D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

All this talk just reinforced my love of Adventure Paths. There is a certain beauty to buying a campaign (setting and all) in a box.

Funny thing is I do sandbox-like games because for me it's so much easier than a purchased campaign.

 

[Manbearcat]

Coming up with non-prepped material to oppose PCs and provoke players on the fly may seem daunting, but it becomes pretty rote after a time.

* Understand the high level view of the setting conceits and premise.

* Have a high level view of local (to the PCs) setting dynamics on hand which you can deploy.

* Understand intimately what motivates particular characters.

* Onboard the fiction accumulated to date.

* Consider how the particular game’s mechanical levers, currencies, economies, advancement scheme can generate decision-points which lean on risk, hard choices, and potential trade-offs around ethics, relationships, and both immediate tactical and longterm strategic positioning (which means you need to know how those work in your particular system…eg if gear or coin are meaningless in your current game, then those are “off the board” for obstacles and complications).

* Integrate all above into compelling and mechanically engaging onscreen situation right now and put all your focus and energy into that matter (don’t look ahead).

* Rep this process until (a) you get more proficient, (b) you get more comfortable, and (c) fiction and gamestate evolution accumulates.

---

Some games (not all) have processes that bring the players into the structure above via an overt meta conversation or structured development of building out opposition. That can be excellent, but it isn’t mandatory and the technique shouldn’t be smuggled in where it doesn’t belong. The above should work for most games. Focus on the local, the intimate, and provocative, consequential decision-points to onscreen right NOW.

Wash/rinse/repeat. Over time you’ll rewire your mental bandwidth and cognitive orientation if need be. And you’ll get good at it.

And interesting setting will accumulate for you to leverage in the future.

 

[The Firebird]

I think different people need to and should take different approaches to the game. For me? At least 80-90% of what I build is paper thin. The vast majority of time I don't come up with a detailed background, I never have paragraphs of text describing a character since I only spend time on things I think will add value.

When I'm developing NPCs and organizations I have two sections. The first is just a line or two - the name, how they're important to the campaign, maybe a quick description. That's where I start and, fairly often, where I end. Because that's all I need. I know that Helga Svenson is "The Burrough Chief of Downwind District, Helga's not above taking a bribe or two as long as the young-uns aren't getting hurt. Stocky with graying red hair." Because when I sketch her out, I'm not sure the characters are ever really going to interact with her. I've mentioned her because the Downwind District is the poorer part of town, literally downwind of the stockyards and tannery, where a hook or three might lead the characters. Not sure if she'll ever be more important than a name.

Then if the NPC comes more into focus for whatever reason I'll think about adding more as necessary. If she's the one who put out a request for help maybe I'll decide I need more information about how she was once happily married and lost her child during a gang war. She used to be more idealistic but now she's just tired even if there is still a spark of that idealism deep down. But even then, I don't need nor care much about her life history because the characters will likely never know it. If I need to add the names of her late husband and child I can reference my big list of random names that I have handy.

I agree with that level of NPC detail. I can clarify; when I say depth, what I mean is really more about width.

An example: I've got an important merchant family, (call them the Medici), in my setting. At first I wrote in a few faction details; their goals, their resources, their relationship with other factions. Then I made one or two NPCs for the leaders. I ran them at the table, improvising other family members when they came up.

But this creates some challenges in play. For example, the players encounter a Medici caravan going from Florence to Milan. Who is leading it? Are they a relation or someone who is employed by the faction? I know the faction leader in Florence, but who is the contact point in Milan? What is their relationship like? How large is the family? If the players ask: "how many brothers does Cosimo have", do I have an answer or do I have to make it up?

Its much easier to improvise these details if the family is fixed, if I have a list of known members and known qualities. It makes it easy to add the kind of specificity to the world that results in verisimilitude. Suppose the players enter Milan, which hasn't been as sketched out. I decide I want to emphasize the Medici's wealth and influence, so I say there is a massive statue. If I have these details fixed, then I can also say who commissioned it and who created it. And if I know the mythology of the setting then its easy to determine what the statue is depicting. A part of the scenery suddenly says something concrete about multiple NPCs, a faction, and the history of my setting.

There's a recent essay, "In Praise of Legwork", that explains the idea well. An excerpt that's particularly relevant here:

When the imaginary world of the game brings a real breadth and depth, when there truly is something over the next hill and the hill after that and the hill after that, new dimensions of play emerge. Many campaigns and books claim to be a sandbox, but unless the world proves rich and detailed across the board, can players truly explore and do what they like?

 

[Faolyn]

And here we go again. I make a statement, back that statement up with facts, and the counter argument is "nuh uh".

You didn't produce any facts; you produced opinions. It is your opinion that games like D&D make for bad sandboxes because it takes time to stat things up.

I never said that having the GM stat things up doesn't make it a sandbox.

Except for all those posts where you kept saying that having these predetermined areas means its linear, not a sandbox. For instance, the discussion between you, Mamba, and possibly others about going to see a sage re: a spelljammer; you completely ignored him or anyone else who suggested that no, going to the sage was one possible step that may have even been entirely the player's own idea in the first place.

I said that forcing the DM to spend gobs of hours and do all the work means that it's more difficult to use D&D as a sandbox game.

You've also used the word "terrible" repeatedly.

And, the fact that you think that it's hard for the players to uncover the world's secrets in games like PbtA pretty much shows how you do not have a strong grasp of how these games work. These games center on creating and uncovering mysteries.

Or! I'm specifically running Monster of the Week, which actually has the Keeper create mysteries for the players to uncover. It's why "Investigate a Mystery" is a move that has the player ask the Keeper questions (not make up the answers themselves), and why there is actually an entire book of pre-made mysteries and a big set of instructions on how to make your own mysteries and what monsters you want to use. In other words, it's not a game where the players have as much or more input than the Keeper does.

So maybe try to jump to fewer conclusions?

 

[Faolyn]

I could be wrong, but I don't believe @Hussar has much, even any, experience with Burning Wheel.

Perhaps; I could have sworn he was talking about playing or running it.

 

[AlViking]

I agree with that level of NPC detail. I can clarify; when I say depth, what I mean is really more about width.

An example: I've got an important merchant family, (call them the Medici), in my setting. At first I wrote in a few faction details; their goals, their resources, their relationship with other factions. Then I made one or two NPCs for the leaders. I ran them at the table, improvising other family members when they came up.

But this creates some challenges in play. For example, the players encounter a Medici caravan going from Florence to Milan. Who is leading it? Are they a relation or someone who is employed by the faction? I know the faction leader in Florence, but who is the contact point in Milan? What is their relationship like? How large is the family? If the players ask: "how many brothers does Cosimo have", do I have an answer or do I have to make it up?

Its much easier to improvise these details if the family is fixed, if I have a list of known members and known qualities. It makes it easy to add the kind of specificity to the world that results in verisimilitude. Suppose the players enter Milan, which hasn't been as sketched out. I decide I want to emphasize the Medici's wealth and influence, so I say there is a massive statue. If I have these details fixed, then I can also say who commissioned it and who created it. And if I know the mythology of the setting then its easy to determine what the statue is depicting. A part of the scenery suddenly says something concrete about multiple NPCs, a faction, and the history of my setting.

There's a recent essay, "In Praise of Legwork", that explains the idea well. An excerpt that's particularly relevant here:

When the imaginary world of the game brings a real breadth and depth, when there truly is something over the next hill and the hill after that and the hill after that, new dimensions of play emerge. Many campaigns and books claim to be a sandbox, but unless the world proves rich and detailed across the board, can players truly explore and do what they like?

If the players encounter a Medici caravan, I would make up details on the spot and jot down notes to add to my list. Since I don't know where the characters will wander or who they might encounter it would be extra work to add this kind of detail. It's also a question of importance - how often will it really have an impact on the game? I do have notes on relationships and attitudes between parties if I think it will matter but something as relatively inconsequential as how many brothers Cosimo has? Unless there's some deeper reason behind it I don't see why it would matter if I make that decision 2 months before or 2 seconds after the question was raised.

People should do what works for them, I've just gotten good at improvising details over the years and it works for me. So while I have occasionally mapped out a family tree when it was part of solving mystery it's not something I would typically do. But what works for me may not work for thee.

 

[The Firebird]

If the players encounter a Medici caravan, I would make up details on the spot and jot down notes to add to my list. Since I don't know where the characters will wander or who they might encounter it would be extra work to add this kind of detail. It's also a question of importance - how often will it really have an impact on the game? I do have notes on relationships and attitudes between parties if I think it will matter but something as relatively inconsequential as how many brothers Cosimo has? Unless there's some deeper reason behind it I don't see why it would matter if I make that decision 2 months before or 2 seconds after the question was raised.

People should do what works for them, I've just gotten good at improvising details over the years and it works for me. So while I have occasionally mapped out a family tree when it was part of solving mystery it's not something I would typically do. But what works for me may not work for thee.

It's not the difficulty of improvising that does it for me; I can improvise well, and I've run a lot of zero or minimal prep games in the past. I mean like Blades in the Dark, where you know the setting details in the book and go from there, or the Shadowdark hex crawls, which are just a few pages.

But I've found that how many brothers he has is consequential. It's a basic fact about the world and would be widely known. Its not just when the players ask the question directly; in that case you pick a number and move on. But if they ask a question about something else, tangentially related (like who is leading this caravan), then you can connect with the pre-existing information. Maybe the leader isn't a brother, but he's a childhood friend, or lieutenant or employee of.

If you don't know who those brothers are and you want to give the caravan leader a concrete relationship, you're stuck with the people who already exist. (Or you have to create a brother at the same time as your caravan guard). This can end up feeling self-referential, which is perfectly serviceable, but imo lacks something.

Fixed information acts as anchor points that you connect your new ideas to. More anchor points help you create more texture.

 

[AlViking]

It's not the difficulty of improvising that does it for me; I can improvise well, and I've run a lot of zero or minimal prep games in the past. I mean like Blades in the Dark, where you know the setting details in the book and go from there, or the Shadowdark hex crawls, which are just a few pages.

But I've found that how many brothers he has is consequential. It's a basic fact about the world and would be widely known. Its not just when the players ask the question directly; in that case you pick a number and move on. But if they ask a question about something else, tangentially related (like who is leading this caravan), then you can connect with the pre-existing information. Maybe the leader isn't a brother, but he's a childhood friend, or lieutenant or employee of.

If you don't know who those brothers are and you want to give the caravan leader a concrete relationship, you're stuck with the people who already exist. (Or you have to create a brother at the same time as your caravan guard). This can end up feeling self-referential, which is perfectly serviceable, but imo lacks something.

Fixed information acts as anchor points that you connect your new ideas to. More anchor points help you create more texture.

We all have to prioritize what we think is important to us and to our players because we can't come up with details for the entire world. Some of that's going to depend on what we as GMs find important, some depends on what our players find important.

 

[Umbran]

I suppose Hussar could be an absolute genius at fast worldbuilding, but would I bet on that? No.

All you are doing is demonstrating your ignorance of other systems.

Mod note:
Folks,

Making this about each other is a good way for the discussion to go ugly quickly. So please back off that rhetorical tactic, please.

 

[Lanefan]

All this talk just reinforced my love of Adventure Paths. There is a certain beauty to buying a campaign (setting and all) in a box.

From the DM side, perhaps.

From the player side, I'd find a hard-line AP constraining as all hell after a while; even more so if it was known ahead of time that the campaign would end when the AP was complete and that we couldn't go on and do other things in the same setting with the same cast o' characters.