|
hyphz posted:Sure. So how much harm is it OK to inflict on them? How much is it OK to do? The problem with the "hard move"/"soft move" thing is that there's no actual list of which moves are hard or soft; you can use up PC resources as a soft move. I figure "how much harm to inflict" depends on the context. Is the hard move happening because the Gunlugger messed up sweet-talking a random enforcer of the hardolder in a pub? It makes sense for the enforcer to have a concealed gun, maybe, but if he had something like a shotgun, the GM should have mentioned that. So you inflict damage "as established", just like the rules say; 1 for the concealed peashooter, 2 or 3 if the GM warned the player in advance that the enforcer had visible firepower on him.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Actually here's a direct quote:quote:Here are guidelines for choosing your moves:
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Sure. So how much harm is it OK to inflict on them? How much is it OK to do? quote:The problem with the "hard move"/"soft move" thing is that there's no actual list of which moves are hard or soft; you can use up PC resources as a soft move. And like Covok said, most GMing is winging it. Yeah, I'll have a few encounters planned out or know which NPC is responsible for what, but the rest of it I make up as I go along. I don't think I've ever run into someone who cares if the encounter or clue or whatever was carefully placed by me in advance or if I pulled it out my rear end. Yeah, some games have good guidelines about setting up a fight (13th Age, 4e, Fragged Empire), but with your Apocalypse World example that game isn't about "fair fights in rooms X, Y, and Z", it's about getting put in situations that may or may not be out of your depth and figuring out what the consequences are in the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Covok posted:Dude, I've run Fantasy Craft, Eclipse Phase, Torchbearer, and Burning Wheel exactly in the manner you just described. Doesn't matter how rules heavy it is you can run any game by the seat of your pants. All it takes is good improv skills and a decent understanding the system as a matter of fact I hate to break it to you but most games are run that way. Very few people I know actually sit down and really plan out their s*** regardless of the system they're using. Most GM's might do some planning but most of it goes out the window anyway because you know players. I'm just saying but if you think we one hundred percent planned a lot of that s*** out I hate to break it to you but we did not. Even if we have the dungeon mapped out we might be making s*** up. I've had dungeon Maps where I just use the map and made s*** up in every room and no one noticed. You really can't tell the difference especially when you pretended to look at your notes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:You can say poo poo here, it's okay. gently caress!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Evil Mastermind posted:I don't think I've ever run into someone who cares if the encounter or clue or whatever was carefully placed by me in advance or if I pulled it out my rear end. Okay, to be perfectly fair I don't agree with this; what that other poster was saying isn't all that weird. As a player, realizing that the GM invented an important plot point at the last second can be take me out of the story. It's like recognizing that the shadow puppets are, in fact, not queens and knights but bits of paper cut to resemble. It's noticing the man behind the green courtain. If you're really into immersing yourself in the game world, something that reminds you that it's a game and not a world can sting. PBTA and other games with improvising elements require you to buy in and accept that you're going to either accept their premise or never fully getting immersed in the story. Let's not pretend that this isn't a limitation. I love many of those games but there's something very much satisfying about a "stable", pre-designed world. Yawgmoth posted:You can say poo poo here, it's okay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
I love it when there are these conversations about "How does a roleplaying manual magically prevent the GM from being an rear end in a top hat for no reason?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Covok posted:Dude, I've run Fantasy Craft, Eclipse Phase, Torchbearer, and Burning Wheel exactly in the manner you just described. Doesn't matter how rules heavy it is you can run any game by the seat of your pants. All it takes is good improv skills and a decent understanding the system as a matter of fact I hate to break it to you but most games are run that way. Very few people I know actually sit down and really plan out their s*** regardless of the system they're using. Sure you can. And good for you! But it's not particularly easy for many people. Saying you have to have "Good improv skills" is a pretty harsh filter against some people. quote:but most games are run that way. Very few people I know actually sit down and really plan out their s*** regardless of the system they're using. Are "most games" run that way? They might be in your perception and on gaming fora. But the figures don't seem to match up when you consider that firms like Paizo are kept in business by adventure paths and they're the only supplement Wizards charges money for on the entire line. Curse of Strahd hit 250 sales/month for a bit when it first came out, that's at least 500 or so groups that play with fixed adventure modules, assuming no GM ran it for two groups. But anyway - this isn't about persuading me. It's about my belief that the bulk of gamers are stuck with D&D and their horribly flawed systems because the people developing innovative systems are treating the difference in rulesfeel caused by excessive GM fiat as an elephant in the room. Heck, I'm a huge fan of Strike! but the lack of adventure support is making it niche. quote:Most GM's might do some planning but most of it goes out the window anyway because you know players. I'm just saying but if you think we one hundred percent planned a lot of that s*** out I hate to break it to you but we did not. Even if we have the dungeon mapped out we might be making s*** up. And that's ok, because the poo poo you make up is likely to be linking material. You hopefully aren't going to "just make up" the final boss fight if you've got the stats in the book, or at least you'll probably base things on them. And the players know that, which is important, because they know the boss they are facing was set up like that at the moment they stepped into the castle. If they don't know that, then for all they know, if they won it was because you let them and if they lost it was because you made them. I mean, sure, when I ran a Shadowrun game a while back the players totally went off the expected rails and ended up meeting several of the big-bad gang leaders in totally out-of-the-way situations. But they were still the gang leaders from the book and their abilities and strengths and weaknesses were always there from the beginning. quote:I've had dungeon Maps where I just use the map and made s*** up in every room and no one noticed. You really can't tell the difference especially when you pretended to look at your notes. I can't speak to your games, of course, but every time I have had a GM say you couldn't tell the difference and then I have watched them run, the difference was immediately obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:Okay, to be perfectly fair I don't agree with this; what that other poster was saying isn't all that weird. As a player, realizing that the GM invented an important plot point at the last second can be take me out of the story. It's like recognizing that the shadow puppets are, in fact, not queens and knights but bits of paper cut to resemble. It's noticing the man behind the green courtain. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
hyphz posted:What's different is how easy or hard it is to avoid being an rear end in a top hat. This is an interesting point. The reason I stopped GMing 3rd ed was one too many TPKs in written adventures. I said to myself, I can do better for my players than this. It's the system (or potentially the adventure) that makes me an rear end. I don't think I've ever met a player who accurately expressed to me that they were scared of a system, but a lot of online focus seems to be on bad GMs. "Where did I learn it? I learned it from you, D&D!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I can't speak to your games, of course, but every time I have had a GM say you couldn't tell the difference and then I have watched them run, the difference was immediately obvious. You definitely can't tell in my games because my planned stuff is just as half-assed as my improvised stuff
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I love it when there are these conversations about "How does a roleplaying manual magically prevent the GM from being an rear end in a top hat for no reason?" It's actually a totally legitimate question, because self-policing is a pain in the rear end and there's a world of grey between "you're definitely being an rear end in a top hat" and "you're throwing a little too much of a challenge against them." Restricting the referee aspect of GMing to setup (as much as possible, anyways) and then allowing the GM to act as the player's opponent during play and not just as a narrative antagonist is extremely cool and good, because it allows the players to face challenges as opposed to just their characters facing challenges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Andrast posted:You definitely can't tell in my games because my planned stuff is just as half-assed as my improvised stuff
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Doing fixed flowchart interactions is something that I feel video games will always manage better than people might. Part of having a live GM is having a person who can make new encounters or adjust things on the fly. That's the chief strength of tabletop RPGs. It mostly comes down to "were those five goblins put in that room five days ago or five minutes ago?", and the distinction will be academic most of the time to players. Whether or not those goblins are in there is completely arbitrary in the first place to begin with - there's nothing inherently more "fair" about their presence or absence just because that was marked down on a piece of paper before the game session started.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
It's been too long since I cracked a DMG open, so I can't really say how much D&D does to teach good GMing habits these days, but the community at large sure loves to propagate the worst and most toxic habits, a-la "player X didn't roleplay 'well enough' so I dropped rocks on their character".
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Andrast posted:You definitely can't tell in my games because my planned stuff is just as half-assed as my improvised stuff Preach it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Scyther posted:It's been too long since I cracked a DMG open, so I can't really say how much D&D does to teach good GMing habits these days, but the community at large sure loves to propagate the worst and most toxic habits, a-la "player X didn't roleplay 'well enough' so I dropped rocks on their character". I haven't looked at the 5e DMG since launch but I don't remember there being anything particularly notable about it's DM instructions. It certainly isn't suggesting anything like dropping rocks but when you've built your game's sales pitch as being fueled by nostalgia, people are just gonna keep rolling with the same stupid poo poo they've always been doing. You really couldn't put much to the contrary of what's already been written by your 'good' games (not much) or people will bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Andrast posted:You definitely can't tell in my games because my planned stuff is just as half-assed as my improvised stuff 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Scyther posted:It's been too long since I cracked a DMG open, so I can't really say how much D&D does to teach good GMing habits these days it doesn't
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
The improvisational aspects of PBtA make DMing similar to acting as a player. You are waiting to make your moves based on the ongoing conversation of the game. You have to be an active listener; pay attention to both character attributes but also the specific situation. I'm just as invested as my players and we all do similar amounts of prep for the game, so I never feel like I'm carrying the weight of the world like I did back in the 3.x days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
I'm hereby declaring my candidacy for D&D 6e lead designer. If elected, I can promise you lower feat taxes, higher employment for martial classes, and a talking dog for every party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Again, there's threads of massive confusion about that on the RPGnet forums. The GM makes a move when the players "look to them to see what happens" but don't they do that immediately after they've declared their action, every time? And one of those moves is "use up their resources", so what stops the GM just pulling stuff out of their rear end to drain a party to nothing? So something that's important to understand here is the difference between "soft" and "hard" moves. A hard move is something like "deal damage" or "use up their resources"--it takes something away or imposes a consequence immediately. But what a soft move does is set up a consequence to come. It shows players something that is about to happen and gives them an opportunity to react to it. The GM makes moves at two times: 1. In reaction to the result of a player's roll. What move you make here should be dictated by the fiction and make sense with what's going on, and that's also going to determine whether you use a hard or soft move. Either way, the GM is told to let the player know the consequences before they roll--not necessarily every detail, but rather the level of danger, or the severity of the consequence should they fail the roll. When a player rolls, they should know before they roll whether a failure is going to result in immediate consequence or whether it'll be a setback but they can recover. 2. When the players "look to them to see what happens." When that happens, the GM should always use a soft move, not a hard one. The players want something to react to, not an immediate "gently caress you." So what stops the GM from "just pulling stuff out of their rear end to drain a party to nothing?" You can't do that with soft moves unless the players gently caress up their rolls to trigger the hard moves that follow. These are all things the rules tell you to do, not just my interpretation of the rules. The reason this can be confusing if you're new to PbtA and/or are initially put off by it is because the GM never rolls, so when you see a list of GM moves and see that the GM is supposed to pull out a move when the players "look to them to see what happens," you're naturally going to think, "Well, poo poo, so the GM can just make rocks fall and I can't do poo poo about it? What a lovely set of rules." But that's not the case at all--it's neither how the rules are intended nor how they're written. It's important that the GM is perhaps more bound by the rules than the players are. The players are free to try anything that makes sense for their character to try in the fiction, with the only real rule being that they roll when what they describe triggers a move. The GM, meanwhile, is guided by a list of written-out GM principles (one of which is "be a fan of the characters," meaning that the GM shouldn't just arbitrarily say no to things or damage/gently caress with the characters to be a dick) and every single thing they do should come from the list of moves. Granted, those moves are intended to be pretty broad in most PbtA games, but the division between soft and hard moves is an extremely important one, and the rules about when to use which type are exactly what prevent the situation you're describing. Harrow fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
It still pisses me off that there was not a 4E videogame even though the loving ruleset is perfect for it. Someone needs to take the rights from WoTC immediately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Fuego Fish posted:I'm hereby declaring my candidacy for D&D 6e lead designer. If elected, I can promise you lower feat taxes, higher employment for martial classes, and a talking dog for every party. 4e would have won
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:4e would have won
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Ok, so I've been turning over an Oliver Twist-esque mini-campaign over in my head recently, and I'm looking for a system that's conducive to it. Something with can handle an investigative and social focus mostly. Combat isn't important, but a decent system for injuries is. Also, the player characters are like 10-15 year old homeless kids, and should be of appropriate skill level. fool of sound fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Fuego Fish posted:I'm hereby declaring my candidacy for D&D 6e lead designer. If elected, I can promise you lower feat taxes, higher employment for martial classes, and a talking dog for every party. Im gonna make DnD great again. Have you seen the latest modules? Sad! Im gonna make it so you wont just fight dragons, your goig to be fighting so many dragons youll be sick if dragons. Im bringing back thief skills by reducing unfair caps on skills and if you think Ill bow to wizard interests you should know I only play wizards so why would i need to cow to them for favor?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Ok, so I've been turning over an Oliver Twist-esque mini-campaign over in my head recently, and I'm looking for a system that's conducive to it. Something with can handle an investigative and social focus mostly. Combat isn't important, but a decent system for injuries is. Bubblegumshoe
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:It still pisses me off that there was not a 4E videogame even though the loving ruleset is perfect for it. Someone needs to take the rights from WoTC immediately. Are the D&D rights still within the corpse of Atari?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:There's a Pathfinder port called the Avowed that's in Beta that's really good, too, even if some of the Pact options are a bit weird (I mean, who wants to be pacted to a literal trash monster?) A friend of mine would absolutely love this ChrisAsmadi posted:You get the ability to make animated garbage swarms. The capstone is making them sentient. And this starkebn posted:The way to have fun with 40k is play it like the crazy 80's and 90's version, not the grimdark they go for now. I'm still trying to find a game that emulates the craziness of Rogue Trader era 40k but with an overall less complicated system
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Bubblegumshoe Holy poo poo I didn't know that existed and it's perfect. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Are the D&D rights still within the corpse of Atari? Wasn't the lovely neverwinter game made by another company
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
it has been a long time since i planned more than a skeleton of a campaign, and improv is most of what i do hell, in my current game, there wasn't supposed to be any time travel involved until one of the players came up with a time travel theory, and now that's pretty much the basis of the entire campaign. planning is for chumps, just steal poo poo your players say
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Neverwinter was originally developed by Cryptic Studios under the hollow corporate zombie known as Atari, but Cryptic was bought out by microtransaction vampires Perfect World Entertainment, who were able to retain the rights to publish it on account of working out a deal with Hasbro, which had just pried the D&D rights out of Atari's hands in the courts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
drrockso20 posted:A friend of mine would absolutely love this
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Hey, to go back to the planned thing, I think a lot of it is feel. If I encounter 5 goblins in a room in a dungeon on their own, and no other goblins or goblin sleeping quarters, I might feel as though they were just tossed in their because the DM thought we needed a fight. That is, until I pry a treasure map written in Goblin from one of their dead little hands, and realise they were all wearing heavy backpacks and that there's a secret door in the next room...
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
S.J. posted:I haven't looked at the 5e DMG since launch but I don't remember there being anything particularly notable about it's DM instructions. It certainly isn't suggesting anything like dropping rocks but when you've built your game's sales pitch as being fueled by nostalgia, people are just gonna keep rolling with the same stupid poo poo they've always been doing. You really couldn't put much to the contrary of what's already been written by your 'good' games (not much) or people will bitch. The 5e DMG has some truly horrible advice in it though. My personal favorite is that if a door's flush with the wall and painted to look like the wall, that's a secret door, and you find it with a search check. But if a door's behind a curtain, that's a concealed door, and you don't find it with a search check, you find it by saying you are moving the curtain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The 5e DMG has some truly horrible advice in it though. My personal favorite is that if a door's flush with the wall and painted to look like the wall, that's a secret door, and you find it with a search check. oh for fucks sake
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
^^^JFC every time I hear something about 5e it makes me so happy I never wasted any time or money on it. As a DM I have an absolutely insane amount of poo poo planned out that I know is going half in the dumpster the moment the PCs interact with it. Then after a session where things get interacted with, I rewrite whatever needs to be based on the PCs' actions. I seriously have a good half dozen gdocs of stuff that get updated as needed. I do this because I am insane and have long stretches of time to kill mid-week at work. 
Yawgmoth fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jun 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
I'm starting to build a collection of index cards with NPCs and locations and encounters. It's a lot of fun!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2017 18:43
|
|
