Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How to move a game forward?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9262708" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>I mean, some kind of survey data would be the right form of evidence to back up a claim of this nature. E.g. most folks take it reasonably seriously when WotC says that most D&D groups do not play into the teen levels (though many disagree about <em>why</em> this happens, nobody really questions <em>that</em> it happens.)</p><p></p><p>Because if all you really have is, "I've seen groups do it," well, that's perfectly fine for <em>your experience</em>, but it doesn't really speak about the community at large.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, you speak of there being some huge swathe of people in these two categories, as though they make up a majority of both DMs and players. <em>I have never seen any of them</em>. That doesn't mean they don't exist. But, despite the fact that I have almost always played with strangers--and thus am getting exposed to a lot of people who don't always share my preferences or interests--I have never seen this sort of thing, this "whine and cry" at every little problem thing. And I have <em>definitely</em> never seen a DM who "bow their heads."</p><p></p><p>The only word I can use to describe your perception of these things is "extreme," and as a result you demand extreme solutions. The vast--genuinely vast--majority of people simply do not have this experience. They don't have players who will freak out about even the smallest problems. Yes, SOME people are like that. But "some people" means <em>literally any amount greater than zero</em>. I don't think I need to explain why "there exists at least one person who behaves badly" is not meaningful evidence for the claim "a majority of players whine and cry about every problem."</p><p></p><p></p><p>Your posts certainly have communicated to me a dismissive, judgmental tone, where you presume that anyone who does not do things your way must be an abused, servile DM, ridden roughshod by their nasty, raving, petulant players. Further, I have noticed that you tend to jump on particular words or phrases (for example, your positive response to the DW phrase "exploit your prep"), often taking these terms out of context--which is frustrating, since you wish others to take your own words in context, even when that context is very much not obvious (as above with the "I don't care what the players think or say" statement, above.) Combined with past discussions, e.g. where you were hoping to find some "magic word" (your term) that could make the players behave the way you wanted them to--that reflects a not-real-great attitude of dismissiveness and condescension toward your players.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Question: Is it a problem in chess, that a player must "sit there and wait for a player to make a move"? Is it a problem in poker? In blackjack, where the players aren't even competing with one another?</p><p></p><p>Because that's what this "waiting for a player to make a move" thing is. In any game with at least relatively healthy DM/player interactions, the players should <em>always</em> be "making moves." Asking questions, examining their resources, considering their options, discussing amongst themselves, making declarations. The only time they <em>shouldn't</em> be doing something like that is when they've turned to you, wanting to know what happens next, which is precisely one of the times DW speaks of as being when you make a move.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I flatly disagree. None of my players have been "hardcore" in any meaningful sense. We have had at least three distinct mysteries: a jewel heist (the party tracked down the culprits but they'd been killed by cultists), a high-profile assassination (IIRC I mentioned this earlier, the party correctly identified the real killer and prevented a diplomatic incident), and the ongoing mystery of the black dragon hiding in the shadows, trying to take over the city economically. Outright character death has never happened in my game, and yet my players genuinely cared about solving each of these mysteries, as well as other unknowns, e.g. finding out who betrayed the party so an over-boss in the black dragon gang knew to only appear as an illusion, not as himself.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Genuine question: Do you actually think these players are representative of D&D players in general? Because this sounds nothing like the vast, vast majority of players I've ever worked with. And this is part of why I say your tone comes across as dismissive and condescending; you seem to think basically all players that haven't been through your "nightmare fuel" DMing are lazy, stupid, impulsive, uncaring, and just...generally very unpleasant.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay. I'm not a Hard Fun player. I don't like meat-grinders and "nightmare fuel."</p><p></p><p>I also take traps seriously and am cautious--sometimes to a fault. I think critically about the world and story, and my character's place in them. I ask serious questions and expect to be asked serious questions as well.</p><p></p><p>What am I? By your description here, I seem to not even exist. I'm not Goofy Casual. I'm also not Hard Fun. What is there that isn't one of those two things?</p><p></p><p>And if you don't believe that there <em>is</em> such a thing, then...well, we really can't have a conversation. You have defined things in such a way that no discussion is possible. Everyone either does things the right way (yours), or the wrong way (anything that isn't yours).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Many have said that DW's rules feel like someone managed to write down best practices for game masters. There is a good reason for this feeling--and it is one (of several) reasons why the books say you really, <em>really</em> shouldn't outright break or change the core rules. They were designed with great care, and changing those things can have massive (and often negative) impact on the experience. (Note, this does not mean you can't write new moves. You are expected to do that. "Changing the rules" in this case is stuff like adding or removing Principles, the particular methods you use, or altering the Agendas, which are your high-level ultimate goals for GMing, stuff like "portray a fantastic world.")</p><p></p><p></p><p>They are set by the GM (and not strictly spoken--the rules neither require nor forbid it, so it's up to you.) Note that these are stakes only for this one adventure front. Generally, each "campaign front" will be made up of several adventure fronts (e.g. at least 3), all with their own stakes, and the campaign front itself will have more that look at the campaign level of play rather than individual adventures (e.g. "will Barbariccia resolve her hatred of her father that she believes abandoned her?") Many of these stakes will be, as you say, independent of anything specific the player is looking for, but they should in general be something the player would find interesting somehow. After all, you want them to decide something, or declare something, and if they just think all answers to a given thing would be boring or irrelevant, they're not going to be interested in answering! And yes, some of the time you may even set out stakes that the player has chosen, but it would be because you want to know, not because you're under obligation to answer. (It's just...like I said, if the players have already made clear they care about some particular thing, they'll WANT to answer questions related to it, so it's often smart to pick some of those things.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Why is a small nature spirit showing up "at your whim"? Such "whims" should generally speaking not happen--that is, you shouldn't be doing something <em>solely</em> because you feel like it with no other link to anything else, other than very early in the game. (This is because, for the first handful of sessions, everyone is still learning who and what the PCs are, so you don't really have many things to link to. Once the game has gotten going, however, there should be <em>plenty</em> of things to hook into.)</p><p></p><p>The other problem, here, is that these things you've cited...those aren't framed encounters (like the trap). They're specific events you've declared <em>will</em> happen, no matter what. In general, for DW, you should avoid such things. Instead of "a werewolf sneak will <em>definitely</em> try to bamboozle Barbariccia to get a sneak attack on her," framing a scene of this nature would be something like...</p><p></p><p>(A) You decide that the town has a sneaky werewolf, hidden among them, acting as a spy for the rest of the pack. This would be part of the danger, and one possible source for some of the Grim Portents as the Front plays out (e.g. the sneaky werewolf might work to pit the townsfolk against each other). He likes manipulating people, controlling them, making them do what he wants without them realizing it.</p><p>(B) During a previous scene, where the party triumphantly returned to town with a werewolf they'd killed, the Barbarian threw a huge party to raise town morale...and hopefully get some leads or help. That's the trigger for the basic move Carouse (spoilered rules text below.) And since her Herculean Appetite is "conquest," she got to roll 1d6+1d8 rather than 2d6: full success! ...but the d6 (6) was bigger than the d8 (5), so (per the Barbarian class rules) "the GM will also introduce a complication or danger that comes about due to your heedless pursuits." So, she got her three choices--she befriended a useful NPC (the LG second-in-command Hunter who genuinely wants to save the town, not just destroy the werewolves), heard rumors of an opportunity (there's an abandoned, allegedly-haunted watermill upriver that the werewovles might be using as a base), and gained useful information (Sister Redbridge hid the mayor's silverware and the chapel's silver candlesticks in the chapel undercroft before she went missing.) But by not choosing the last option, she <em>was</em> entangled, ensorcelled, or tricked--in this case, the werewolf sneak stole her sacred tribal bracelet, without which she cannot ever return to her tribe, but she was too drunk to notice. Now she must get it back.</p><p>[SPOILER="Carouse text"]</p><p>When you <strong>return triumphant and throw a big party</strong>, spend 100 coins and roll +1 for every extra 100 coins spent. ✴On a 10+, choose 3. ✴On a 7–9, choose 1. ✴On a miss, you still choose one, but things get really out of hand (the GM will say how).</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You befriend a useful NPC.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You hear rumors of an opportunity.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You gain useful information.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You are not entangled, ensorcelled, or tricked.</li> </ul><p>You can only carouse when you return triumphant. That’s what draws the crowd of revelers to surround adventurers as they celebrate their latest haul. If you don’t proclaim your success or your failure, then who would want to party with you anyway?</p><p>[/SPOILER]</p><p>(C) When the crew heads out the next day, the sneak makes his move. He attempts to distract Barbariccia with her bracelet, in order to get a good, solid hit in.</p><p></p><p>That's a framed scene: something has happened, which motivates the character. The bad guys use their situation to try to achieve something. The players, in response, must now do something about it. Maybe Barbariccia is overcome with joy at finding her bracelet and doesn't consider the danger, meaning the player has just given you a "golden opportunity." Maybe the player is now wary because the thief stole her most prized possession from right under her nose, so she takes a more careful tack. Etc.</p><p></p><p>Let's say, for the sake of argument, that she is more wary, avoids this little trap, and the party is able to <em>capture</em> the sneak-werewolf alive. He knows if he goes back to town, the hunters will kill him, regardless of what the party thinks. So he makes an offer: he's already good at sneaking around, maybe he can play double agent--and even bring one of the party with him as a "new" member of the Pack. He offers to bite Barbariccia, since the Pack would LOVE to have a raging berskerer werewolf to help them fight! Now Barbariccia has a dilemma: the werewolf curse WOULD make her stronger, and strength is one of the only things she cares about....but it would be betraying Dronaash's trust, whom she has come to regard as almost a replacement for the father that abandoned her as a child.</p><p></p><p>That's framing a scene (sneak-werewolf tries to catch a PC off guard to bite her), and then framing a second scene (sneak-werewolf begs for his life, offering to help the party) in a way which fully lets the player decide. A different story will be told, depending on what Barbariccia chooses to do. And she isn't limited to only "yes" or "no"--there are many possible ways she could push this forward. Perhaps she threatens the sneak into obedience without needing to accompany him. Perhaps she calls on the spirits of her ancestors to put a curse on him if he betrays them. Perhaps she agrees to the bite, but only after consulting Dronaash and asking him to trust that she's making the right decision. Many, many stories, and many seeds for future stories, can branch from just this one choice, from this one player.</p><p></p><p>That's the kind of "move" you are waiting for players to make. They should never be thinking about sitting on their hands. There's too much to DO!</p><p></p><p></p><p>Being perfectly honest? I don't, because I've never seen that problem, and never had any need to consider a solution for it. It's a bit like asking, "How do you address things like many players out there not speaking any English?" I just...don't.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because you use it as the only contrast to your own DMing. There is your way--"Hard Fun," which is described by you as positive--and then there is the "Soft Best Buddies" way, which is exclusively described in the worst, most negative terms you have available. No other ways are mentioned, and, per your OP, you have expressed a genuine confusion about, and ignorance toward, any other possible way of running a game.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay. I hope you can understand how someone would read "nightmare fuel" and think of horror movies. Because that's literally what the trope Nightmare Fuel is about: things that are so horrible they can give you nightmares.</p><p></p><p>As an aside, overall this post in particular has been much more conciliatory, so I want to make clear that I've noticed and appreciate the change.</p><p></p><p></p><p>See, this is what I mean by it doesn't really sound like you sincerely want to know. You'll <em>always</em> run a "Hard Fun" game, which (by your own admission) is a railroad. There is no option for doing anything else--and the only alternative you mention here is a "Goofy Casual Game." Hence, you seem to believe there are only two options: Hard Fun, or Goofy Casual. Anyone explaining anything else gets classified as either trying to make you run a Goofy Casual Game, or as giving bad advice for how to run a Hard Fun Game.</p><p></p><p>There are games which do not do the "Hard Fun" you describe...and which are also not "Goofy Casual." My game is not "Hard Fun" (and, frankly, I don't think I would enjoy running a "Hard Fun" game the way you have described it here and elsewhere.) But it isn't goofy, and it isn't casual. I include things like mind control/conditioning, slavery (it's illegal, but just because it's illegal doesn't mean people don't do it, sadly), murder, political and economic corruption, poverty, organized crime, drug addition, etc. My devils do not screw around, they aren't like D&D devils that constantly self-sabotage, mine are calculating, manipulative, charismatic, and genuinely committed to getting people to WANT to make deals with devils, so they ALWAYS keep their promises and never hide crappy clauses in their contracts. I have been quite serious about lore and history, and impressing upon my players that history and symbolism are extremely important in this world. (I even have a timeline! I won't link it here, but yeah, I have an actual timeline covering about two and a half thousand years of world history, though much has been forgotten about anything older than ~700 years before present, other than the BIG HUGE events nobody forgets about.)</p><p></p><p>Hence why I've (mostly) tried to use examples from my own game when I can. The werewolf thing is obviously made up, since it's your example situation, not mine.</p><p></p><p>As for what I mean by "work with your players": Ask them meaningful questions, which they actually need to think about. Don't just give them everything on a silver platter (because that's obviously bad), but genuinely care about what it is they want to see from the game. The vast majority of the time, players want to see cool things, solve difficult problems, legitimately win, etc. If you talk to them, learn what it is they actually <em>care about</em> and <em>value</em>, you can almost always get good results.</p><p></p><p></p><p>See, this is the thing I referenced above. This is dismissive and, frankly, insulting to your players. You think they are thoughtless, clueless, and unmotivated. Why? Being thoughtless, clueless, and unmotivated is <em>exceedingly rare</em> in my experience. People really are thinking! They may not think the way you think, but they ARE thinking. Learning to communicate effectively, learning to find out what it is they're thinking, learning how to take those thoughts and preferences and weave them into a challenge worthy of the name--that's what this whole process is about.</p><p></p><p>If you <em>start</em> by believing that your players are thoughtless, clueless, and unmotivated, you'll never get anywhere. It's not possible to run a game in that context. You'll just be cramming whatever interests you down their throats, heedlessly.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No. I am speaking of giving players the ability to drive the story forward.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not at all. Again, the limits of reasonableness and consistency apply always--both to the GM and the player--but with the example above, the player is in the driver's seat when she decides what to do about the werewolf sneak. You, the GM, are <em>not</em> deciding what story will happen. The player is. For that moment, you are not in the driver's seat. You are not defining where the story will go. You will <em>use</em> the answer to that question as part of framing future scenes, most certainly. Players do not occupy the driver's seat 24/7; indeed, they usually only do so at critical moments. Part of the fun of Dungeon World (or indeed any PBtA game) is working to make "critical moments" happen a LOT. Because those are the moments where, by playing, you find out what happens!</p><p></p><p></p><p>Then I don't understand why you asked at all. The point of asking a question like this:</p><p></p><p>Yes, the question came up because some folks asked for your advice. But if <em>you</em> are asking, does that not mean <em>you</em> want to know? If you don't actually want to know, why would you ask? It doesn't sound like these DMs who were asking for your advice said, "Hey, could you ask your forum friends about it on our behalf?"</p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, fair enough I guess? It just came across as very dismissive, taking my words out of context to paint something as inherently foolish and unserious, when I literally said (immediately after, in something you cut out) that I was joking around in order to lighten the mood, and then explained myself much more seriously. I was very frustrated, because it read as you taking the humorous part out of context, and then using that as a reason to interpret what I said as being foolish and unserious, and thus worthy of dismissal or condemnation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9262708, member: 6790260"] I mean, some kind of survey data would be the right form of evidence to back up a claim of this nature. E.g. most folks take it reasonably seriously when WotC says that most D&D groups do not play into the teen levels (though many disagree about [I]why[/I] this happens, nobody really questions [I]that[/I] it happens.) Because if all you really have is, "I've seen groups do it," well, that's perfectly fine for [I]your experience[/I], but it doesn't really speak about the community at large. Again, you speak of there being some huge swathe of people in these two categories, as though they make up a majority of both DMs and players. [I]I have never seen any of them[/I]. That doesn't mean they don't exist. But, despite the fact that I have almost always played with strangers--and thus am getting exposed to a lot of people who don't always share my preferences or interests--I have never seen this sort of thing, this "whine and cry" at every little problem thing. And I have [I]definitely[/I] never seen a DM who "bow their heads." The only word I can use to describe your perception of these things is "extreme," and as a result you demand extreme solutions. The vast--genuinely vast--majority of people simply do not have this experience. They don't have players who will freak out about even the smallest problems. Yes, SOME people are like that. But "some people" means [I]literally any amount greater than zero[/I]. I don't think I need to explain why "there exists at least one person who behaves badly" is not meaningful evidence for the claim "a majority of players whine and cry about every problem." Your posts certainly have communicated to me a dismissive, judgmental tone, where you presume that anyone who does not do things your way must be an abused, servile DM, ridden roughshod by their nasty, raving, petulant players. Further, I have noticed that you tend to jump on particular words or phrases (for example, your positive response to the DW phrase "exploit your prep"), often taking these terms out of context--which is frustrating, since you wish others to take your own words in context, even when that context is very much not obvious (as above with the "I don't care what the players think or say" statement, above.) Combined with past discussions, e.g. where you were hoping to find some "magic word" (your term) that could make the players behave the way you wanted them to--that reflects a not-real-great attitude of dismissiveness and condescension toward your players. Question: Is it a problem in chess, that a player must "sit there and wait for a player to make a move"? Is it a problem in poker? In blackjack, where the players aren't even competing with one another? Because that's what this "waiting for a player to make a move" thing is. In any game with at least relatively healthy DM/player interactions, the players should [I]always[/I] be "making moves." Asking questions, examining their resources, considering their options, discussing amongst themselves, making declarations. The only time they [I]shouldn't[/I] be doing something like that is when they've turned to you, wanting to know what happens next, which is precisely one of the times DW speaks of as being when you make a move. I flatly disagree. None of my players have been "hardcore" in any meaningful sense. We have had at least three distinct mysteries: a jewel heist (the party tracked down the culprits but they'd been killed by cultists), a high-profile assassination (IIRC I mentioned this earlier, the party correctly identified the real killer and prevented a diplomatic incident), and the ongoing mystery of the black dragon hiding in the shadows, trying to take over the city economically. Outright character death has never happened in my game, and yet my players genuinely cared about solving each of these mysteries, as well as other unknowns, e.g. finding out who betrayed the party so an over-boss in the black dragon gang knew to only appear as an illusion, not as himself. Genuine question: Do you actually think these players are representative of D&D players in general? Because this sounds nothing like the vast, vast majority of players I've ever worked with. And this is part of why I say your tone comes across as dismissive and condescending; you seem to think basically all players that haven't been through your "nightmare fuel" DMing are lazy, stupid, impulsive, uncaring, and just...generally very unpleasant. Okay. I'm not a Hard Fun player. I don't like meat-grinders and "nightmare fuel." I also take traps seriously and am cautious--sometimes to a fault. I think critically about the world and story, and my character's place in them. I ask serious questions and expect to be asked serious questions as well. What am I? By your description here, I seem to not even exist. I'm not Goofy Casual. I'm also not Hard Fun. What is there that isn't one of those two things? And if you don't believe that there [I]is[/I] such a thing, then...well, we really can't have a conversation. You have defined things in such a way that no discussion is possible. Everyone either does things the right way (yours), or the wrong way (anything that isn't yours). Many have said that DW's rules feel like someone managed to write down best practices for game masters. There is a good reason for this feeling--and it is one (of several) reasons why the books say you really, [I]really[/I] shouldn't outright break or change the core rules. They were designed with great care, and changing those things can have massive (and often negative) impact on the experience. (Note, this does not mean you can't write new moves. You are expected to do that. "Changing the rules" in this case is stuff like adding or removing Principles, the particular methods you use, or altering the Agendas, which are your high-level ultimate goals for GMing, stuff like "portray a fantastic world.") They are set by the GM (and not strictly spoken--the rules neither require nor forbid it, so it's up to you.) Note that these are stakes only for this one adventure front. Generally, each "campaign front" will be made up of several adventure fronts (e.g. at least 3), all with their own stakes, and the campaign front itself will have more that look at the campaign level of play rather than individual adventures (e.g. "will Barbariccia resolve her hatred of her father that she believes abandoned her?") Many of these stakes will be, as you say, independent of anything specific the player is looking for, but they should in general be something the player would find interesting somehow. After all, you want them to decide something, or declare something, and if they just think all answers to a given thing would be boring or irrelevant, they're not going to be interested in answering! And yes, some of the time you may even set out stakes that the player has chosen, but it would be because you want to know, not because you're under obligation to answer. (It's just...like I said, if the players have already made clear they care about some particular thing, they'll WANT to answer questions related to it, so it's often smart to pick some of those things.) Why is a small nature spirit showing up "at your whim"? Such "whims" should generally speaking not happen--that is, you shouldn't be doing something [I]solely[/I] because you feel like it with no other link to anything else, other than very early in the game. (This is because, for the first handful of sessions, everyone is still learning who and what the PCs are, so you don't really have many things to link to. Once the game has gotten going, however, there should be [I]plenty[/I] of things to hook into.) The other problem, here, is that these things you've cited...those aren't framed encounters (like the trap). They're specific events you've declared [I]will[/I] happen, no matter what. In general, for DW, you should avoid such things. Instead of "a werewolf sneak will [I]definitely[/I] try to bamboozle Barbariccia to get a sneak attack on her," framing a scene of this nature would be something like... (A) You decide that the town has a sneaky werewolf, hidden among them, acting as a spy for the rest of the pack. This would be part of the danger, and one possible source for some of the Grim Portents as the Front plays out (e.g. the sneaky werewolf might work to pit the townsfolk against each other). He likes manipulating people, controlling them, making them do what he wants without them realizing it. (B) During a previous scene, where the party triumphantly returned to town with a werewolf they'd killed, the Barbarian threw a huge party to raise town morale...and hopefully get some leads or help. That's the trigger for the basic move Carouse (spoilered rules text below.) And since her Herculean Appetite is "conquest," she got to roll 1d6+1d8 rather than 2d6: full success! ...but the d6 (6) was bigger than the d8 (5), so (per the Barbarian class rules) "the GM will also introduce a complication or danger that comes about due to your heedless pursuits." So, she got her three choices--she befriended a useful NPC (the LG second-in-command Hunter who genuinely wants to save the town, not just destroy the werewolves), heard rumors of an opportunity (there's an abandoned, allegedly-haunted watermill upriver that the werewovles might be using as a base), and gained useful information (Sister Redbridge hid the mayor's silverware and the chapel's silver candlesticks in the chapel undercroft before she went missing.) But by not choosing the last option, she [I]was[/I] entangled, ensorcelled, or tricked--in this case, the werewolf sneak stole her sacred tribal bracelet, without which she cannot ever return to her tribe, but she was too drunk to notice. Now she must get it back. [SPOILER="Carouse text"] When you [B]return triumphant and throw a big party[/B], spend 100 coins and roll +1 for every extra 100 coins spent. ✴On a 10+, choose 3. ✴On a 7–9, choose 1. ✴On a miss, you still choose one, but things get really out of hand (the GM will say how). [LIST] [*]You befriend a useful NPC. [*]You hear rumors of an opportunity. [*]You gain useful information. [*]You are not entangled, ensorcelled, or tricked. [/LIST] You can only carouse when you return triumphant. That’s what draws the crowd of revelers to surround adventurers as they celebrate their latest haul. If you don’t proclaim your success or your failure, then who would want to party with you anyway? [/SPOILER] (C) When the crew heads out the next day, the sneak makes his move. He attempts to distract Barbariccia with her bracelet, in order to get a good, solid hit in. That's a framed scene: something has happened, which motivates the character. The bad guys use their situation to try to achieve something. The players, in response, must now do something about it. Maybe Barbariccia is overcome with joy at finding her bracelet and doesn't consider the danger, meaning the player has just given you a "golden opportunity." Maybe the player is now wary because the thief stole her most prized possession from right under her nose, so she takes a more careful tack. Etc. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that she is more wary, avoids this little trap, and the party is able to [I]capture[/I] the sneak-werewolf alive. He knows if he goes back to town, the hunters will kill him, regardless of what the party thinks. So he makes an offer: he's already good at sneaking around, maybe he can play double agent--and even bring one of the party with him as a "new" member of the Pack. He offers to bite Barbariccia, since the Pack would LOVE to have a raging berskerer werewolf to help them fight! Now Barbariccia has a dilemma: the werewolf curse WOULD make her stronger, and strength is one of the only things she cares about....but it would be betraying Dronaash's trust, whom she has come to regard as almost a replacement for the father that abandoned her as a child. That's framing a scene (sneak-werewolf tries to catch a PC off guard to bite her), and then framing a second scene (sneak-werewolf begs for his life, offering to help the party) in a way which fully lets the player decide. A different story will be told, depending on what Barbariccia chooses to do. And she isn't limited to only "yes" or "no"--there are many possible ways she could push this forward. Perhaps she threatens the sneak into obedience without needing to accompany him. Perhaps she calls on the spirits of her ancestors to put a curse on him if he betrays them. Perhaps she agrees to the bite, but only after consulting Dronaash and asking him to trust that she's making the right decision. Many, many stories, and many seeds for future stories, can branch from just this one choice, from this one player. That's the kind of "move" you are waiting for players to make. They should never be thinking about sitting on their hands. There's too much to DO! Being perfectly honest? I don't, because I've never seen that problem, and never had any need to consider a solution for it. It's a bit like asking, "How do you address things like many players out there not speaking any English?" I just...don't. Because you use it as the only contrast to your own DMing. There is your way--"Hard Fun," which is described by you as positive--and then there is the "Soft Best Buddies" way, which is exclusively described in the worst, most negative terms you have available. No other ways are mentioned, and, per your OP, you have expressed a genuine confusion about, and ignorance toward, any other possible way of running a game. Okay. I hope you can understand how someone would read "nightmare fuel" and think of horror movies. Because that's literally what the trope Nightmare Fuel is about: things that are so horrible they can give you nightmares. As an aside, overall this post in particular has been much more conciliatory, so I want to make clear that I've noticed and appreciate the change. See, this is what I mean by it doesn't really sound like you sincerely want to know. You'll [I]always[/I] run a "Hard Fun" game, which (by your own admission) is a railroad. There is no option for doing anything else--and the only alternative you mention here is a "Goofy Casual Game." Hence, you seem to believe there are only two options: Hard Fun, or Goofy Casual. Anyone explaining anything else gets classified as either trying to make you run a Goofy Casual Game, or as giving bad advice for how to run a Hard Fun Game. There are games which do not do the "Hard Fun" you describe...and which are also not "Goofy Casual." My game is not "Hard Fun" (and, frankly, I don't think I would enjoy running a "Hard Fun" game the way you have described it here and elsewhere.) But it isn't goofy, and it isn't casual. I include things like mind control/conditioning, slavery (it's illegal, but just because it's illegal doesn't mean people don't do it, sadly), murder, political and economic corruption, poverty, organized crime, drug addition, etc. My devils do not screw around, they aren't like D&D devils that constantly self-sabotage, mine are calculating, manipulative, charismatic, and genuinely committed to getting people to WANT to make deals with devils, so they ALWAYS keep their promises and never hide crappy clauses in their contracts. I have been quite serious about lore and history, and impressing upon my players that history and symbolism are extremely important in this world. (I even have a timeline! I won't link it here, but yeah, I have an actual timeline covering about two and a half thousand years of world history, though much has been forgotten about anything older than ~700 years before present, other than the BIG HUGE events nobody forgets about.) Hence why I've (mostly) tried to use examples from my own game when I can. The werewolf thing is obviously made up, since it's your example situation, not mine. As for what I mean by "work with your players": Ask them meaningful questions, which they actually need to think about. Don't just give them everything on a silver platter (because that's obviously bad), but genuinely care about what it is they want to see from the game. The vast majority of the time, players want to see cool things, solve difficult problems, legitimately win, etc. If you talk to them, learn what it is they actually [I]care about[/I] and [I]value[/I], you can almost always get good results. See, this is the thing I referenced above. This is dismissive and, frankly, insulting to your players. You think they are thoughtless, clueless, and unmotivated. Why? Being thoughtless, clueless, and unmotivated is [I]exceedingly rare[/I] in my experience. People really are thinking! They may not think the way you think, but they ARE thinking. Learning to communicate effectively, learning to find out what it is they're thinking, learning how to take those thoughts and preferences and weave them into a challenge worthy of the name--that's what this whole process is about. If you [I]start[/I] by believing that your players are thoughtless, clueless, and unmotivated, you'll never get anywhere. It's not possible to run a game in that context. You'll just be cramming whatever interests you down their throats, heedlessly. No. I am speaking of giving players the ability to drive the story forward. Not at all. Again, the limits of reasonableness and consistency apply always--both to the GM and the player--but with the example above, the player is in the driver's seat when she decides what to do about the werewolf sneak. You, the GM, are [I]not[/I] deciding what story will happen. The player is. For that moment, you are not in the driver's seat. You are not defining where the story will go. You will [I]use[/I] the answer to that question as part of framing future scenes, most certainly. Players do not occupy the driver's seat 24/7; indeed, they usually only do so at critical moments. Part of the fun of Dungeon World (or indeed any PBtA game) is working to make "critical moments" happen a LOT. Because those are the moments where, by playing, you find out what happens! Then I don't understand why you asked at all. The point of asking a question like this: Yes, the question came up because some folks asked for your advice. But if [I]you[/I] are asking, does that not mean [I]you[/I] want to know? If you don't actually want to know, why would you ask? It doesn't sound like these DMs who were asking for your advice said, "Hey, could you ask your forum friends about it on our behalf?" I mean, fair enough I guess? It just came across as very dismissive, taking my words out of context to paint something as inherently foolish and unserious, when I literally said (immediately after, in something you cut out) that I was joking around in order to lighten the mood, and then explained myself much more seriously. I was very frustrated, because it read as you taking the humorous part out of context, and then using that as a reason to interpret what I said as being foolish and unserious, and thus worthy of dismissal or condemnation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How to move a game forward?
Top