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

[Thomas Shey]

I suppose when I choose to use a subsystem, especially a ubiquitous one like combat, I do try to abide by its rules (but I can still change them if I want). I am talking about the larger decisions and general play procedures in the game, and the general roles of players and the GM.

I bet you don't change them on the fly, though. If you did you'd be doing exactly what people are in some cases complaining about--destroying much ability to make meaningful decisions (even if you tell them the change at the point its relevant you've likely made some of their previous decisions meaningless--if people get into a situation they're going to be fighting normal ogres, suddenly finding out the combat system makes them much more dangerous than they've previously been likely would have changed how likely they were to do it). And of course if you keep changing them, then there's no ability to make decisions that make any sense pertaining to those at all.

 

[zakael19]

Yes, I'd appreciate that too!

I'd also appreciate it if posters would not present norms and approaches that characterise one way of RPGing, as if they are constitutive of what RPGing as a whole must involve if it is to be successful.

I mean, in the post that I replied to you said this, as if it is a general truth:
But in fact I am someone who has benefitted greatly, as a GM, from learning about new systems - about ways of doing things that I wasn't familiar with. Learning those things helped me GM successfully, avoiding pitfalls that had, in the past, led to unhappy RPGing experiences.

I can give examples, if you like:

*Reading about the idea of player-driven, "protagonistic" RPGing helped me appreciate that the systems and procedures articulatd in more "traditional" RPGs (like AD&D, Rolemaster and parts of Classic Traveller) were not the only way to achieve serious, deep, rich RPG experiences;​

​

*Reading the rules for Paul Czege's RPG Nicotine Girls helped me grasp how the endgame can be a thing in a campaign;​

​

*Reading the rules for Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, and Burning Wheel helped me grasp how scene-based resolution could work, and this helped me tremendously when GMing 4e D&D;​

​

*Reading the rules for Apocalypse World, and in particular grasping the notion of "if you do it, you do it" and how that makes player-side moves central to focusing and driving the fiction, enabled me to come back to Classic Traveller and get a very successful campaign out of that system, which I had struggled with in the past.​

No doubt you have your views about the utility of discussing systems and procedures and principles and heuristics. But they are not self-evidently true. But in the post I replied to you present those views as if they are universal truths, and as if the approaches that others have used and benefitted from are of little or no value. And I don't agree with those implications of your post.

Just to follow off this, Blades in the Dark’s relentless emphasis on open Position and Effect fundamentally changed how I understand telegraphing stakes and outcomes in a way that a skilled character would instinctively grasp. Apocalypse World’s “Read a…” moves shifted my paradigm around how players can move closer to their character’s understanding of charged in-world situations through concrete questions that allow the joint dragging forth of relevant fiction instead of endless first person flailing around in a way that leads to such a richer imaginary place (I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am actively and joyfully building the fictional situation in my head at all times during compelling play).

Experiencing both has led me to have far more productive conversations during the game then I had a couple of years back, much to my dismay. Yet learning and going forward is what matters, I guess!

 

[zakael19]

When I summarized Successful Adventures, I was highlighting how Gygax’s guidance aligns with principles I use in running sandbox campaigns. You’re treating my bullet points as if they were direct quotations rather than a synthesis of what Gygax’s procedures imply in actual play. That’s incorrect.

You say Gygax doesn’t talk about plausibility or freedom to act, but his entire structure assumes both. Players are expected to plan, make decisions with incomplete information, act on their own goals, and have the dungeon respond. That only works if the setting behaves in a consistent and understandable way, in other words, if it makes sense. If it didn’t, there’d be no point to the level of preparation, mapping, spell coordination, or strategic decision-making Gygax emphasizes.

The style of play Gygax describes is not narrative-first nor it is a sandbox campaign. But its elements, players choose their objectives, interact with the setting, and face the results, form an important part of sandbox campaigns. The techniques he recommends helped lay the foundation for sandbox campaigns.

I don’t think there’s any expectation of setting consistency, there’s an expectation of adherence to procedure and design that a skilled player can learn and apply to overcome the challenge dungeon?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right… so then who cares if a given NPC can resist torture? Or doesn't drink? Unless those traits come up in relation to the PCs.



My point is that both layers should be considered. It seems like you agree…

If I have established that the NPC has those traits before the PCs meet them, then they have those traits. And the point of contention here is that the fiction is more important to me then how it fits into the structure of the PCs lives. Both are important though.

 

[Hussar]

A True Sandbox isn't even that far thought ahead (the group stumbles across rumors of a cult, and as the game grows the need for a leader, named Venger, develops. If the PCs stop that line of adventure, nothing more is created).

Hang on a tick though. I was just told that this is not a sandbox. This is, more or less, proceedurally generated content. Thus, it's not a sandbox. So, you can see my confusion.

Holy crap, I just realized how far back I was in reading this thread. Ok, going back to do a LOT of reading before I hit another reply.

 

[mamba]

Unless you're actively told who to look out for.

that is exactly what the original post was, my question was how to find out the disposition of the current guard though, not how to find one that you have a good chance of bribing

 

[Campbell]

If I have established that the NPC has those traits before the PCs meet them, then they have those traits. And the point of contention here is that the fiction is more important to me then how it fits into the structure of the PCs lives. Both are important though.

The point of the contention here is that some of us believe that when you are assigning these traits and engaging in the creative act of setting the stage that you are responsible for the impact of that NPC design (and how it ultimately impact play). I don't think anyone has to care, but it has a strong impact on agency. Basically, extrapolation is fine. It's good and necessary, but GMs create the things they extrapolate from and are ultimately responsible for game impacts of their setting, NPC and scenario designs. I think it behooves us to consider those impacts during the design stage instead of just coming up with stuff we think is neat. That's all.

I think there's a tendency for some GMs on this board to disclaim responsibility for their own creations (and the impact they have on overall agency). Not caring about is more than fine, but like the responsibility for it is still there.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

By whom?

Not by me. Not by @hawkeyefan. I think not even by @EzekielRaiden.

And who has said this?

Not me. Not @hawkeyefan. I can't recall if @EzekielRaiden has discussed it.

I am otherwise checked out of the thread as explicitly said previously, because the very people complaining about terminology and insulting descriptions and inappropriately extreme terms/examples are now using those very things and think it's fine, but no, I didn't say either of these things.

I have said things which could be misinterpreted as the latter in other threads, but haven't spoken of it here. My fundamental issue is that black-box DMing + near-absolute DM authority over the fiction + the expectation of an "auteur" DM creates the perfect storm of massive incentives to manipulate and near-zero possibility of oversight beyond ineffable vibes, unless the DM just screws up (which, IMO, is guaranteed to happen eventually to an interfering DM; no deception is ever perfect). That doesn't mean it is guaranteed...but it means that there is a never-ending wellspring of temptation on the DM side, and the consequences almost always drive to extremes (that is, either the DM gets away with it and thus the players can't react negatively, so they get to have their cake and eat it too, or they don't get away with it, and several very serious negative consequences occur, such as loss of player trust.) In the face of such never-ending temptation, large rewards for doing it, and theoretically zero consequences for not doing it, all but the most stalwartly anti-railroad will be tempted to do it at least some of the time. And, at least to me, doing this even once is a serious breach of trust, whether or not I find out. I would make analogies, but I know for an absolute fact that no analogy I could use would land without people getting extremely upset about the characterization, so I'm just...not going to.

My issue with the former was not "someone who can't be persuaded is a guarantee it's a railroad" but rather that the specific example given. That is, a person who can't be convinced to do a specific task because they have a completely ridiculous religious "belief" ("if I drink any alcohol, I and my whole family will suffer eternal damnation"), and thus no effort, no matter what, could ever even potentially convince them.

I certainly recognize that there are some acts which a person might never be persuaded to do. I mean, see above: "all but the most stalwartly anti-railroad" implies that someone who is "the most stalwart" would not be tempted, even when there are (theoretically) no consequences and only benefits. But when folks invent "explanations" based on black-box DMing that are so patently ridiculous that I wouldn't even expect Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, notorious anti-theists, to attribute such a stupid attitude to a religious person...yeah, that's a bridge too far.

A patently ridiculous "explanation" based on what the DM "already knows" tells me that this DM "already knows" exactly where the events are going, and we're just figuring out how we make the DM's intended direction happen. When such patently ridiculous examples are presented fully seriously from the side defending "what the DM already knows" and "real-life logic" as a protection against railroading, I cannot take seriously the idea that this shield protects anything at all.

 

[pemerton]

I am disagreeing that the DM deciding this has to mean that we get a series of unpredictable, unforeseeable, chaotic results because the DM acts on their whim with no consistency, logic, or rationale.

But you're not disagreeing with me, or anyone else, because no one said that the GM deciding has to mean unpredictability etc.

But obviously it can mean that.

Hence why it is in interesting, in the context of RPGing, to talk about different approaches, methods, procedures etc.

I am not playing with a crazy person, so I am not that concerned with putting them in a straight jacket ahead of the game

Comparing any and all procedures and heuristics to a straight jacket is just bizarre.

As if those of us who are not in strait jackets never follow rules, principles, procedures and heuristics! I mean, it's because we do those things that we are regarded as normal.

Eg in 5e D&D, the GM must actually decide, in some fashion or other, whether or not the outcome of a player's action declared for their PC is certain or uncertain. For reasons that escape me, though, many posters seem not to want to talk about the actual processes that they or others use.

probably because this can lead to a never-ending stream of ‘but what ifs’, see the discussion around the criminal background

See, this notion that we can't talk productively about how to GM games is so utterly at odds with my experience I can barely fathom it. Discussing how to approach RPGing has had huge benefits for me, in learning how to improve my GMing.

 

[robertsconley]

I don’t think there’s any expectation of setting consistency, there’s an expectation of adherence to procedure and design that a skilled player can learn and apply to overcome the challenge dungeon?

Starting on page 90 of the DMG

View attachment 404075

the entire section goes on for ten paragraphs ending with this.

Nor this is an isolated example. Gygax talks extensively about the various aspects of creating and managing the campaign's milieu. And setting consistency is a large part of this.
From Page 21

each section must fit perfectly the pattern of the other pieces.

Wrapping this up this is why AD&D 1e is an important foundation for many of the techniques used in Sandbox Campaigns. And to be clear AD&D 1e RAW has is it own distinct style.