Doing it wrong Part 1: Taking the dragon out of the dungeon

[Neonchameleon]

I don't think it's an issue of mechanical complexity. It's more that story creation via Premise & Resolution is not as intuitive as "You are the hero. What do you do?". Sim only requires actor-stance, while Narrativism I think requires at least occasional author-stance. And the idea of both playing a character and authoring part of the character's story is not particularly intuitive.

I actually think pure Storygames, where all the players/storycreators are always in author-stance, are a more intuitive enterprise. Most people have no trouble with the concept of round-robin storytelling. I think Nar RPGs are a tougher idea to grok.

Pretty much this. The barrier for entry isn't complications - it's a conceptual shift. Once you've jumped over that hurdle and absorbed it the rules aren't a problem - it's the stance between actor and director (or possibly throwing in some author in there) that's the problem. Pure actor stance (as trad RPGs often are) or any other pure stance is much easier.

 

[Libramarian]

It's been my experience that most DMs don't know how to run a sandbox campaign (DMs in my group who prefer to run games that way run better plot-based games), but an even bigger issue are the players.

Some players simply need direction. They're the ones who will play yak breeders or chemists if they're not handed a role. Said players often do perfectly fine when given a plot to work with.

Players often have trouble working together. If you have seven players each writing the plot, you just get seven players competing for DM time, perhaps occasionally banding once they've realized they've wasted all but an hour of session time and finally gather to beat up a random bad guy... or occasionally PC-killing, for legitimate RP reasons too. (The only time I've seen a sandbox-like campaign work was when only one or two players were writing plot, and the others were along for the ride. It helped that there was some basic plot in the background, so at the least the players had something to fall back on.)

(For my own games, which are never sandbox, I insist the PCs know each other beforehand, and at least know what people are playing first. I've seen campaigns - some run by me, some run by others - fall apart because the PCs don't trust each other. Sandboxing dissuades a DM from playing a role in building the party, which would have let them avoid some problems.)

"Railroading" reduces prep time. Obviously you can take it too far (some DMs are very bad at reacting to unexpected PC actions, especially in the short term), but if you're going to sandbox you actually need to do loads more prep ahead of time.

The game should provide a basic player direction with its reward mechanic IMO. In D&D your character becomes more powerful when you do certain things, so in the absence of other objectives the players should try to do those things. Depending on edition, this leads to default PC goals of treasure-hunting and monster-slaying. You can cover all the "pillars" of D&D play and have a great game that feels pretty resonant with sword & sorcery heroic fiction with just this basic premise IME. And it requires zero player pre-game story prep (I can believe that some players really enjoy deliberately designing their PCs to be thematically interesting, but I think most are uninterested and with some it's like pulling teeth).

I don't think sandboxing necessarily requires more prep time than a railroad. It depends how you approach it of course. I usually use some kind of setting product as a basis, so what I have in mind is the prep time comparison between running a megadungeon or a city-crawl and an adventure path, in which case I think sandboxing definitely requires less prep. But even if you're starting from scratch, you can build a sandbox piecemeal with the expectation that the PCs will eventually interact with all of the stuff, in which case you're not wasting anything, and the prep is basically the same as a more plot-based game, with simply less attention paid to the quality of the overall story.

As a clarifying note, I don't want to come across like I'm criticizing any way of playing as wrong. As always, play what you like. I just have a suspicion based on my experience that many DMs overestimate how much the quality of the story matters to the players in their games.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think it's an issue of mechanical complexity. It's more that story creation via Premise & Resolution is not as intuitive as "You are the hero. What do you do?". Sim only requires actor-stance, while Narrativism I think requires at least occasional author-stance.

The barrier for entry isn't complications - it's a conceptual shift.

I don't think I agree with this. I think vanilla narrativism can be run in an actor stance, "you are the hero - what do you do?" mode, provided that the PCs weren't created in that mode, and provided that the GM isn't sandboxing in that mode. As long as the PCs are thematically laden via their build/backstory, and as long as the GM is designing situations that push the relevant buttons, then actor stance play can lead to "story now". Funky director-stance stuff and associated mechanical techniques can facilitate, but I think a perfectly vanilla narrativism is possible. (Based on my own experience with it.)

That's part of why I think it's "simulationism by desire" rather than "simulationism by habit". I don't think narrativism is counterintuitive or conceptually challenging. I think that, for many RPGers, it's not wanted. They want to experience "being there" in the GM's world/story without engaging at an emotional level with the fiction that is being produced. (The gamist alternative also isn't interested in emotional engagement with the fiction - the fiction is a means to an end in action resolution (a la White Plume Mountain and ToH, as well as the vehicle whereby rewards are delivered and accomplishment acknolwedged.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

That's part of why I think it's "simulationism by desire" rather than "simulationism by habit". I don't think narrativism is counterintuitive or conceptually challenging. I think that, for many RPGers, it's not wanted.

While I tend to like the GDS model a lot more than the GNS model, I agree with you.

They want to experience "being there" in the GM's world/story without engaging at an emotional level with the fiction that is being produced.

I think I disagree with this, but I don't want to put words into your mouth or thoughts into your head. I want my players to feel like "they're there" (in my world) so that they'll engage on an emotional level. It's why I also like running player-driven games, rather than plot-based games. The immersion factor for my players in necessary for a strong emotional investment in the fiction that is produced. As always, play what you like

 

[S'mon]

That's part of why I think it's "simulationism by desire" rather than "simulationism by habit". I don't think narrativism is counterintuitive or conceptually challenging. I think that, for many RPGers, it's not wanted. They want to experience "being there" in the GM's world/story without engaging at an emotional level with the fiction that is being produced.

Yes, I think you're right. If anything though it seems
even more common that *GMs* don't want that emotional
engagement, it makes them feel uncomfortable.

This post by Noisms seems relevant, he discusses how players (inc GMs) will seek to undermine any genuine sense of pathos:
http://monstersandmanuals.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/being-arch.html

Personally I very much like dramatic, emotionally engaging
play, but I'm well aware that I'm usually in a minority. I think one reason that D&D is so popular is that it provides the bells & whistles to keep
the game engaging without such drama, whereas other
genres & games really need it to work. Eg I did not feel
the zombie apocalypse Savage Worlds game I played
really worked in the absence of genuine (at least B-movie
level) drama & pathos.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think both of you (S'mon, pmerton) are seriously underestimating the way a gamist agenda can work with a simulationist-centred game. Especially Character Creation. To me the complaints that 4e is balanced are a set of complaints that the game that was character creation was broken (actually it's as detailed as ever but there isn't the overwhelming nature of it). @Ahenosis has explicitely called being able to gain a massive advantage in character creation out as a good thing. But the chargen game being too strong is IMO a bad thing - it turns it into a monopoly-style 15 minutes of meaningful decisions followed by 2 hours of waiting for the losers to run out of money game. Except spread out over so much longer. And then there are the in game games - whether the "Right spell selection" game or the tactical combat game. I think a lot of people who have gamist agendas like simulationist rules because gamist rules cut down and balance the games people play. And yes, some people want to avoid emotional engagement.

 

[Ahnehnois]

@Ahenosis has explicitely called being able to gain a massive advantage in character creation out as a good thing.

Well, I'd put it as not being able to do that is a bad thing, @Noncamel.

Not all people, nor all fictional characters, are equally adept at the tasks typical to D&D adventuring, so if one character can't be better than another, you're not simulating much of anything. Then again, if one character can't be better than another, the satisfaction of building that better character is simply unavailable, and another integral "gamist" element is lost.

Problems can certainly arise when not all the players have the same goals or abilities, but I don't look to the rules to fix those problems.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, I'd put it as not being able to do that is a bad thing, @Noncamel.Not all people, nor all fictional characters, are equally adept at the tasks typical to D&D adventuring, so if one character can't be better than another, you're not simulating much of anything. Then again, if one character can't be better than another, the satisfaction of building that better character is simply unavailable, and another integral "gamist" element is lost.

There are two forms of satisfaction available here - and the confusion of the two is a huge problem. The first is the engineer's or artist's satisfaction of matching character to concept, and a balanced game (or almost balanced - a perfectly balanced game with more character creation options than 3:16 is impossible) in no way makes the satisfaction of making a good character less. The second is the powergamer's satisfaction in making Angel Summoner to play alongside BMX Bandit - and this is actively harmful for the time at the table whether because it makes BMX Bandit's player feel bad, or puts the DM into a dilemma as to whether to challenge Angel Summoner or BMX Bandit. As for saying "one character can't be better than another", better at what? A 4e Brawler Fighter and Invoker have completely different areas of expertise and if the two walk into an arena head to head the fighter will beat the Invoker to a pulp even with bare hands. But if you're facing a goblin horde you almost certainly want the Invoker on your side by the handful.

Problems can certainly arise when not all the players have the same goals or abilities, but I don't look to the rules to fix those problems.

I look for them to minimise them - otherwise I am likely to be a problem player for abilities.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, I'd put it as not being able to do that is a bad thing, @Noncamel.

Not all people, nor all fictional characters, are equally adept at the tasks typical to D&D adventuring, so if one character can't be better than another, you're not simulating much of anything. Then again, if one character can't be better than another, the satisfaction of building that better character is simply unavailable, and another integral "gamist" element is lost.

Problems can certainly arise when not all the players have the same goals or abilities, but I don't look to the rules to fix those problems.

I think the point is though that while people can be better or worse in certain aspects of adventuring, unless one adventurer is grossly more experienced than another, their power levels should not be far off. "Better" is a matter of opinion, yes, your character hits more often, mine does more damage, his has more skills, etc... It's reasonable for certain characters to be "better" than others in this manner and for the game to allow this kind of building. "Better" in the sense that my character can do everything yours can 100 fold for no reason other than the rules make Clerics superior to Fighters is dangerous. Even gamists are likely to agree that there's no glory in building a better character when there's no real risk of competition, you have to realistically be able to be challenged, otherwise there's no real skill involved.

If we suppose that the baseline of character power is set at "5", that the default options you get with Core materials will hover around this line, with some being a 6 and others being a 4 at times, then there is reasonable range over time with the introduction of splat to build a 10 or a 1. But the range of 1-10 must exist for most classes, though not necessarily most concepts.

So again, it's reasonable and expected for characters to be better than others in specific areas, but is unusual and unexpected for characters of the same level to grossly exceed the skills of another. If we consider LOTR as a party, the hobbits are grossly exceeded because they're all 1/2 level commoners, while Aragon is a high-level Ranger, Boromir a high-level fighter, Gandalf is gestalt and so on and so forth.

 

[S'mon]

I think both of you (S'mon, pmerton) are seriously underestimating the way a gamist agenda can work with a simulationist-centred game. Especially Character Creation.

No, I agree with you. I've always said that a robust
simulationist ruleset supports rather than undermines
gamist play. As in Michael Frayn's "The Tin Men" where
two the researcher into Gamism (gambling on sports) disappears up his own abstraction with a random number generator, whereas the researcher
into Artificicial Intelligence ethics simulation creates an
enticing game of robot death match.