This is both a ‘’’wiki’’’ (a website editable by all) and a ‘’’blog’’’ (an online diary about the stuff Alex Schroeder reads and does). If you’re a friend or relative, you might be interested in reading Life instead of this page. If you’ve come here from an RPG blog, you might want to head over to RPG. There are other similar categories to be found on the SiteMap.
Für Rollenspieler gibt es ebenfalls eine eigene RSP Kategorie.
Sadly, I just have a suspicion: at first, DW seemed weird and different when it comes to those rolls, but then having the same odds no matter how good or experienced a character is does seem to be very similar to how D&D 3.5 worked for me over many campaigns. As our skills went up, so did the DCs. As our to-hit values went up, so did our ACs. In classic D&D, there are no skill checks but attribute checks remain the same no matter what. Not much different! And since characters not specializing in their skills had basically no chance to make their rolls, that feels a lot like a self assembled list of moves. (Leaving the back and forth of player moves and GM moves aside for now.)
In classic D&D, the situation is different in combat because the two sides don’t keep on climbing. ACs go down, but not forever (maybe if you use Gary Gygax’s Monster Manuals with their devils and demons). Effectively, there are situations we can simply ignore. Meeting 1–6 orcs is not an encounter after you reach a certain level. DW would simply say that the move says you announce future badness and a handful of orcs just ain’t that. All in all, I feel these DW aspects are not too different from D&D as it is played at my table.
So, I’m trying find the public key of somebody I need to email. But it won’t work. Here’s what I get when searching for a key from the command line:
alex@Megabombus:~$ gpg --search-key email@example.com gpg: searching for "firstname.lastname@example.org" from hkps server hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net gpgkeys: HTTP search error 60: SSL certificate problem: Invalid certificate chain gpg: key "email@example.com" not found on keyserver gpg: keyserver internal error gpg: keyserver search failed: Keyserver error
Uh oh. SSL certificate chain invalid? Are they using stuff I disabled in my SSL setup? Is this a man in the middle attack?
No email tonight, I guess!
These days, I’m taking notes with a fountain pen. I asked for one for my birthday in April and got a LAMY studio imperialblue with an F nib. I used this pen to draw the faces for my Face Generator using T10 blue ink. And I’m still using it. When I looked at the notes I scanned, yesterday, I was reminded of all the note taking I’m doing on those notebooks with my fountain pen. There is an anachronistic pleasure in it.
Uns hat Chur sehr gefallen. Der Brambrüesch war auch nicht schlecht. Claudia war halt mitten in der Chemotherapie und konnte keine längere Wanderung unternehmen.
Travis Scott said on Google+: “It’s International Men’s Day, which is a time I like to reflect on the positive things about masculinity, being a man, and having men in our lives. I’d like to hear all kinds of perspectives, with this additional challenge: say it with honesty and without snark. Dig deep and tell us what you appreciate about men and masculinity!”
I said: My father, good male friends – the thing I like about male culture is that it is acceptable to enjoy physical activity with no talking. We can meet and play or hike or ride a bike or run, and we might talk, or not talk, or talk nonsense, but the shared activity in itself communicates well being, harmony, lack of conflict, sympathy, joy of life, appreciation, encouragement, inner peace. I love that.
As for masculinity these days, and where I am these days, I’m happy to notice that there are not a lot of expectations imposed on my masculinity that I notice. I can work part time, I can cook and clean the house, my wife can work full time, my wife can drive the car, we can have no kids, I don’t need to be smarter, I don’t need to make all the decisions, I don’t need to plan our holidays, I don’t need to have any mechanical skills, I don’t have to drive a car, I don’t need to play team sports involving a ball, I don’t need to laugh at awkward jokes. I am at peace with being a man.
When a friend has left, Claudia might asks, “How is he?” I’ll answer, “He’s doing OK.” She’ll ask, “What did he say?” I’ll say, “Not much.” Incredulous, she’ll ask, “Didn’t you ask?” I’ll say, “No, of course not.” She’ll shake her head and laugh. But I’ll know that in that moment, when we did things, in that moment of doing, there was no need for words. There was no need to talk about our feelings because our feelings were inscribed into our grinning, our yelling, our waving of controllers, our jumping up and our little victory dances… It was a timeless moment of joy.
So, I wrote a few posts about Dungeon World in the recent past and then I ran a game, last Monday!
How did it go? It went well. I had six players, a bit of a language split – three native English speakers and three native German speakers and two of them sometimes had trouble understanding some of the stuff on the character sheets. That was unfortunate. On of the players had been a backer and had both soft-cover and hard-cover books with him where as I just has some print-outs and the sheets by Maezar. I also offered my players to use the Freebooters of the Frontier sheets instead, but since nobody had a strong opinion about that and the backer didn’t know about Freebooters, I dropped it. I guess I still used some moves from Perilous Wild behind the screen and it was good.
What about prep? Prep was OK. I had a map, I had some ideas, I had some dangers and discoveries listed, two fronts, dooms, stuff was going to happen but for a 3h One Shot including character generation, I’d say I was slightly over-prepared in terms of map and settlements and slightly under-prepared when it came to dangers and discoveries. I should have had longer lists of cool stuff. I also started the game with the party in a swamp on the way to a barrow, the ranger posited that he had been following tracks, soon it was determined that there were smaller tracks following the larger tracks (announcing future badness) and soon we had a fight with six player characters vs. ten froglings. I think that fight could have been a shorter. Using ten enemies was a bit much.
What about feedback? The players said they liked it. At first, the lack of a turn structure might have been strange but I guess it worked. The two mostly German speaking players weren’t as active as they might have been, perhaps. But I know one of them from another campaign where he’s also not one to take center stage – and sadly, one prone to looking at his phone a lot, during the game. I didn’t feel too bad about him getting less spot light.
What about my own feelings regarding player agency? Tricky. Comparing it to my old school sandbox games, I’d say many things were similar or the procedures resulted in a similar experience for players.
Some pictures to illustrate my points.
Traditional point crawl dungeon:
My Dungeon World prep:
Also note the terrible mix of German and English in my notes.
I haven’t written much about politics in years. I just read the newspaper and cringe. Sometimes I feel like I should “share” links – but with whom? Nobody on Facebook seems interested because it’s friends and family and coworkers and students from many years ago. Nobody on Google+ seems interested because most of the people I know there are there for the gaming with the exception of a small number of information sources, in other words, information just flows in one direction. Nobody on Twitter seems interested because I’m mostly following journalists and politicians and when I finally realized this, I figured there was no point in sharing anything because they don’t read what I’m sharing. Information just flows in one direction.
Luckily for me – unluckily for you, perhaps – this blog not only serves as a platform to share information, it also serves as my externalized memory. Which is why I’m trying to push myself to post interesting links here instead of on so-called “social” media – gated communities that will one day be replaced by something else, taking all the information down with them.
I really need to find links to sources outside of Google+ since the inevitable sunsetting of G+ will drag down all those links as well.
Joey Lindsey recently asked on Google+ about adventure prep.
My answer: I start with a theme or a particular need based on the campaign. Then I draw a map, perhaps a rough one, perhaps just a point crawl, based on some visuals I want in my game. I’ll often add doodles to bridge the time between interesting ideas. They don’t come so fast, sadly. The doodles also serve as visual reminders for later. At the same time, I start thinking about the monsters and make a big random list of them. Sometimes there are small lists per area or level instead of a single big one. Most of these monsters also have a lair where they’re guaranteed to be. Then I’ll roll for treasure and I usually accept what the table tells me. If the campaign setup requires a particular item to be here, then I’ll add it as well.
The order of these elements will sometimes vary. I might also start with the doodle of a monster, add stats, make a list, and then draw a map. Rolling up treasure always comes last, however.
Some recent examples:
On Google+, Amber Yust linked to this post by Kate Heddleston: Argument Cultures and Unregulated Aggression. As I started reading, I kept thinking about other forms of broken interactions online. I’ve seen Kristian Köhntopp defend Linus Torvalds’ style on Google+ (Code of Conflict, Fuck the Community) and Martin Seeger defend civility in the comments. I’ve seen annoying comments in my discussions of role-playing game on Google+ that annoyed me. I’ve seen aggravating comments in my discussions of politics on Facebook. Sometimes I wonder whether my own comments cause similar discomfort to others.
Identifying problems and avoiding them:
The single most important issue is a lack of charitable reading – that is, when we read things that irritate us, we jump to unwarranted conclusions. The simplest of these is that the author of what we just read is an idiot. And from there, everything else follows. We might leave a comment revealing our opinion of the idiot author, for example. This is not going to end well.
When reading an annoying posts, I try to read it again in a jovial voice. Perhaps the author is laughing or winking while they say the words they wrote?
Sometimes, Occam's razor comes to mind. We read some idiotic words online. Here are two hypotheses that we might posit: 1. the author is an idiot, or 2. the author is a joker. The first hypothesis usually leads to a large number of questions such as: “why aren’t all posts by this author idiotic?” Or, “why aren’t all the people that comment on this author’s posts idiots?” Or, “how can they have a partner?” Or, “how can they have a job?” Clearly, even if this post is idiotic, this person must be likable under different circumstances. A climate change denier can still be a good grandfather.
Some possible explanations I usually try to think of:
I think the important part of “and that’s OK” is that it offers us a way out. This conversation doesn’t need to continue. We don’t need to engage. There is no last word to be had.
This doesn’t mean that I have to accept all the garbage people throw around, but it offers a counter move that is oblique.
me: talking about a topic…
somebody: exaggerates my point and takes it down
Exaggerating a point to take it down is taking down a straw man. I don’t enjoy polemic debates. If nobody is ready to learn, then there should be no debate. There might be a point to having two people unwilling to learn debate a topic for an audience willing to learn – politicians are usually unwilling to learn in a debate. They still debate a topic because they’re convinced that their audience is willing to learn. If neither of the two people talking nor their audience is willing to learn, then the debate should stop. There’s no point.
My preferred reaction in these situations:
We’re changing the topic. We’re no longer talking about the topic I originally wanted to talk about.
Alternatively, the discussion ends, there.
Sadly, this may not be enough. If people persistently annoy you, you need to change your social circles. Unfriend them, uncircle them, block them. If you don’t, then you’re setting up an asshole filter – all the nice people will go away, unwilling to engage, and you’re left with the idiots. That is, the people that might be nice and friendly when you talk to them in person, but when when they leave comments on your posts, they are aggravating and you seem to be unable to change this pattern.
It all started with me reading the answer to How to ask nicely in Dungeon World on StackExchange. The answer says: There’s also no GM move called “have a freeform social interaction.” If the GM is following the rules, this kind of stall should not happen. […] Since the “everyone looks to you to find out what happens” trigger matches, it’s now the GM’s turn to make an appropriate move, instead of falling into “time for unstructured social exchange improvisation!” habits that they have brought with them from some other game. The rest of the answer picks all the GM moves in the book and provides an explanation of how it might have gone.
When talking about my classic D&D games with others, we sometimes talked about procedures (or the lack thereof). When I tried to explain how great classic D&D was to Lior oh so long ago, he said that he would love to see some practical instructions on how to make a game interesting. Classic D&D seemed to be steeped in oral culture transmitted outside the written rules. You learned how to do it from friends, or through years of experience, or by reading and talking about it online (which is how I finally got it). As we gave Apocalypse World a try, it seemed to us that there was something here about telling us how to run a game but we just couldn’t nail it. I don’t remember whether we were just too blind to see, or too distracted by all the new jargon, or too fascinated by the moves in play books. I think that now, I’m slowly starting to get it.
There are still reasons not to like the game. The game no longer promises ever changing game play via mechanics (spells changing the adventures you can run, hit-points being replaced by saving-throws, and so on). And I still don’t quite see how the game can surprise me – how will I avoid making decisions that I feel the rules should make for me? The advice for running a dungeon basically suggest improvising a dungeon based on moves, i.e. whenever the players are at a loss, or when they fail their rolls, the dungeon grows, the monsters move, dead ends appear, signs of trouble ahead show up, and so on. “Dungeon Moves are a special subset that are used to make or alter a dungeon on the fly. Use these if your players are exploring a hostile area that you don’t already have planned completely.”
Even if I use The Perilous Wilds as my rules, these thing are still true. Except now there are more tools to work with, more specific instructions: countdowns for themes, a predetermined size, and so on. It seems to me that DW and friends are very interested in “play to see what happens” and one of the consequences is that the world is being generated as you go, based on your moves and the improvisations of the DM. That, in turn, is perhaps why my suspension of disbelief might not work as well. Or perhaps that’s simply a problem for an old school D&D player. If we’re exploring an existing place with an existing map, and existing dangers and treasures, it feels more “real” than generating things as we go. If the consequences of failure are generated by random rolls on a table, if the danger of monsters depends on the severity of my moves, then the rules can say fiction first as long as they want, I read it as DM fiat. But: This could be my D&D bias. Perhaps DW does not shirk from DM fiat as long as it follows from the fiction. Perhaps it works at the table even if everybody knows that the DM is improvising. After all, D&D also requires improvising but generally DMs will try to hide the fact that they’re doing it. The impression of impartiality is generated by dice rolling. Staying true to the fiction is presumed.
Then again, when I look at some of my recent “dungeons”, I find that I mostly think of them as interesting areas, connect one way or another, it doesn’t really matter. Plus monsters and treasure, and traps, rarely. Perhaps that’s not very far away from what Dungeon World and friends are suggesting. After all, the improvisation and dice rolling at the table is only for “a hostile area that you don’t already have planned completely.” I’m suspecting that – at the table! – my current method and the Dungeon World method with a little planning are not very different, after all.
Curious and willing to learn, in any case.
This is what a recent dungeon map for classic D&D looked like, in my campaign: