more limited since there's about 4x-5x more players than DMs out there. But I have found relatively few such DMs too. It's extremely easy to find DMs that are not casual at all--and, IME, rather more difficult to find such "beer and pretzels" DMs who genuinely don't care about campaign world content.

My game is much more Old School.....and unlike any game the vast majority of players have ever seen. They get confused just as no dragon in my game "just sit there waiting to be attacked". My dragon encounters are legendary, I ran over 20 summer pick up games for just this. The players get flabbergasted in my game when a dragon drops boulders on the PC....or throws them off a cliff. They have never seen that in a game before, they don't "think about the game that way".

Again: this is weird. I have never--not once--encountered players who expected a dragon to just sit there and allow people to beat it up. Not ever. If I didn't know better, I would genuinely think you were inventing a hyperbolic fake example for some kind of joke. That's how ludicrously weird this is.

I have no idea. Guess we'd have to game sometime.

Being perfectly frank, I think that would be a bad idea, so I'm going to decline.

As DM the game reality is at "my whim"...... I don't agree with the "things should not happen at the DM's whim" Why not? That is how the game works. I'd guess you'd want some explanation, but I don't think that is needed as it's pointless. I could make one up to keep a player happy, but I'd just make up whatever they wanted to hear.

So the world has no meaning. You throw whatever you feel like in there, whenever you feel like it. Who cares about the player? You'll just fob them off with some nonsense and continue forcing your preferences down their throats regardless.

No wonder you have trouble keeping players...

The reason you don't just do things on whim is because by avoiding that, you encourage the players to care. They know that their choices matter, because you'll actually work with and around them. They know the stuff in the world is there for an actual reason, even if they don't for sure know what that reason is yet. They know that if they ask questions, they'll get real, sincere answers, not BS made up off the cuff that won't matter in two weeks. They know that if they invest their time and energy into actually caring about the game, they'll be rewarded.

That's literally why you do any of this. To prove to the players that if they care, if they invest, they will get a better gaming experience. That doesn't mean a infinitely blissful perfect gaming experience. It means a richer, fuller, more interesting one.

I'm not sure why you think this. I did not mention the other 101 ways as that is a lot to type.

When someone only uses two examples, consistently, across every post they've made--it doesn't look like "of course there are other ways, I'm just not talking about them." It looks like there are only and exactly two.

It's accurate.

Then I don't understand why you dispute the Saw comparison. That's literally what those movies are about. Putting people through nightmarish traps that are theoretically survivable, but usually result in death, in a context specifically designed to be terrifying to the people subject to those traps.

This is the thing again. Some DM get players that are amazing founts of creativity and briliance. I get players that say "I want to have fun".

You can work even with "I want to have fun." It just requires digging a little deeper--asking what things they find fun.

I want to know.... They are both more casual DMs that would never go online to "do RPG stuff", they just run and play RPG games.

If you genuinely want to know, then it behooves you to avoid belittling those trying to explain, and accepting what they say as true even if you don't understand it, rather than characterizing it as foolish or terrible.

 

[CandyLaser]

So other then an internet poll, the best I can do is the, er, 500 gamers within 100 miles or so. But even if I did that....it would still just be from the people I know, right? So, it kinda sounds like your saying "no one can never say anything as they can't back it up with a poll".

I know this isn't directed at me, but I want to flag it anyway as another example of you being dismissive and uncharitable towards your interlocutors and jumping right to the most extreme strawman version of their claims. There are several other such points in your recent post but I don't think it's worthwhile to point them all out.

If you have gamed with more then a couple players it's odd you have never met a crybaby player. They are not that uncommon. And DM that bow and roll over for thier players are also common. Though it's also word play about what you see. If a DM "somehow" runs a game where the players are beyond happy all the time, you'd just say it's a "great game". Of course, I'd look at it and say "um, the DM is just doing what the players tell them too...so it's a bow DM game and the players won't cry as they always get whatever they want. You'd just say it's "collaborative storytelling" or something like that. So...then it kind of goes nowhere.

I am reminded of the old joke: if you run into a jerk in the morning, you ran into a jerk. If you run into jerks all day, you're the jerk.

 

[bloodtide]

I keep telling you, I don't have a "social circle." I don't have a group of people I consistently game with. I never have. Yet, despite that, I have never seen the thing you describe.

I guess that you have been alive for a couple decades, and I guess it's possible you have never, ever met any sort of unlikely or bad person even. Like I guess you might live in a small village of 1,000 people in Iceland or something?

Then what on earth is "DM that bow and roll over for their players"? Because that's literally what you're describing. A DM that is servile. That's literally what "bowing one's head" refers to! Slavery, where the slaves aren't allowed to look their enslavers in the eye!

Yes?

The vast majority of gamers are not that casual. That's what I keep telling you. You think they're basically all gamers. They aren't. My experience of DMs is, naturally, a lot more limited since there's about 4x-5x more players than DMs out there. But I have found relatively few such DMs too. It's extremely easy to find DMs that are not casual at all--and, IME, rather more difficult to find such "beer and pretzels" DMs who genuinely don't care about campaign world content.

It would seem impossible, yet if you say it is so.....

Again: this is weird. I have never--not once--encountered players who expected a dragon to just sit there and allow people to beat it up. Not ever. If I didn't know better, I would genuinely think you were inventing a hyperbolic fake example for some kind of joke. That's how ludicrously weird this is.

Ok, guess you have some how never encountered anything like this type of player.

The reason you don't just do things on whim is because by avoiding that, you encourage the players to care.

Well, that makes no sense.

They know that their choices matter, because you'll actually work with and around them. They know the stuff in the world is there for an actual reason, even if they don't for sure know what that reason is yet. They know that if they ask questions, they'll get real, sincere answers, not BS made up off the cuff that won't matter in two weeks. They know that if they invest their time and energy into actually caring about the game, they'll be rewarded.

I get that if you do as the players ask and roll out the red carpet for them they will care about the game. I don't choose to do things that way.

That's literally why you do any of this. To prove to the players that if they care, if they invest, they will get a better gaming experience. That doesn't mean a infinitely blissful perfect gaming experience. It means a richer, fuller, more interesting one.

Guess we agree on something.

When someone only uses two examples, consistently, across every post they've made--it doesn't look like "of course there are other ways, I'm just not talking about them." It looks like there are only and exactly two.

I use the two relevant ones?

Then I don't understand why you dispute the Saw comparison. That's literally what those movies are about. Putting people through nightmarish traps that are theoretically survivable, but usually result in death, in a context specifically designed to be terrifying to the people subject to those traps.

Saw is dumb. This is a good example to showcase Casual Player vs Hard Fun player. To a Casual Player all traps are unbeatable nightmares...as Casual Players will blunder into them, UNLESS the Casual Buddy DM saves them. The Casual DM simply tells the players a trap is there, in one way or another. And lets the players just roll past it.

You can work even with "I want to have fun." It just requires digging a little deeper--asking what things they find fun.

I just go with "what is fun in general".

If you genuinely want to know, then it behooves you to avoid belittling those trying to explain, and accepting what they say as true even if you don't understand it, rather than characterizing it as foolish or terrible.

ok

I know this isn't directed at me, but I want to flag it anyway as another example of you being dismissive and uncharitable towards your interlocutors and jumping right to the most extreme strawman version of their claims. There are several other such points in your recent post but I don't think it's worthwhile to point them all out.

Well, I have read 1000's of posts. I don't recall anyone ever posting "Poll Proof" of something they said. And no one in this thread has done so. And yet I type something, and people scream for "Proof". Yet, they themselves will never provide their own "Proof".

I am reminded of the old joke: if you run into a jerk in the morning, you ran into a jerk. If you run into jerks all day, you're the jerk.

Sounds a bit too simple.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I guess that you have been alive for a couple decades, and I guess it's possible you have never, ever met any sort of unlikely or bad person even. Like I guess you might live in a small village of 1,000 people in Iceland or something?

Add another fifteen years and you'd still be coming up short. And no, I have lived in a moderately large city or a very large city for all of my life. I've never lived in anything even remotely like a "village," except for Boy Scout summer camp.

Yes?

Then...why did you argue???? What? Are you trolling me? I summarized what you said...and you disputed it with "I never typed that"...and then I went back to the words you DID type, and showed how they were related to what I said...and you agree now????

It would seem impossible, yet if you say it is so.....

I assure you, it's true!

Ok, guess you have some how never encountered anything like this type of player.

Despite living in one city of over 2 million people for most of my life, and another of almost 10 million for several years, and actively pursuing any online group I can find for quite a long time (before I gave up, I mean), I have never encountered this sort of player. That is correct. Given you seem to think they're everywhere, and I haven't encountered any, one option is that my experience is unusual. But I'm far from the only person who rarely encounters these folks. So the other possibility is...?

Well, that makes no sense.

Why not? I don't understand what the disconnect here is.

I get that if you do as the players ask and roll out the red carpet for them they will care about the game. I don't choose to do things that way.

See, you're doing that insulting thing again! So let me be as clear as I possibly can.

I do not "roll out the red carpet for them." I do not "do as the players ask." I am not a slave of my players. I work with them. I don't work for them.​

Is that sufficiently clear?

I use the two relevant ones?

If you only consider two of them relevant, doesn't that mean that everything else doesn't matter? And if ONLY those two examples--one that is terrible (the thing you avoid), and one that is not (the thing you personally do)--it establishes pretty clearly that you only see the world of running games in that very black-and-white, terrible-or-correct way. Like...if you never talk about alternatives, even when others tell you there are some, why would people think you believe there are any?

Saw is dumb. This is a good example to showcase Casual Player vs Hard Fun player. To a Casual Player all traps are unbeatable nightmares...as Casual Players will blunder into them, UNLESS the Casual Buddy DM saves them. The Casual DM simply tells the players a trap is there, in one way or another. And lets the players just roll past it.

And what about players who don't blunder into them, who try to be cautious and thoughtful...and still find every trap is a death sentence? Because that was my experience of old-school play.

And I promise you, I am NEITHER the "Casual Buddy DM" nor whatever your "Hard Fun" DM is. Of course, I don't really understand what "Hard Fun" even is. It's rather ironic, really, because you have a penchant for dismissing those you disagree with as using "word salad," but "Hard Fun" and "Nightmare Fuel" have been effectively a salad of words thus far.

I just go with "what is fun in general".

But that's uselessly nondescriptive. That's like having a moral code which is summarized as, "Do moral things." What ARE moral things??? WHY are they moral? If I have to choose between two incompatible moral things, which one do I choose?

That's why "fun," as a generic goal, is pretty much pointless. It doesn't actually do anything. It doesn't tell you anything. It's literally just an instruction to be correct and avoid being incorrect. Of course we want to be correct and avoid being incorrect! How do you do that?

You do that by finding out what specific things would be fun, and by demonstrating that things will be fun, if folks reciprocate, if they participate, if they care about things.

Well, I have read 1000's of posts. I don't recall anyone ever posting "Poll Proof" of something they said. And no one in this thread has done so. And yet I type something, and people scream for "Proof". Yet, they themselves will never provide their own "Proof".

The burden of proof lies on the person making the initial claim, not on the person rebutting that claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you're going to make the strident and pretty dramatic claim that the vast majority of players are lazy idiots, you should probably back that up with a poll. You don't get to spin that around and say, "Well unless YOU have a poll showing I'm wrong, then I must be right." That's not how discussion works. If Joe claims 50% of humans are naturally blonde, and Sally questions that claim, Joe cannot then argue, "Well, you didn't prove that it's not true, so it has to be true." Now, if Sally were instead to specifically make a counter-claim like, "Actually, only about 5% of humans are blonde," then Joe could most certainly ask for the survey data she used to make that claim!

 

[DrunkonDuty]

@EzekielRaiden Dude, why are you bothering? The guy's at best a troll.

edited to add: or maybe a chatbot.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@EzekielRaiden Dude, why are you bothering? The guy's at best a troll.

edited to add: or maybe a chatbot.

Because I genuinely want to understand. And no, Bloodtide is quite clearly not a chatbot. Much too human for that. Able to carry the thread of a conversation and respond to very short prompts appropriately.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I was joking about the chatbot.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Because I genuinely want to understand. And no, Bloodtide is quite clearly not a chatbot. Much too human for that. Able to carry the thread of a conversation and respond to very short prompts appropriately.

But if they are just a troll, and it seems highly likely to me, then you are not likely to learn / understand anything from them.

 

[bloodtide]

And what about players who don't blunder into them, who try to be cautious and thoughtful...and still find every trap is a death sentence? Because that was my experience of old-school play.

They have a fun and enjoyable game. Your looking at it from the Bad Side of "no matter what the players do they loose". But my game is the Hard Fun game. Players that are intelligent, cautions and thoughtful will have fun.

I get all your experience in Old School play was bad....but, oddly, you don't count any of those DMs as "bad gamers" at all, as you say you have never ever met one....right?

And I promise you, I am NEITHER the "Casual Buddy DM" nor whatever your "Hard Fun" DM is. Of course, I don't really understand what "Hard Fun" even is. It's rather ironic, really, because you have a penchant for dismissing those you disagree with as using "word salad," but "Hard Fun" and "Nightmare Fuel" have been effectively a salad of words thus far.

Guess I'll need to do a definition post sometime.


The burden of proof lies on the person making the initial claim, not on the person rebutting that claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you're going to make the strident and pretty dramatic claim that the vast majority of players are lazy idiots, you should probably back that up with a poll. You don't get to spin that around and say, "Well unless YOU have a poll showing I'm wrong, then I must be right." That's not how discussion works. If Joe claims 50% of humans are naturally blonde, and Sally questions that claim, Joe cannot then argue, "Well, you didn't prove that it's not true, so it has to be true." Now, if Sally were instead to specifically make a counter-claim like, "Actually, only about 5% of humans are blonde," then Joe could most certainly ask for the survey data she used to make that claim!

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Guess I'll need to do a definition post sometime.


The burden of proof lies on the person making the initial claim, not on the person rebutting that claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you're going to make the strident and pretty dramatic claim that the vast majority of players are lazy idiots, you should probably back that up with a poll. You don't get to spin that around and say, "Well unless YOU have a poll showing I'm wrong, then I must be right." That's not how discussion works. If Joe claims 50% of humans are naturally blonde, and Sally questions that claim, Joe cannot then argue, "Well, you didn't prove that it's not true, so it has to be true." Now, if Sally were instead to specifically make a counter-claim like, "Actually, only about 5% of humans are blonde," then Joe could most certainly ask for the survey data she used to make that claim!

...uhm...i think something went wrong here.